Addition 1

Posted: 3/10/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum 1

Overview: Please see Addendum 1 for information related to the Preproposal Conference, site visit sign-in sheets, and the County's answers to questions received.

Documents:

• Addendum 1 Final.pdf

Addition 3

Posted: 4/26/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum 3

Overview: Please see Addendum 3 for the County's responses to questions received and an additional attachment provided.

Documents:

• C1Ja. Sludge Storage & Digestion - Select Drawings rescan.pdf
• Addendum 3 Final.pdf

Addition 5

Posted: 1/20/2024

Type of Addition: Award Information

Documents:

• VR Award Notice.pdf

Question 2

Posted: 3/7/2023

Question: Early Works Cost Proposal. The Cost Proposal indicates that the cost proposal for the Early Work Construction Implementation Stage constitutes a firm, not-to-exceed price. The Scope of Work included in the RFP also indicates that the Contractor is to execute Design Implementation for and negotiation of an Early Work GMP. Based on the Preliminary nature of the Early Work Drawings and Specifications included in RFP Attachment B2A, and the opportunity for the scope to evolve based on additional information resulting from the Design Confirmation process it will be challenging to prepare firm pricing for a construction scope that has limited definition. Is the intent that the Early Work Cost Proposal will serve as the basis for GMP negotiation, similar to the Main Project Construction Implementation cost proposal? If not, we respectfully request an opportunity to visit the site with potential subcontractors and/or the ability to include assumptions with our cost proposal that form the basis for our firm, not-to-exceed price.

Response: Please see Addendum 1 for the response.

Question 4

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Does the owner have any spec requirements for the SL and RSL lines shown on C-04? We are assuming class 350 pipe with epoxy lining for these services with C153 MJ fittings with megalugs.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 6

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: It is not clear what work needs to be done to the exisitng blend tank No. 3 to allow for a new 24" manway and level transducer. 1) Please confirm the scope of this work is only installing a new bolt on 24" manway cover and tapped flange for level transducer. We assume no FRP modifications are required to the tank for this work. 2) Please confirm that the there are no requirements to re-test or re-certify the tank upon completion of the modifications.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 8

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: The RFP references a 150 day period for Design Confirmation along with a potential for an additional 60 days at the owners discretion. Please advise how the Offeror is to price the additional 60 days or not for the basis of the pricing of design confirmation.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 10

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Spec 43 23 57 calls out a stuffing box gland and latern ring, is a packed pump required or are mechanical seals acceptable?

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 12

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Please provide a MSDS for the polymer solution including viscosity, % solution, specific gravity, and PH.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 14

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Ref: RFP – Section II Information to Offerors- Articles 19A & 19B indicate that a Bond in the amount of 100% of the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) will be required of the successful Offeror as a condition of Contract Award to ensure satisfactory completion of he work. a. Please clarify when these bonds are to be delivered and what Phase they are to cover, i.e. Phase 1 – Design Confirmation Phase, Phase 2 Implementation Phase (Early Work Design Implementation Stage, Design Implementation Stage (Pre-Construction Services) and Construction Implementation Stage). b. Please clarify if the value is to be based upon the buildup presented in Attachment A – Cost Proposal, which is based upon a Cost of Work value of $110,000.00 and 30-month construction duration and identified as the offerors preliminary cost proposal or if it should be based upon the Final Costs to be negotiated with the Offeror.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 16

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Ref: RFP – Attachment A – Cost Proposal. Please clarify or confirm the following: The proposal form for COST OF WORK provides the offeror instruction and the opportunity to “modify this template to provide your firm’s preliminary cost proposal”. a. Please confirm it is acceptable to add line items to the cost proposal to align with the project delivery obligations. b. Would this be the location where qualifications, assumptions and/or clarifications to the cost values should be provided?

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 18

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Ref: RFP – Attachment A – Cost Proposal. Please clarify or confirm the following: The Proposal Form requests pricing on Design Services to 100%. However, the final Dewatering Building Option (Re-use or New) is not known yet. Should the Offeror insert the value for what they believe will be the higher design effort?

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 20

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Ref: RFP – Attachment A – Cost Proposal. Please clarify or confirm the following: The Proposal Form COST OF WORK, under the category of Main Project Construction provides a pre-entered value of $110,000,000.00 with a note that this is an assumed value. Under this category there is also an entry for a value of 30 months for a construction duration. Please confirm should either of these values change, will the offeror be permitted to change the values of the GC fee and or DB fee.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 22

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Ref: RFP – Section III Scope of Work- Article A5.1.2.1 Schematic Design Package Minimum Requirements. Under Article A5.1.2.1 7 Identifies Special Studies to be performed under this Design Implementation Stage. We note that these studies have not been included in the Early Work Design Implementation Stage. Please clarify that both the Noise Study and the Vibration Study are to be completed as a predecessor to starting Early Work Construction and that the guidance provided are to be implemented as part of the Early Work Construction Stage.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 24

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Ref: RFP – Section III Scope of Work- Article A6.1.2 General Condition Fee. This Article lists numerous General Condition Cost elements. Please confirm which of the cost elements on this listing is to be included in Early Work Construction Implementation Stage. As an example, should cost be carried for the Project groundbreaking and ribbon cutting ceremonies.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 26

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Ref: RFP – Section V Contract Terms and Conditions Article 7 Time for Completion lists a potential change in the duration of the Design Confirmation Phase from 150 calendar days to 210 calendar days at the sole discretion of the County. Please clarify how additional compensation will be provided should the duration increase or confirm that Offerors should assume the longer duration in their proposed fee.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 28

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Ref: RFP – Attachment A – Cost Proposal. The cost proposal requests a fixed dollar amount for fee. Please describe how the fee related to the Early Work package and or Design Confirmation/Implementation components will be applied to those portions of work.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 30

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Spec 43 23 57 calls out Buna or a Nitrile stator. If the polymer is diluted to 0.5% and is not Neat this would acceptable material. Is Viton/ FKM elastomer stators acceptable.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 32

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Reference IV. Proposal Requirements, 1. General. It is noted the proposal must be formatted for 8.5"x11" paper. Can 11"x17" paper be used on a limited basis to present graphical information? If so, how many 11x17s will be permitted? Will they count as one or two pages towards the page count?

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 34

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Please confirm the Contractor is not responsible for the furnish of any chemicals for initial fill, startup, and testing consumption.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 36

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: Please provide the location of the primary clarifier effluent channel called out on drawing C-004 note 4. Is this a bypass operation the contractor will need to provide? If so what is the flow and duration for this?

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 38

Posted: 4/7/2023

Question: What are the current sludge and chemical truck routings on and off the plant?

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 40

Posted: 4/13/2023

Question: The "1951 plant expansion - SSTs, digester" drawing set issued with the RFP is illegible. Please provide this set of drawings in a readable format, possibly photographed or using a different scanning method.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 42

Posted: 4/13/2023

Question: Reference Contract Terms and Conditions, Section 23 – Failure to Deliver. There is no cure period noted in the Failure to Deliver section, industry standard. For a collaborative delivery project such as this, it is standard to include a cure period similar to those time periods described in Section 24. Please update Section 23.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 44

Posted: 4/13/2023

Question: Reference Contract Terms and Conditions, Section 26 - Termination for Cause. The terms “satisfactory” and “unsatisfactory” are utilized but are not defined in the contract terms and conditions. We suggest the Termination for Cause section include “material breach”, an industry standard term, in place of the satisfactory and unsatisfactory terms currently used.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 46

Posted: 4/13/2023

Question: Reference Contract Terms and Conditions, Section 27 - Indemnification. The indemnification language as written is overly broad and puts an unreasonable amount of risk on the Design-Builder. “Arising out of or in any way connected with the Contractors acts or omissions” are actions that are beyond the control of the Design Builder. We request the indemnification language be modified to similar EJCDC or DBIA indemnification language.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 48

Posted: 4/13/2023

Question: Reference Contract Terms and Conditions Section 44 – Dispute Resolution. The paragraph includes the statement “all claims…must be submitted to the Project Officer as soon as the basis for the claim arises.” As some potential claims may take an amount of time greater than 15 days to prepare and understand the entire scope of the claim we request similar language that would include “notification of potential claims within 7 days - final time and price impacts provided as soon as the basis for the claim is completed.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 50

Posted: 4/13/2023

Question: Reference E-5 Hazardous Waste. The specification references Contractor as “waste generator” and county and Contractor as “co-generators”. A Contractor cannot accept either of these terms for wastes that they have neither created nor uncovered as existing on the County’s site. We can perform abatement coordinated with the project documents but the County (Owner of the Existing Waste Condition) must accept “Waste Generator” status. Please revise section.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 52

Posted: 4/13/2023

Question: Reference G.7 – Damages for Delay; Extension of Time Other than for Weather. The Contractor can get time and money for delays by County and its agents but only if the delay is “unreasonable.” The term “unreasonable” is not defined and this section as written is close to a no damage for delay. We suggest removing the term “unreasonable” delay and include similar language as EJCDC documents as they relate to Damage for Delay.

Response: Please see Addendum 2 for the response.

Question 54

Posted: 4/19/2023

Question: The boring location map in B2C. 22230023.00 - WPCP SOE Exploration GDR, page 15, Figure A1, shows the anticipated SOE needed for the Bio-Solids Upgrade project. The report, section 1.0 list the length of SOE at 150-LF but Figure A1 shows SOE at approximately 209-LF. It is anticipated that a single SOE install, such as shown, would encompass both the demolition work for the existing Biological Solids Processing Building and the new work for the Main Project. Please confirm if that is the intent of Figure A1.

Response: Please see Addendum 3 for the response.

Question 56

Posted: 4/19/2023

Question: Reference Contract Terms and Conditions, Section 30 – Copyright. The transfer of copyright to the County would provide the County broad rights to re-use copyrightable works. We request the addition of language clarifying that use without the Design-Builder’s involvement on other projects or for completion, extension or expansion of the project be at the sole risk of the County.

Response: Please see Addendum 3 for the response.

Question 58

Posted: 4/19/2023

Question: The General Conditions are not specifically tailored for design-build and do not distinguish design subcontractors from construction subcontractors. Additional compensation provisions restricting subcontractor overhead and profit to 15% should not include design subcontractors, whose overhead and profit differs from construction contractors given the differing nature of the services. We request a special provision allowing for design team negotiated hourly rates be applied for additional compensation requests for the design and other professional subcontractors. See G(4)(e), G(5) and G(7)(b).

Response: Please see Addendum 3 for the response.

Question 60

Posted: 4/24/2023

Question: Early work demolition will require a significant amount of truck traffic to enter the plant. Does the Owner have a preference on whether traffic enters from South Fern Street or South Eade Street? It appears that the entrance gate coming off South Eade Street (which is closer to the work) is un-manned. Is the contractor required to provide a security guard and/or a guard shack at this gate if it is to be utilized during normal working hours?

Response: Please see Addendum 3 for the response.

Question 62

Posted: 4/24/2023

Question: Please confirm that the limits of insurance for general liability, auto liability and employer’s liability can be achieved through a combination of primary and excess insurance policies.

Response: Please see Addendum 3 for the response.

Question 64

Posted: 4/24/2023

Question: The RFP Article 56 Insurance, Payment and Performance Bonds states “in the event the Contractor is insured with limits in excess of those specified in the Exhibit H, the Contractor’s said obligation shall extend up to but not exceed the limits of the insurance.” Please delete this requirement. Design-Builder is pricing the project based on the limits required in the RFP and not based on higher limits it may maintain in its corporate insurance program. This requirement could add significant cost to the project for Design-Builder to price to its corporate limits.

Response: Please see Addendum 3 for the response.

Question 66

Posted: 4/24/2023

Question: Section VII.10. Insurance Requirements states that contractual liability must be evidenced on the certificate of insurance with separate limits of $2M occurrence / $5M aggregate. Current insurance policies do not contain a separate limit for contractual liability, it is included within the general policy limits. Please confirm this meets the requirement as long as policy limits of $2M occurrence / $5M aggregate are evidenced.

Response: Please see Addendum 3 for the response.