Amendment_03_DRAFT_RFIs_0003.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 & 31631709/24/20210003

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. Incorporates DRAFT request for information responses. NPS expects final RFI release on

Friday, October 1, 2021.

2. Phase 1 proposal due date and time unchanged.

3. 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 .

RFP 140P2021R0066

COLO 253093 & 316317

Request For Information

RFP# 140P2021R0066

COLO 253093

24 September 2021

QUESTION ANSWER

1.

Does the government already have a plan of action/ design plans completed for this work & this contract is merely executing these plans with creativity related to access for rock placement?

Or, will the government allow for other alternative structures as breakwater structures in place of rock?

The design build contractor shall review and verify the current design is a cost effective and constructable solution that meets the project requirements (see section 3.5 Technical Requirements) and, if deemed to be valid, progress the design to a level of detail sufficient for permitting, compliance, and construction. The NPS will be receptive to design changes that reduce cost and/or impacts to natural and cultural resources, while still meeting the compliance, design, and permitting requirements.

2.

If the government is willing to consider alternative strategies to stabilization other than rock, then I would recommend considering:

1) what amount of wave energy the government would accept going through these structures and what the basis of wave energy reduction is for these structures (ie, what documentation would be required to justify statements on wave energy reduction)

2) how adaptable rock and alternative structures are to sea level change

It would also be helpful to know if the Government has geotechnical data for the area to know how rock and other structures may ‘settle’ at construction with installation and over time.

Please see section 3.5 Technical Requirements of the scope of work for a list of resources that identify the performance standards that apply to the design. The NPS will be receptive to design changes, that can be clearly demonstrated as beneficial to the NPS, that meet these requirements. The project geotechnical information is provided with this solicitation.

3.

Is there an engineering firm / engineer on your project that I can email questions?

Send all questions to the CS/CO.

4.

My intention is to see if our Smart Anchor would be approved by you and your team / the engineer of record who designed / spec’d the project at 95% completion.

The design build contractor will be responsible for validating the design and products used meet the project requirements, and retain the engineer of record. The NPS will not be retaining the initial design team as an Engineer of Record.

5.

Has the Government discussed dredging the shallow areas along the shore line for barge access with any of the permitting

The NPS has not evaluated dredging as a means to improve access and

COLO 253093 & 316317

agencies. If yes, which agencies and what restrictions will be imposed upon the design builder.

constructability. This approach is discouraged due to perceived significant challenges with cost, time, and permitting / environmental impacts – unless it can be demonstrated to be a significant benefit to the project and there are no other viable access alternatives.

6.

The Parkway (per the plan sheets general note 9.3) has a 10 ton limit. Is that a point load, axel load or total vehicle weight loading limit.

Under Review

7.

Please confirm the Contract Price Schedule form shown in Section B – Bid Schedule on page 7 of 55 of the solicitation is not required to be filled out with our submittal due Oct 6th, 2021.

Correct. Do NOT submit any pricing information for Phase 1 proposal submissions. Pricing only occurs in Phase 2.

8.

Are the up to 5 projects shown in Phase 1 technical Proposal Subfactor 1A, to be just those of the Design Builder or may they include projects performed by the Designer or specialty subcontractors

The Offeror may include projects performed by the designer and/or specialty subcontractors.

9.

Will the Wetland Delineation previously performed for this project need to be re-delineated since it is several years old.

As noted in section 3.6 Permitting and Compliance of the scope of work: The project area has been previously delineated in 2011;

however, the delineation does not appear to be covered under a current, valid confirmation. It is anticipated the previous delineation will need to be verified. For the purposes of bidding, assume responsibility for re-delineation.

10.

Will the QCM need to be on site full time, or may he / she be part time only, with a Quality representative on site full time.

As noted in section 4.5 Quality

Control of the scope of work: The

Contractor's Quality Control

Supervisor may also perform the duties of Project Superintendent.

The Contractor's designated Quality

Control Supervisor shall be on the project site whenever contract work is in progress.

11.

The Solicitation Package references prior NPS comments on the

USACE design, but we could not locate those comments in the materials provided. Can those comments be provided for use in the Technical Proposal preparation?

See SAM.gov for NPS review comments provided in Amendment 02.

12.

Are there any firms that are conflicted out of pursuing/supporting this Design-Build Project because they either supported the NPS

Contact CO/CS with individual assessment on conflicts of interest.

No contract for the construction of a project shall be awarded to the firm

COLO 253093 & 316317

during NEPA efforts and/or supported any aspect of the USACE initial studies or design efforts?

If not able to list those firms by name, could the NPS define what constraints, if any, might preclude a firm’s ability to support this

Project?

that designed the project or its subsidiaries or affiliates.

13.

A Stormwater Management (SWM) Plan summary is included with the USACE materials, which describe a desired waiver from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) – has the

SWM Plan been submitted to the DEQ and approvals obtained and/or waiver documented with the DEQ to-date?

Or will the Contractor be responsible for DEQ plan submittals/approvals, and any follow-up services that might be required if a waiver is not granted?

No permits or waivers have been submitted or received for this project. The design build contractor is responsible for obtaining all permits required for construction, see section 3.6 Permitting and Compliance of the scope of work.

14.

RFP File B08_Attachment_1_Scope_of_Services, page 31, 6-

Attachments, refers to Bridging Documents – 95% draft plans and specifications prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in native drawing and document formats), NPS review comments. We were unable to locate the “NPS review comments”. Could you please direct us to the file that contains the NPS review comments or provide if not already provided?

See SAM.gov for NPS review comments provided in Amendment 02.

15.

Page 14 of 55 of the RFP indicates that the key personnel roles are

Project Manager, Job-site Superintendent, Quality Control

Manager, Safety Manager, and Architect of Record (Virginia

License holder). Page 49 of 55, Section E., 3. Contents, Subfactor

1B-Key Personnel Experience indicates that the key personnel roles are Project Manager, Superintendent, On-site Quality

Control Specialist, On-site Safety Specialist, and Designer of

Record (Virginia License). Please indicate which list, page 14 or 49, for key personnel roles is correct and should be used in our proposal response.

Use key personnel page 49 listing

16.

Page 49 of 55, Section E, 2. Organization indicates we should include “folders and files for electronic formats names as follows:”. Should we combine the four factor sections into one combined PDF file attached to our submission email, or should each Factor be a separate PDF file, for a total of 4 PDF files attached to the proposal submission email?

Please do not exceed 25MB per file or email. Otherwise, please combine submission. If file size is large, multiple files and emails are acceptable.

17.

Is the entire 55-page RFP file considered a form, and should thus be submitted as part of the Phase I Technical proposal response?

If so, should we leave all pricing entries blank, since pricing information is not to be submitted for Phase I?

The RFP in its entirety is not a submission requirement. Contract Price Schedule (section B) and Section K certifications are due in Phase 2. Do not submit pricing in Phase 1.

18. Is there an overall page limit for the Phase I proposal submission? No.

COLO 253093 & 316317

19.

Are covers, tabs, table of contents, and a cover letter permitted as part of the Phase I proposal submission? Yes.

20.

On page 49 of 55, E. Phase 1, Technical Proposal, 3. Contents, Factor 1- Experience, Subfactor 1A-Project Experience, should the

Teaming Experience and Revetment Construction narratives come after the five project forms? Is there a page limit for this information?

Coordination of the proposal submission is at the direction of the contractor. There is no overall page limit.

21.

On page 49 of 55, E. Phase 1, Technical Proposal, 3. Contents, Factor 1- Experience, Subfactor 1A-Project Experience, A/E SF330 Qualifications, can you please clarify you are asking for SFS330 Part I, Section E resume forms for Civil Engineer, Coastal Engineer, and Ecologist?

Contractor may choose their preference on how to present qualifications. Resumes are acceptable.

Required: Civil and/or coastal engineer.

Required: Ecologist

22.

On page 49 of 55, E. Phase 1, Technical Proposal, 3. Contents, Factor 1- Experience, Subfactor 1A-Project Experience, Key Trades, are you looking for narrative related to our capabilities in marine construction?

Key Trades is in coordination with Section H: Special Clause 4 – Key Trades. Please review page 14 of

RFP.

23.

In File B08_Attachment_04_Proposal_Submission_Package, page

4 of 26 is a “Key Personnel Qualifications” form. Should this form be provided for each key personnel, in addition to a resume, and placed after the resumes in the Factor 1, Subfactor 1B-Key

Personnel Experience section of the Phase I proposal?

Contractor may choose their presentation style. Resumes are acceptable, SF330 form is acceptable, and Attachment 4, “key personnel Qual.” Form is acceptable.

Duplicity is discouraged.

24.

Where should the “Subcontractor Reference” form (page 5 of 26) in File B08_Attachment_04_Proposal_Submission_Package be included in the Phase I proposal? Should this be completed for each subcontractor proposed?

Yes, Phase 1. Please include with Factor 4 – past performance.

25.

The feed documents provided are indicated to be a 95% design submission. The Scope of Services requires the Contractor to prepare 70%, and 95% design and construction document submittals.

1. By requesting the Contractor to re-create an earlier submittal, please provide guidance on the acceptability of alternative design components or the degree of latitude in varying from the provided design documents.

2. Specifically, protecting the Colonial Parkway utilizing restored revetements, sills, breakwaters and created and restored marshes as outlined in the RFP is a solid design approach. Can elements of the USACE 95% design be re-visited to produce a final plan that is:

a. more cost effective;

b. more consistent with current regulatory requirements (VA Living shoreline legislation);

c. more compliant with elements of the

Environmental and Sustainability Requirements

Although the bridging documents provided indicate “95%” design, the plans do not meet the NPS’s requirements for a 95% complete submittal. The design build contractor is not requested to “recreate” an earlier submittal. The scope of work indicates the design build contractor shall review and verify the current design is a cost effective and constructable solution that meets the project requirements (see section 3.5 Technical Requirements) and, if deemed to be valid, progress the design to a level of detail sufficient for permitting, compliance, and construction. The NPS will be receptive to design changes that reduce cost and/or impacts to natural and cultural

COLO 253093 & 316317

for Design as outlined in Section 3.3.1 of the DB

Project Scope, and;

d. improves long term shoreline resiliency?

resources, while still meeting the design requirements.

26.

On page 15 of 55 of the solicitation document, special clause 5:

Small Business Participation says “The contractor shall ensure a minimum 15% of the total contract value is performed by Small

Business” However, on page 52 of 55, Phase 2, Volume II, Price

Proposal the text says “Small Businesses (43.25%), Small

Disadvantaged Businesses (5%), Women-Owned Businesses (5%), HUBZone (3%), and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses

(3%), can NPS please clarify the percentage to be performed by small business?

15% small business participation is required of large business primes.

Page 52 is referencing NPS’s small business annual goals. In your small business participation plan, if you cannot meet those goals, please make a statement as to why.

27.

Factor 4, Past Performance asks the offeror to complete and submit the provided Past Performance Questionnaire for each project submitted, can the Offeror’s team submit CPARS or PPQ’s previously completed and submitted by the project clients in lieu of sending the Past Performance Questionnaire provided by NPS?

Yes.

28.

Under Factor 1 Experience on page 49 of 55, NPS states to include an A/E SF330 qualifications for the Civil and/or coastal engineer, Ecologist. Can NPS please clarify if the offeror needs to include a full A/E SF330 Part I., Section A through H and Part II as part of the proposal submission? If a full A/E SF3000 is required, is there a limit to the number of projects, resumes, pages?

SF330 form not required. Resumes are acceptable. There is no overall page limit to Phase 1 submissions.

29.

Under Subfactor 1B, Key Personnel Experience, the RFP states to include the resumes of 5 key personnel (Project Manager, Superintendent, On-site Quality Control Specialist, On-site Safety

Specialist, Designer or Record). Can NPS please clarify the submission requirements? Attachment 04 Proposal Submission, contains a form labeled ‘Key Personnel Qualifications’, would NPS like the offeror to submit the resumes of the key personnel in this

Attachment 04 format or the SF 330 format? Is there a limit to the number of pages for each key person’s resume?

Contractor may choose their presentation style. Resumes are acceptable, SF330 form is acceptable, and Attachment 4, “key personnel Qual.” Form is acceptable.

Duplicity is discouraged. No limit on resume pages.

30.

Will the NPS allow alternate/ innovative designs that consistent with most, if not all, of the shoreline management objectives noted in Section 4.1 of document

B08_Attachment_10_Shoreline_Mgmt_Plan?

Section 3.5 Technical Requirements of the scope of work for a list of resources that identify all of the performance standards that apply to the design. The NPS will be receptive to design changes, that can be clearly demonstrated as beneficial to the NPS, that meet these requirements.

31.

Please delay the due date for the Phase 1 technical proposals. The questions asked in early Sept have not yet been replied to and some will affect the team make up, as well as replies to both

Phase 1 submissions are due October 15, 2021, at 1200 Eastern.

COLO 253093 & 316317

design and construction approach. We would appreciate the due date be moved to three weeks after replying to all timely questions.

32.

Please spread out the time between when the shortlist is announced and the final technical and pricing is due. Currently shown as less than three weeks. The Engineers need time to develop and vent their designs, draw it up and have the estimators price the project, including getting pricing from subcontractors and vendors. Two to three months would be appropriate between the short listing and receipt of the proposals

Phase 1 submissions are due October 15, 2021, at 1200 Eastern.

Phase 2 submissions are due November 19, 2021, at 1200 Eastern.

33.

The RFP is clear that all construction traffic is prohibited on

Colonial Parkway. During the site visit it was stated “most” construction traffic is prohibited. Please explain the difference Under Review

34.

It is stated in the RFP that the Concept Plans are 90% complete, yet at the site visit it was stated as a Design Build contract the DB team is expected to review the designs to date and make revisions, including to design concept, they feel appropriate. This was especially true at the areas of gulling on the steep slopes where it was stated you were looking for ideas on how to fix the problem. Please take this into account when stating the desired design schedule. The 155 days for all design, permits and Gov’t reviews is not adequate.

Under Review

35.

Please provide a list of all permits expected to be required and the estimated time frame for review and approval by the agency’s involved

Please see section 3.6 Permitting and Compliance of the scope of work for anticipated permit requirements. The Offeror shall conduct their own evaluation of permit requirements and associated time frames for agency review and approval.

36.

Please provide documentation on how the recent contracts utilized water access to construct the breakwaters and deliver materials.

Prior contracts means and methods are proprietary to the contractor.

37.

Section 1.4 Data and Materials to be provided by the NPS; page 2 states, "GIS Data – Wetland Delineation, 2015; COLO known archaeological sites." Please provide GIS data and COLO known archaeological sites.

The 2011 Wetland Delineation Report is provided with this solicitation and contains sufficient detail of wetland resources for preparing a proposal. Sensitive resource areas are delineated on the existing condition planviews provided in the 95% plan bridging documents, as well as the archaeology site map provided with Amendment 02GIS data will be provided to the successful bidder.

COLO 253093 & 316317

38.

Section 1.5 Schedule for Design and Construction; 70% Design

Development (DD) Documents; page 3 states, "If the SHPO requests additional information the NPS may request additional edits / revisions to the 70% plans to be incorporated into the 95% documents." In the event SHPO requests additional information and NPS requests additional edits / revisions, please confirm

Contractor will be afforded cost and schedule relief.

Delays are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Relief will not be granted if other work can be performed.

39.

Referencing Section 2.1.2 Contract Line Item No. 2; page 5; The scope of work includes wetland planting and/or revegetation. Will the Contractor have an obligation to monitor revegetated areas for success or survivability post construction?

Yes. The Contractor shall assume a two year period from substantial completion for vegetation monitoring and maintenance.

40.

Section 3.6 Permitting and Compliance; page 15 refers to Section

408, 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Please identify the project features that are regulated by Section 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Clean Water Act §408 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructs and maintains civil works projects across the United States. Any use or alteration of a USACE civil works project by another party requires approval of USACE.

Under 33 USC 408 (Section 408) USACE may grant permission for another party to alter a civil works project upon a determination that the proposed alteration will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of the civil works project.

Section 3.6 Permitting and Compliance of the scope of work indicates the anticipated permit requirements. The proposer shall conduct their own evaluation of regulatory applicability and permit requirements.

41.

Referencing Section 3.6 Permitting and Compliance, page 16; The scope of work anticipates authorization under a Regional General

Permit (RGP) by the USACE. Please confirm Contractor will be afforded schedule relief if a different permit or additional permits are required.

Delays are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Relief will not be granted if other work can be performed.

42.

Section 3.6 Permitting and Compliance; page 16 states, "The preparation of letters, documents and materials to be used for the purposes of review and compliance under Section 7 will be completed by the Contractor and provided to NPS for review and submittal." For this scope of work, please confirm that the data in the 2012 Environmental Assessment (i.e., RFP Attachment 8) is

The understanding of these two items, as stated, is correct.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/408

COLO 253093 & 316317

still valid. Please also confirm that the Contract will need to perform field surveys in order to comply with this scope of work.

43.

Section 3.6 Permitting and Compliance; page 16 states "Section

106 coordination under the National Historic Preservation Act shall be completed by NPS and is not included in this scope of work." Please confirm NPS will provide the Contractor schedule relief for impacts beyond the Contractor's control.

Delays are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Relief will not be granted if other work can be performed.

44.

Referencing Section 4.4.5 Vegetation Salvage and Re-vegetation

Plan; page 19 Please confirm that the Vegetation Salvage and Re-vegetation Plan is included in the Contractor's scope of work.

The design build contractor will be responsible for revegetation.

45.

Section 4.4.7 Special Status Species; page 19 states, "To protect any unknown or undiscovered threatened, endangered, or special status species, the construction contract will include provisions for the discovery of such. The Contractor should contact the park for direction for evaluation of any special species at the site."

Please confirm the construction contract will provide the

Contractor schedule relief for impacts beyond the Contractor's control.

Delays are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Relief will not be granted if other work can be performed.

46.

Section 4.4.12 Cultural Resources, page 20 states if archeological resources are discovered at the project site, all work in the vicinity of the discovery must stop immediately, and the discovery must be reported to the CO and work may not continue without explicit approval from the Park cultural resource staff and CO. Please confirm NPS will provide the Contractor schedule relief for stoppage of work if archeological resources are discovered.

Delays are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Relief will not be granted if other work can be performed.

47.

Section 4.8 Maintaining Existing Utilities, page 23 states that the location of existing utilities is the responsibility of the Contractor.

Please provide for information purposes, any available inventories of existing utilities within the project site.

There are no overhead utilities in the project area. There are stormwater drainage features (drop inlets, culverts, outfalls, etc) throughout the project area, and are thought to be identified on the drawings. There is an 11” water or sewer line suspended under the Felgates Creek Bridge. NPS is working with the Navy to obtain additional information on where that line runs.

48.

Per Attachment 1 Scope of Services Section 3.6, a Tidewater Joint

Permit Application (JPA) permit is to be prepared by the contractor and submitted to various agencies for review and approval. If delays were to occur to during said agencies review and approval, which entity will be held at risk for these delays as related to the design and construction schedule prescribed in

Section 1.5?

Delays are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Relief will not be granted if other work can be performed.

COLO 253093 & 316317

49.

Are any firms (contractor, subcontractor, engineering, or other) excluded from proposing on this project, or excluded from being a part of a team (joint-venture, partnership, dedicated firm, or other) that is proposing on this project?

Under review

50.

The RFP requires the Designer of Record to be licensed in Virginia.

Does this license need to be obtained by the time of the Phase 1 submittal, or can it be obtained prior to award?

Under review

51.

For Phase 1 Factor 4 (Past Performance), the RFP states that offerors may submit a Past Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS) evaluation report in lieu of the Past Performance

Questionnaire. Will you allow the offeror to submit a completed

Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) in lieu of the

Past Performance Questionnaire?

Yes.

52. Was the site visit mandatory for this project?

No. Site visit slides and sign in sheet available on SAM.gov under Amendment 01 and Amendment 02.

53.

Our engineering analysis shows a potential problem for installing the Helical Anchors horizontally for the Sheet Pile seawall.

The drawings indicate horizontal helical tiebacks. Most of the borings indicate sandy soil conditions. With sand the pullout capacity increases with depth. By going horizontal the embedment depth will be excessive. So can you please check if the helical tiebacks can be installed at an angle to achieve an economical option. An angle of 30 degrees to the horizontal would be optimal. Please see if the EOR can approve this.

The design build contractor shall review and verify the current design is a cost effective and constructable solution that meets the project requirements (see section 3.5 Technical Requirements). The NPS will be receptive to design changes that reduce cost and/or impacts to natural and cultural resources, while still meeting the design requirements. The design build contractor will be responsible for validating the design and products proposed meet the project requirements, and retain the engineer of record. The NPS will not be retaining the initial design team as an Engineer of Record.

54.

1. Page 49 of 55 of B08_RFP_140P2021R0066

• SUBFACTOR 1A – PROJECT EXPERIENCE:

⁃ Question: Are there any formatting requirements for Teaming Experience, Revetment Construction Experience, and/or Key Trades experience?

• “SUBFACTOR 1B – KEY PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE:

Submit resumes for key personnel as identified in Section H of this solicitation and listed below. All personnel proposed are subject to substitution

Contractor may choose their presentation style. Resumes are acceptable, SF330 form is acceptable, and Attachment 4, “key personnel Qual.” Form is acceptable.

Duplicity is discouraged. No limit on resume pages.

COLO 253093 & 316317

requirements contained in this solicitation. There is no preprinted form for this submittal.”

⁃ Question: Should the contractor submit key staff resumes on the Key Personnel Qualifications form included as page 4 of 26 of 08_Attachment_04_Submittion_Package?

Question: Are full key staff resumes required in addition to this form; if so, is there required formatting, e.g., SF330 Section E format?

55.

Page 5 of 26 of B08_Attachment_04_Submittion_Package:

Subcontractor Reference Form.

Question: Verify this form is to be completed for all subcontractors. Where it should be included?

Please review Factor 4: Past Performance. Include in Phase 1, past performance.

56.

The Small Business Contracting Plan on page 10 of the Proposal

Submission Package shows the following:

• Small Business Concerns: 43.25%;

• Veteran Owned Business Concerns: 3.0%,

• Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Concerns: 3.0%,

• HUBZone Small Business Concerns: 3.0%;

• Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns: 5.0%;

• Small Women-Owned Business Concerns: 5.0%.

However, on page 44 of B08_RFP_140P2021R0066 goals are stated as:

“The goals for minority and female participation, expressed in percentage terms for the Contractor’s aggregate workforce in each trade on all construction work in the covered area, are as follows: Goals for

Minority Participation for Each Trade 27.1% / Goals for

Female Participation for Each Trade 6.9%”

Question: Could the Government please provide clearer guidance on these small business targets?

Under Review

Section 1.5 Schedule for Design and Construction; page 2 states, "The project shall be fully designed and permitted before the start of construction."

Design-Build projects typically allow for early work packages for certain portions of the work to allow construction to start before all design is fully completed. We request that the project

The NPS believes the agencies with jurisdiction permit requirements preclude early work packages. If the Offeror can demonstrate this is not the case, the NPS will be receptive to considering early work packages for construction prior to the project being fully designed.

COLO 253093 & 316317

requirements be revised to allow for early work packages and for construction to start before the project is fully designed.

58.

The drawing notes (Note 2 on Sheets 32 through 4, Note 5 on

Sheet 46, and Note 2 on Sheet 47) state that vegetated wall slope stabilization areas shown are approximate, and the start of areas shall be coordinated with the COR prior to construction after reviewing the pre-construction survey. Please confirm that the limits for "start of vegetated slope stabilization areas" include the top of slope, bottom of slope, and station-to-station limits.

The design build contractor shall propose the necessary limits for slope stabilization.

The design build contractor shall review and verify the current design is a cost effective and constructable solution that meets the project requirements (see section 3.5 Technical Requirements) and, if deemed to be valid, progress the design to a level of detail sufficient for permitting, compliance, and construction. The NPS will be receptive to design changes that reduce cost and/or impacts to natural and cultural resources, while still meeting the design requirements.

59.

Other than the information included in the Geotechnical Report, it is not clear how the different shoreline stabilization solutions were selected for the different areas.

Is there an overall basis of design memorandum/report or similar documentation available? If these documents are available, please provide.

Please see section 3.5 Technical Requirements of the scope of work for a list of resources that identify the performance standards that apply to the design. The documents noted provided the basis for design.

60.

Did the USACE perform any hydraulic analyses or modeling and prepare a corresponding hydraulic design report to support the proposed design? If these documents are available, please provide.

All supporting documentation prepared by USACE has been provided with this solicitation.

61.

RFP Attachment 1 states, "This item consists of work required for sheet pile slope stabilization including but not limited to driving of steel sheets, installing anchoring systems, placing of granular fill, and all access and staging between approximately stations

128+00 and 132+00 delineated in the bridging documents."

The stated stationing limits are not consistent with those stated in the Attachment 3 bridging documents. Drawing Sheet 46, Note 3 states that the limits are between 127+00 and 131+00.

Note 6 states that the limits are between 128+39 and

131+39. Since this is a Lump Sum item, please confirm the approximate maximum station limits.

The design build contractor shall propose the necessary limits for this item of work.

The design build contractor shall review and verify the current design is a cost effective and constructable solution that meets the project requirements (see section 3.5 Technical Requirements) and, if deemed to be valid, progress the design to a level of detail sufficient for permitting, compliance, and construction. The NPS will be receptive to design changes that

COLO 253093 & 316317

reduce cost and/or impacts to natural and cultural resources, while still meeting the design requirements.

62.

The project plans show several Contractor’s Access (Heavy

Equipment) locations off the Colonial National Historical Parkway.

Specification 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.5.6 & 1.5.7 says the Parkway is limited to passenger vehicles only and a maximum weight limit of

10 tons and heavy equipment must be delivered by barge. Please clarify what “Heavy Equipment” means for the shown Accesses off of the Parkway on the plans.

Under Review

63.

No Proposed Barge or Land Access Areas are shown on the plans for the Revetment Area 1 (Sta 12+00 to Sta 72+75) to deliver equipment and materials. Is it the intent that the Offer

Design/Engineering Build Team develop additional temporary accesses when completing the final design and obtaining the required permits to construct the project?

Yes.

64.

Per Specifications section 01 45 00 subpart 3.4.3 (CQC Personnel), the Contractor shall provide as part of the CQC organization specialized personnel to assist the CQC System Manager for the following areas: civil, structural, surveying, materials technician, and submittals clerk. Experience requirements for the specialized personnel are listed in an experience matrix following the subpart paragraph. At what point in the selection process (i.e. Phase 1 submittal, Phase 2 submittal, prior to NTP, etc) does the

Contractor need to identify these CQC specialized personnel?

Phase 1

65.

Per Specifications section 01 35 26 subpart 1.6.1.1.1, the SSHO may also serve as the Quality Control Manager. The SSHO may not serve as the Superintendent. Per Specifications section 01 45 00 subpart 3.4.2, the CQC System Manager shall be assigned no other duties. Also, per Attachment 1 Scope of Services section

4.5.2, the Contractor's Quality Control Supervisor may also perform the duties of Project Superintendent. Please clarify which positions can and cannot perform other positions for the project.

The presiding project requirements are those stated in the scope of work with the request for proposal.

The specifications in the bridging documents were created for a design-bid-build delivery and are only to serve as the starting point for design. Division 01 specifications provided are superseded by the requirements stated in this RFP Scope of Services.

66.

Due to the content requirements for the Phase 1 submittal, would

NPS be willing to grant an extension of approximately two weeks for the submission due date (currently due Oct. 6)?

Phase 1 submissions are due October 15, 2021, at 1200 Eastern.

Phase 2 submissions are due November 19, 2021, at 1200 Eastern.

67.

Regarding Factor 4 – Past Performance, can an offeror submit a completed USACE PPQ for a relevant past project? The USACE

PPQ format is similar but not identical to the NPS PPQ format

Yes. Attaching NPS PPQ for sections A and B are unnecessary with a Previously received PPQ.

COLO 253093 & 316317

provided in Attachment 4. If desired, Sections A and B of the NPS

PPQ can be filled out and submitted with the completed USACE

PPQ. Please advise.

68.

At the site visit, it was mentioned that a section of the project existing conditions do not match the survey in the USACE 95% plans. Can you verify the location where this occurs?

Under Review

69.

Since the topographic survey was completed, there were several projects completed. Will the as-built documents (in CADD) for these improvements for these projects be available to the selected firm?

Yes.

70.

To better protect potential cultural resources, will the Contractor need to have any qualified archaeological monitors present onsite to watch construction when actively working within the previously mapped areas of concern, and engage the COLO

Cultural Resources Manager whenever something is discovered that would require review?

The NPS will provide monitoring where needed.

71.

As noted in the RFP and further discussed during the site visit, a main objective during slope stabilization is to maintain an open viewshed. Grubbing will be necessary to prevent the reemergence of invasive and view-blocking vegetation. As the slopes along revetment area 1 have been previously graded and disturbed years ago during the initial revetment project, will NPS allow the grubbing of vegetation between top and bottom of slope, with the exception of the salvageable large trees, to accommodate proper slope stabilization?

Yes, outside sensitive resource areas. Referring to the site map provided with Amendment 02, grubbing is allowed in areas outside of identified sites and within the sites identified in purple. Grubbing is allowed not to exceed 18” in depth in site areas identified in red.

Grubbing is not allowed in sites marked in green or yellow. In all cases, there is some potential for uncovering human remains.

72.

During the 9/14 site visit, it was noted that offeror’s would be supplied with maps on the location of cultural resources throughout the project site. Will the NPS supply offerors with the location of archeological sites and cultural resources?

Sensitive resource areas are delineated on the existing condition planviews provided in the 95% plan bridging documents, as well as the archaeology site map provided with Amendment 02.

73.

Please confirm that an executed Standard Form 1442 and any subsequent Amendment forms are not included as part of the

Phase I proposal submission.

Under review

74.

Page 50 of 55 of the RFP states that “If available, offerors may submit a Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) evaluation report in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaire.”

Please confirm that a CPARS evaluation report could also be submitted in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaire.

Confirmed.

COLO 253093 & 316317

75.

Page 49 of 55 lists five key personnel roles. Can offerors propose the same individual for both the On-site Quality Control Specialist and the On-site Safety Specialist?

Under review

76.

Please note several location on the plan sheets show “Contractors

Access (Heavy Equipment)” directly from the Parkway. An example is at station 120+00 on sheet 53. Please clarify any probations or restrictions and eliminate the apparent conflict between the RFP, Plan Sheets and Site Visit.

Under Review

77.

Will there be prebid meeting notes posted to address the questions asked there?

Questions asked during the site visit are not contractual. All questions were encouraged in writing. See Amendment 01 for site visit slides.

RFIs stand as site visit notes.

78.

Regarding Factor 1 -Experience, Subfactor 1A -Project Experience, so the teams can provide more relevant experience and give more firms the opportunity to be competitive, would NPS please consider accepting relevant projects completed in the last 15 years?

Project experience revised to ten

(10) years.

79.

In the Colonial Parkway Archeology Site Map, do the National Register Eligible Sites 44YO0800 and 44YO0166 include the bank slope or is the limit at the top of bank?

Site boundaries for 44YO0800 indicate that much of the site boundary occurs above the slope. In the case of 44JC0166 DHR site boundaries go out into the river and likely represent their location prior to erosional events. For 44YO0166 treat the slope as part of the site to a depth of 4’ below ground surface.

80.

Please confirm that, prior to RFP release, the 95% Bridging

Documents (included as RFP Attachment 3) were updated / revised in response to the NPS review comments.

The 95% bridging documents provided with this solicitation were not updated in response to NPS comments. The NPS are comments provided in Amendment 02.

81.

NPS Review Comment No. 4 states, "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." Please confirm location of these sensitive resource areas by revising Bridge Documents or by providing a table of location coordinates.

Sensitive resource areas are delineated on the existing condition planviews provided in the 95% plan bridging documents, as well as the archaeology site map provided with Amendment 02.

82.

RFP Attachment 1, Section 1.2 states, "Note that project site access limitations require most material and equipment delivery and some installation of the work from the York River by barge."

and Section 4.1.5 states, "In-Water Work Restrictions: The York

River has been designated as and Anadromous Fish Use Area, and the federal and state endangered Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) is identified by Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information

Under review

COLO 253093 & 316317

Service (VAFWIS) as occurring within the river. As such, a time-of-year restriction (TOYR) on in-stream work is typically required from February 15 to June 30, particularly for activities that may generate excessive noise or increase turbidity. Weight limitations and commercial vehicle restrictions exist for Colonial Parkway and associated bridges. Check requirements prior to shipping materials on these roadways. Rock and heavy equipment required to complete the work will be delivered via barge or other seaworthy vessel." Attachment 3, Sheet 3, Note 9.1 states, "Access shall be allowed by water and by land via Colonial

Parkway." and Note 9.3, states, "The maximum weight limit for the Parkway is 10 tons." Amendment 2 NPS review comment on

95% Drawings, Sheet 3, states, "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."

Given the 4.5 month water restriction defined in RFP Attachment

1, please define all access limitations on Colonial Parkway including time restrictions (i.e., time of day, days of week, seasonal and/or monthly restrictions, etc.), number and types of vehicles per day, vehicle weight and height restrictions, material delivery restrictions, etc.

83.

Amendment 1, states that Phase 2 proposals will be due to CS/CO on or before: – October 29, 2021, 0800 ET. Can NPS please clarify the new due date following the phase 1 due date extension announced in Amendment 2.

Phase 1 submissions are due October 15, 2021, at 1200 Eastern.

Phase 2 submissions are due November 19, 2021, at 1200 Eastern.

84.

The solicitation states that NPS anticipates the project is not expected to require an Individual Permit under Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act and may likely be authorized instead under a

Regional Permit (RGP) by the USACE. Has the NPS determined which RGP is applicable to the project (i.e., 18-RGP-19, Regional

Permit 19 (RGP))?

Under Review

85.

The NEPA EA for the project was completed by the NPS in 2012.

Did the NPS complete a Final EA and was a findings determination made (i.e., FONSI)? Given that the NEPA EA is nine years old, does the NPS anticipate that the EA document, and administrative record, will need to be updated by either a formal re-evaluation by the NPS or preparation of a supplemental EA? Is any aspect of

NEPA the responsibility of the Contractor?

Yes.

86.

The solicitation states that Section 106 coordination under the

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) shall be completed by Yes.

COLO 253093 & 316317

NPS and is not included in this scope of work. Is the limit of the

Contractor’s work related to Section 106 simply incorporating the

NPS and VA-SHPO information into design reports, drawings and permit applications such as the Joint Permit Application (JPA)?

87.

The solicitation states that NPS shall be responsible for initiating the required Section 7 Endangered Species Act coordination with

NOAA, NMFS and USFWS. Further, that the preparation of letters, documents and materials to be used for the purposes of review and compliance under Section 7 will be completed by the

Contractor and provided to NPS for review and submittal. Has the

NPS or USACE completed more recent inquiries regarding protected species and does the NPS anticipate that data presented in the 2012 NEPA EA will need to be updated (e.g., field surveys, covert-type mapping)?

Yes and yes.

88.

The solicitation states that project area has been previously delineated in 2011, and that the delineation does not appear to be covered under a current, valid confirmation. Further, that the delineation shall include flagging of the limits of wetlands and stream channels onsite, data forms, a hardcopy map and request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination to the USACE if needed. As part of this 2011 effort, the prior consultant performed a functional assessment of wetlands (“Highway Method”), the results of which were presented in the 2012 NEPA EA. Does the

NPS anticipate that a new functional assessment will need to be performed along with an updated wetlands delineation?

Yes.

89.

The solicitation states in that wetland plantings will be needed in several area. Does the NPS anticipate that the Contractor will have to prepare formal wetland mitigation plans as part of the

Joint Permit Application? Are there any other ecosystem mitigation/restoration areas or requirements anticipated by the

NPS?

Yes, wetland mitigation plans will need to be prepared. Other ecosystem mitigation is not anticipated, however the Contractor shall evaluate all permit requirements in the design process as noted in the scope of work.

90.

Has a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment been performed for the project site? Does the NPS anticipate that any onsite soils and sediment will require testing for contamination and off-site disposal?

No. The NPS is not aware of any known contamination sites in the project area. Any excavation in the project area should be minimized.

91.

The plans note several access points for a barge.

Has the NPS had any conversations with the regulatory agencies regarding the permits to be secured and/or about compensatory mitigation regarding impacts to waters of the US? If there have been conversations with them, please share what those communications have been along with any resulting decisions.

No. See section 3.6 regarding permitting and compliance, please see the attached prior permit application for most recent revetment work completed by the

NPS.

COLO 253093 & 316317

92.

Has the NPS made any estimations on the project’s impacts to waters of the US, including but not limited to fill placement

(associated with revetments and breakwater structures) and excavation (due to dredging/ access challenges to implement the project)?

Under review

93.

If estimated impacts to waters of the US from the solicitation’s design plans have been made, please share what those impacts are (quantity and actions related to those impacts).

Estimated impacts have not been made based on the bridging documents provided. The design build contractor shall determine project impacts to waters of the US.

Please see the attached prior permit application for most recent revetment work completed by the

NPS.

94.

For Phase 1, Factor 1, Subfactor 1A, the third bullet point states:

A/E SF330 qualifications: Civil and/or coastal engineer, Ecologist.

Please provide further instructions on what…