Amendment_02_Sign-in_sheet_and_NPS_comments_0002.pdf

(x)

140P2021R0066 x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

PDS

Denver CO 80225-0287 P.O. Box 25287 12795 W. Alameda Pkwy NPS, DSC Contracting Services Div

253093 & 31631709/13/20210002

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

08/24/2021

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Incorporate site visit sign-in sheet.

2. Incorporate NPS review comments file.

3. Extend Requests for information submissions to September 22, 2021 at 8a Eastern.

4. Extend Phase 1 proposal due date and time to October 15, 2021, at 1200 Eastern.

5. Announce Archeological site map file is available to all qualified A/E and construction contractors by emailing CS and CO; jennifer_braaten@nps.gov and kevin_lommer@nps.gov.

6. All other provisions and clauses remain unchanged.

Legacy Doc #: NPS

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Kevin Lommer

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

Denver Service Center Transportation Division National Park Service 12795 W. Alameda Pkwy U.S. Department of the Interior P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287

DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS

Submittal: 95% Design Review Date: November 13, 2020 Park & PMIS: COLO 253093 Date Comments Due to A/E: November 13,2020 Project: York River Shoreline Stabilization A/E Name: USACE Project Manager: Jason Himick Const. Budget:

Reviewer Name: Jason Himick Cost Estimate:

# Sheet /

Page Quality Improvement Comment Comment Resolution

GENERAL

1 Unclear on why vegetated slope stabilization is being noted / referenced as ‘Vegetated Wall Slope Stabilization’, there is no wall and thus the notes / references are misleading.

2 32-40 Proposed sections appear to show geotextile fabric between existing rock revetment and new armor stone.

Edit graphics to be consistent with other cross-sections (pgs 56-67)

3 Show sensitive resource areas on proposed plans.

4 NPS shall clarify if any sensitive resource areas prohibit installation of poles / posts in the ground. These areas should be identified on the proposed plans.

5 28-29 Unclear why we have included existing conditions sheets for areas outside of the project limits.

6 56-67 Unclear why cross-sections are organized this way, when plan sheets are organized, and sections are labeled in alphabetical order, from west to east.

Reorganize sections for consistency – west to east in alphabetical order.

7 86-89 Recommend providing consistent font types / styles / sizes throughout the entire drawing set.

PLANS

1 3 General Note 12: do we have a geotechnical report? If not, delete note. If so, include in specifications as noted.

2 5 Include note regarding area of revetment rehab ‘by others’ at Felgates Creek.

3 20 Note regarding existing revetment rehabilitated by others, east of Indian Field Creek, is incorrect – should be 2020 instead of 2013.

Page | 2

4 23 Text of line type legend ‘Existing Wetland Delineation Line’ out of scale with adjacent sheet note text.

5 42 Sheet Notes font size appears to be different than other sheets.

6 45-46 Slope stabilization (between approx. 124+00-128+00) hatch pattern not shown.

7 47 Are graphic conventions for proposed pipe / drainage different than other sheets? If so, make consistent.

8 50 Match line on left side of sheet is incorrect, matches to sheet 41 not 49

9 71, 74-76, 78, 79

Reformat graphics and text height for consistency and legibility (minimum text height should be 0.10” on full size printed sheet).

10 82 Why is sheet pile wall stationed east to west and section lines in random order when bulkhead plan wall segments, all other stationing, and sections are organized west to east? Provide stationing, and section labels in alphabetical order, from west to east.

11 83-84 Organize sections in alphabetical order.

12 82, 84, 85 Drainage cross-sections not labeled.

SPECIFICATIONS

ESTIMATE

Himick, Jason J

Subject: FW: Colonial Shoreline Stabilization 95% Submittal

Sheet 1: Sheet 89 missing from Contents.

Sheet 1-85: In the title block, change "Sheet X of 88" to "of 89". Technically, there are 90 sheets, since one is labeled 5A; further, I recommend adding a Sheet 9A [see below]; can/should we relabel all sheets 1-91 and update all title blocks accordingly? How many references throughout the drawings (and Specs) would have to be changed? See also my comment for Sheets 86-89, below.

Sheet 2: For bidders not familiar with the area, please label the York River on the Location Map, and label the Coleman Bridge on the Vicinity Map, so that it is easier to correlate the two maps.

Sheet 3: Notes 2 thru 5 refer to NAVD88, NAV 83, and NOS, with MLW converted to NOS. Is that a standard application that contractors would use? I'm not overly familiar with this subject, but nearly everything I've ever seen refers to NAVD88. If the conversion to NOS is something that is common for USACE, but not common for contractors, we should reconsider how the data is presented. We don't want to introduce procedures that are unfamiliar to the contractors, as that is likely to result in errors in the field.

Sheet 3: Note 9.1 allows access via the Parkway. Although Note 9.3 shows a 10 ton limit for the Parkway (which may be arbitrarily low), we want to minimize traffic on the Parkway to only that that is essential. We probably need to discuss how to best phrase the limitations, to include that all rock for revetments, sills and breakwaters is to be delivered by barge.

Sheet 3: Legend symbol for "edge of pavement" is unclear to me. Where is it used and what is it trying to depict?

Sheet 3: For the erosion and sediment control legend, the letter symbols should be inside the circles for the first six entries. <====

Sheet 3: For the erosion and sediment control legend, the line symbol for trenchless tree protection should show the letters TTP, not TP. <====

Sheet 5: The areas east of Felgates and Indian Field Creeks should both be labeled as work done by others in 2020-

21. Applies to all other applicable sheets (such as Sheets 20 & 21, and others).

Sheets 5 & 5A: The shoreline appears to be in the wrong place in several areas (dashed line alternating with three dots). For example, toward the west end of Revetment 1 [in the area of Sheets 11 & 12], the shoreline is well out into the River (when the revetment is actually into the water). Similarly, for the sections applicable to Sheets 25-27, the breakwaters are shown to be on land, and Revetment 2 shows to be on land as well. May also apply to some areas applicable to Sheets 23 & 24, as well.

Sheet 9: The eastern edge of the Ringfield Picnic Area is shown, but not the access to it. Unless shown elsewhere, need to add a Sheet 9A to show the full picnic area (with access road from the Parkway) which should also be labeled as an approved staging area (on paved areas only)--unless we are only using the two pullouts.

Sheet 11: Note 2 text should all be black ink. Applies to subsequent sheets, as well (eg: Sheet 20).

Sheet 12: "Sensitive Resource Area" identified. Is this what Dwayne and Lee want? If yes, ensure all applicable sensitive areas are identified. If no, remove all such labels throughout. If labels deleted, remove symbol from Legend on Sheet 3.

Sheet 17: What is the symbol near the toe of slope near Station 59+00?

Sheet 26: The contours at the left edge of the page are labeled as 5', 10' and 15', but if you follow the 15' contour across the page, at the right edge it is labeled 16' (and subsequent contours are 21' and 26'--this is somewhat unusual).

Sheet 29: We need to add a note expressing the sensitivity of work anywhere near the Navy pier (even if it is already covered in the Specs). Note should include wording that special work provisions may apply such as wear of reflective vests, no photography, etc. Should include a requirement to coordinate X days in advance with the COR and/or NPS, to allow notification and coordination with the Navy. Perhaps we should add that note to Sheets 26-28, as well.

Sheet 31: The right end of RS5 includes L18, but there is no Line 18 in the Line Table Alignment chart at the top left of the sheet.

Sheet 31: Verify with Dwayne and Lee that the proposed access, staging and stockpile areas in the lower right corner meet compliance needs.

Sheet 31: Verify with Dorothy that the approximate location of Navy buoys is correct and does not extend near (or under) the proposed staging area.

Sheet 31: Note 4, correct spelling--"village".

Sheet 31: Recommend changing the words "Tree Line" to gray lettering to match other background symbols. Change would apply to all applicable sheets.

Sheet 31: What is the dashed line near the south edge of the Parkway? I don't see it in the Legend on Sheet 3, nor is it labeled on this or subsequent sheets. Limits of the survey? Is it relevant to construction (can it be deleted)? I'm assuming the (wide) fuzzy gray lines are the edges of the Parkway.

Sheet 32: The right end of the sill, the tail of the "Not in Contract Arrow" and the head of the "End of Rock Sill" arrow all seem to merge into one. Please try to clarify--otherwise, it looks like one continuous long arrow for "End of Rock Sill" notation up to the "Not in Contract" notation.

Sheet 32: The approximate start of vegetated slope notation should say "Station 12+00" (not 20+00), correct?

Sheet 32: For Note 2, "1H:2V" seems extremely steep. I don't think the majority of the slopes in Reach 1 are that steep, except near the Cheatham Annex pullout. They are depicted as much less steep in the typical sections (closer to 2H:1V). Please review. Applies to all applicable sheets.

Sheet 32: "Typical Section"--what is the delivery path for revetment rock, filled slope stabilization bags, and so forth? Question applies to all applicable sheets.

Sheet 32: "Typical Section"--please refresh my memory why we need geotextile between the existing revetment and the new revetment rock? Does it serve a purpose? Won't it tend to tear? Couldn't we just bring it part way up the front face of the existing revetment and then fold it back into the new rock like we do near the toe of the new rock?

Sheet 33: Near the left edge, the tree protection is labeled as TTP (in circle) but the line is TP. Please rectify. See TTP note for Sheet 3 above.

Sheet 34: Typical Section E shows an existing "notch" near the top of the slope. Will the vegetated wall slope stabilization extend above this location? If not, stormwater will collect in this notch and potentially erode under the upper edge of the vegetated wall. In general, how does the contractor determine how high to go with the vegetated wall---strictly based on the slope ratio in Note 2 (as corrected)?

Sheet 35: Typical Section F shows the Parkway as about 27 feet wide. Typical Section G shows the Parkway as about 29 feet wide. Throughout the length of this project, the Parkway is 30 feet wide. It should be depicted at the correct width so that the contractor has confidence in the other measurements and scale depicted. Please check all sheets.

Sheet 35: Typical Section F shows the existing pipe invert level at about 14 feet below the road surface. I'm picturing it as being about 10 feet below the road surface on the York River side of the road, and about 6 feet below the road surface on the opposite side of the Parkway, but it has been at least a year since I stood in that area. Just checking whether this is based on survey data--the contour lines in the Plan View also look to represent about 10 feet on the river side of the Parkway. Similarly, the contour lines show the channel drops away from the outfall (which is as I recall it from the field, too), but Section F shows a horizontal outflow for a distance of about 25 feet (unless the contractor is supposed to provide fill, which is not depicted). Please verify and adjust as necessary.

Sheet 35: Typical Section G could be clearer about depicting which DIs and pipes are new, which are existing, which are to be removed and which are to be retained. Also, some info is in the Plan View and some is in the Section View, and stop and end points aren't necessarily clear. Comment applies to any similar sheets (eg Sheet 37, etc).

Sheet 35: Polypropylene pipe (PP)--do we need to specify wall thickness (or does it only come in one thickness)? Do we need to specify lifespan? I'm assuming there are varying qualities of pipe with varying lifespans; we should specify a minimum of 50 years. Perhaps this is all covered in the Specs, which I have not reviewed yet. Let's face it, we all look at drawings first, so maybe there should be a reference to specific sections of the Specs in the notes (at least where a specific quality level is expected). The two notes already shown in Section G are important and I am glad they are included here (even if they are also covered in the Specs). Comment applies to any similar sheets (eg Sheet 37, etc).

Sheet 36: TTP vs TP in numerous locations. Which is it? Verify on all sheets. See TTP note for Sheet 3 above.

Sheet 37: Several existing maple trees depicted. To my knowledge, we have no maple trees along Reach

1. Could they be tulip poplars (somewhat similar leaf)? Not an issue unless the contractor kills any trees and has to replace them. If we need to change this, need to change on all applicable sheets. On the issue of tree killing, any replacement trees should come with a warranty and a three-year watering plan paid for by the contractor. Any financial penalty for the fact they might replace a 48" diameter tree with a 3" (?) tree?

Sheet 40: What are the numbers in the ovals (40-1, 40-2, 40-3)? Where do we find more info?

Sheet 41: What is the access path for delivery of materials? Applies to all sheets for Reach 2.

Sheet 41: Note 1, second line, what is "OD"? Not defined on this sheet or Sheet 3.

Sheet 42-45: Verify with Dwayne and Lee that the proposed access, staging and stockpile areas meet compliance needs.

Sheet 42: Line numbering for the sills is awkward. On Sheet 41, from left to right, it is L38 then L37. On Sheet 42 and beyond, it continues with L36, but then the next sill is L41 to L39, then the next sill is L51 to L42 with an extraneous L61 thrown in, and so on. Can you rename them in proper sequential order? Same for the C series.

Sheet 45: From approx STA 123+00 to 125+50 there is a vertical wall of sand and shell exposed by erosion (ranging up to six feet high). I know the breakwaters are intended to help reduce further erosion in this area, but during storm surge, we need some sort of protection here or the vertical face will continue to erode back to the Parkway.

Sheet 46: What are the numbers in the ovals (46-1 thru 46-4)? Where do we find more info?

Sheet 46: BM in circle likely means blanket and matting, but does not match the Legend on Sheet 3, B/M. Change Legend to match BM on this sheet, as it fits in the circle better. What is it comprised of? How/where do we find out? Does it line the ditch? Need more info.

Sheet 46: Ditch grading limits shown. How deep? How wide? What is the pitch, and in which direction(s)? What prevents it from eroding behind the sheet pile wall? MAINTAINABILITY: What maintenance is required? How often? By whom? How is it accessed for maintenance?

Sheet 46: Is that a new pipe from 46-1 to 46-4? How big? Material? Pitch? Joint types and pinning? Etc.

Sheets 86-89: In title block, change "Sheet X of 79" to "of 89". See also my comments for Sheets 1-85, above.