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 Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, SELA-26, Widening of Florida Avenue Canal, Phase IV St. Ferdinand Street to Peoples Avenue, Orleans Parish, LA is hereby modified to provide answ ers to all Contractor Questions submitted prior to the established deadline, on the attached pages. The deadline to submit clarification questions related to this amendment is 2:00pm CST, Tuesday, August 5, 2014. Questions submitted after this dealine and/or not related to this amendment w ill not be answ ered.

THE DUE DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS OF 2:00PM CST, 13 AUGUST 2014 REMAINS UNCHANGED.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 30

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Aug-2014

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 W912P8-14-R-0036

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Jul-2014

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 1 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

01-Aug-2014

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:

W912P8-14-R-0036

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

CONTRACTOR Q&A

RFP 14-R-0036 Contractor Questions and Answers

1. Due to the complexity of the project and the amount of scope of work, we respectfully request an extension of two weeks of the bid date.

Response: No.

2. Specification 313245 1.4, page 2. The specification defines the soil treatment as " ... exclusively ( .. .) double fluid system ... ". Please clarify if others jet grouting systems are acceptable.

Response: Yes, other systems will be acceptable. Full submittals will be required to ensure the bearing capacity will be consistent with the proposed system.

3. Specification 313245 1.4, page 2. The specification calls for " ... cylindrical columns ... ".

Please clarify if others geometries of the columns are acceptable.

Response: Yes, other geometries of columns are acceptable.

4. Specification 313245, 3.2.1, page 6. Please confirm that acceptance criteria b and c are measured at 28 days after jet grouting installation.

Response: Yes

5. Specification 313245, 3.3.2, page 7. Apparently the specification should be read as if all tested specimens must satisfy the project criteria of UCS and permeability; we respectfully suggest do adopt the industry standard of accepting that up to 5% of the laboratory results fail. Please confirm.

Response: The specification requirement will remain as is.

6. Please clarify if a Geotechnical Report will be released before bid date and in due time.

Response: No, a Geotechnical Report will not be released. All of the necessary geotechnical information is shown on the drawings and in the specifications.

7. In order to provide the basis for contractor design for shoring and dewatering can USACE please provide the following documents and information?

i.) SELA 26 Design Documentation Report (DDR) Response: No, this is an internal Corps document.

ii.) “Engineering Considerations for Field Personnel” Report Response: No, this is an internal Corps document.

iii.) All SELA 26 soil strength lines Response: All pertinent strength lines are included in the specifications at the end of the TRS section.

iv.) For the Government-designed TRS, clarify what is the magnitude and extents of live load surcharge adjacent to the TRS for which the TRS were designed.

Response: The government designed TRS was designed in accordance with AREMA guidelines for perpendicular and parallel loadings which resulted in a live load and dead load which is in excess of the typical equipment surcharge load of 300 psf.

8. Bid drawing S-319, Vol. I. The length of the jet grouting block's longer side is shown as 125.5ft but the distance between PEO STA 5+32.00 and PEO STA 4+07.39 is 124.61ft.

Please clarify.

Response: The northern station was changed to 5+32.80. The distance should have been 125.4’. This will be corrected in an amendment.

9. Bid drawings S-103 and following, Vol. II. Please confirm that Invert Elevation is the upper side of the culvert's bottom slab.

Response: Yes, The invert elevation is the flow line of the box culvert.

10. Bid drawings S-301, section A and 302, section B. Vol. II. Please specify the thickness of the precast culvert's bottom slab.

Response: The contractor is required to design the box culvert. Thickness will be determined by the contractor.

11. Bid drawings S-1 03 to S-1 08, Vol. II. Please confirm that the blocks from culvert Sta.

0+12.00 to 10+00.00 are of the type precast 6'x5' (i.e ., 10ft wide), Sta. 10+00.00 to 10+24.00 are of the type precast 9'x5' (i.e ., 13ft wide), Sta. 1 0+24.00 to 11 +19.41 are of the type castin-place 9'x5' (i.e., 11ft wide) and Sta. 11 +19.41 to 11 +45.65 are of the type Outlet Structure (i.e., 17ft wide).

Response: The stations and type of box culvert mentioned are correct.

12. Bid drawing S-1 09, Vol. II. Please clarify if the start of the jet grouting is at Sta. 0+15 or 0+16 as per drawing S-301 , Vol. II.

Response: Jet grouting shall begin at station 0+15 on Treasure Street.

13. Bid drawings S-1 09 to S-114, Vol. II. Please confirm that the blocks from culvert Sta.

0+15.00 (or 0+16 as per previous query) to 10+00.00 are of the type precast 6'x5' (i.e. , 10ft wide), Sta. 10+00.00 to 10+24.00 are of the type precast 9'x5' (i.e., 13ft wide), Sta. 10+24.00 to 11 +20.83 are of the type cast-in-place 9'x5' (i.e., 11ft wide) and Sta. 11 +20.83 to 11 +48.21 are of the type Outlet Structure (i.e., 17ft wide).

Response: The stations and type of box culvert mentioned are correct.

14. Bid drawing S-119, Vol. II. Please clarify if the end of the jet grouting at El. -41 is at Sta.

7+78.76 as shown in the mentioned drawing or at Sta. 7+77.58 as per drawing S-301, Vol. II.

Response: This station should be 7+78.76. The 7+77.58 will be corrected with an amendment.

15. Bid drawings S-115 to S-120, Vol. II. Please confirm that the blocks from culvert Sta.

0+23.00 to 7+62.00 are of the type precast 6'x5' (i.e., 10ft wide), Sta. 7+62.00 to 8+74.00 are of the type cast-in-place 6'x5' (i.e ., 8ft wide), Sta. 8+74.00 to 10+08.00 are of the type precast 6'x5' (i.e., 10ft wide), Sta.10+08.00 to 10+32.00 are of the type precast 9'x5' (i.e., 13ft wide), Sta. 1 0+32.00 to 11 +39.23 are of the type cast-in-place 9'x5' (i.e ., 11ft wide) and Sta. 11 +39.23 to 11 +64.93 are of the type Outlet Structure (i.e., 17ft wide).

Response: The stations and type of box culvert mentioned are correct.

16. Bid drawing S-125, Vol. II. According to drawing S-301, the bottom of the jet grouting dips to El. -42 in correspondence of a siphon between Sta. 7+18.69 and 9+44.42; however, according to drawing S-125, the siphon starts at Sta. 7+20 and ends at 9+43.25. Please clarify.

Response: These stations should be 7+20.00 and 9+43.25 on Sheet S-301. The stationing will be corrected with an amendment.

17. Bid drawings S-121 to S-125, Vol. II. Please confirm that the blocks from culvert Sta.

0+16.00 to 7+12.00 are of the type precast 6'x5' (i.e., 10ft wide) and Sta. 7+12.00 to 9+78.80 are of the type cast-in-place double 7'x5' (i.e., 17ft wide).

Response: The stations and type of box culvert mentioned are correct.

18. Bid drawing S-130, Vol. II. According to drawing S-301, the bottom of the jet grouting dips to El. -42 in correspondence of a siphon between Sta. 7+62.44 and 9+16.47; however, according to drawing S-130, the siphon starts at Sta. 7+63.65 and ends at 9+15.26. Please clarify.

Response: These stations should be 7+63.65 and 9+15.26 on Sheet S-301. The stationing will be corrected with an amendment.

19. Bid drawings S-126 to S-130, Vol. II. Please confirm that the blocks from culvert Sta.

0+18.00 to 7+22.00 are of the type precast 6'x5' (i.e., 10ft wide) and Sta. 7+22.00 to 9+52.41 are of the type cast-in-place double 7'x5' (i.e., 17ft wide).

Response: The stations and type of box culvert mentioned are correct.

20. Bid drawing S-135, Vol. II. According to drawing S-301 , the bottom of the jet grouting dips to El. -42 in correspondence of a siphon between Sta. 7+53.11 and 9+21 .76; however, according to drawing S-135, the siphon starts at Sta. 7+54.33 and ends at 9+20.26. Please clarify.

Response: These stations should be 7+54.33 and 9+20.26 on Sheet S-301. The stationing will be corrected with an amendment.

21. Bid drawings S-131 to S-135, Vol. II. Please confirm that the blocks from culvert Sta.

0+18.00 to 7+23.00 are of the type precast 6'x5' (i.e., 10ft wide) and Sta. 7+23.00 to 9+54.15 are of the type cast-in-place double 7'x5' (i.e., 17ft wide).

Response: The stations and type of box culvert mentioned are correct.

22. Piling Coating (Specs – Steel Sheet Piling: 3.1.7 says to coat sheet pile with an Epoxy- Polyamide system.)

i.) What are the depth of coating and does both sides of sheets need to be coated?

Response: There is no coating on the sheet piles associated with TRS. The section recommended above is only for new sheet piling installed at the end of Peoples Avenue where the existing sheet piling is removed to install the box culvert.

ii.) Does any of the Pipe Pile, H Pile or TRS Sheets that are left in Place get Coating?

Response: No coating is required for H-piles, Pipe Piles or Sheet Piles associated with the TRS.

23. Tension Connectors (Specs – Timber Pile: No section for tension anchors but drawing S- 508 shows tension anchors on the Timber pile) i.) Please clarify if timber pile need tension anchors?

Response: All timber piles require tension connectors. The specifications will be amended to include a provision for tension anchors.

24. Will there be a piling schedule provided on the lengths the Corps has listed?

Response: A piling schedule will be provided as part of an amendment.

25. Sheet S-001 – Pile Driving Notes – All Piles shall be driven prior to excavation within the

TRS.

i.). Please explain how to use a follower where there is an existing concrete channel?

ii.). Please clarify that the note suggests that all pile including foundation pile must be driven prior to excavation within the TRS?

Response: The note will be changed by amendment to clarify the installation of sheet piles for the TRS and the foundation piles for the box culverts. Also, Sheet S-503A has been added for the Government designed TRS.

26. Specification 313245, 3.3, page 6. Please confirm that test program is performed in one location only for the whole project.

Response: Only one location is required.

27. Bid drawing S-425, sections A, D and E, Vol. II. Please confirm that the whole area underneath the 17-ft wide slab shall be improved by jet grouting.

Response: The entire width between TRS sheet piling shall be jet grouted

28. Sheet S-135, Block B-FL-10, shows the tie-in at STA 77+25.25 being 73’-4” wide. On Sheet S-148, B-FL-11, it shows the tie-in at STA 77+25.25 as 54’-2”. Verify the width at STA 77+25.25.

Response: Block B-FL-10 requires a wider section at Sta. 77+25.25 to maintain existing flows during construction sequencing. After Block B-FL-10 is constructed, the north wall of Block B-Fl-11 will extend into Block B-FL-10 as shown as a dashed line on Sheet S-

135. Sheet S-148 does not dimension 54’-2” as indicated in the comment.

29. Sheet S-135, Block B-FL-10, shows the north wall at People’s Ave Culvert at a 90⁰ angle to STA 77+25.25. Sheet S-148A, Block B-FL-11, the Florida Ave. – Base Slab Plan Detail shows a curved wall to tie-in to Block B-FL-11 at STA 77+25.25. Verify the tie-in at STA 77+25.25.

Response: Block B-FL-10 requires a wider section (including the 90⁰ angle) at Sta.

77+25.25 to maintain existing flows during construction sequencing. After Block B-FL-10 is constructed, the north wall of Block B-Fl-11 will extend into Block B-FL-10 as shown as the dashed curved line on Sheet S-135. The area between the 90⁰ angle constructed for Block B-FL-10 and the curved wall constructed for Block B-FL-11 will be backfilled per the contract specifications.

30. Drawing S-002 indicated that the match line is STA 23+00.00. However, on Drawing S-003 the match-line is at STA 0+49.03. Verify the station for the match-line for people’s canal to Florida Avenue canal.

Response: The correct match line Station is 0+23.00 (not STA 23+00) as shown on Sheet S-002.

31. The minimum pile tip elevations for the concrete piles (14”x14” pre-stressed concrete piles) are laid out in the specs for Blocks B-FL-01, B-FL-02, B-FL-13, B-PEO-02, and B-PEO-03.

Those same blocks are also identified in the specs as having other pile types as well (for example B-FL-01 has timber piles). The problem arises when looking at Volume 1 of the drawings (sheets S-101, S-157, S-177), the concrete piles are not shown on the blocks in which they are identified in the specs but the other types of piles are shown in the block drawings. Will there be concrete piles installed in those blocks and, if so, why are they not shown in the drawings?

Response: Pre-stressed concrete piles are only for pipe support structures. The block numbers only provide an approximate location of the piles for the pipe supports. Refer to Sheets CU-101 thru CU-118 for pipe support locations. Pre-stressed concrete piles are not required for any of the box culverts of flumes.

32. On the Sequence of Construction Phase II drawings (GC-402), the sequence states that it will be required to relocate/install (Item 2-3) the 42” water line prior to the SFM work (Items 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6). Please clarify the basis of this sequencing, or if the contractor can deviate from this sequencing?

Response: The Sequencing cannot change in this area. The tie-ins for the 50” water main and the 42”/36” water main shall be connected concurrently to only allow one shutdown. Since the 50” waterline has to be relocated prior to the 54” s.f.m. change-over (Item 2-4), the 42” and the 50” water lines must be performed before Item 2-4.

33. Section 00130 – Proposal Evaluation Criteria,1.9 RFP Submission Requirements, RFP Submittals (Page 21 of 23: At the bottom of page 21 there is an “Additional Important Note for Other Than US Small Businesses ONLY”, which advises that Other than US Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award”.

Should the proposed Subcontracting Plan be submitted under Volume II, item v. with the Small Business Participation Plan?

Response: No. If required, a subcontracting plan will be requested for submittal by the Government prior to award. It will not be required to be submitted with the proposal.

34. Many of the borings (BB-201 through BB-223) have numbers to the left of the graphical symbol. Where this is a number with a decimal point and four additional digits right of the decimal point please confirm that these are d10 values in millimeters, notwithstanding the indication on BB-201 that d10 values in mm are underlined. On almost all of the logs, however, there are several instances of the number “0999” left of the graphical symbol with no decimal point. The boring legend (BB-201) provides no explanation for these 0999 numbers. What is their significance? Does its presence indicate that a grain size test was performed using sieves and more than 10% of the sample was finer than the No. 200 sieve? Please provide either % fines or sieve and/or hydrometer analysis data if these tests were performed for the “0999” instances.

Response: The numbers listed are the D10 values. The 0999 number is an error that is generated when there is no D10 value. There were no hydrometers (only sieves) performed on the gradations and the D10 size, in most cases, was in the range of particles sizes only captured by hydrometer (less than 0.075 mm or the #200 sieve). So in short; yes the majority of the samples have more than 10% passing the #200 (i.e. silty sands)

35. Please see the attached figure, “Existing Peoples Ave Canal Shearline” shows soil test data from borings B-1A, B-2B, B-3A, and B-6 below El -50. The logs and plan locations of these borings are not included in the bid documents. If they are along the Peoples Ave Canal, it is important for us to review them because of the absence of the distinct clay stratum at about El -

50 to -60 in boring FL-01-11. This is the stratum on which the sheet pile cutoff to El -62 depends for its success in cutting off seepage from the beach sand stratum outside of the TRS. If there are any other existing borings in the vicinity of the planned construction that extend to about El - 60, we need the logs and locations for those also.

Response: These boring will be added to the back of the TRS specifications as part of an amendment.

36. In conjunction with the verbal information on the adjacent Superfund Site provided at the Pre-Proposal Conference, can you please provide written confirmation that there are no known contaminants that the contractor will be required to deal with, and that the contractor has no liability for issues with potential contamination from the Superfund Site?

In other words, given the possibility of disturbing hazardous materials currently existing in the soil at the project location (and those emanating from the nearby superfund site) and the potential for rail cars transporting hazardous, toxic, and explosive materials in the immediate vicinity of the project activities, will USACE include a special provision in the contract whereby the US indemnifies the contractor for all claims and losses suffered as a result of, or arising out of, or in connection with, the performance of the work and relating to the regulation and/or protection of the environment, including, without limitation, losses incurred in connection with characterization, handling, transportation, storage, removal, remediation, disturbance, or disposal of radioactive, hazardous, polluted, toxic, or contaminated substances and materials, whether above or below ground?

Response: The superfund site is the Agriculture Landfill superfund site is a former municipal landfill. The site was remediated in 1997 and a geotextile protective layer was placed covered by with 12 inches of sand and vegetation. Cross contamination is not an issue. EPA completed their 3rd 5-year report and their findings are the remedial action that was implemented continues to be protective of human health and the environment.

Per the contract, those other than the contractor will be responsible for the costs of cleanup and response for pre-existing hazardous materials determined to be necessary by the environmental regulator with jurisdiction, including the costs of any studies and investigations necessary to determine an appropriate response to the contamination. An additional special provision for indemnification will not be provided.

37. In reference to the unit price for Entergy Transmission Power Outages, is the $5,250.00 per each noted in Section 01100 (para. 36) the amount to be inserted on the Bidding Schedule?

Response: Yes. This will be added in an amendment.

38. Can schedule durations be provided for the Norfolk Southern scope of work related to track relocations?

Response: The schedule durations below for each sequence of construction are an estimate and for bidding purposes and are not guaranteed:

Sequence 1 - New connection allowing removal of tracks #1 and #2 should be complete in March 2015.

Sequence 2 - Restoring tracks #1 and #2 should take about 1 week.

Sequence 3 - Track construction allowing removal of tracks #3,4, and 5 should take about 4 weeks.

Sequence 4 - Track construction allowing removal of track #7 should take about 2 to 3 weeks.

Sequence 5 - Restoring the track #s 3, 4, and 5 and relocating track #6 should take about 4 weeks.

Sequence 6 - Restoring track #s 6 and 7 should take about 4 weeks.

Sequence 7 - No track work.

39. Please provide cutoff elevations for the Steel H-pile, Steel Pipe Pile, Prestressed Concrete Piles, and Timber Piles.

Response: Cutoff elevations will not be provided. The contractor shall determine the cutoff elevations from the drawings.

40. Section 00130, page 8 of 23 states, “Offerors shall submit no more than FOUR (4) past project for this factor”; however, Phase II and Phase III of the Florida Avenue contract allowed for 4-6 projects due to the large scope. Will the Government consider allowing 4-6 projects as the recent RFP did? Both projects share similar size, scope and complexity.

Response: The question includes an assumption of the Government’s intent for allowing 4-6 past projects on a previous solicitation. Four (4) past projects will remain the limit for this solicitation. Some of the 15 items are interdependent construction wise. The intent is to show that the Offerors can perform these tasks, or a majority of these tasks, on a job which requires a higher level of effort than performing these tasks exclusive of each other.

41. In most of the Government’s recent RFP solicitations, Factor 1 has been divided into two “sub-sections” – Performance Relevancy and Performance Confidence. The Government has been providing ratings for each “sub-section,” essentially making them sub-factors. The DOD Source Selection Procedures, Section 2.3.1 (effective 7/1/11) requires that the relative importance/weight of factors and sub-factors be provided in the solicitation. Please provide the relative importance / weight of each sub-factor (Performance Relevance and Performance Confidence).

Response: In accordance with Section 00130 of the Solicitation, Factor 1, Past Performance, assesses the probability an Offeror will meet contract requirements should that Offeror be awarded the contract. The rating results from the merging of assessment information of the extent of relevancy/recency of prior contracts are to the solicitation requirements and the quality of prior performance. The performance confidence assessment considers both the assessed relevancy/recency and quality of past performance presented in each proposal.

42. Section 000130, page 22 of 23 - Will the Government exclude the organization chart from the page count in Volume I?

Response: Yes.

43. At the Federal Contractors meeting sponsored by AGC in April 2014, 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 accept previously submitted PPQs that are relevant.

Response: Yes.

44. Section 00130-8, paragraph 5, states “…questionnaires shall also be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via email at Christopher.m.nuccio@usace.army.mil …”;

however, Attachment 1 lists Justin.D.Dudenhefer@usace.army.mil . Please clarify the correct point of contact for past performance questionnaires.

Response: As a courtesy, questionnaires may be submitted via email to:

Christopher.m.nuccio@usace.army.mil as the Government point of contract for receipt of the Past Performance Questionnaire submissions. This will be revised in an amendment.

45. Will the Government please provide quantities for all Lump Sum Bid Items?

Response: This will be provided in an amendment.

46. Specification Section 01100 – 11 paragraph (c) – Is Entergy installing the street lights also or are they providing them and we need to install them?

Response: Entergy will remove any existing street lights and provide and install temporary replacements during relocations.

47. Specification Section 01100 – page 28 – the dewatering gallons for sewer pipe are incorrect. The numbers given are Cubic Feet of pipe and not Gallons.

Response: The numbers will be revisited and revised as needed in an amendment.

48. TRS Specification paragraph 3.2.1.1 page 13 – the installation section indicates that we are to install the sheets with the push in non-vibratory method. The installation section also indicates that the sheets need to be pulled with a vibratory hammer. Is this correct? If we are pulling the sheets with a vibratory hammer, can we also install them with a vibratory hammer instead of the press-in method?

Response: The paragraph will be amended to require extraction with a push-in, non vibratory method.

49. The trench width for the large diameter utility lines indicates a 9” trench width on each side of the pipe diameter. There is not enough room for welding this pipe together. Please revise the trench width to include 3’ on each side of the pipe diameter.

Response: The Contractor will be allowed 2’ beyond the outside diameter of the pipe on either side.

50. No wage rate has been provided for “Iron Workers – Reinforcing (Including Rodmen).”

Please provide a wage for “Iron Workers – Reinforcing (Including Rodmen).”

Response: The contractor may submit an additional classification (also known as conformance) request only after the contract is awarded proposing a rate of pay for the Ironworker classification. In the meantime, Department of Labor guidance is that contractors should use their best business sense and the going rate of pay when submitting proposals.

51. Specification section 01100, Bidding Schedule, item 0042 states 12x84 H-piles.

Specification section 31 62 16.00 12, paragraph 2.1 states 14-84 H-piles. Please clarify the size of the required H-piles.

Response: All H-piles shall be 12x84. The specification will be revised in an amendment.

52. Specification section 01 53 00.02 12, paragraph 1.6.5 states that “The contractor is not responsible for design of the TRS for the following blocks: Blocks B-FL-06, B-FL-10, B-PEO-01, B-PEO-05, B-PEO-06, B-PEO-07 and B-PEO-07-B.”

i.) Is the contractor required to follow the Government provided TRS bracing system for the above referenced blocks?

Response: The sizes of the walers and struts may be increased, but the layout cannot change.

ii.) Can the contractor design his own TRS bracing system for the above referenced blocks in lieu of using the Government provided design?

Response: The contractor will not be allowed to change the design of the Government design TRS system. BLOCKS B-FL-06, B-PEO-05 AND B-PEO-06 will be contractor design. The specification will be revised in an amendment.

53. In section 3.2.3 Soilcrete Columns under spec section 31 32 45 Foundation Jet Grouting, it states that "The amount of spoil returned shall equal the amount of material installed in the soilcrete column and shall be reported." This is not possible as some of the soil remains in the matrix creating the "soilcrete columns". On previous solicitations for box culverts with the jet grouted foundation this spec section was modified.

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.

54. In section 3.3.1.d Materials Testing, Fresh Slurry, under spec section 31 32 45 Foundation Jet Grouting, it says that a complete series of test shall be conducted from the mixer at least twice per shift, What does this entail?

Response: Per specifications, the contractor will submit a design mix for the project.

Within this mix design the contractor shall describe how they will verify their mix design will meet the specifications they set forth such as density testing, viscosity testing, etc.

This is essentially a quality control standard for the contractor.

55. In section 3.3.3 Permeability Measurements, under spec section 31 32 45 Foundation Jet Grouting, it states the perm test shall be run on samples of jet grout columns taken from the mixing area. Does this sample mean from the jet grout spoil (wet grab) or batch plant grout?

How many are required of each?

Response: The contractor shall perform full length corings on five percent (5%) of the jet grout columns installed outside of the test section. A minimum of one (1) compressive test and (1) one permeability test every three (3) ft. of treated depth shall be performed on the cores. The core holes shall be drilled from the surface after the jet grout has had sufficient opportunity to reach a strength of 100 psi and a permeability of 1x10-6 cm/sec.

Backfill core holes with cementitious, non-shrink grout upon completion. The exact locations of the core holes will be determined by the Contracting Officer's Representative in the field. If the contractor would like to do additional wet grab samples from the jet grout spoil or batch plant they may do so at their own cost and for their own reference.

56. In section 3.3.6 Excavation, under spec section 31 32 45 Foundation Jet Grouting, it states that no excavation will be allowed above jet grouted locations until test results indicate the jet grout has achieved a compressive strength of 100 psi and perm of 1 x 10-6, can this be done with a wet grab sample of the jet grout spoil?

Response: These requirements shall be conducted on full length cores from the design section.

57. Will jet grouting work be performed near an active railroad line? If so what are the necessary precautions necessary to perform the work and are there any time limitations to perform the jet grouting work.

Response: Yes, Jet grouting will be placed near active railroads. The jet grout mix design at this location shall meet the same requirements outlined within spec section 31 32 45.

58. Will the jet grouting indicated on drawings GC-404 and S-319/320/503 be performed in the native soil or fill material? If so what does that fill material consist of?

Response: Most of the soil in this area will be native. The top 3’-6’ will be granular fill.

Some stone from the movement of tracks could also be located in these areas.

59. What does the designation in the upper right hand corner of S-319 (Government Designed) and S-320 (Contractor Designed) Response: The note designates if the TRS System is government or contractor designed for the block shown. This only refers to the TRS. All jet grouting will be contractor designed.

60. Is the intent of the Jet Grouting required on drawings GC-404 and S-319/320/503 the same as what is required beneath the box culverts? If not can the Contractor propose a cost savings jet grouting solution for what seems to be an earth retention system?

Response: These areas are not for earth retention, but to also prevent lateral loading on the adjacent area by distributing the loading vertically rather than laterally from the trains. The Government cannot pre-approve submittals. We would consider alternatives through a VECP during construction.

61. On drawing S-319 Note #4 states “ Jet grout shall be designed by the contractor in accordance with the specifications,” what are the design requirements?

Response: See contract specification section 31 32 45.

62. On drawing S-319 Note #9 states “Jet grout section subject to change pending results from test section,” What is the intent of this note? Is there a separate test section for this jet grouting?

Response: This note is so that the contractor knows that he must perform the test section prior to constructing this section. Only one test section will be required. The intent of this section is that if any task/test associated with Jet Grouting fails during the test section the contractor will need to change their Jet grouting method to meet the requirements of this project.

63. On drawing S-320 Note #9 states “Jet grout section subject to change pending results from test section,” What is the intent of this note? Is there a separate test section for this jet grouting?

Response: This note is so that the contractor knows that he must perform the test section prior to constructing this section. Only one test section will be required. The intent of this section is that if any task/test associated with Jet Grouting fails during the test section the contractor will need to change their Jet grouting method to meet the requirements of this project.

64. On drawing S-320 Note #4 states “Jet grout shall be designed by the contractor in accordance with the specifications,” what are the design requirements?

Response: The design requirements are provided in specification section 31 32 45.

65. Where does the jet grouting go that is included on drawings S-319/320? What sequence of construction does this belong in?

Response: The jet grouting on sheet S-319 must be complete prior to excavating in Block B-PEO-07-A1. The jet grouting on sheet S-320 must be complete prior to excavating in Block B-PEO-08. Sheets GC-401 thru GC-407 will be revised in an amendment to included jet grouting in these areas.

66. Will overhead power and cable lines be removed and/or denergized at Painters/Eads/Deer/Abundance/Peoples/Law? If not all of them which ones will be?

Response: The portions of the lines which will be relocated or de-energized are identified in the utility disposition sheets.

67. Can the S&WB laydown yard be used for construction operations?

Response: No.

68. Reference Section 33 11 00 Water Distribution – 2.1.4.1 states “Steel for manufactured pipe shall meet the requirements of ASTM A139/A139M”. In same section – 2.1.5.(11), the steel designation is A-283 Grade c. The reference to A-283 is also found in Section 33 44 00 Force Mains – 2.1.(7) which states “ASTM A283/A283M Grade C”.

We request a change to all steel pipe designation to state “ASTM A139/A139M to be consistent with a specification that allows for coiled steel rather than a specification for steel plate.

Response: Steel shall meet the requirements of ASTM A139/A139M. This will be clarified in an amendment.

69. Reference Volume 1 Drawings – Sheets CU 101-109, we request the owner to provide additional details for the existing lines such as material type for all water and sewer force main pipe connections in sizes 42”, 50”, 54”, 60” & 72”.

Response: They are all steel pipes except for the 54” northern most tie location, which is ductile iron.

70. Reference Volume 1 Drawings – Sheets CU 101-109, can the limits for casing pipe be defined so a quantity can be established?

Response: All required casings including the size and the thickness will be shown on amended drawings.

71. Section 00130, page 23 of 23 states, “… and (1) compact disk (CD) with both volumes”.

Will the Government allow offerors to include two CDs – one with Volume I and one with Volume II. This will allow offerors more time to accept pricing information (pricing cuts), therefore providing a better value to the Government.

Response: Yes, this is allowable.

72. Specification 33 11 00, Page 11, section 2.1.1 (Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe (Water Mains Up to 12” in Diameter). The last sentence states, “All fittings for the PVC pipe shall be ductile iron fittings in accordance with the paragraph ‘Steel Pipe with Welded Joints’. Should the referenced section be section 2.1.6 “Ductile Iron Fittings (Water Mains Up to 12” in Diameter)”?

Please clarify.

Response: This paragraph will be revised in an amendment to reference 2.1.6 Ductile Iron Fittings.

73. Specification 33 11 00, page 3, paragraph 1.2 (2) and page 17 section 3.1.1 paragraph (6).

Section 1.2 paragraph (2) states that valves shall not be closed more than 12 consecutive hours for tie-ins up to 12” and no more than 24 consecutive hours for tie-ins of the new 42” and 50” diameter waterlines. Paragraph 3.1.1 (6) states that we are allowed 24 hours for the 6-inch diameter water main and 48 hours for the 50” diameter water main. Please clarify the appropriate amount of time allowed for tie-ins.

Response: Section 31 11 00, para 3.1.1 (6) will be revised in an amendment to indicate 12 hours for 12” and smaller relocations and 24 hours for 42” and 50” relocations.

74. Specification 01100, pages 28-29, section 27, paragraph (i) and section 28 paragraph (a).

Section 28, paragraph (a) states that the contractor shall coordinate all sewer force main outages with the Sewerage and Water Board, fourteen (14), seven (7), and seventy-two (72) hours prior to a requested outage for tie-ins. Section 27, paragraph (i) states that the contractor shall not begin the sewer force main tie-ins if weather conditions indicate rainfall within 48 hours of the proposed tie-in. Will the contractor need to submit an additional 14 day outage request or will the initial requested outage be considered active for the nearest weather permitting work day?

Response: The outage would be extended to the nearest weather permitting work day.

75. Specification 33 11 00, page 21, section 3.1.11, paragraph 3. Since safety fence is required around all work areas, will barricades be allowed in lieu of backfilling all open trenches at the end of each work day?

Response: As long as no access is available to the area, barricades and fall protection will be allowed in lieu of backfilling.

76. Specification 33 30 00, section 3.1.1 and section 3.1.6 Section 3.1.1 calls for the gravity sewer to be laid on a smooth bed of compacted river sand. Section 3.1.6 calls for bedding to be crushed concrete or crushed stone. Please clarify which bedding is to be used for gravity sewer.

Response: The bedding shall be crushed concrete or crushed stone as specified in Section 33 30 00, para 3.1.6. This will be revised in an amendment.

77. Can 610 stone be used as bedding material for drainage structures, pipe, and the precast box culverts?

Response: The Government cannot pre-approve submittals or RFI’s.

78. Will precast concrete drainage structures, sewer manholes, etc. be allowed in lieu of brick?

If so, please issue standard drawings for precast structures.

Response: Pre-box culverts sections are allowed as indicated the Sheet G-004, Note 9 under Sewerage and Water Board Notes. Per the note the detail is already included in the drawings. See detail in the Volume II drawings, Sheet CU-507.

79. For new drainage structures being installed, will the existing drain line sections tying in to the new structures require cutting and replacement of a segment in order to complete the tie-in?

Response: Yes.

80. What is the required bedding depth for the precast concrete box culverts?

Response: This information is provided in the Volume II drawings, Sheet CU-507.

81. Volume 1 and Volume 2 demolition plan, please provide inverts and details of the existing drainage structures, water manholes, sewer manholes, etc. in order to quantify the amount of sand backfill to be placed inside the removed/demolished structures.

Response: Inverts and details of the existing lines can be found in the existing plan and profile drawings.

Volume I – See Sheets C-101 --- C-107 Volume II – See Sheets C-101 --- C-126

82. It appears as though the only indication to where the drain structures are located in Volume 1 drawings are in the roadway design details, drawings C-122 to C-131. The drainage structures on these drawings appear to be in the plan view but are only labeled in the profile view. These labels are also, simplistic and do not describe what type of catch basin/manhole is required, simply only stating “req’d C.B.” Please specify as to what types of drainage structures are required and the inverts for each structure. Please label each drainage structure in the plan view for clarity.

Response: Please refer to sheet numbers CU-110, CU-111, and CU-112 in the bid set, Volume I. The sheet numbers will be revised in an amendment to Sheet CU-119, CU-120, and CU-121.

83. Section 03 31 00, paragraph 2.2 – Why does the specification mandate 610 lbs cement minimum for mixes? Also, is this the requirement for all portions of work (i.e. stabilization, box culvert, street paving, sidewalks, etc.)? Please clarify.

Response: The 610 pounds of cement per cubic yard of concrete was a requirement from Norfolk Southern Railroad. All concrete box culverts and flumes for Florida Avenue, People Avenue, Almonaster, and Lateral “D” shall meet this requirement, except for the stabilization slab. An amendment will be issued to clarify cement requirements

84. We understand that the length of piles will be determined by the pile test. Will the Government please provide a basis for estimating?

Response: The tip elevations are provided in the specifications for each individual pile type. The cut off elevation will be determined from the drawings.

85. Specification 31 23 13.16 12 6 and General Notes #10. The specification reads that on-site excavated soils may be stockpiled and reused as backfill if it meets the required specifications.

General Note #10 states that all excavations must be removed and disposed of. This is similar to previous SELA projects. Please clarify if all backfill needs to be imported or if on-site excavations may be used as backfill.

Response: The general note will not be revised in an amendment.

86. Will follow-up questions be allowed in order to respond to answers that are either unclear or confusing?

Response: Yes. The Government will provide a time frame for requesting clarifications on the amendment.

87. Re: Section 00010, Note 5 - Other than non-availability of funds, what circumstances would lead the Government to determine that including the price of the options in the total price for evaluation purposes would “not be in the Government’s best interests”?

Response: The total contract value will be considered for evaluation purposes.

88. Re: Section 00130, 1.1 and 1.5 No. 24 – Subsection 1.1 only mentions an SSEB, while Subsection 1.5 also mentions an SSAC. Since the latest guidance from DOD requires an SSAC on all procurements over $100 million, will Subsection 1.1 be changed to include a provision for an SSAC?

Response: Section 00130, Section 1.1, paragraph 2, sentence 2 will be revised in an amendment to state: “Proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).”

89. Re: Section 00130, 1.1 – If Subsection 1.1 is changed to include a provision for an SSAC, who will comprise the SSAC?

Response: Per Army guidance, the SSAC is comprised of employees from functional areas where the Source Selection Authority may require expertise. The specific composition of the SSAC is considered Source Selection Sensitive Information and will not be disclosed.

90. Re: Section 00130, 1.7, page 8, paragraph 1, lines 11 & 12 – Given the scope of this project and the inclusion of several specialty capabilities, e.g., jet grouting, we question the provision that allows each project to be rated individually. Such a provision effectively makes the use of a subcontractor or team member’s past performance a detriment to an Offeror’s overall score for Factor 1. Unless the intent of the evaluation process is to penalize an Offeror who otherwise would score very highly except for the use of a single or a few subcontractors, the individual rating of projects should be eliminated. Please respond.

Response: The Government does not apply scoring, as stated in the above question.

The selection of the four past projects submitted with its proposal is at the discretion of the Offeror. As stated in the solicitation, the past projects will be rated individually as well as collectively. Some of the 15 items are interdependent construction wise. The intent is to show that the Offerors can perform these tasks, or a majority of these tasks, on a job which requires a higher level of effort than performing these tasks exclusive of each other.

91. Re: Section 00130, 1.7, page 9, last paragraph – Previous solicitations have not required clients to provide the completed PPQ directly to the Government. Such a provision in this solicitation clearly defeats the intent to reuse previous PPQ’s for the same project. Why does this solicitation require the submission of PPQ’s directly to the Government?

Response: The referenced paragraph states that the PPQ’s should be included in the proposal. The copy provided directly to the Government is requested as a courtesy. To assist in clarifying possibly confusing language, the word “shall” will be replaced with “may” in the following sentence: “As a courtesy, questionnaires shall also be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact…”

92. Re: Section 00130, 1.7, page 11, paragraph 8.b. – It has recently come to our attention that compliance with this provision could give rise to an OCI violation as described in FAR Part 9.

Such a violation could occur when an Offeror uses a proposed subcontractor’s project as part of its response to Factor 1. If the client of the subcontractor is also an offeror for the subject solicitation, the client would have knowledge of the Offeror’s proposal clearly creating an unfair competitive advantage as described in FAR 9.505(b)(2). That unfair advantage would arise from the client gaining knowledge concerning the Offer’s approach to responding to Factor 1 as well as allowing the client to unfairly bias the outcome of the Source Selection through the manner in which it completes the PPQ. Please explain how the Government intends to resolve this potential for an OCI violation.

Response: Section 9.505(b)(2) guards against a competing contractor from obtaining (1) proprietary information from a government official, or (2) source selection information, which is defined in FAR 2.101. If an Offeror becomes aware of a potential conflict of interest as soon as possible please contact the Contracting Officer directly with details of the alleged conflict. The Source Selection Team will be notified of the resolution to this conflict. Information that contractors obtain from one another due to preexisting contractual relationships would be governed by agreements between those parties.

93. Re: Section 00130, Subsection 1.7, Factor 2 and Subsection 1.9 – It seems that the Government has decided to impose a 35-page limit on all SELA solicitations regardless of the size or complexity of the project. For example, Subsection 1.7 merely states a requirement for detailed narratives and drawings for 4 separate activities. Yet the RFP contains at least 23 detailed drawings (with numerous notes & legends) related to TRS’s alone. Additionally, the solicitation contemplates other activities that are not listed in bulleted lists for either Factor 1 or 2, e.g., driving of pipe piles in extremely low overhead conditions. The degree of coordination with the railroad and utility owners is also significantly greater than on previous SELA projects.

Finally, the project is adjacent to a Super Fund site and must be constructed in 3 locations with one location having 7 separate phases. Given all these circumstances, we respectfully request that the Government allow at least 45 pages for Volume I.

Response: The page numbers will remain as-is. Previous SELA projects had similar multiple work areas and degrees of coordination with the utilities. The Government is not requiring the contractor to enter the superfund site nor is it requesting information in the proposal regarding the superfund site. Please note the drawings are not included in the page limitation.

94. Re: Section 00130, Subsection 1.9 – Can the organization chart be exempted from the 8 ½” x 11” page requirement?

Response: Yes.

95. Re: Section 00130, Subsection 1.9, Proposal Files: b. – During the MVD/AGC Roundtable in Jackson, MS held on 27 & 28 Feb of this year, the Division leadership stated that the Districts would only require 1 hard copy of proposals. The referenced provision requires a total of 6 copies of Vol I and 3 of Vol II in addition to a CD with both. Please clarify.

Respons…