Attachment 5 - Questions and Government Answers - Amendment 0001.pdf
PDF 156 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W912P922R0001
About this file
This document contains questions from prospective offerors and answers from the agency regarding a solicitation for construction of two pump stations and two relief wells along the Wood River Levee District Canal Road. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District is seeking firms to install Pump Stations No. 2 and No. 3, including related intake channels, discharge pipes, trash racks, and relief wells. Proposals are due by May 31, 2022 to Angie Grimes and Whitney Dee of the Corps of Engineers. The document clarifies design details, material requirements, construction sequencing and addresses contractor questions to facilitate accurate responses to the solicitation.
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
W912P922R0001 Canal Road Pump Stations No. 2 & No. 3 at Wood River Levee District
Contractor Questions & Government Answers
1. Would it be possible to move back the bid date to several days past the Memorial Day holiday? We have several veterans in our company that would like to be able to have Memorial Day off and most companies will have that Monday off and it will be very difficult to get the proposal completed with prices and other info not coming in until the morning of the 31st.
ANSWER: The proposal due date will not be extended.
2. Can pre-bid attendance list be provided?
ANSWER: Yes, provided with Amendment 0001 of Solicitation.
3. The boring logs indicate both fat and lean clay that is likely excavated for the pump station & intake channels. Is this material suitable for the discharge pipe cover?
ANSWER: Onsite insitu material can be utilized for the discharge pipe cover as long as this material meets the definition and requirements of satisfactory and impervious materials as outlined in section 2.1.1, 2.1.3, and 2.1.4 of specification 31 23 00.00 20
4. The reference drawings noted on page G-002 of plans are not included in the plans.
Can they be provided?
ANSWER: Sheets are added.
5. Trash Racks Sheet S/401 general note 5, says there 6 sections required & two for each pump station. Is the note correct? I am coming up with 4 sections and one trash rack at each pump station.
ASNWER: This note is incorrect and is updated, 4 sections is correct.
6. Section 03 30 00 sections 3.3.8 and 3.3.9 seem to be conflicting. 3.3.9 "Form Removal" states that no form can be removed until concrete has reached 85% of the required strength of 4000 PSI, or 3400 PSI. Should this be only concrete supporting load?
ANSWER: This applies to all concrete.
7. Canal road on both sides of project is posted with 6-ton limit. How can construction equipment and materials be delivered to the jobsite?
ANSWER: The methods of delivery are up to the contractor, but they are responsible for site restoration within the limits of construction.
8. The project requires all testing to be done by a USACE validated lab. The project requires ASTM D4253/D4254. Currently the only lab in Missouri or Illinois Validated to do this test is USACE lab St Louis. Can USACE lab be used for this portion of the testing?
ANSWER: The USACE lab cannot be utilized for the Contractor's quality control laboratory testing. The Contractor shall be required to find a lab that is validated in the required testing ASTMs for their quality control program as outlined in specification 01 45 00.00 10 section 3.7.1.
Validated labs can be found at the following location:
https://mtc.erdc.dren.mil/searchvalidation.aspx
9. Would it be possible to mark the 5’ contours somewhere on the drawings?
ANSWER: Contour labels is added to appropriate plan sheets.
10. In the discharge chamber, if the 4:1 slope and the 2’-6” depth are correct (Detail A4, sheet S-300) for the triangular concrete in front of the FSI’s for both pump stations, pump station #2 has 9’-0” from the end of the sloped concrete to the south pump chamber wall. Pump station #3 has 7’-0”. Is this the intent?
ANSWER: Yes, that is the intent.
11. Are the openings of the FSI’s for both pump stations meant to be flush to and in contact with the bottom end of the sloped concrete as shown on section B1 sheet S- 300?
ANSWER: Per Note 1 on M-100 FSI shall be a minimum of 2” away from the slope.
12. As the sloped concrete end tapers to nothing, will you want a keyway there so that there is at least a 1½” thickness?
ANSWER: Adding a 1 ½” key is not necessary.
13. Section A1 S-300 is cut on sheet S-101. Section A1 shown on sheet S-300 appears to be incorrect as it shows a north wall where the trash rack opening is located and does not show the trash rack stub wall details which are critical.
ANSWER: Per notes on S-101 trash rack support is shown on S-400.
14. For clarification with riprap locations on PS#2, please verify on C-100 to include:
• 40’ of gravity drain channel
• The entire drainage intake ditch
• Station 100+66.05 of the intake channel to the wrap-around of the west end of the pump station
• 16’ of the north roadside ditch
ANSWER: Riprap limits are shown on plan sheet. Call out points to linework delineating the limits of rip rap.
15. For clarification with riprap locations on PS#3, please verify on C-120 to include:
• Station 201+05.25 of the drainage ditch 2-2 to the wrap-around of the west end of the pump station
• 16’ of PS#3 drainage ditch 2-1
ANSWER: Riprap limits are shown on plan sheet. Call out points to linework delineating the limits of rip rap.
16. Pilot Hole 272-22 has two timelines after the NTP, 30 days in Sequence Restrictions
(page 10, section 00 08 00) and 45 days in paragraph 1.5.2 “Pilot Hole drilling” on page 6, Section 33 26 00.00 10. Which is correct?
ANSWER: Specification 00 08 00 is updated to 45-days.
17. On sheet C-502, section C1 shows Detail B2, a joint at the junction of the end of the concrete drainage channel and the riprap. What is the purpose of this joint here?
ANSWER: This joint is removed from plans.
18. The length dimensions of the relief well drainage the 3:1 slope on sheet C-502 total about 14’ from the center of the well. Will the drainage channel extend to the flat bottom of the intake channel?
ANSWER: Yes, channel will extend to bottom of intake channel.
19. Is the 2” of cover shown on section A1 of sheet C-502 supposed to be R-200 riprap?
ANSWER: Within the solicitation documents a (2”) call out is not shown on sheet C-
502. However, sheet C-503 (Section A1) does show a (2”) call out which is the cover between the rebar and edge of concrete. Applicable riprap thicknesses are shown on sheet C-300.
20. Will USACE consider horizontal construction joints in the pump station walls different than those shown on the plans if we abide by the specification 03 30 00.00, paragraph 3.11 on page 28?
ANSWER: Yes
21. Would the horizontal joints in the walls of the wet well and intake have to match?
ANSWER: No, they do not have to match
22. Is there a discrepancy in the design of the trash rack stub walls between Sections A1 and A2 on sheet S-100 and S-101 (at elev. 427.50) and C1 and A1 on sheet S-400?
The drawings of the unusual anchorages and the rack need more sections, not details for clarity. For example, is there a wall slot for the trash rack or are the openings between the stub walls 10’-9” wide back to the final resting place of the rack?
ANSWER: The opening is where the trash rack rest is 10’-9”, while the opening between the support columns behind the trash rack is 10’. These openings are consistent for the entire height.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .