MODIFICATION
B -- Colombia - Port of Salgar Terminal Rehabilitation Feasibility Study
- Notice Date
- 5/13/2009
- Notice Type
- Modification
- NAICS
- 541690
— Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
- Contracting Office
- 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1600, C/O US TDA 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1600 Arlington VA 22209-3901
- ZIP Code
- 22209-3901
- Solicitation Number
- 200951015A
- Response Due
- 6/1/2009
- Point of Contact
- John Kusnierek, Phone (703) 875-4357
- E-Mail Address
-
jkusnierek@ustda.gov
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- QUESTION 1 “Deliverable #1: ….The report shall provide a written description and overall drawings of each structure. Deteriorated areas shall be indicated on plans, elevations, and sectional drawings. The report shall include at least two alternative repair solutions…" It appears that there are at least 5 structures on the site and maybe more. Just producing plans for these structures is and major undertaking since there is no guarantee that the original drawings discussed in 1.1 are accurate, reflect modifications, or exist for each structure yet the contractor will be held responsible for turning in accurate plans for each structure. Without a full engineering analysis of each structure including core samples for structural members above/below grade and above/below the water level the production of detailed sectional drawings of deterioration and detailed repair options is not feasible considering the labor hours for the engineers estimated in the DM. Repair solution can only be based on what we can observe, for example if a below grade foundation member that we could not observe was deteriorated this could be a factor in repairs made to structural members we could observe if the repair work would shift dead or live loads during the work. If accurate plans exist for all structures and will be provided to the contractor we could provide a report indicating where damage was observed and keyed those observations to the drawings. Repair options could be discussed in some detail but could not be guaranteed to be sound since they were based on only what could be observed. ANSWER 1 The TOR is for a Feasibility Study, not a pre-engineering or engineering study. Deliverable #1 for the structures can be accomplished by looking at the structures. The main purpose is to determine whether these structures have any practical use in the planned development. If so, then any improvements or rehabilitation are to be presented as concepts with general cost estimates. QUESTION 2 “3.1.1 A survey of existing tugs and barges operating on the Rio Magdalena indicating the size, draft age of the tugs, and the size, capacity, draft, and age of the barges” A survey conveys a visual observance of these vessels which would be very labor intensive and those hours are included in the DM original cost estimates. Is it the intent of the RFP to have the contractor review existing registration/documentation documents maintained by the Government of Colombia for this task or is an actual survey to take place? If it is a document review will the Government grant the contractor permission to review its files? Lastly, if it is a document review, do the documentscontain information on the vessel size, capacity, draft, age, horsepower or KW, and equipment such as radios, navigation lighting, and depth sounders? ANSWER 2 The tug and barge survey should present an overall picture of what is currently available, not a detail listing of registrations, etc. The purpose is to determine if the tugs and barges there could service the proposed facility and how that would affect cost. QUESTION 3 “4.2 develop at least 3 alternative arrangements of the terminal… The alternatives shall consider, as a minimum, the following aspects: …4.2.4 Improvements or modifications to storage, administration, and other structures and supporting utilities. 4.2.5 Improvements to the internal roads of the Port and connections with the road from Bogota to Puerto Salgar…Deliverable #4: The contractor shall prepare a report derailing each alternative including background materials, drawings, illustrations, cost estimates, and descriptive analysis and recommendations... It is reasonable to produce conceptual drawings and provide rough cost estimates (ROM) for each concept. If we are providing engineering drawings for road improvements, new structures, and utility upgrades the cost of each will far exceed the estimated total project cost. ANSWER 3 Conceptual drawings and cost estimates of the terminal alternatives are meant to present different approaches to developing the property to determine the most likely route for development. QUESTION 4 “6.2.1 Prepare an outline of the required licensing procedures and preliminary assessment of the terminal’s impact and appropriate mitigating measures to take. Will a separate assessment be required for each alternative arrangement? ANSWER 4 Yes. As far as the supporting infrastructure is concerned this is a preliminary assessment with an outline of what may have to be implemented and a separate assessment is required for each alternative arrangement. NOTE: THIS NOTICE WAS NOT POSTED TO FEDBIZOPPS ON THE DATE INDICATED IN THE NOTICE ITSELF (13-MAY-2009); HOWEVER, IT DID APPEAR IN THE FEDBIZOPPS FTP FEED ON THIS DATE. PLEASE CONTACT 877-472-3779 or fbo.support@gsa.gov REGARDING THIS ISSUE.
- Web Link
-
Link To Document
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/TDA/TDA1/TDA1/200951015A /listing.html)
- Record
- SN01816213-F 20090515/090513233050 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |