14-R-0001_(Am_02).pdf

Offers 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 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 your 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.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

CHECK ONE 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)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

W912P8

Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, Louisiana Avenue Improvements (Constance Street to South Claiborne Avenue), Orleans Parish, Louisiana (ED-13-005) is hereby amended as follows: (see continuation sheet)

The proposal due date of 01/08/2014 at 11:00 a.m. local time has not been changed.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans Attn: CEMVN-CT-E (Justin Dudenhefer) 7400 Leake Ave., Room 155A New Orleans, LA 70118

See Item 7

J

W912P8-14-R-0001

ED 13-005

1 1

12/24/2013

11/26/2013

Disregard the Q&As provided in Amendment 0001 and replace with the following:

1. Given the amount of detail in required for unquantified lump sum bid items and submittal requirements for bidding, we respectfully request the bid date be extended a minimum of one month.

Response: Proposal due date will be extended to Wednesday, January 8, 2014, 11:00 am.

2. Due to the short period of time, complexity of the project and holidays, we kindly request an extension to question due to the designated Point of Contact be moved to Tuesday, December 31, 2013.

Response: The question time period will not be extended.

3. Specification 31 43 00.30, 1.4.(a), page 3. The specification defines a monitor for double or triple fluid jet grouting while the jet grouting as defined by the next specification 1.4.(b) includes also mono fluid. Please clarify if mono fluid jet grouting is excluded or not.

Response: There is no objection to the Contractor proposing a different system.

4. Specification 31 43 00.30, 3.2.3, page 7. Please confirm that lowering the pressure in case of lack of spoil return for more than 15s is not mandatory.

Response: While continuous spoil return is required, lowering pressure after 15 seconds is not mandatory. The Contractor should specify, however, how continuous spoil return will be maintained. This will be corrected in an amendment.

5. Specification 31 43 00.30, 3.2.5, page 7. Please confirm that the specification should be read “…unless a set retarder is used…”.

Response: Correct. The sentence should read “unless a set retarder is used” This will be corrected in an amendment.

6. Specification 31 43 00.30, 3.3.1.d, page 8. We assume that “…A complete series of tests…” means check of viscosity by Baroid (mud) balance, viscosity by Marsh funnel and bleeding by using proper graduated 500 or 1,000-cm3 capacity cylinders. Please confirm.

Response: Agreed. Add in “pH” This will be clarified in an amendment.

7. Specification 31 43 00.30, 3.3.2.a, page 8. Coring 5% of the installed columns seems very conservative based on our experience, industry standard and specification of other SELA projects. In order to reduce the cost without having any detrimental impact on the quality of the QC, we respectfully suggest lowering the requirement to 2% of the total number of installed columns.

Response: 5% shall be used.

8. Specification 31 43 00.30, 3.3.2.b, page8. It is our opinion based on extensive experience of similar projects in several Countries around the world that sampling the spoil return better suits the project: in fact, because the scope of the soil improvement is “…to eliminate underseepage against the Louisiana Avenue sheetpiles…”, the wet grab sampling would disturb the treatment done especially because it is the vertical seepage that is meant to be eliminated while, instead, drilled holes additional to those of the coring would favorite it even if in a very limited areas.

Besides, sampling the spoil return has much less impact on the project both in terms of cost and time without any prejudice on the scope of the sampling itself. The extended blind (or not-grouted length of the drilling) would also make the wet grab sampling more complicated and time-consuming.

We also incidentally note that while we are not aware of any specific ASTM standard prescribing wet grab sampling, the European Standard for Jet Grouting (EN 12716), writes at specification 9.3.7 that “…Representative samples of the spoil return (emphasis added) should be taken and submitted to compression tests…”.

Hence, we respectfully ask you to reconsider the wet grab sampling and, if sampling during production is deemed necessary (for instance, it isn’t for SELA22 and SELA23a), then replace it with sampling on the spoil return in the magnitude of no. 3 samples collected every 1,000ft of grouted columns.

Response: Acceptance criteria is based on the coring samples. Means of wet sampling is at the discretion of the contractor.

9. Does “Minimum of One Primary and One Standby pump” mean 100% redundancy for the bypass pumping?

a. For instance, if pumping required (2) primary pumps, would (2) standby pumps also be required?

Response: Yes, 2 primary pumps and 2 stand-by pumps are required.

10. Will diesel driven pumps operating at 66 Dbs at 20’ be allowed as a substitute for electric pumps as they have in past SELA projects upstream on the Clara St sewer line?

Response: Yes, as long as the diesel pumps have a “quiet pack” on them.

11. Is the waterline and casing under St. Charles Ave to be open cut or installed via jack and bore/directional drill?

Response: The waterline and casing is to be installed via jack and bore/directional drill as shown in the specs (Section 33 11 00, para. 3.2.1) and on the plans (Sht. C-205).

12. What type of material is to be furnished for the waterline casing under St. Charles Ave?

Response: The casing is fusible PVC or other PVC which can be directionally drilled as shown in the specs (Section 33 11 00, para. 3.2.1) and on the plans (Sht. C-205).

13. Will the contractor be required to drive any sheet pile in pieces due to overhead obstruction or does the contractor assume all obstruction will be removed or relocated?

Response: Yes. Refer to sheet S-124 for sheet pile splice schedule. This table is an approximate location of where we expect to have splices due to overhead tree interference. Actual splices will be made in the field with the department of Parks and Parkways discretion.

14. The plans limit the amount of streets that can be closed consecutively to two. Can multiple side streets be closed if there is an open side street between the work areas?

Response: Yes. Refer to note #18 on plan sheet C-300. The Contractor may work multiple crews as long as this requirement is met.

15. Will the owner allow any jack and bore/directional drill alternatives for the Clara St sewer line installation?

Response: The pipe shall be installed by open cut.

16. Is the intent of note 2 on C-215 to require a series of pumps to achieve 15,700 gpm with the same configuration as a backup or is the intent to provide one pump to handle 15,700 gpm with an identical backup pump?

Response: The intent is to have a minimum of 2 pumps to achieve 15,700 gpm with a back-up of two pumps providing 15, 700 gpm.

17. For sewer bypass pumps at Clara St., can diesel pumps be substituted for electric pumps if they meet the maximum noise level required by the specification?

Response: Diesel pumps with a “quiet pack” can be used.

18. Reference the plan and profile drawings, the proposed 8-inch & 12-inch water main in optional work 1 & 2 is in the exact footprint of the proposed culvert. If the optional work is not awarded, please advise how the contractor is to schedule the affected base contract work.

Response: The Contractor is to schedule his base contract work assuming the options will be awarded as indicated or the water lines would be relocated by others prior to impacting the awarded Offeror’s schedule for executing the base contract work.

19. Please provide the quantity breakdowns of the Lump Sum items.

Response: Quantities provided by the Corps of Engineers for Lump Sum Items are for information only. The Corps is not responsible for any differences between what we have provided and the Contractor's quantity takeoff. Contractor is responsible for providing his/her own quantity takeoff for formulating his/her bid amount and proposal. The following quantities are provided:

Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert = 2330 LF of 8'x6' culvert, 2600 LF of 10'x8' culvert, and 2443 LF of 16'x7.5' culvert

Structural Excavation and Backfill = 77,000 cy of excavation (bank measure) and 48,000 CY of sand backfill (truck measure)

Jet Grouting quantity = 100,000 cy

20. Will the 8-inch & 18-inch sewer siphons require trenching for the temporary bypass piping or can the temporary lines be installed while using above ground methods and traffic detours?

Response: There are traffic detours shown on the drawings. If these detours can accommodate the installation of temporary bypass piping above ground, then the bypass piping can be above ground. If not, the temporary bypass piping requires trenching and placement below ground.

21. Please provide the specific insurance requirements and limits for this project.

Response: The contractor must abide by State and Local regulations concerning insurance requirements.

22. General Requirements 01 55 26.00 12 Part 3.2 states “The Contractor has the option of using the TCDP shown on the drawings with any modifications as needed.” Is the Contractor required to have the TCDP shown on the Contract drawings designed and stamped by a Professional Engineer?

Response: If the contractor utilizes the TCDP exactly as shown on the contract drawings, it does not have to be stamped by a Professional Engineer. If there are any deviations from the TCDP as shown on the drawings, the design must be designed and stamped by a Professional Engineer as stated in Section 01 55 26.00 12, paragraph 3.2.

23. The typical box culvert monolith is 50 LF in average length. Is there a required cold joint or expansion joint between each monolith?

Response: Construction joints are required between each monolith and are shown on the civil plan and profile drawings in the profile view (see C-101 for example).

24. Can more than one monolith be poured in a continuous concrete pour?

Response: The base slab can be poured for more than one monolith length. All box culvert work above the base slab shall be poured in one monolith length.

25. Will a concrete mud slab be required below the box culvert?

Response: A mud slab or stab slab is not required on top of the jet grout.

26. Page 22,23, Part 1.9 - Please clarify the page numbering of the Volumes. Should the Excluded pages of Volume I be page numbered consecutively or should just the Included pages be numbered? Should Volume II be page numbered consecutively?

Response: It would make the document requirement of 35 pages clear if only the included pages were numbered consecutively. Volume II may begin a new numbering system as Volume II does not have a page limitation.

27. Referencing Sheet x-114, the note says that the contractor is responsible for relocating power poles and underground electric utilities. Please provide the intended location for the relocated underground and overhead utilities.

Response: The locations shown on the “X” series are the final locations of the utility lines. The existing locations are shown in a light gray color and, in most instances, the new utility is going back to the original location so it just shows as a dark symbol. See specification section 33 05

00.00 12 paragraph 1.1 for coordinating requirements and storage of existing utilities.

28. Section 00010 identifies Item 0009 as an LS unit. However, Exhibits D-2 thru D-4 of Section 01 57 23.00 clearly show that this is a weather related item. Given the unknowns associated with this item, will the Government consider changing the Unit to EA?

Response: The item will remain Lump Sum as on all other SELA Orleans projects.

29. Section 00010 also identifies Item 0074 as an LS unit. However, Section 01100, Sub-section 8.(d) clearly shows that there can be significant variability in the number of instances where modifications will be required. Given the unknowns associated with this item, will the Government consider changing the Unit to EA?

Response: This item will remain as Lump Sum as on all other SELA Orleans projects.

30. Note 4 to Section 00010 defines the windows for the potential exercise of the optional work items. While we understand the situation, we are concerned about how the Government will be able to evaluate Offerors’ proposals if they all make different assumptions for their schedules regarding any award dates and NTP’s for the optional work. Will the Government provide an assumed NTP for the optional work solely for Source Selection purposes?

Response: The proposal is submitted as a best value source selection. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposals based on the criteria provided. Each Offeror will develop a schedule that is best for their construction methods/criteria. That schedule should also take into account the window of awarding optional work items.

31. Re: Section 01100, Sub-section 2. Given recent incidents such as the Boston Marathon bombing and the NYC train derailment, will the Government consider adding acts of terrorism and other natural/man-made disasters to the list of causes of damage on line 5 of paragraph a.?

Response: The Government will not add the additional language.

32. Re: Section 01100, Sub-section 3. The USACE is in the process of issuing a revised version of EM 385-1-1. If the revision is released during the execution of the project, does the Government intend to amend the contract to include the revised EM or will the Contractor be required to follow the 2008 version?

Response: The EM to be used is the current EM as indicated in the specifications.

33. Re: Section 01100, Sub-section 3, paragraph (g). Are Haul Roads considered part of the existing Traffic Control Plan or will the Contractor be required to revise the plan to include the Haul Roads? If the latter, how would the possible 120 day delay affect both the Source Selection process and contract execution?

Response: Section 01100, paragraph 3(g) requires the Contractor to submit a hauling route to the Contracting Officer and the City of New Orleans Traffic Department for approval. There is no mention of a 120 day requirement. SECTION 01 55 26.00 12 Page 4, section 3.2 (2), suggests allowing for 45 days to review and approve a traffic control plan (if revised from the one proposed in the contract). 45 days submittal review and approval should not impact contract execution and should be included in project schedule accordingly

34. Re: Section 01100, Sub-section 3, paragraph (h). What provisions has the Government made to deal with potential liability issues that may arise from the requirement that the Contractor is to provide keys to the security fence gates to private individuals?

Response: The requirement to provide keys to private individuals will be removed by amendment.

35. Re: Section 01100, Sub-section 3 paragraph (i). The Hurricane Plan is a contingency plan which may or may not be exercised. Even if exercised, the magnitude of the effort involved can vary greatly; Hurricane Katrina affected the New Orleans area significantly differently than Hurricane Ike. Additionally, an event which lasts for several hours, only, is materially different than an event that lasts for days regardless of its magnitude. Given the overwhelming extent of the variation in the scope of the possible responses, requiring the Offeror to bid a LS for this plan seems unreasonable. Would the Government consider making this item either an EA or a unit priced cost reimbursable expense?

Response: The item is not Lump Sum. Section 01100, paragraph 3(i) states "Payment for all work associated with the Hurricane Plan, and providing the equipment required for the duration specified, shall be distributed amongst the existing bid item" and it will remain this way. This item is for development of the plan and implementing the precautionary work required prior to the storm event which should be fairly consistent for each impending event. Any subsequent action required to correct storm damage and re-establish a workable site will be made under other provisions of this contract.

36. Re: Section 01100, Sub-section 8, paragraph (d) items (3), (4), (6) & (10). These items all specify action by government entities or regulated 3rd parties which could adversely affect project execution. We assume that any deviation from the approved contract schedule will constitute a changed condition and entitle the Contractor to an equitable adjustment. Is this correct?

Response: As with any other section of this contract, any relevant contract clause applies to this subsection.

37. Re: Section 01100, Sub-section 12, paragraph (h) item (1). The Government has provided an estimated total cost per day for shuttle buses but also states that “[p]ayments will be made equally among other Government Contractors which benefit from the closure” of the RTA line.

How many other Contractors might benefit from a closure of the street car line? Without this information, Offerors cannot accurately estimate their portion of those payments?

Response: The unit price provided in this RFP 14-R-0001 is the payment requirement for this contract only. Other Government contracts that benefit from this closure have the applicable unit price incorporated in those contracts. There is no need for the Contractors to calculate their portion, it was done for you and included as the unit price.

38. Re: Section 01100, Sub-section 14. It seems unreasonable to force the Contractor to rely on a private 3rd party for required work and then to deny the Contractor any course of action for the failure of the 3rd party to successfully complete their efforts. We respectfully request that the Government allow any schedule delays caused by private 3rd parties, with no negligence on the part of the Contractor, to serve as the basis for an equitable adjustment.

Response: Correct. This will be revised by amendment.

39. Re: Section 00010, Item 12 & Section 02 41 00. Section 00010 lists Item 12 as a LS.

However, Part 1.7 of Section 02 41 00 clearly shows that the effort contemplated is TBD. It requires a post-award inspection and verification by the Contracting Officer. In light of the requirements in Section 02 41 00, we respectfully request that Item 12 be made a cost reimbursable expense.

Response: This item will remain as Lump Sum as on all other SELA Orleans projects.

40. Re: Section 00010, Item 74 & Section 33 05 00.00. Section 00010 lists Item 74 as a LS.

However, Part 1.3.3. of Section 33 05 00.00 clearly shows that the effort contemplated is TBD, e.g., “Coordinate with Entergy to identify and verify…” In light of the requirements in Section 02 41 00, we respectfully request that Item 74 be made a cost reimbursable expense.

Response: This item will remain as Lump Sum as on all other SELA Orleans projects.

41. [Section 00130]2. Section A. “Instructions to Offerors”, Number 1 states, “… The Small Business Participation Plan is a separate requirement and is different than the Small Business Subcontracting Plan”. However, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not listed under the required items from Section 1.9 “RFP SUBMITTALS REQUIREMENTS”. If this plan is required, will the Government please advise where Contractors should include it in the proposal?

Response: The contractor will be notified that if the submittal is required before contract award.

42. At the Federal Contractors meeting sponsored by AGC in April 2012 and again this April, USACE HQ personnel advised that PPQ’s previously completed for a project in response to a prior RFP would be acceptable for subsequent RFPs. Please advise if the Government will PPQs that are relevant and previously evaluated for this solicitation.

Response: The Government will accept PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations.

43. Drawing C-110 requires installation of 12” RCP from Catch Basin to wye at new 24” RCP near Southwest corner of Loyola intersection. The Bid Schedule does not have a CLIN for 12” RCP. Please, clarify.

Response: The 12” RCP as shown on the plan/profile drawings will be changed to 15” RCP.

The quantity shown in the bid schedule for 15” RCP has been calculated for these pipes and shall remain the same. This will be clarified by amendment.

44. Section 02 72 10.00, page 8, paragraph 2.1.1 “PVC Drain Pipe” indicates that Mission or Fernco fittings shall be used to connect yard drains to the 8” PVC trunk lines. Both manufacturers do not manufacture fittings, such as wyes and 45 bends, larger than 4”. Please provide alternate connection.

Response: The PVC pipe and fittings shall conform to the requirements specified in Section 33 11 00. The Mission or Fernco fittings shall be used to connect the yard drains to the PVC fittings. This will be clarified in an amendment.

45. Section 02720 – Will pre-cast water meter vaults, catch basins, drop inlets, catch basin manhole combos, access manholes, and cleanout manholes be acceptable in lieu of brick?

Response: Pre-cast catch basins, drop inlets, catch basin manhole combos, access manholes, and cleanout manholes be acceptable in lieu of brick. An amendment will address this.

46. Section 00010 – Bidding Schedule, CLIN 0025 “Drain Line Point Repair” indicates a quantity of 4. However, Drawing C-104 (2 each) and C-110 (4 each) collectively show a quantity of 6. Please clarify which quantity is accurate.

Response: The quantity of six is correct. An amendment will address this.

47. Section 01 53 00.0212, paragraph 3.4 states the piezometers are to be the Vibrating Wire type. Will standard standpipe piezometers be allowed instead of the vibrating wire?

Response: Standard standpipe piezometers will be allowed. They need to be installed ahead of commencement of construction and read regularly and reported to the Contracting Officer.

This will be clarified in an amendment.

48. Drawing C-104, please confirm elevations for new Double Vertical C. B. at station

337+58.20, 88.86 RT.

Response: The stationing shown on the drawing is incorrect. The correct station of the catch basin is St. 337+60.67, 92.74’ RT. The plan view top of casting is correct at El. 23.81. This will be corrected in an amendment.

49. Drawing C-104, please confirm elevations for new Double Vertical C. B. at station 337+58.20, 88.86 RT and new M. H. 337+64.05, 88.86 RT.

Response: The M.H. stationing shown is correct. The Catch Basin stationing will be corrected as shown in question No. 56 above. The top of casting and invert for the M.H. are incorrect. The top of casting should be El. 23.40 and the invert should be El. 20.00. The M.H. callout in plan view will be corrected and the invert in profile is correct. This will be corrected in an amendment.

50. The response date listed on the fbo.gov website says January 24th and on Standard Form 1442 it says January 3rd, which one is it?

Response: Always go by the SF 1442.

51. In spec section 31 43 00.30, 3.2.3 it states, “The amount of spoil returned shall equal the amount of material installed in the soilcrete column and shall be reported to the Contracting Officer daily.” This is not possible as jet grout spoils will vary depending on the soils for each column. The jet grouting process involves some soil mixing which leaves some of the in situ soil behind in the jet grouted column. Please clarify the intent of this requirement in the spec.

Response: During jet grouting, the contractor shall maintain a visual observation of the flow and features of the spoil return. An unexpected reduction in spoil return shall be investigated and reported to the Contracting officer immediately. If there is negligible spoil return, the Contractor shall ensure that there is no clogging of the bore hole annulus and that the jetting parameters do not have to be revised. This will be clarified by amendment.

52. Sheet C-205 identifies Carrier Pipe Skids to be used in the carrier piping for the 8” and 12” PVC water mains that will be directionally drilled. Please provide a specification for the type of carrier skids to be used (plastic or metal) and the spacing requirement.

Response: The skids are Contractor selected. Their purpose is to keep the carrier pipe in the middle of the casing.

53. Drawing C-216, Note 13- For bidding purposes, what should the contractor assume for the 51/54” Clara St. Sewer pipe material?

Response: There is a note that says the pipe may be brick or concrete. The actual material is not known.

54. Drawing C-216, Note 6 seems to conflict with DWG C-215 Note 2. Does Note 6 apply to the 8” sewer line? Please clarify.

Response: Agree there is a conflict. This has been corrected in an amendment.

55. Drawing C-106, Please advise where the drop inlet at station 348+92.23, 2.88 LT will drain into and what size pipe will be required?

Response: A drain line is shown flowing into the manhole. A 15” pipe is required.

56. We have a significant difference in quantities for bid item 0039 Drop Inlets. Should each double drop inlet be counted as a single unit or as two each?

Response: This will be corrected in an amendment.

57. CLIN Schedule, Please provide detail for double drop inlet or provide connection detail between two singles.

Response: The double drop inlet connection detail is shown on Dwg. C-224-A, in the detail titled “Double Combination Manhole and Drop Inlet - Section B-B.” The manhole is not needed for the double drop inlet.

58. Re: Sec 01 57 23.00 12. Bid Item 0008 Erosion control is an LS item. However, Subsections

1.7.1 & 3.2 all discuss unknowns and contingencies. This seems to be inconsistent. Please, clarify.

Response: It is not inconsistent. This is the same manner it has been on all SELA Orleans contracts.

59. Re: Sec 01 57 23.00. There is a problem with Subsections 1.7.2.1 & 2.2. Sub 1.7.2.1 says, “The Contractor shall provide hay bales…” Sub 2.2 says, “If the contractor elects to use…” The “shall” and “if” are contradictory.

Response: This has been corrected in an amendment.

60. At the recent AGC District meeting held on Wednesday, November 20th, 2013, Contractors and District members discussed potential issues and their solutions for providing the most advantageous award to the Government. This Solicitation requires 15 mandatory items to be discussed in Factor 1 –Past Performance; however, it only allows for inclusion of four projects to address all 15 items. This significantly limits the Offerors’ ability to provide an adequate and complete response in demonstrating their capacity. Will the Government please consider allowing Offerors to provide five past performance projects?

Response: The limit of four (4) past performances will remain. Some of the 15 items are interdependent construction wise. The intent is to show that the Offeror’s can perform these tasks, or a majority of these tasks, on one job which requires a higher level of effort than performing these tasks exclusive of each other.