2019-07-22-Upper_Pontchartrain_Seepage_-_Questions_and_Clarifications.pdf

Solicitation No. W912P-19-B-0041 Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) Upper Pontchartrain Seepage Control, Item M-225L B/L Sta. 160+00 to B/L Sta. 181+00 East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana

Question and Clarifications - Third Round

1. Paragraph 10 of specification section 01100 states there will be no work between 9pm and 6am. Paragraphs 3.1.4. and 3.2.2 of spec section 33 26 00.00 12 call for the screen, casing, and gravel pack to be a continuous operation. If that is the case, then that process may go over on time. Will it be possible to work 24 hours/day during certain operations as long as notice is given? Please clarify.

Continuous 24 hours/day operations will not be permitted. In certain operations for well installation, the Contractor will be allowed to work beyond the work hours to complete requirements of well installation. Section 01100, Paragraph 10 “Permissible Hours of Work” will be revised in an amendment.

2. Will ASTM A778 standard be acceptable as an alternate for Stainless Steel Casing?

ASTM A778 standard will not be acceptable; casing must be stainless steel.

3. Para. 3.1.5 of spec section 33 26 00.00 12 calls for Temporary Casing. This casing will be cemented in place and therefore cannot be removed. It will be cut below ground and the slab will cover it. Please clarify if this is acceptable.

The temporary casing must be removed. Specification 33 26 00.00 12, Paragraph 3.1.5 “Temporary Casing”, states “the temporary casing shall be such as to permit its removal without disturbing the filter pack, solid pipe, or well screen."

4. Paragraph 3.4.1, Development of Relief Wells, of spec section 33 26 00.00 12 states that development of the relief wells cannot take place during testing, development, or pumping of the other wells. It is our understanding that in order to meet the schedule required, multiple wells will have to be drilled simultaneously and pumping/development will need to take place at multiple sites. Please clarify the intent of this specification.

The duration given accounts for wells to be development and tested separately.

Specification Section 33 26 00. 00 12, Paragraph 3.4.1 “General”, states “At the time of development of any relief well, the well shall be free of drawdown or surcharge effects due to pump testing, developing or drilling at another location.”

5. Paragraph 3.6.4 of spec section 33 26 00.00 12 states that the wells cannot be tested within 2,500’ of active drilling, development, or testing. This will limit the testing to completion of drilling of all wells before testing can be completed.

Please clarify if this is the intent.

Correct, wells cannot be tested within 2,500 feet of active drilling, development, or testing. All wells will need to be installed prior to testing.

6. Will dual swab and airlift be an acceptable development method?

No, dual swab and airlift will not be an acceptable methods. Contractor can refer to EM 1110-2-1914: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Relief Wells for recommended development methods.

7. Steel Discharge Pipe at Sta. 166+15: Sheet M-01 has a note stating that the steel discharge pipes at Sta. 166+15 are approx. 24 FT each. Sheet M-02 has a note that the steel discharge pipes at Sta. 166+15 are approx. 45 FT each.

Please advise which length is correct.

The values shown on sheets M-0 and M-02 at Sta. 166+15, "24 FT" and "45 FT", are both incorrect. The correct length for the of steel discharge pipe at Sta.

166+15 is 29 FT. Sheets M-01 and M-02 will be revised in an amendment.

8. Steel Discharge Pipe & Casing Coating: The specification for the coatings on the steel discharge pipe state that the pipe be coated in accordance with AWWA C210 or AWWA C213 which are a liquid epoxy spec and fusion bonded epoxy spec respectively. Will coal tar epoxy be an acceptable coating for the discharge pipes and casings?

No, coal tar epoxy will not be an acceptable coating for the discharge pipes and casings.

9. Sheet E-01 Note 1. States that the contractor is responsible for paying Entergy’s costs. There is an Entergy contact listed, Scott Graham, but we have not been able to get in touch with him after multiple attempts. Please provide an alternate contact that can provide pricing to the contractors. Does the Government have an estimate of Entergy’s costs? If so, please provide the estimated cost?

Scott Graham is the point of contact from Entergy. In a follow up question listed below, contact was made with Entergy. It is the USACE understanding, Entergy does not anticipate any costs with regard to construction on this project as long as it is built as designed on the plans. Note 1 on the drawing is to capture any expenses that may arise for services provided by Entergy to the Contractor, at his/her request for assisting in construction.

10. Please advise whether there is currently 3 phase 480V service at the jobsite location or if Entergy will have to bring 3 phase service to the jobsite. If the service has to be pulled in, how far away is the closest available 3 phase service?

Entergy has available 3-phase service across the road from the jobsite via existing poles. The existing voltage will need to be stepped down to 480V, 3-phase.

11. Speaking with Entergy by phone on Friday, June 14. They stated that they would not be providing a price to Contractors for this work. Without a proposal from Entergy, the Contractors cannot bid the project as stated on plan sheet E-01 Note 1. Please advise as to how the contractors should bid the project without an Entergy proposal.

It is the USACE understanding that, Entergy does not anticipate any costs with regard to construction for this project as long as it is built as designed on the plans. Note 1 on the drawing is to capture any costs that may arise for services provided by Entergy to the Contractor, at his/her request. It is up to Contractor design whether there is any expenses for services provided by Entergy.

12. Should the contractors include a Government provided allowance in the bid? If so, please provide.

Not sure of what is meant by “Government provided allowance.” If it is meant expenses for services provided by Entergy. Then the following information is provided: Entergy does not anticipate any costs with regard to construction for this project as long as it is built as designed on the plans. Note 1 on the drawing is to capture any expenses that may arise for services provided by Entergy to the Contractor, at his/her request for assisting in construction. It is up to Contractor design and methods whether there is any expenses for services provided by Entergy.

13. Can the requirement to pay Entergy be removed from the contractor’s scope of work?

No, any expenses that may arise for services provided by Entergy to the Contractor, at his/her request. Shall be paid by the Contractor.