Rnd_2_QAs_Amendment_00004_0004.docx

Questions & Answers Round 2 Amendment 00004 140L0624R0042 – JILONA Shoreline

1. Question: EM 385 is referenced for Safety. Will there be a requirement for a naval architect analysis for barges with cranes? Please expand on any specific Safety requirements.

Answer: No naval architect analysis for barges with cranes is required by the BLM.

2. Question: Will a timber waler be acceptable for the dock 10” rub rail?

Answer: An external timber 2x10 with holes will be acceptable. This member is not a structural waler but rather a fender board. The intent is to keep boats from hitting the thru-rods/bolts.

3. Question: Referencing Addendum #3, Q&A #7 – We are unable to find the CAD drawings.

Answer: CAD drawings will be provided to the awarded contractor to support construction.

4. Question: Referencing Addendum #3, Q&A #2, Bid Schedule Attachment, and Stone Specifications – Is this project now considered a Unit Price Contract where stone will be measured and paid based on units installed? If so, please provide a measurement and payment specification for stone. We recommend adopting FDOT standards (Section 530) and updating Bedding Stone Items from Cubic Yards to Tons.

Answer: Payment for stone will be unit price and will be issued based on weight by truck tickets. The armor stone tonnages (based on an assumed void ratio of 25%) provided in the drawings are for informational purposes and shall be verified by contractors prior to bid. As-built surveys will be required as quality control to ensure the rock structures are built to the template and within tolerances specified in contract documents. Revised Bid Schedule provided to reflect bedding stone in tons. See question 6 below.

5. Question: Referencing Addendum #3, Q&A #2, do the armor stone tonnages include for the weight of toe stones?

Answer: Yes.

6. Question: Referring to Technical Specification 35 31 19.40, Section 2.03, it appears that the diameters and weights listed in the armor stone gradation table do not correlate if the desired unit weight is 144 lbs./cf. For example, the 50% finer stone is specified with a 1.90-foot diameter and a weight of 990 lbs., which corresponds to a perfect 1.90’ x 1.90’ x 1.90’ cube, which we assume is not the intent. Typically, this stone with a 1.90-foot diameter would weigh approximately 60 to 80% of the listed weight (average between a cube and sphere). Could you please clarify whether the stones are supposed to adhere to the weight gradations listed, implying larger diameter stones, OR to the diameter gradations, implying lighter weight stones?

Answer: The stones shall adhere to the weight gradations. Armor stone gradation has been updated to the following table below. Awarded contractor will be provided updated specification package to highlight these changes.

Revised Armor Stone Weight Gradation:

(144 pcf)

WEIGHT (LBS)

The stones shall be closely graded and at least 50% of the stones delivered for a given segment of structure shall have weights equal to or greater than the “W50” value provided above. No more than 15% of the stones delivered for a given segment shall have weight less than the “W15” value provided. No more than 3% of the stones delivered for a given segment shall have a weight in excess of the “W97” value provided.

The delivered armor stone shall contain no more than 50% of the stone with a length to thickness (l/d) ratio greater than 2, and no armor stones with a length to thickness (l/d) ratio greater than 3 shall be permitted. Flat stones will not be accepted.

Bedding Stone:

*Assuming a 25% void ratio and 135 pcf unit weight

7. Question: Referring to technical specification 35 31 19.40 section 2.03.B, our preferred stone suppliers have some concerns with the armor gradations (as it relates to availability and effort/price to manufacture). They have requested that we ask to see if FDOT Bank and Shore or Type C Rip Rap can be an approved equivalent to the current specification prior to the bid?

Answer: No, contractor to follow the gradation provided in question #6 response.

8. Question: Are the plan view breakwater/revetment envelopes indicative of the bedding/armor rock prisms excluding toe stones? If so, some of these envelopes may need to be relocated to maintain the stipulated 3-foot minimum clearance to seagrass.

Answer: The templates include toe stone; however, minor field modifications may be required based on seagrass locations at time of construction.

9. Question: Referring to Construction Drawing C-28, the northern revetments are drawn to encroach well within the footprint of existing mangroves with high likelihood that the backslope from excavation necessitates expansion of the clearing limits. Would the engineer entertain the relocation of revetments further East to lessen the impact on mangroves and excavation efforts? Granted, this would consequently increase the impact on seagrass. OR is excavation and clearing of mangroves in this location not anticipated as depicted on the typical cross-section?

Answer: No impacts to seagrass or mangroves are permitted. The toe of the revetment is required to maintain a minimum 3’ buffer from any existing seagrass. Portions of existing mangroves that abut or conflict with proposed rock structures will be field modified by the contractor to avoid impacts to existing mangroves.

10. Question: Referring to Construction Drawing C-28, is it the designer’s intent to backfill material on the upland slope of revetments or to leave the backslope that is a consequence of the excavation.

Answer: The “Assumed Existing Upland” grade line on Sheet C-28, Typical Revetment Cross-Section is erroneous and shall be omitted. All structures shall be placed on grade. No excavation is required. Rock quantities remain the same.

11. Question: Referring to Construction Drawing C-26, cross-sections 6+50 to 7+25 illustrate boardwalk cross-bracing situated significantly below the existing grade, with some instances embedded within the proposed revetment. Should the bidders assume that excavation, backfilling, and embedding cross braces in stone will be necessary in these locations? Given that the earth provides lateral support to the piles in these areas, is the installation of cross-bracing necessary? Please also note that this is the same area where existing grout slope protection exists and has been referred as able-to-remain for revetment subgrade, which would be nearly impossible if cross bracing had to go below it.

Answer: Installation of cross-bracing at locations that would interfere with the revetment or be below grade is not necessary.

12. Question: Referencing Section 15 of the DA Permit “Special Aquatic Site Boundary Identification”, who is responsible for bearing the responsibility and cost of locating and staking edges of existing submerged aquatic vegetation?

Answer: Taylor completed a pre-construction seagrass survey on August 1, 2024. The seagrass boundaries (with CAD files) will be provided to the contractor. The contractor is responsible to “stake the edges of the existing submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) every 10 feet to ensure the special aquatic site boundary is visible to all construction personnel to prevent encroachment and impacts to these sensitive areas” as outlined in Specific Condition 15 of the DA Permit.

13. Question: Referencing Section 16 of the DA Permit, it is noted that the permit “does not authorize construction work vessels anchoring or spudding down in areas where submerged aquatic vegetation and mangroves are present”. Is this stipulation pertinent to seagrass considering it was delisted from the Endangered Species Act?

Answer: Anchoring or spudding down in areas where submerged aquatic vegetation and mangroves are present is not authorized.

14. Question: Referencing Section 25 of the DA Permit “Work from the Water,” which states: “All work along the bluff and shoreline area shown in the attached ‘Special Conditions Map’ shall be performed from barges in the water.” Upon reviewing the “Special Conditions Map” in Attachment #5, it appears this area extends to the south side of the retaining wall, encompassing the steel sheet pile wall, concrete cap, helical anchors, free-standing block wall, access stairways, and all necessary earthworks and incidentals in that area. This interpretation suggests an extremely restrictive and costly requirement to perform a portion of the Base Bid from barges, given that the entire Base Bid scope can be executed from land. Please (1) confirm or deny that the entire Base Bid scope can be performed from land, and if denied, (2) provide an overlay for the specific limits of the “Work from Water Area” on the Plans since it’s unclear the real limits on the “Special Conditions Map”.

Answer: The entire Base Bid scope is intended to be performed from land.

15. Referencing the FDEP and USACE permits issued in Addendum #3. We have (6) questions relating to turbidity control:

0. Question: Both permits suggest that the Contractor must cease operations if turbidity exceeds 0 NTU above background levels but may resume work when turbidity levels are less than 29 NTU, provided all permit specified measures are taken. Is this interpretation correct?

Answer: Specific Condition 17(e) of the FDEP permit contains a typo. If turbidity levels exceed 0 NTU above background levels outside of the construction area’s turbidity control devices, the permit requires the immediate cessation of all work contributing to the water quality violation. Work can only be resumed once the turbidity levels outside of the construction area’s turbidity control devices do not exceed 0 NTU above background levels.

Please note that BLM and Taylor Engineering has completed several past projects in this area with identical turbidity restrictions. Projects were completed without any compliance issues.

0. Question: The turbidity control requirements outlined in the FDEP and USACE permits are quite generic, as are the turbidity curtain details depicted on Sheet C-29, which specify the use of a Type-1 barrier with danforth anchors. Based on our experience, Type-1 barriers are typically employed in quicker duration projects or for lake or slow-current environments and are not suitable for effectively trapping limestone sediment in long term and faster current projects. Shouldn't the plans call for a Type-2 or Type-3 curtain instead? Furthermore, shouldn't the plans include details and provisions for anchoring and aligning the curtain with timber piles and the use of lighting to prevent navigational hazards?

Answer: Type-2 or Type-3 turbidity barriers are acceptable turbidity control measures as long as impacts to seagrass and mangroves are avoided.

0. Question: Please confirm whether turbidity curtains can be anchored and aligned by timber piles around the limits of the revetments, breakwaters, and other necessary shoreline locations that could receive soil disturbances.

Answer: Type-2 or Type-3 turbidity barriers are acceptable turbidity control measures as long as impacts to seagrass and mangroves are avoided.

0. Question: Maintaining background turbidity levels below 0 NTU will be very difficult for this project due to the high volume of suspended solids released by limestone riprap, the inability of turbidity barriers to block water flow, and the cost and permit restrictions associated with cofferdams. If the Contractor follows all required steps in the permits, plans, and specifications to mitigate turbidity during stone placement but still exceeds the permitted limits, and it is deemed impractical to prevent these exceedances with the specified measures, will the Contractor be compensated for delay-related downtime and for implementing impractical or uncommon turbidity control measures?

Answer: The contractor is responsible for maintaining, monitoring, and following all permit general and special conditions. Similar construction projects have been completed successfully under the turbidity level requirements permitted for this project.

0. Question: We believe that to maintain lower turbidity levels, all stones should be washed prior to placement. If you agree, please include this as a project requirement.

Answer: The contractor is responsible for maintaining, monitoring, and following all permit general and special conditions.

0. Question: Will it be the Contractor’s responsibility to provide turbidity monitoring and reporting, or will this be performed by the Department?

Answer: The contractor is responsible for maintaining, monitoring, and following all permit general and special conditions.

16. Question: Please re-issue the amended specifications as text searchable .pdf documents like the original.

Answer: We believe the posting to SAM made documents unsearchable when published. Please email the Contracting Officer, Jeane Steed, at jsteed@blm.gov, and we will send you the searchable documents.

17. Question: Please re-issue the FDEP permit as text searchable .pdf documents if possible.

Answer: Please see #16 above.

18. Question: Please re-issue the amended specifications with changes highlighted, color coded, bolded, struck through, etc. so we do not have to re-read 354 pages.

Answer: No. Contractor shall thoroughly review bid documents.

19. Question: Please re-issue the amended plans with changes clouded and revision information included in the title blocks, as would be industry standard for a project of this magnitude. This could cause confusion during the bidding and contracting processes without it.

Answer: No. Contractor shall thoroughly review bid documents.

20. Question: Please provide details on fencing depicted between block wall and sheet pile wall on drawing C-7. Is this meant to be standard post and rope fencing?

Answer: Correct; standard post and rope fencing.

21. Question: Referencing technical specification 03 41 33, can metakaolin be used in lieu of silica fume?

Answer: No.

22. Question: Referencing Technical Specification Section 35 31 19.40, 3.04G, which states:

a) "The Contractor shall place armor stone as necessary to meet the design template depicted within the Construction Drawings" and "The internal and external (face) slopes of the stone shall not be steeper than indicated on the Construction Drawings." But also states that -

b) "In NO location shall the structure consist of less than two layers of facing armor stone with a minimum total thickness of 4 feet."

This creates a significant contradiction, as the Construction Drawings depict armor thicknesses ranging from 1 ft to 4 ft, with an overall average closer to 2 to 3 ft when cross sections are interpolated. A specific example is all cross sections on Sheet C-25 show 2.5 to 3.0 ft of Armor. So to comply with the requirement that all structures have no less than 4 ft of armor stone, the thicknesses and slopes on the drawings would need revision, or bidders would have to assume an excess of 50% to 75% in stone above the design prisms shown, significantly driving up bid prices. Please confirm that the design templates depicted on the Construction Drawings take precedence over the requirement to have a minimum of 4 ft of armor at ALL locations of the structures.

Answer: Design templates depicted on Construction Drawings take precedence.

23. Question: Please clarify whether the design limits of lower edges of revetment and breakwaters, shown in Plan view on Sheets C-15, 16, 24, and 27, are meant to depict the division line between the toe of the bedding (foundation) and start (internal face) of the toe stones OR the external face of the toes stones (clear edge of structures). This understanding of this is critical to developing accurate takeoffs without CAD drawings and actual design cross sections for every structure.

Answer: The footprints of rock structures include toe stone – clear edge of structures.

24. Question: The Quantity Bid Schedule Option numbering provided with Amendment 3 do not match the Section B Bid Schedule (word document) numbering. Example: The Bid Option 4 Schedule with quantities Item #06 provides the Boardwalk quantity. Section B Bid Schedule lists CLIN 006 as Bid Option 5 – Boardwalk. Please advise if the Section B Bid Schedule will be edited to match the Amendment 3 quantity schedule and other documents.

Answer: Please see revised Bid Schedule.

25. Question: Are the quantities provided for bid comparison/informational purposes only or will adjustments be made for actual installed quantities and bid items paid on a unit price basis? Please advise.

Answer: Rock elements of work are provided with total quantity as an estimate for informational purposes but for contractor to verify prior to price submission. There is a lot of uncertainty between the assumed void ratio for the volume to tonnage conversion (we use 25%) and the actual gradation of rock received during construction from the quarry. Requesting unit cost from the offeror gives both parties flexibility to apply the unit cost if tonnages are over or under what is estimated. Please note: 52.236-16, Quantity Surveys, and 52.211-18, Variation in Estimate Quantity, have been added to Section I of solicitation.

26. Question: Since issuance of Addendum #3, there still appears to be a conflict between the Options listed on the latest detailed pricing schedules and the Bid Schedule in Section B of the Solicitation. Please confirm the correct option titles.

Answer: Please refer to amended solicitation 0004.

27. Question: Referring to Attachment 3 – Wage Determination, there are no specific rates mentioned for commercial divers, pile drivers, or barge deck hands. Since these positions make up the majority of the workforce on the project, please provide the minimum rates that should be followed prior to bid.

Answer: There are two wage determinations applicable to Palm Beach County, but neither really addresses these kinds of positions. BLM will have to submit a project wage determination request to the Department of Labor that is applicable for only this project and includes labor categories and descriptions of the work for each category. This is requested following award of the contract, because offerors will not always have the exact same positions in their proposal. Also, descriptions of the work for each labor position can vary widely.