B10_CHOH_245002_287711_Amd_03_-_Attach_1_140P2022R0130_Questions_-_2_27_2023_0003.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CHOH 245002 287711 -Locks and Wall
- Solicitation number
- 140P2022R0130
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a federal solicitation for masonry restoration work on locks and walls along the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal in Maryland. The solicitation seeks a contractor to perform repairs and reconstruction of various stone walls, locks, and related structures along the canal. It clarifies details around materials, construction methods, equipment usage, subcontracting requirements and schedules. Questions cover topics such as the types of cement to use in mortar mixes, protection of existing timber elements, treatment of salvaged stone, and the contractor's ability to store historic obelisks on site. Responses provide specifications for working with natural and Portland cements depending on the materials and conditions of individual structures. They also require care in handling salvaged elements and protecting existing features to remain. The document establishes that the National Park Service is the contracting agency and sets assumed notice to proceed and completion dates of November 2023 through October 2025 for evaluation of submitted schedules.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 85 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question Set | Set Number | Question | Responsible Party | Response |
| A |
Amendment 0003
| Posted: TBD | 1 | Definition of Contract Lines does not seem to line up with Bid Schedule We see no reference to Contract Line Items L1, L2, etc. on Bid Schedule. | DSC | Revised Sec. 012700 to match with Bid Schedule. A revised bid schedule correcting street number to be issued in next amendment | |
| 2 | Please confirm that salvaged stone is going to be reset in a similar pattern as existing stone and not piece by piece at exact same location as original. | MWM JV2 | Please clarify which wall/area this comment applies. | ||
| 3 | Spec Section 040342, Paragraph 2.4.B calls for mortar to be Portland Cement, Type 1 White. Spec Section 041000, Paragraph 2.1.B.1 calls for Natural Cement which is substantially more expensive. Please confirm which type of cement we are to use. | MWM JV2 | Lock #1 - Aquia Creek Sandstone - Natural Cement - Natural cement recommended since repairs will be compatible with assumed existing insitu natural mortars. Lower strength stone also supports use of natural cement to serve as sacrificial joint to translate any future stresses |
Lock #2 - Aquia Creek Sandstone - Natural Cement - Natural cement recommended since repairs will be compatible with assumed existing insitu natural mortars. Lower strength stone also supports use of natural cement to serve as sacrificial joint to translate any future stresses
Level #1 Wall North - Portland Cement - Proposed repair to fill the backfill with permeation grouting material. Grouting is required inside the wall per sheet s2.1. The grout is presumed to be minimum 1300psi as defined in section 040307. Use Portland cement here since there is limited concern for incompatible transmissivities in joints and a stronger Cementous material inside and behind the wall .
Level #1 South Wall - Natural Cement - Use natural cement since wall repairs are limited to surficial areas. This maintains compatible vapor transmissivity when compared to assumed insitu material.
Level #2 Wall - Natural Cement - Use natural cement since wall repairs are predominantly to surficial areas. This maintains compatible vapor transmissivity when compared to assumed insitu material. This also would be weaker than Aquia creek sandstone
1062 Wisconsin Ave, North Canal Wall - Portland Cement - Dry laid wall recently rebuilt in the early 2000’s. Resetting capstones, assumed needs mortar.
1046 Wisconsin Ave, South Canal Wall - Portland Cement - Proposed actions is going to be a rebuilt wall with grout, concrete, and other impervious materials used behind it. Wall is above the operational level of water in the canal.
3207 Grace Street – Portland Cement - The current wall is drylaid, a new concrete wall will be put in front of it and a mortared rubble stone with dry laid stone appearance added. Use of Portland cement would also match with the likely type used underneath the existing bridge adjacent to the new work.
1046 Potomac Street – Portland Cement - The 2002 investigation found that the wall was drylaid behind the face. The proposed repair for the upstream end of this wall will be full reconstructed with a drainage layer and weep behind it to manage any groundwater. This is above the normal operating surface of the canal. Appears that Portland based material has been used for repointing where mortar remains intact on the downstream end of the work area. There is no natural cement that is expected to be within the existing wall to be repaired, and no incompatibility issues; suggest using Portland cement.
34th Street – Portland Cement - This whole section will be rebuilt and is above the normal operating level of the canal. A modern drainage section behind will relieve any groundwater.
Lock #5 – Natural Cement - This is a mix of Aquia Creek Sandstone, Seneca Sandstone, Gneiss, and Schist stones per the 1989 Davies Report. Concrete repairs made in 1930’s. Use natural cement since weaker stones and surficial treatment compatibility with interior mortars.
Lock #5 Retaining Wall – Portland Cement and Natural Cement - Existing Portland cement from previous repairs, but sandstone remains in place at lower sections. Upper portions could be Portland but lower section with sandstone should be natural cement.
Inlet Lock – Portland Cement - Appears that there is existing Portland used on the stones. Similar to work done at Lock 17, 18, & 19. There is also a lot of Cementous materials used in the 1940’s repairs in this area and the expected concrete backing/buttressing also contributes to Portland's recommended use.
Guard Lock - Portland Cement - This is a mix of schist, gneiss (Wissahickon, boulder gneiss), concrete, and other materials. Given the proposed treatment with concrete on the face and backing, and prevalence of Portland at the face; recommend using Portland mortar.
The mortar specified in 040342 should be used for architectural work. For example, detail 6/A8.1, the note "Cover break surfaces with color matched mortar."
| 4 | Can Obelisk as shown on A4.0 be stored on site or are there any special requirements because of its historic nature. | Park | The contractor should store the obelisk on site. Contractor shall provide before and after photos to capture its condition. Extreme care to be taken during its removal and installation. |
| 5 | Is there any restoration to ball finial other than resetting? | MWM JV2 | Restoring the ball finial other than resetting is currently not in the SOW. |
| 6 | Please confirm frequency of mortar testing is 1 test per week per Note K on S0.01 and not daily. | MWM JV2 | Specification 041000 3.2A "provide compresion strength tests for every day's work." Will issue drawing addendum to clarify |
| 7 | Please confirm that equipment can travel on top of existing timber planking at locks and/or does flooring need to be protected. | MWM JV2 | Do not damage existing foundation planking and timbers that are to remain. Provide means of protection as necessary. |
| 8 | Please refer to drawing 1/S2.1 and multiple other locations. There is note about chinking walls. However, there is no pay item for chinking on Bid Schedule. Please advise. | MWM JV2 | Work for Level 1 North wall in detail 1/S2.1 is included in CLIN 0026 which is a lump sum price. In other locations, where chinking is requried, costs should be included in lump sum price as well. |
| 9 | Please confirm that pattern for new wall is to match existing wall photos as shown on S5.7. | MWM JV2 | Refer to 1/S5.8 for requirements to match the character of the size, shape, and coursing of existing stones prior to bracing. |
| 10 | Will there be any repointing required at Grace Street wall that is to remain? | MWM JV2 | The existing wall is to be grouted prior to the bracing removal per sequence on S5.5 therefore repointing is not required. Existing pockets in wall are to be filled with mortared stone prior to concrete placement per 1/S5.6. |
| 11 | Bid Schedule refers to 3206 Grace Street Wall. Drawings refer to 3207 Grace Street Wall. Please confirm this is the same wall. | MWM JV2 | Confirmed they are the same wall. A revised bid schedule correcting street number to be issued in next amendment |
| 12 | What Contract Line Item are we to bid the bricking up existing culverts. This is typical throughout. | MWM JV2 | Bricking and infilling of culverts to be covered in the lump sum contract line item per site. For example bricking and infilling culverts to be covered in CLIN 0010 for Lift Lock 1 and CLIN 0015 for Lift Lock 2. Lock 5 bricking of culverts is covered in CLIN 0023 as described in the definition of contract line items. See revised bid schdule attached to this Ammendment. |
| 13 | Will NPS control water levels during construction in the canal? | Park | |
| 14 | We were unaware of the pre-proposal site visit on Feb 6th. Can you please provide minutes of the meeting as well as a list of both Gov’t and Contractors / Engineers that attended? | DSC | A copy of the sign-in sheet of contractors that attended the pre-proposal site visit on Feb 6th, has been included with Amendment 002. There were no notes taken. |
| 15 | We noted the example projects needed to have been completed within the past 6 years. There are few projects that meet all the specified criteria awarded in any one year. We request the time frame for allowable projects be increased to 15 years? | Park | Time frame for example projects completed with in the last 10 years can be considered. |
| 16 | May the Project Manager also serve as the On-Site Quality Control Manager? | Park | Project Manage may also serve as the On-site QC Manager |
| 17 | Page 58 of 65 of the RFP Factor 7 states “A minimum of 30% of the total contract value must be performed by small businesses.” Page 60 of the RFP under 3. Vii SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTING PLAN states “The NPS subcontracting goals for Fiscal Year 2022 are: Small Businesses (44%), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (5%), Women-Owned Businesses (5%), HUBZone (3%), and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses (3%).” Please confirm the total Small Business requirement for this project is 30%. | Contracting | Page 58 of the RFP Factor 7 is specifically for Small Businesses Firms, while Page 60 of the RFP under 3. vii SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTING PLAN is specifically for Large Businesses to submit their Small Business Sub-Contracting Plan. The Small Business Sub-Contracting Plan is NOT required to be submitted by Small Business Firms. |
| 18 | RFP States "Submit your schedule; for evaluation purposes only assume a Notice to Proceed date of 11/01/2022 with a POP end date of 10/31/2024 and include specific activities required for this project and a clear critical path with major milestones and applicable predecessor activities." Please provide updated NTP and completion dates. | The new dates for submission are: Assume a Notice to Proceed date of 11/01/2023 with a POP end date of 10/30/2025. These dates are used for schedule evaluation purposes only, upon issuance of award and submission of actual schedule, the submitted actual schedule will be approved/disapproved based on referencing the submitted schedule for this solicitation. | |
| 19 | May we use 11x17 pages for the Schedule document? | As all proposals are to be submitted electronically, schedules may be submitted in 11x17 page formatting. | |
| 20 | Will a proposal cover and cover letter count against any page limits? | Proposal Covers and cover letters do not add to the required page count. | |
| 21 | On a recent solicitation for very similar scope (Locks 5 thru 22), the below was requested as part of the EXPERIENCE Factor. Since the stone mason subcontractor is so important for the proper performance of the overall project, will you consider including the below, and placing a page limit on the overall Experience Factor as was included in that solicitation (9 pages for the prime and 9 pages for the Masonry subcontractor). |
“TAB A – SUBFACTOR 1.2 – MASONRY SUBCONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT
The proposed subcontractor or offeror shall complete and provide the experience form for up to three (3) substantially completed projects performed by the subcontractor responsible for the masonry work required by this project with in the last (5) five years which are proposed to be similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities. You may also provide additional experience documentation as long as the page limits are not exceeded.
• Projects considered substantially complete are projects that have been completed enough to determine performance on all phases of the project.
• Projects considered similar include historic masonry construction including placement of large, natural historic stone work and matching the appearance of historic stone with newly quarried stone, replacement of lock gates and waste weirs, towpath repairs, bridge construction and liner
| installation.” | This requested change to the evaluation criteria will not be included in the solicitation. | |
| ****Please note we will not take questions after March 23,2023*** Bids due 12:00 ET 4/6*** |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .