Am_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The above numbered solicitation for the 100% Hubzone Set-Aside Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contract (MATOC) Greater New Orleans and Southern LA Hurricane Protection & Restoration is hereby amended to provide the Government's responses to questions (See pages 2 - 14 attached).

The proposal due date remains unchanged as Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 2:00PM CST.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Aug-2010

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912P8-10-R-0050

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Jul-2010

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 2 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

13-Aug-2010

CODE

USACE, CONTRACTING DIVISION

ATTN: CEMVN-CT, ROOM 172

7400 LEAKE AVE.

NEW ORLEANS LA 70118-3651

W912P8 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P8-10-R-0050

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00800 - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Questions and Answers - Solicitation No. W912P8-10-R-0050 – Hubzone MATOC – Greater New Orleans and Southern LA Hurricane Protection &

Restoration (including Task Order No. 0001 – LGM020B – Phase I Repairs to Golden Meadow Pumping Station, Lafourche Parish, LA

The following are General Questions regarding Hubzone MATOC Solicitation # W912P8-10- R-0050 (Questions # 1 – 18):

1. Referencing the captioned project, is Spec. Sect 00100 p. 2 (2) "first page of the proposal" etc. referencing the Standard Form 1442 ? If not please explain what is required?

Answer 1: Your question is in reference to the requirements stated the solicitation provision @ FAR 52.215-1(c)(2) on page 2 of Sec 00100. Yes, submission of the completed and signed SF 1442 including acknowledgement of amendments will satisfy this requirement.

2. Are the projects discussed in Volume I of the proposal the same projects we are required to elaborate on in Volume II?

Answer 2. No, the projects submitted in Volume I – Past Performance are not required to be the same as the projects in Volume II. Please refer to the last two sentences located at the end of paragraph 1 on page no. 7 of Section 00130 – Instructions for Proposal Preparation.. regarding Factor 1 – Past Performance and Safety (Volume I), which state,“Under this factor, the Government prefers past performance information (quality and success) on the same projects provided to demonstrate experience in Factor 2.

However, offerors are not required to use the same projects for both factors.”

3. Is it mandatory for both CCASS and Past Performance Evaluations to be submitted, or may we submit just the Past Performance Evaluations?

Answer 3. No, it is not mandatory and offerors are not required to submit both CCASS reports and past performance surveys for the same project. Offerors are encouraged to submit either a CCASS report (for Corps of Engineers projects only), a copy of the performance rating issued by the contracting agent (for non-Corps projects, if available), OR a past performance survey. Please refer to submittal requirement # 8 and 9 under Factor 1 –

Past Performance and Safety, which is listed on page 9 of Section 00130 – Instructions for Proposal Preparation in the solicitation.

4. Is any other documentation from financial institutions, excluding the bond, required for submittal?

Answer 4: No, the bid bond is the only documentation from financial institutions that is required to be submitted with the proposal. Please refer to Section 00130 – Instructions for Proposal Preparation and Evaluation Factors for Award for proposal submission requirements. However, the Government reserves the right to seek additional information outside of the offeror’s proposal as a part of a responsibility determination in accordance with FAR subpart 9.105-1.

5. I am inquiring as to how you would like the proposal formatted. You have stated in the instructions that you want the proposal to be numbered consecutively. I was wondering how you would number the Volumes, for instance if Volume I ranges from pages 1-20, would we start Volume II at page 21, or do you want each of the volumes numbered consecutively.

Answer 5: Each volume should be numbered consecutively. Thus, Volume I should start with page 1 and Volume II would start over with page 1. Please note that the total of the two volumes combined cannot exceed seventy (70) pages.

6. Section 00130 of the Matoc Specs (not the Task Order Specs) page 3, no. 2 Factor 2 references Affiliations. No. 3 vi. references Teaming Agreements. What is the difference between an Affiliation and a Teaming Agreement ? Also, page 17 paragraph 3 references "teaming contractors" and "a standing agreement to do work in the future".

These agreements are to be part of Volume II. However it sounds like the same thing as a Teaming Agreement that is requested in Volume III. If it is the same thing, in which Volume should they be included ? If in Volume II, they will be subject to the page limitation, but if they are to be included in Volume III, they are excluded from page limitations.....Please advise..

Answer 6: The term Affiliations, as utilized in this solicitation,is intented to account for some of the various terms that are commonly used to describe contractual relationships established by offerors when submitting proposals. The term Affiliations has been utilized in Factor 2 only to reflect that in addition to considering the experience of the prime contractor, the Government will also consider relevant experience of affiliates of the prime contractor, such as “major subcontractor(s), teaming contractor(s), or partner(s) whose effort on this contract will significantly influence performance under the MATOC, as stated in the first sentence on page 16 of Section 00130 – Instructions for Proposal Preparation.

There is no mention in the solicitation of an Affiliation agreement, only Teaming Agreements, Subcontract Agreements, and/or JV Agreements. To avoid duplication of information, these agreements should be included with Volume III – Price Volume only as stated , if applicable.

7. Page 3 of the instructions (1 – Past Performance – Volume I) indicates that 3 items that are excluded from the page count (1. Title sheets & indices; 2. Tables of contents; and 3.

CCASS evaluations and Past Performance Questionnaires). On page 9, for the submittal requirements for Volume I, item 6 indicates that OSHA Form(s) 300 are required. Are the OSHA forms also excluded from the page count? It would seem reasonable to exclude the OSHA forms because the CCASS forms are excluded as well.

Answer 7: Yes, OSHA forms will also be excluded from the page limitation.

8. Page 3 of the instructions for Volume I indicates that Past Performance Questionnaires must be included (but are excluded from the page count). However, page 9 (item 9) of the instructions indicates, “The past performance surveys should be filled out by the project owner or reference…All surveys submitted shall be send directly from the project reference to the Government POC listed in this solicitation.” Are we correct in assuming that the Questionnaire’s are not to be included, as the RFP clearly indicates that they are to be sent directly to the Government?

Answer 8. Yes, Past performance Surveys or Questionnaires should be sent directly from the project reference to the Government POC listed in the solicitation. Past Performance Surveys or Questionnaires should not be included in the contractor’s proposal under Volume I.

9. It appears that the information requested for past performance in Volume I is very similar to that requested in Volume II, Factor 2. The key difference is that the RFP in Volume I is information quality and success (…”Under this factor the Government prefers past performance information (quality and success)…”) vs. Volume II which the RFP indicates the emphasis should be on “detailed experience.” The submittal elements as noted on page 8 and 9 for Vol. I and on page 17 for Vol. I) are very similar, if not exact in many cases. Is it the Government’s explicit intent that much of the information in Volume I and Volume II (Factor 2) be duplicative?

Answer 9. While the Government acknowledges that some of the information requested for Factor 1 – Past Performance and Safety and Factor 2 – Technical Experience including Affiliations is very similar, it is not the Government’s explicit intent to be duplicative. Under Factor 2 – the Government requests project information which demonstrates relevant experience, qualifications, and capability (what relevant work you have done) to perform the SOW under this solicitation and may include experience information for prime contractors and major subcontractors. . The key difference is that Factor 1 – Past Performance and Safety requests past performance information to determine how well the offeror itself has(subcontractors will NOT be evaluated under Factor 1) performed in the recent past on projects (success and quality) that are relevant to the SOW under this solicitation by evaluating the following elements: Quality of Construction, Customer Satisfaction, Timeliness of Performance, Adherence to Project Budgets, Subcontractor Management, and Safety Record. The past performance evaluation may consider performance information including, but not limited to, CCASS reports, performance ratings, past performance surveys, references listed, and information from other sources, outside of the offerors’ proposal in its evaluation of this factor as stated in Section 00130 of the solicitation.

10. As per our previous conversation, the MATOC package plus Task order # 001 is due

August 23,2010 and August 3, 2010 was a mandatory pre bid on site. Question: Since we could not attend the pre bid meeting, are we still able to summit our proposal and be given an equal opportunity to be pick into the MATOC pool?

Answer 10: Yes. An otherwise acceptable offer will not be rejected because the offeror did not attend the site visit. The Government cannot disqualify offerors who did not attend the site visit on August 3, 2010. The Government acknowledges that it incorrectly utilized the word, “Mandatory” to describe the Site Visit on page 5 of Section 00130 – Instructions for Proposal Preparation and Evaluation Factors for Award. This word is hereby corrected to read, “Organized” Site Visit. The intent of the August 3, 2010 site visit was for the Government to have an “Organized” Site Visit to facilitate a coordinated visit to the site in order for potential offerors to view the existing conditions of the site and for the Government to present or do a “walk thru” of the major project features and identify any obvious conflicts or obstacles on-site. The Government will not set-up another Organized Site Visit for those who were unable to attend; however, all offerors may contact the South Lafourche Levee District for additional visits to the project site. See Question 16 for additional POC information on site visits. It should be noted that the following provision is included in the solicitation and the referenced clauses will be included in the resultant contract and/or task order:

52.236-27 SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (FEB 1995)

(a) The52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions, and 52.236-3, Site Investigations and Conditions Affecting the Work, will be included in any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation. Accordingly, offerors or quoters are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.

11. Will the list of attendees to the Mandatory Site Visit be posted?

Answer 11: The Government initially advised offerors that we would not post this information due to privacy concerns of some of the attendees who may not want their POC information posted to the public. However, at the overwhelming urging of interested offerors, this information was posted to the federal business opportunities website @ www.fbo.gov on 8/11/2010. Please note that any offeror who takes exception to posting their POC information (name, company, and phone number) on this website may contact the POC of the solicitation and the Government will redact their information from the listing.

12. Section 00100-1 of the proposal.page 1 (2) says "the offerer should be prepared to provide the following information". Page 2 (2) of the same section says "the first page of the proposal must show" and Page 4 (1) says "Mark the title page with the following legend......". Should we provide all of this information ?. This is in conflict with section 00130, page 3, No. 3 which states what Vol III should contain. There is no mention of the aforementioned three items.... If they are required , into what volume should they be included ? Please advise

Answer 12: a. Your question regarding Section 00100 page 1 refers to solicitation provision FAR 52.204-6 – Data Universal Number System (DUNS), subparagraph (b) (2), which merely provides instructions to offerors in the event that the offeror does not have DUNS number and needs to obtain one. This is not a proposal submission requirement.

b. Please refer to Question # 1 above regarding the requirements of FAR 52.215-1 (c)(2) for clarification to your question regarding page 2 of Section 00100.

c. Your question regarding Section 00100, page 4 (1) refers to solicitation provision FAR 52.215-1(e)(1), which merely provides specific submittal instructions to offerors in the event that offerors elect to impose additional restrictions on the Government’s disclosure and use of data submitted in their proposal. This is not a proposal submission requirement.

Where applicable, offerors would include this information in Volume III – Price Volume of the proposal.

13. FAR clause 52.236-2 (from the solicitation) indicates that site visits are not mandatory proposal phase requirements. Please let me know if the mandatory site visit requirement takes precedence over FAR 52.236-27?

Answer 13: See Question # 10 above.

14. Factor 1, Past Performance Including Safety, Section 00130, page 16, states that "offerors shall include experience on projects (s) where the entities have worked together in the past or those whom have a standing agreement for future work." We interpret the 'Standing Agreement' as being a Teaming Agreement. Are Teaming/Standing Agreements included as part of the 70 page limitation? Would you please consider excluding Teaming Agreements from the page limitation?

Answer 14: Yes, Teaming Agreements, JV Agreements, Subcontract Agreements, etc, are excluded from the page limitation. Note that these agreements should be ONLY included in Volume III – Price Volume, which is not subject to the page limitation.

15. Would you consider an extension to the proposal due date to allow more time for the offerors to develop competitive pricing and approaches to Task Order #1?

Answer 15: The proposal due date is August 23, 2010 and remains unchanged. The urgency of this requirement does not allow for an extension of the bid date.

16. If we would like another Site Visit to the project site, who is the Point of Contact for such a request?

Answer 16: Additional visits to the project site shall be coordinated/scheduled through the South Lafourche Levee District (SLLD). The POC with the SLLD is Jimmy Beadeaux, Phone

# 985-791-1536. The secondary POC is Mr. Larry Hayes of the USACE, Lafayette Area Office who can be contacted at 337-291-3022.

17. In regards to the NOLA MATOC (Golden Meadow Pump Station Floodwall) if we supply all past performance with CCAS ratings is it necessary to have the same officers’ provide the past performance questionnaire as well? This would certainly take less time and allow for freeing up precious time of each of the Contracting Officer’s and Contract Specialist.

Answer 17: See Question # 3 above.

18. I would like to know if the following paragraph is sufficient for FAR 52.215-1 (2) (iii).

(1st page of proposal) as follows:

Contractor X agrees to perform the work required at the prices specified on the attached Task Order Bidding Schedule and in strict accordance with the terms of this Solicitation No.

W912P8-10-R-0050 and Task Order 0001.

Answer 18: Yes, but this sentence is not required. Please refer to Question # 1 above.

19. Under Volume I (past performance) and Volume II (Technical), SIX past projects within the last 6 years are allowed to be used. For exclusive subcontractors and/or team members, will the government allow SIX the past projects of these subcontractor/team member to be included in the proposal? Do we include Past Performance information from Exclusive Subs or team Partners in the package or is it just for prime to include.

Answer 19: For Volume I – Past Performance including Safety, NO - the maximum of six

(6) projects submitted to demonstrate past performance are limited to projects completed/performed by the offeror (itself) as “a prime contractor or majority subcontractor, within the last six (6) years, using evidence provided by the offeror and other sources.” Any references in the solicitation to subcontractor information for Volume I – Past Performance including Safety were merely included to account for Subcontractor Management, which is an element of past performance to be evaluated. The Government will only evaluate past performance of the offeror itself and will not consider past performance on projects performed, in whole or in part, by a proposed subcontractor(s), unless the offeror served as the prime contractor to that same subcontractor on that specific project, and even in this example, the evaluation would still be focused primarily on the past performance of the offeror itself, including Subcontractor Management and the other elements of past performance as referenced in Question # 9 above.

However, offerors may submit experience information for subcontractors under Factor 2.

Reference Factor 2 – Technical Experience and Affiliations (Volume II), as stated in the first sentence on page 16 of Section 00130 – Instructions for Proposal Preparation….offerors, “shall provide detailed experience, qualifications, and capability information for itself as the prime contractoror, majority subcontractor(s), teaming contractor(s), or partner(s) whose effort on this contract will significantly influence performance under the MATOC. However, offerors should also refer to the last paragraph of page 16 of Section 00130 which provides additional requirements in order for the Government to consider experience of a majority subcontractor, teaming contractor, or partner which states,“…….offerors shall include experience on project(s) where the entities have worked together in the past or those whom have a standing agreement for future work. Subcontractors, teaming members, and/or partners that have proven experience working together will be rated more favorably.” It should be further noted that a standing agreement for future work is defined by the Government as an agreement executed by both parties (prime and sub), such as a teaming or subcontractor agreement, with clear and full intentions by both parties to work together as prime/sub in order to perform work under this MATOC solicitation.

The following are Technical Questions regarding Task Order No. 0001 Plans and Specifications- Project LGM-020B – Phase I Repairs to Golden Meadow Pumping Station, Lafourche Parish, LA (Questions # 1 – 32):

1. Will the USACE please provide their estimated quantities for CLIN’s.

Answer- Item 25 Embankment, Compacted Fill – Estimated quantity is 375 CY

Item 38 Chain Link Fencing and Gates – See Dwg C-01(D4) which calls out “Exist.

Chain Link Fence to be removed & replaced (140+/-), Quantities- Permanent Fencing- 1 Double Gate, 10’ high 20 ft opening, 140 linear ft- 8ft high Chain Link Fencing.

Temporary Security Fencing – 1 Double Gate, 10’ high 20 ft opening, 270 linear ft- 8ft high Chain Link Fencing.

Item 40 Turf Establishment – Estimated quantity is 6.1 Acres

2. Drawing C-02 contractor staging area is located in an area that looks like it may be prone to high water. Is this true?

Answer - The staging area (for material storage) is subject to high water. Note that the Contractor/Government trailers are on the protected side. Equipment may be moved and stored on protected side as necessary.

3. PT 1 - Will the contractor be required to build and/or maintain a road way from the two separate entrances to the project right of way? If so, how will this be paid for?

Answer – No, the contractor 3USACE has provided multiple means for accessing the site.

It is the Contractor’s option on how to access the site. They can access along the protected side levee berms from the north and/or south, they can access the site using barges/floats, work platforms, they can use the new Whaskey type bridge or any combination as shown in the plans and specifications.

4. Specification section 01100-5,h(2) leads one to believe that rock and fabric for temporary haul roads, parking areas, and access roads will be paid for under those items. However h (4) seems to contradict this....Please explain.

Answer - An amendment is forthcoming that will address the pay items for Access Roads.

5. Reference sheet C-01, detail "Concrete Gate Monolith Demolition (2 locations)”. The detail shows existing precast battered piles, which are to be cut 1'-0" below pile cap (twelve per gate). The detail appears to create a conflict where the existing pile has the potential to intersect the new PZC-18 sheet pile wall at both gate locations. Should we assume in our pricing to remove/dispose of these existing precast battered piles at these gate locations?

Answer – An amendment is forthcoming that will addresses concrete pile interference at station 13+00 and potential pile interference at station 8+00.

6. Reference Sheet S-01, Details 'A' and 'B'. Please verify:

a. Detail 'A': Are the 3/4" stiffener plates shown at the W-sections required at all tieback locations or only the four shown in the detail "Partial Plan - Bracing at Discharge Pipes"?

Answer - The 3/4” stiffener plates are required at all tie-back locations. The variation in tie-back design is noted in Section A with an *. Section A is referenced from both the “Partial Plan – Sheet Pile Bracing Spacing” and the "Partial Plan - Bracing at Discharge Pipes" on Dwg. S-01.

b. Detail 'B': Are the 3/4" stiffener plates shown at the W-sections required in intervals throughout the sheet pile wall or only at the three locations shown in the detail "Partial Plan - Bracing at Discharge Pipes"? If in intervals, please provide o.c. spacing required.

Answer – Section B is only for the three locations shown in “Partial Plan – Bracing Discharge Pipes”, See Note 1.

7. TRS Questions -

a. Why should it be at elevation 13.8? The existing wall is only 10.8. Please clarify.

Answer – Section will be removed in a forthcoming amendment.

b. Is this supposed to be TFP at intersection of existing and proposed wall and tie in locations?

Answer – TFP Section will be added in a forthcoming amendment.

8. Framed sheet pile penetration/protection (C-09)

a. Do we remove one pipe at a time for temporary pipe placement?

Answer – Section 01100 special work requirements explains the sequencing of the project. More than one pipe may be taken out of service at one time. The Contractor needs to coordinate this operation with the City of Golden Meadow and South Lafourche Levee District. Drawing C-09 shows a 24’-3” temporary pipe for the 2-48” and 1-30” to be utilized until permanent components are installed. Note 4 shall be Demolition of the concrete I-wall near the discharge pipes shall be coordinated with installation of the temporary pipe shown on Drawing C-09.

b. The specs say protection and the plans say penetration, please clarify.

Answer – Framed Sheet Pile Protection (FSPP) is referring to the new protection from the levee tie-in to levee tie-in. The Framed Sheet Pile Penetration is for the discharge pipe pass through.

9. Discharge pipe sheet S-02 calls out an inv. Elevation of -4.13. Top of pipe is 8.13.

Elevations do not add up. Please clarify.

Answer – An amendment is forthcoming to revise drawing to correct -4.13 to + 4.13 and move arrow of Top of Pipe El. +8.13 to point to the top of pipe.

10. Pre-Cast Concrete Discharge Pipe Bents – The caps must be “cast in place” but the specs and plans are not clear. Please clarify.

Answer – The Contractor may raise or remove discharge pipes for installation of precast concrete caps. Contractor should schedule installation of bents during pump station shut down.

11. Piling between Pipes must be overbuilt for driving then cut off at proper cut off elevation.

Hammer will not fit between pipes. Please clarify.

Answer – The Government believes the new 14 x 14 inch precast, prestressed concrete piles for Bents 1, 2, and 3 (and also Bent 4) may be installed between existing discharge lines using a pile follower or other construction method without removal of the discharge lines. The hammer does not necessarily need to fit between the pipes. If the Contractor still experiences interference, the Contractor may remove discharge pipes for installation of piles.

12. Drawings S-19 and S-20 refers the Contractor to S-01 for test pile tip elevations.

Answer – An amendment is forthcoming that will add Note 7 to S-19 as follows: “The compression pile tip will be elevation (-) 115.5 feet.” Note 7 will also be added to S-20 as follows: “The tension pile tip will be elevation (-) 105.8 feet.”

13. Reference sheet C-01, detail "Concrete Gate Monolith Demolition (2 locations)”. The detail shows existing precast battered piles, which are to be cut 1'-0" below pile cap (twelve per gate). The detail appears to create a conflict where the existing pile has the potential to intersect the new PZC-18 sheet pile wall at both gate locations. Should we assume in our pricing to remove/dispose of these existing precast battered piles at these gate locations?

Answer – An amendment is forthcoming that willrevise drawing C-01. Price shall include removing and disposing of 4 concrete piles from the gate monolith at station 13+00. The gate monolith only has 4 battered piles on the protected side of the gate that will interfere with the new sheet pile. The battered piles on the floodside of the gate located at station 7+70 will not intersect the new sheet pile. Care will need to be taken while driving the new batter HP 14x89’s.

14. Spec section 323113.53 describes permanent chain link installation.

a. Does the fence around the government and contractor office trailers remain in place?

Answer –The fence around Government and Contractor’s office trailer shall be removed at the end of project.

b. Is there any other permanent chain link fence to be installed as part of this contract? Will the contractor have to replace any existing fence or gates that will have to be removed for construction?

Answer –Drawing C-01 see call out in D4 “Exist. Chain Link Fence to be Removed & Replaced (140’ +-).

15. The plans show alternate access routes utilizing the levee berms to the north and the south.

a. Is the stone surfacing for these access routes covered in bid items 37AA and

37AB?

Answer – An amendment is forthcoming to revise the bid schedule and pay sections.

b. Is separator geotextile covered under item 20 for the alternate access route?

Answer – An amendment is forthcoming to revise the bid schedule and pay sections .

c. If so, does the stone surfacing remain in place after the project is completed or will the contractor be required to return the levee to pre-existing conditions?

Answer - The contractor will be required to return the levee to pre-existing conditions after the project is complete.

d. Is the stone for the contractor laydown and office area covered under these items, and will it be permanent?

Answer - The contractor will be required to return the levee to pre-existing conditions after the project is complete.

16. The drawings indicate coordinating with the owner of the boat launch and marina to move a portable building. What is the contact information for the landowner adjacent to the site?

Answer -See Drawing C-01 for private Boat Launch contact information. South Lafourche Levee District (SLLD) will coordinate the moving of the portable building.

The POC for the SLLD -Jimmy Badeaux (985)791-1536.

17. Will the permanent traffic control signs and barricades be paid under the item: Temporary

Traffic Control?

Answer – Yes. An amendment is forthcoming that will change pay items to Traffic Control and revise the payment paragraph.

18. Can the concrete I wall and any other miscellaneous concrete be crushed down to a manageable size, mixed with the rip-rap and grout, and left on-site?

Answer – No, demolished concrete shall be removed from the site.

19. Will the old pipe, sheet piling, and any other removed metal be the responsibility of the contactor to remove from the site, or will the levee district handle the disposal/salvage?

Answer – It will be the contractor’s responsibility to remove items from the site for disposal/salvage.

20. Can any excess excavation be spread out on-site or will it have to be disposed of off-site?

Answer – The excess excavation shall be disposed of as specified in the project specifications.

21. Can the pre-cast bridge installed by the contractor be used for heavy equipment access?

Answer – Yes, once installed, the precast concrete bridge is designed for HS20-44 requirements

22. Although there isn’t a pay item for layout and staking, is the contractor responsible or will the government handle this?

Answer – An amendment is forthcoming that will address this issue. The Contractor is responsible for layout and staking of the work. A note will be added to Drawing G-03.

23. Is it necessary to install the security fence before any other work can start? It could possibly be in the way of several of the operations at hand.

Answer – The security fence shall be installed when the Contractor and Government trailers are installed on site. Any deviations shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer/ACO for consideration after contract award.

24. We see where the Contractor can work 24 hours/7 days per week. Aside from that, are there any work hours or days restricted for work on the project?

Answer – An amendment is forthcoming that will add additional requirements/restrictions. There will be no Pile driving or existing I-wall or gate demolition allowed between the hours of 9 pm and 7am. Additionally, under the contract Permits and Responsibilities clause, the work shall conform to local codes and ordinances and other applicable requirements.

25. You may want to look at what the precasted said about 80 degree vs. 75 degree bridge spans.

From experience that 75 degree spans are common but I never heard of an 80 degree span.....something to consider to keep the cost lower

Answer – Offerors shall bid the work as shown in the plans and specifications. The road geometry, drainage, approach slabs and retaining walls must be maintained. Any deviations shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer/ACO for consideration after award of the contract.

26. The pipe bents are called out to be pre-cast; will the contractor have the option to cast in place the 4 new pipe bents?

Answer – The pre-casting of the pipe bents are intended to limit the down time of the pump station. The Contractor may propose an alternate for approval by the Contracting Officer during construction.

27. In the pre-bid meeting it was stated that the pump station should only be out of service for a period of 48 hours. Did that mean 48 hours at a time or one time only for 48 hours? Can one pump be taken out of service for a longer duration, while the other 2 are still in service?

Answer – This will be revised in a forthcoming amendment. .

28. What is the O.D. of the 48” and 30” discharge pipe?

Answer – See drawing S-03, Pipe diameters and W.T.’s are provided in both details.

Contractor to field verify prior to ordering valves, flanges, piping, couplings etc.

29. For Item 0003: Where is the anticipated plan location and specification section for the work platform under Bid Item 0003 – Work Platform – 1 LS?

Answer -Refer to Specification section 01100, paragraph 23.

30. For Item 0010: Anchored Reinforced Vegetation System, please advise as to the proposed location of placement for the quantity of the 600 SY. Is there a designated area for placement that represents this 600 SY?

Answer – An amendment is forthcoming that willshow the location on drawing C-01. Refer to Drawing C-12, Figure 9.

31. For Item 0022: Structural Excavation, please advise as to the expected quantity breakdown of the 2,300 CY, in regards to the grouted riprap removal and the excavated levee material.

What is the expected percentage of the quantity is represented by the grouted riprap removals to the designated stockpiles? The cross sections are not clear as to what is grouted riprap and excavated levee material, and this will affect the distribution of the materials for on-site and off-site.

Answer - No survey data is available on the actual depth of grouted riprap and excavated levee material to quantify a percentage. Quantities were based on adjacent existing ground elevations in the vicinity and plans for constructing existing concrete I-wall.

32. For Item 0023: Structural Backfill, please advise if the material expected for placement will be from the structural excavation, or borrow material from an approved source. The Specification Section 31 10 00, Section 1.7 on page 5 indicates that the contractor is allowed to use excavated material, but there is no distinguishable separation of the grouted riprap and the excavated levee material shown on the cross sections. Is it to be assumed that this item will be all borrow?

Answer – Yes, it is assumed that Structural Backfill will be borrow material from an approved source.

33. For Item 0037: Access Roads, are the quantities shown based on just the quantity of stone surfacing placed on the roads with the compacted fill material subsidiary, or is it the total quantity of the stone surfacing and compacted fill combined?

Answer – An amendment is forthcoming to clarify these pay items.

34. Reference Section 31 62 18.00 12 – Pile Load Tests Steel H-Piles. What is the service load of the H-Pile being tested?

Answer – An amendment is forthcoming that will revise drawing S-19 and S-20 to include service loads.

(End of Summary of Changes)