Amend_0002_Buzzard_Point_Q___A_-_Gov_t_Responses_0002.pdf

To be completed by Firm To be completed by Government

Qu esti on # Document

Section or Paragraph #

Page Number Question Answer

Change to

RFP

Documents (Yes / No)

1 Attachment A XII. B 35 Is a tree survey availabile? If not, is there an expectation for the design team to produce a tree survey.

Survey added to SOW. Yes

2 Attachment E S2 2 What are the extents of DDOT managed Right of Way for the parcel north of V Street NW?

Survey added to SOW. Yes

3 Attachment F Chapter 4 35 Please confirm that no additional archeological investigations are required on site per Section 106 coordination completed in 2018.

No additional archeological investigations are required.

No

4 Attachment F Chapter 4 35 Are there historic resources on site and if so, what are they? See Environmental Assessment (Attachment F) No

5 Attachment F Chapter 2 13 The 2019 EA for Buzzard Point did not analyze any living shoreline elements in the alternatives. Would such an analysis be included in the NEPA memo described in the scope?

Yes No

6 SOL 5.1 42 Can we include team members for consideration in addition to the key personnel listed?

Yes. No

7 Attachment F Chapter 4 35 The 2019 EA for Buzzard Point did not complete consultation with the DC SHPO on the status of the Anacostia Seawall and its inclusion in the park. What is the status of this consultation, and are any NHPA compliance activities included in this scope?

This design effort will inform further NPS consultation with DC SHPO.

No

8 Site Visit N/A N/A There appeared to be construction in the river in front of the park with orange construction fencing and white PVC piping. What is the nature of this activity and should anything be considered for the park design for program elements that may go in the water?

Anacostia Watershed Society (AWS) has a permit to conduct freshwater mussel restoration in Buzzard Point Park lands. Location of structure not set, could be moved to another location within Buzzard Point Park.

No

9 Attachment E S5-S12 12-May Are there any legal temporary or permanent encumbrances within the water that need to be considered since design elements in the 30 percent drawings go over the water?

Examples may include aquaculture leases for fish, habitat, sav’s, shellfish etc.

Anacostia Watershed Society (AWS) permit with NPS, location of structure not set, could be moved to another location within Buzzard Point Park.

No

10 N/A N/A N/A Are there any existing permits along the water? AWS permit No 11 SOL 4.2 38 Section 4.2.a. on Page 38 states "In accordance with FAR

36.601-4(b), the AE firm must be a registered/licensed architectural and/or engineering firm to be eligible for award. Provide proof that firm is permitted by law to practice the professions of architecture/landscape architecture or engineering, (e.g. state registration number, or a brief explanation of the firm’s licensing in jurisdictions that do not register firms). Failure to submit the required proof could result in a firm’s elimination from consideration." Please confirm that the third bullet under 4.4 includes licensed Landscape Architects (not solely engineering) to match the statement above and align with the NAICS code identified for this project.

Yes, the firm must provide proof that firm is permitted by law to practice the professions of architecture, landscape architecture or engineering, (e.g. state registration number, or a brief explanation of the firm’s licensing in jurisdictions that do not register firms).

Yes

12 Attachment E S2 2 Will a signed/sealed, survey by a Registered DC Surveyor be provided? (The Survey provided in the RFP was not signed/sealed.)

Survey added to SOW. Yes

13 Attachment E S2 2 Will a Survey to Mark be provided? Has a boundary survey been submitted to the DCSO for review and approval under the Survey to Mark process and then recorded?

Survey added to SOW. Yes

14 N/A N/A N/A How far from the Matthew Henson Earth Conservation Center building do we need to be set back for any site improvements?

NPS boundary is at building edge. No

15 SOW The Environmental Report states that there is interpretive signage and wayfinding proposed throughout the site;

however, the SOW document doesn't note this as a deliverable. Is a wayfinding and environmental graphics consultant needed?

SOW updated. Yes

Project Title: Rehabilitate Buzzard Point Park Solicitation Number: 140D0426R0027

Qu esti on # Document

Section or Paragraph #

Page Number Question Answer

Change to

RFP

Documents (Yes / No)

16 SOW E-3 8 Please confirm that per the SOW document on page 8, Section E - 2 that the living shoreline portion of the project is limited to the assessment and recommendation and that the design, engineering and documentation of a living shoreline is not included in the base scope?

Living Shoreline design, engineering, and preparation of construction documents is included in the base scope.

No

17 SOW E-3 8 Please confirm that per the SOW document on page 8, Section E - 3 that the restroom portion of the project is limited to the assessment and recommendation and that the design, engineering and documentation of a restroom is not included in the base scope?

Design, engineering, and preparation of construction documents for restroom are included in base scope.

No

18 If the restroom building is limited to and assessment / study on the feasibility of implementing a restroom does the project team need to provide a fire protection engineer as part of these base services?

Fire Protection Engineer is not required. Yes

19 SOW and Environmental Report

Per the environmental report, the site was subjected to an industrial past and therefore could have environmental contaminants that need remediated. The SOW document doesn't list a task for a Phase 2 Environmental Assessment and action plan that would be needed to sample site soil and determine if it is suitable for future park use. Will NPS be responsible for procuring a Phase 2 Site Assessments and associated reports or are those reports to be completed by the A/E team as part of the base scope of services?

SOW updated. Yes

20 Are any site security cameras needed and if so is a security consultant needed or will the A/E team work directly with NPS and their security consultant on placement of cameras?

No Cameras No

21 Is any site audio/visual equipment envisioned for the project and if so is an A/V consultant needed?

No A/V. No

22 Does the landscape need to be irrigated? If so is an irrigation consultant needed or will irrigation be delegated to the construction contractor?

Design should include hydrants in key locations, but no irrigation lines.

No

23 Solicitation Do we need to use the PDF SF 330 forms in your link for our SF 330 Part I and II or can we use them in Word or InDesign if all the information is exactly like the forms from 7/2021 and you require a digital signature or would you accept an electronic signature (jpg)?

Firms can use SF 330s in Word or InDesign. An electronic, wet, or digital signature from an authorized individual is acceptable.

No

24 Solicitation Do you want Part II forms for all subconsultants for just the prime?

Prepare a separate Part II for each firm that will be part of the team proposed for a specific contract.

No

25 Does the boundary survey include topographic survey and utilities survey?

Yes, topographic survey and utilites survey will be provided upon contract award.

No

26 Is any utility designation needed? Utility designation will be required for any subsurface work as identified in the Scope of Work.

No

27 Confirm existing surveys will be provided in CAD format. Confirmed No

28 Confirm that the existing survey files being furnished are accurate and that these surveys do not need to be updated.

New site survey will be included in SOW. Yes

29 Is there a bid form that needs to be completed? No, Reference Part 5 - Basis for Award/Evaluation of the solicitation. Pricing will only be required from the most well qualified firm.

No

30 Is a detailed breakdown of costs and hours needed? No, Reference Part 5 - Basis for Award/Evaluation of the solicitation.

No

31 Are we allowed to have a reimbursable line item for permits and other fees? Or do those fees need to be baked into our hourly rates?

Reference Part 5 - Basis for Award/Evaluation of the solicitation.

No on # Document

Section or Paragraph #

Page Number Question Answer

Change to

RFP

Documents (Yes / No)

32 Attachment D Attachment D asks that we handle RFI's submittals and other modifications as part of the Construction Phase services; however, the Scope of Work tasks do not list a task for construction phase services. Please advise if a fee for construction phase services is needed and if so should it be listed as Task 24?

Attachment D is a table of potential items and if they are included in the Statutory Fee. It is not part of the SOW.

No

33 There are numerous overhead power lines around the site from the adjacent Pepco facility. Is it intended that this project will look to resolve this issue, relocating or undergrounding this infrastructure to provide for an improved aesthetic and user experience. Or are these utilities being dealt with under a separate project/budget?

Overhead electrical utilities in the vicinity of the site are owned and operated by Pepco and are not part of the current contract scope. No determination has been made regarding relocation or undergrounding.

Any such work would require coordination with Pepco. The AE should proceed assuming utilities remain in place and develop the design to function with or without the overhead lines/poles.

No

34 Does DDOT have plans for this stretch of street for improved circulation and safety, or are those improvements placed upon the park project? Has DDOT been contacted and coordinated with to date?

Improvements related to circulation and safety on the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail (ART) are placed on this (the park) project. DDOT has been and will continue to be an involved partner.

No

35 Due to the complex nature of this project, will an extension of the proposal submittal date be considered?

Yes, the closing date will be extended. Yes

36 The site contains a large amount of existing trees in varying stages of health? It is the desire of the NPS to preserve as many trees as possible or is a higher priority placed on the correct design, and new landscape over that preservation?

Priority placed on correct design and new landscape, NPS is open to any opportunity to save mature native specimen trees in good health if the opportunity arises.

No

37 Is the small gravel lot at the north side of the site to remain in some configuration to allow for parking? And if so does it need be controlled parking?

Parking to match existing number of spaces at Matthew Henson Center to be incorporated into the new design. Could be parralel parking along Half St.

SW in place of a formal lot.

No

38 The RFP indicates that the project is anticipated to be more than $10 million dollars. Should it be assumed that $10 million is the minimum budget and if so what is that anticipated maximum budget to keep the project viable?

Yes, the construction range is amticipated to be between $10-20M.

No

39 Based upon the condition of the Matthew Henson Center, it is assumed that a stand alone comfort station will likely be feasible, should that be the assumption moving forward?

AE should evalutate a freestanding comfort station, or not having a comfort station at the site.

No

40 Is it desired that the entire shoreline of the park be a living shoreline, or is there a desire to save/restore any of the existing bulkhead to provide water access from the southern tip of the park?

NPS would like to pursue a living shoreline for the majority of the park, but also want to provide public water access and overlook. We anticipate the final design solution will be a hybrid approach that balances public access with environmental requirements and engineering realities. We do not anticipate restoring the exisiting concrete bulkhead.

No

41 Will the park remain under NPS's control after the design, or will it be transferred to the city or other private organization?

Site will remain under NPS ownership. No

42 Will NPS assisting with collaboration and engagement of stakeholders for any public meetings, or will NPS be looking fully to the team to coordinate, organize and engage for these events?

NPS will be involved and represented at all stakeholder and public meetings. NPS will start meeting, then turnover to AE. NPS is looking for the AE to do the bulk of presentation preparation, scheduling/coordination, presenting and answering questions. NPS will be available to respond to any questions beyond the design scope.

on # Document

Section or Paragraph #

Page Number Question Answer

Change to

RFP

Documents (Yes / No)

43 11 What are the intended responsibilities of the "Visualization and Graphics Lead" key personnel? And what are the qualification requirements?

The Visualization and Graphics Lead is responsible for coordinating and producing high-quality renderings and graphic materials to clearly communicate design intent, site conditions, and project benefits to a range of stakeholders.

Visualizations are a critical component of this project and must be developed to a professional standard suitable for broad stakeholder engagement.

The individual shall have demonstrated experience preparing visualizations for comparable landscape or site projects and be proficient in industry-standard graphic software.

No

44 11 What are the intended responsibilities of the "Certified Value Specialist" key personnel? And what are the qualification requirements?

The Scope of Work requires the AE to retain the services of a neutral, certified Value Methodology facilitator/specialist to plan and conduct the Value Methodology workshops identified. The SOW does not prescribe a specific certification, credentialing body, or minimum years of experience. However, the facilitator is expected to have demonstrated experience facilitating multidisciplinary Value Methodology workshops for projects of similar scope and complexity, including public-sector or comparable projects, and to support preparation of complete Value Methodology reports suitable for project decision-making.

No

45 SOL_140D0426R00

27_Buzzard_Point.p df

1.3 Contract In1 Do self-certified small businesses registered within SAM.gov qualify to prime this contract? Please confirm that no additional certifications (8(a), WOSB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HubZone are required in order to prime this contract.

Yes. No

46 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

III.A 2 Document states that redesign services shall be provided at no increase in the price of the contract proposals for the construction contract are received that exceed the estimate price unless the unfavorable proposals are the result of conditions beyond its reasonable control.

What would some of these conditions beyond reasonable control be?

Reference FAR 52.236-22; things you could not have known or anticipated during the design.

No

47 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

III.C 2 Document states that the total construction cost is ‘more than $10 million.’

Please provide a 'design-to' total construction cost

The construction range is amticipated to be between $10-20M.

No

48 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

IV.C.3. 3 Was this initial 30% SD package already presented and to whom?

30% SD package is for reference only, NPS is looking for new/fresh design not a repackaging of the initial 30% SD effort.

No

49 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

IV.C.3. 3 Were specific elements identified after the submission of the initial 30% SD Documents that are required to be utilized in the furtherance of the design?

Living Shoreline No

50 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

IV.C.3. 3 Were specific programming requirements identified, have all of these program requirements been incorporated into the 30% SD Documents?

Programming requirements are largely unchanged from initial 30% SD effort, but should be revisited as part of this new design effort.

No

51 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

IV.C.6. 3 Were these comments and recommendations based on the 30% SD package and may we have a copy of these comments and recommendations?

30% SD package is for reference only, NPS is looking for new/fresh design not a repackaging of the initial 30% SD effort.

No

52 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

IV.C.8. 3 Are these public outreach boards, handouts and public outreach documents meant to be included in the AE design fee or are these budgeted separately? Unclear what line item this is in Attachment D

Attachment D is a table of potential items and if they are included in the Statutory Fee. It is not part of the SOW or individual line item. All work and deliverables identified in the SOW including publich outreach deliverables are base work.

No

53 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

V.B. 3 Public meetings and comments were mentioned as the basis for the 30% SD documents. Will we have access to the initial comments that helped produce the 30% SD documents?

Public comment and responses included in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?docume ntID=101136 on # Document

Section or Paragraph #

Page Number Question Answer

Change to

RFP

Documents (Yes / No)

54 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

VIII.E.1. 8 Please confirm our understanding that the existing 30% Schematic Design (SD) drawing set is to be used as a ‘basis of design’ reference only and that the AE will be responsible for re-running the Schematic Design phase from the beginning with submissions for review at 20%, 30%, 70% and 100%.

The existing 30% Schematic Design (SD) documents may be used for background reference only (e.g., program and existing conditions). They shall not be used as a basis for design or be advanced as part of the current effort.The AE shall re-initiate the Schematic Design phase and develop an independent original design approach, with submissions as identified in the SOW.

No

55 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

VIII.U 21 This section mentions community concerns about lighting.

Will a record of these concerns that were identified be furnished?

Public comment and responses included in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?docume ntID=101136

No

56 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

VIII.V. 21 Please confirm our understanding that this demolition plan work will be under a separate contract.

Demolition plans for interim and final design are part of base work.

No

57 Attachment_E_- _Buzzard_Point_30_ _Plans_11-20-2018

N/A N/A Do the specific programmed spaces shown in these 30% SD options constitute the required program for the park redesign identified by previous public comments?

- Overlook Deck

- Interpretive Station and Signage

- Open Lawn

- Terraced Viewing Area

- Multi-use Trail

- Multipurpose Display/Event Space

- Trail Rest Area

- Overlook Deck with View to US Capital

- Themed Playground Space

- River Access

- Parking (10 Spaces)

- Restrooms

Critical programmatic elements include Anacostia Riverwalk Trail (ART) connection; living shoreline;

and public acces or engagement with the water.

Programmed spaces shown in the 30% set extrapolate upon these basics. They provide a useful framework but do not need to be followed exactly.

No

58 SOW VII. Scope of Services

7 What is the scope of services for the Matthew Hensen Facility – will it be renovated as part of the park design or as part of a separate project?

Matthew Hensen Facility is not part of the design scope.

No

59 SOW IVC7 3 Will the contractor be responsible for developing stakeholder list, securing meeting facilities, sending notifications, eblasts and newsletters, or will NPS staff manage this?

NPS will secure meeting facilities, AE responsible for other tasks listed. NPS will provide initial stakeholder list to be updated throughout the project as required by the contractor. A/E responsible for developing materials, NPS will be responsible for sending notifications, eblasts, and newsletters.

Yes

60 SOW VII. Scope of Services

7 Has NPS finalized any agreements with DDOT for the property transfers for Half St, V St, First St, and/or Water St going through the site? (Scope question for surveys and plats)

No, transfer of Half Street to DDOT and closure of paper streets are underway

No

61 SOL 1.28 Key Personnel

9 Should a key personnel role for WR Lead Engineer (SWM, ESC, and drainage) be included or is this included as part of the civil engineer role?

This is part of the Civil Engineer Role No

62 SOL_140D0426R00

4.1.3 37 Will NPS consider pushing 4/3 due date to allow more prep time?

Yes, the closing date will be extended. Yes

63 SOW_AE_Buzzard_ Point

V. 3 Were any historic studies prepared, cultural landscape reports?

No No

64 SOW_AE_Buzzard_ Point

VIII.C. 7 Are historic studies / cultural landscape report required? Historic Studies/Cultural Landscape Report are not required.

No

65 SOW_AE_Buzzard_ Point

III.C. 2 SOW states project budget is more than $10m, how much more?

The construction range is amticipated to be between $10-20M.

No

66 SOW_AE_Buzzard_ Point

III.C. 2 Does budget number include soft costs including NPS soft costs?

Budget number is excluding NPS soft costs which are tracked separately.

No

67 Attachement A XII 36 With an open-ended construction budget threshold ("more than $10 million") and mandatory redesign langues; can attachment K – Class C Construction Cost Estimate be provided due to the redesign risks.

When the price solicitation is issued and final award is made a specifc amount will be included in that clause. The construction range is amticipated to be between $10-20M.

on # Document

Section or Paragraph #

Page Number Question Answer

Change to

RFP

Documents (Yes / No)

68 Attachement A III 2 The SOW says the AE must design within funding and redesign at no additional fee if bids exceed the budget, unless the overage is beyond the AE’s reasonable control.

How will NPS determine whether unfavorable bids are “beyond the AE’s reasonable control,” and is there a formal process for relief if market conditions materially change?

Yes, there is case law that defines circumstances that meet that criteria.

No

69 Attachement A III 2 The estimated construction contract price is stated only as “more than $10 million.” Can NPS provide the current working construction budget or target construction value to be used for estimating fee, cost control, and redesign risk?

The construction range is amticipated to be between $10-20M.

No

70 Attachement A VIII.E 8 The AE is told to use the prior 30% schematic design and Environmental Assessment as the basis of design, but also told not to use the prior 30% drawings “as-is.” Can NPS clarify which portions of the prior work can be relied upon and which must be fully revalidated or recreated?

Basic programming is applicable, all other design shall be new.

No

71 Attachement A VIII.E 8 Will NPS provide editable CAD/GIS/Revit files for the prior 30% SD, boundary survey, soundings, and site survey, or only PDF/reference copies?

CAD files available for Survey only, will be provided upon award.

No

72 Attachement A VIII.E 8 Can the AE rely on the prior Environmental Assessment and its findings, or is the AE expected to update/refresh technical assumptions if conditions have changed since that effort?

Existing Environmental Assessment and its findings are applicable to this effort, even with anticipated updates to design. Any changes will be addressed through a memo to file.

No

73 Attachement F ISSUES

AND

IMPACT

TOPICS

RETAINED

FOR

DETAILED

ANALYSIS

12 Are hazardous materials investigations & contamination screening, required as part of site assessment, or should the AE assume existing reports are sufficient unless specifically directed otherwise? The scope references historic preservation, geotechnical work, and environmental compliance, but the hazardous materials responsibility is not clearly scoped for the AE. In Attachedment F page 12 states: "Hazardous material releases from adjacent sites may have leached into the Park’s subsurface soils. The Park is in a once industrialized area of Washington DC. Several adjacent properties to the Park have stored hazardous materials in above-ground and underground storage tanks, or manage permits for the temporary collection of hazardous materials.

Many sites at a higher elevation than the Park have experienced spills or other accidental/unauthorized releases of such materials over time. Some of the hazardous materials and hazardous waste products may have migrated to the Park. Such substances can pose a human health risk to site workers during construction if workers are exposed to contaminated soils, groundwater, or toxic vapors. Likewise, general fluctuations in subsurface water levels as well as other factors, e.g., heavy rainfall, can also cause contaminants to migrate and result in human exposures.":

Hazmat Survey added to SOW. Yes

74 Attachement F ISSUES

AND

IMPACT

TOPICS

RETAINED

FOR

DETAILED

ANALYSIS

10 SAV impacts appear to be a concern for the project, is a SAV survey, neeeded?

No No

75 Attachement A IX.I 23 For the DC-specific utility/fire main permit language in Section IX.I, is that paragraph actually applicable to this project, or is it boilerplate? If applicable, which utility/fire main improvements are currently anticipated at Buzzard Point Park?

No anticipated fire main work at Buzzard Point Park. Fire main language to be removed.

Yes

76 Attachement A VIII.I 11 Who is responsible for securing venues, paying venue costs, arranging AV, and managing event registration for the two public engagement meetings and two half-day stakeholder workshops? The SOW says the AE develops and facilitates materials, but venue/payment responsibility is not clearly stated.

National Park Service is responsible for venues & arranging audio/visual.

on # Document

Section or Paragraph #

Page Number Question Answer

Change to

RFP

Documents (Yes / No)

77 Attachement A VIII.I 11 Are there any translation . Interpretation sercives needed for public meetings? If so will their fees be the responsibility of the AE?

Not Required. No

78 Attachement A VIII.I 11 Is the AE responsible for mailing lists, direct mail distribution costs, printing, and physical poster board production/delivery, or only preparing digital files/materials? The SOW requires posters, notices, direct email marketing, and graphic materials, but does not clearly allocate production/distribution costs.

AE is responsible for physical poster board production/delivery, and preparing digital files/materials.

Yes

79 Attachement A VIII.I 11 For PEPC website management, what exact permissions and responsibilities will the AE have? Will NPS create the PEPC site and workflow, with AE only uploading materials/comments, or is the AE expected to administer the full public comment setup?

NPS would administer PEPC site, upload and publish any public facing materials and communications. AE would have access to view and code public comments.

No

80 Attachement A VIII.I 11 The SOW references one public commenting meeting in “different venues in the local community or in a virtual environment.” Does NPS expect one meeting total per round, or potentially multiple venues for each round? That materially affects level of effort.

Revised to identify one two-hour public comment meeting

Yes

81 Attachement A VIII 9 Task 6, NEPA / NHPA The SOW says the AE shall identify submission requirements, prepare materials, and present to CFA and NCPC, while NPS will review materials and complete the formal submissions. Can NPS confirm that the AE is not the formal filer/applicant.

NPS is the formal applicant and will complete the submissions. The A/E will prepare the 508 compliant submission materials and be available for questions. For CFA present, if a presentation is required.

No

82 Attachement A VIII 9 For NHPA Section 106 and NEPA support, is the AE only preparing technical memos/letters and supporting materials, while NPS remains the lead agency and official signatory?

NPS will remain the lead agency and official signatory.

No

83 Attachement A VIII 9 The SOW specifically calls for an AE “NEPA memo to file for the living shoreline.” Is this the full extent of additional NEPA work anticipated for the living shoreline analysis, or should the AE expect broader NEPA technical support if the preferred concept changes materially?

This is anticipated to be the full extent of additional NEPA work.

No

84 Attachement A VIII 9 The SOW requires two separate two-day value methodology workshops with a neutral certified facilitator, plus reports at 90% and 100% for each phase. Is the AE responsible for procuring and paying that outside facilitator and carrying all workshop costs in fee?

AE is responsible for procuring and paying outside facilitator, NPS will provide the space for value methodology meeting and provide A/V.

No

85 Attachement A VII 21 Task Twenty-Two requires the AE to prepare a separate demolition plan and interim site improvements package concurrent with the larger design effort. Is this meant to be a fully separate early bid package, or simply an alternate/additional package within the overall project?

Fully separate early bid package. No

86 Attachement A VII 21 If it is a separate early package, who is responsible for the permitting, bidding support, and construction phase services for that interim package? The scope suggests design is included, but implementation responsibilities are not fully defined.

Permitting tied to interim design is responsibility of AE, construction permitting, bidding support, and construction phase services are not included.

No

87 Attachement A VII 21 Should the AE assume the interim path, lighting, reseeding, and demolition are temporary-only and later removed/reworked under the final construction, or should they be designed to remain as part of final build-out?

Interim improvements are anticipated to be temporary and would be re-worked under the future final construction.

on # Document

Section or Paragraph #

Page Number Question Answer

Change to

RFP

Documents (Yes / No)

88 Attachement A VII 21 This SOW is labeled Title I & II AE Services, but the excerpt is much more detailed on design than on bidding or construction administration. Is bidding support included? Is submittal review, RFI response, and site visits during construction included in this scope, or will those be separately authorized later?

Bidding support, submittal review, RFI response, and site visits during construction are not part of this scope.

No

89 Attachement A VII 15 The SOW references identifying actions required by the Engineer of Record to approve/stamp as-builts for permit closeout at the end of construction. Is the AE expected to perform those future closeout services under this contract, or merely identify them?

Section VIII requires the AE to perform permit planning, including obtaining design-phase permits and identifying permits and EOR actions required for construction and post-construction closeout. The AE is not responsible for performing construction-phase or post-construction services (e.g., as-built review or stamping). These services will be addressed under a future contract.

No

90 Attachment D N/A Attachment D indicates that all studies investigations and surveys are to be excluded. However, Attachment A indicates that a Geotechnical survey is required. Please advise which is correct.

Attachment D is a table of potential items and if they are included in the Statutory Fee. It is not part of the SOW.

No

91 Attachment D N/A Attachment D indicates that value engineering, and presentation and rendering materials are to be excluded for both the concept and design developmetn phases. However, Attachment A indicates that presentations and related material and value engineering are required. Please advise which is correct.

Attachment D is a table of potential items and if they are included in the Statutory Fee. Attachment D is not part of the SOW (Attachment A).

No

92 Attachment F N/A 8 Overhead powerlines - have previous assessements considered the option for undergrounding or moving the locations of the overhead power lines and poles, and is this considered within the scope of the project?

Design should explore placing overhead power lines and poles underground, but design should be able to exist with or without the removal of the above ground power lines and poles.

Yes

93 General N/A Should we account for permitting requirements from USACE for shoreline modifications.

Yes No

94 General N/A If the existing PEPCO building is not going to be used for the restroom/comfort station, will it remain as is? Is there a plan for future demolition?

PEPCO building is not part of scope for this project. Yes

95 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

Section VIII. S18-19 Is a DCRA permit required for drilling on NPS land? The RFP indicates yes, but then some of the suggested procedures in the RFP conflict with DCRA permit requirements.

DCRA permit may be required. Yes

96 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

Section VIII. S18-19 If a DCRA permit is needed, boreholes are required to be tremie grouted, and typically excess spoils are required to be drummed. The RFP indicates that spoils can be used to backfill the holes and then spread at the site. Please confirm the approach.

DCRA permit may be required. Yes

97 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

Section VIII. S18-19 For SWM borings we typically drill a boring with SPT sampling at each location to collect soil samples for the required lab testing, and then perform the infiltration test in an auger probe to the specified depth. Is this the expected approach?

The approach described is consistent with the Scope of Work. Soil borings shall include Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling for subsurface characterization, and infiltration testing shall be performed in separate auger probe locations to the specified depth. Infiltration testing is not anticipated to be conducted within SPT borings.

No

98 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

VIII.E.2 8 Assume the Living shoreline evaluation would replace the hardened shoreline in 30% design Option 1 and Option 2 from the 30% design is unchanged?

Living shoreline would replace hardened shoreline and be incorporated into all future 30% SD plans.

No

99 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

C 7 Is a Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) require to be performed under the scope fo work or has a survey already been completed for Buzzarrd Point Park?

SAV survey has not been completed for Buzzard Point Park. Including as Option.

Yes

100 General N/A Do "climate change and natural hazards" need to be assessed as part of this work?

No No on # Document

Section or Paragraph #

Page Number Question Answer

Change to

RFP

Documents (Yes / No)

101 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

N/A Hydrologic Studies - wave and currents are needed for developing loads on structures. Water level analysis and wave overtopping is needed to confirm site elevations relative to potential storm damage and coastal flooding. Are these to be included as supplemental services?

Yes Yes

102 SOL_140D0426R00

27_Buzzard_Point

Part 1 – Gener11 Is a "Coastal Engineer" as Key Personnel requested? Yes Yes

103 SOL_140D0426R00

27_Buzzard_Point

Part 1 – Gener11 Can you confirm that a Fire Protection Engineer is necessary for the project?

Fire Protection Engineer is not required. Yes

104 SOL_140D0426R00

27_Buzzard_Point

4.3 Submissio39 The first paragraph on this page makes reference to a "labor category/rate tables" but this item is not listed anywhere else in the SOL. Can you confirm that a rates table is not required as part of this submission?

That is just a list of items that are excluded from the page limit; not a list of required items. Removed reference to rate because no pricing information is being requested at this time.

Yes

105 Attachment_A_- _SOW_AE_Buzzard _Point_1-06-26

Task 9 Identify interested and potentially interested people, agencies, and organizations.: Is the expectation that the AE will be assembling the contacts to whom NPS will be sending news releases to?

NPS will provide initial draft, AE will assemble and maintain contacts for NPS.

No

106 SOL_140D0426R00

27_Buzzard_Point

1.24 Firms shall validate their sustainable abilities and practices through completed LEED certified construction projects and green building awards and have LEED accredited professionals on staff as part of the firm.: will the project apply for LEED certification? Does the LEED professional need to be part of the prime, or could they be from a subconsultant? Does SITES AP accreditation qualify for this requirement?

LEED professional can be prime or subconsultant.

Sites AP accredidation does not qualify for this requirement.

No

107 SOL_140D0426R00

27_Buzzard_Point

4.4 3 9 & 44 SF330 Part 1 -Section F: This indicates our project experience should be within the last 7 years, whereas, page 44 number 4 indicates that the work should be from in the last 5 years. Which timeframe is accurate?

Seven (7) years. Yes

108 Solicitation

This is the first time we had seen this language in an RFP requiring registration and licensure in D.C for a Federal Project. The FAR regulations typically list that the design teams must be licensed and registered in their home state, but not the state of the contract and/or work of the design

RFP.

Licensure and registration requirements are tied to where the project/work will be performed and is guided by state law (See Architect-Engineer Services definition in FAR 2.101). The FAR does not override the state A&E licensure/registration requirements. Please ensure the firm/design team is registered/licensed in the District of Columbia as required in the soliciation. Indicate if licensure can be achieved by reciprocity for states where the firm's key personnel are not currently registered. Yes