Mosquito Stilling Basin Joint Sealing

The Pittsburgh District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a need for Stilling Basin Joint Sealing at Mosquito Creek Dam, Trumbull County, Ohio. The work will consist of the installation of waterstops and/or injection grouting in concrete monoliths; realignment and extension of a drain pipe into creek past the training wall; construction of a temporary access road; and the removal and replacement of a security fence. Please see attached documents on the Project including the Solicitation, Technical Specifications, Drawings, Price Schedule, and Wage Rates Determination. This is a Request for Quote (RFQ). The NAICS Code for this acquisition is 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction with a size standard of $39.5 M. This requirement is 100% Set-Aside for Small Business concerns. Any resultant contract shall be Firm-Fixed Price and one Award is anticipated. In order to receive notification of any amendments to the solicitation, interested vendors must register as such on the www.fbo.gov website. If you are not registered, the Government is not responsible for providing notification of any changes to the solicitation. Contractors must be actively registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database at the time of quotes are due (go to www.sam.gov to register). UPDATES 11/20/2019: Due to issues with the migration from www.fbo.gov to beta.sam.gov, USACE cannot upload amendments at this time. The answers to vendor questions are provided below. In addition, the due date for quote submissions will be extended to 5:00PM Eastern Time on 11/26/2019. Q1: Is the non-erodible material contractor laydown area used only for this project? A1: Yes. Q2: Can the Quality Control Manager also be the Site Superintendent/Site Safety Health Officer? A2: The QC Manager and the Superintendent must be separate individuals. The SSHO can also be the superintendent or QC Manager if the contractor chooses, provided they meet the requirements. Q3: Can you clarify the intent of General note 3 on drawing X-101? a) Limiting the access to 5 tons defeats the purpose of stoning a full access pad area. There's no way to efficiently move that stone over the tunnel. You'd, at best, be able to move 2.5 tons at a time. b) We have pickup trucks that exceed the 5 ton weight limit. Also, with that weight, the largest excavator to move over there weighs 10 tons, that's too small to do anything significant. c) The barrier for the water diversion weighs over 6,000 pounds. That leaves 4,000 pounds for a vehicle or equipment to move the barrier. Nothing that small can move the barrier, let alone lift it over the wall. d) Also, with the barrier, we need to reach out over 55' to set that barrier. What piece of equipment can do that? This requires a crane with at least 55' of reach. This will weigh well over 5 tons. A3: a) General Note 3 on sheet X-101 is intended to limit the allowable gross vehicle weight over the outflow tunnel to protect the tunnel from overstress due to live load. The Quoter is responsible for determining the means and methods to perform the required work within the limits of the plans and specifications. The Quoter may need to make multiple trips with light duty vehicles and equipment in order to perform the required work. b) Refer to response 'a'. c. There are no specific contract requirements with respect to material and weight for the water diversion barrier. Sheet X-504 includes two possible methods for constructing the water diversion barrier. d) Refer to response 'c'. Q4: Do you have any additional details of the step going into the stilling basin? This will be crucial in geometry, as you are using concrete barrier to cross the step and maintain a watertight seal. A4: Drawing 035bb-U1-61/1, provided as a reference drawing at the end of the project Plans, gives the best available detail on this area. Specifically, reference 'Section F-F' and 'Profile on Center Line' on the drawing. Q5: Drawing S-101 calls out different joint seal details at various locations along the training walls. The Quoter is concerned that the PVC Waterstop detail may not yield satisfactory results due to the 6" wide PVC waterstop being encapsulated in non-shrink grout, with no direct engagement to the existing concrete -- it is possible that after several seasons, the water will flow around the perimeter of the non-shrink grout plug, bypassing the new waterstop. Would the Government accept the application of the Foam Grout Waterstop as detailed on S-302 at all joint locations in lieu of the PVC Waterstop? A5: The Quoter's concern has been noted; however, substitution of the foam grout waterstops for PVC waterstops is not permitted. The Quoter should proceed with the details as shown in the contract plans. Q6: Are there any existing utilities (electrical, intake pipes, etc.) in the vicinity of the new Storm Culvert Extension shown on C-402? Please provide reference drawings, if available. A6: USACE is not aware of any existing utilities in the vicinity of the new storm culvert. 11/21/2019 W911WN20Q8000 0001 and 0002 have been posted along with revisions to Specifications and Plans.