B09_Att_16_RFIs_8-30-24_0002.pdf

RFIs

COLO 200920 Jones Mill Pond Dam

Solicitation 140P2024R0072

8-30-2024

1. Question: Specification section 31 68 16 states that the Installer is to have “evidenced of having installed helical soil anchors on at least ten (10) projects.” Please consider changing this requirement to read “…at least 10 (1) projects, or have documented training completed with the intended manufacturer of the helicals.”

Answer: Helical soil anchor project experience requirement has changed from ten (10) to five (5) projects plus training and/or certification of installers and foreman or ten (10) years’ experience. If using training in lieu of five (5) years additional experience, contractor shall provide statement with the proposal showing that proof of training completion shall be submitted prior to NTP. Revised Specifications Section 31 68 16 will be forthcoming.

2. Question: We request that the CAD files for this project be released for bidding purposes.

Answer: We are unable to transfer a very large file, but specifications and drawings included with solicitation should be sufficient for bidding purposes. CAD files will be provided after award to the awardee through a project teams site set up.

3. Question: Is there a geotechnical report for the project? Specifically, soil borings in the area of the Temp Sheeting.

Answer: Pavement cores and hand augering were conducted. Refer to Att 17 Final Title I

JMP Dam COLO Assessment Report March 2014 and previously provided Att 9

Supplemental Design Reports.

4. Question: The drawdown of Jones Mill Pond is to be no lower than elevation 12.

However, there is work to be performed to elevation 10 – installation of Upstream Stone

Armor Buttress. Is the installation of the Upstream Stone Armor Buttress to be installed in wet conditions from Elevation 10 to Elevation 12?

Answer: Yes.

5. Question: If the vibration criteria cannot be met during the installation of temp sheeting, what is an acceptable barrier method that can be constructed to meet the design intent.

Please provide said barrier method option(s) prior to the bid submission.

Answer: A vibratory hammer with high centrifugal forced capacity.

6. Question: Are power grinders allowed to be used for the historical masonry work?

Answer: Please refer to Specification Section 04 01 20.91, 2.06 Tools for Joint

Preparation regarding hand tools and power tools. The historic brick is soft, and care must be taken to not damage the adjacent brick when preparing the joints. Typically, non-abrasive methods and hand tools are preferred. A mock-up is required for Preparing

Joints in Brick Masonry per Specification Section 04 01 20.91, 1.05, B, 3 and Testing of

Workers is required per Specification section 04 01 20.91, 1.03, B.

7. Question: Specifications / 04 01 29.91 page 11 / para 2.01 A2 – Is the owner providing the additional source for salvaged brick?

Answer: Brick on the existing structures shall be salvaged for re-use. Any supplemental brick required will not be government provided due to availability. Refer to Specifications for matching requirements.

8. Question: May the superintendent perform the duties of the Quality control, Safety

Officer and Environmental Manager? Is more than one person required to be on site?

Answer: Refer to Solicitation Volume 2: Factor 3, Technical Experience for key personnel information. Two people on site are preferred with site superintendent and quality control manager as separate individuals.

9. Question: Spec 01 40 00 page 4 / Para 1.7 B 1 &2 - Which statement is correct?

B. Contractors Quality Control Staff:

1. Contractor's Quality Control Supervisor may also perform other duties.

2. Contractor's Quality Control Supervisor shall be assigned no other duties.

Answer: Contractor’s Quality Control Supervisor may also perform other duties. Revised

Specifications Section 01 40 00 will be forthcoming.

10. Question: Is a cost loaded schedule required?

Answer: A cost loaded schedule is not required.

11. Question: Is there a requirement for any permits? If so, have they all been submitted for?

Answer: Please refer to Att 3, 4 and 5 included with initial solicitation, and Att 18 with

Amendment 0002.

Virginia Stormwater Management Program’s permit for Stormwater Discharges

Associated with Construction Activities issued by York County is to be prepared by the contractor, with NPS to provide the erosion & sediment control plan, stormwater management plan and stormwater pollution prevention plan for inclusion in the application.

12. Question: Have geotechnical borings been performed? If so, please provide.

Answer: Refer to answer #3 above.

13. Question: Will contractors be required to maintain or manage water levels of lake while cofferdam is in place?

Answer: Intent is to maintain natural bypass flows from the impoundment to the downstream channel once the impoundment is lowered to its respective target elevations during respective phases of the work, recognizing that flows will vary depending on the amount (or lack) of precipitation. Downstream flows will need to be sustained to maintain impoundment levels at respective target elevations. Contractor to determine how the requirement will be met.

14. Question: Will cofferdam need a pass though?

Answer: Downstream flows will need to be maintained. Contractor to determine how the requirement will be met.

15. Question: General note A.5 on CN-001 references results for sediment samples in Exhibit

B. We were not able to locate these sample results. Please provide.

Answer: Sediment sampling test results are included in Att 21 Exhibit B Previous

Reports.

16. Question: Project specification section 01 10 00, section 1.17 indicates reports in Exhibits

A & B. Please provide these exhibits.

Answer: Paragraph 1.17 of Specifications Section 01 10 00 references only Exhibits B and

C (not A and B).

Att 21 Exhibit B Previous Reports contains subsurface data, sediment test results and the dive inspection report.

Att 22 Exhibit C Misc Reports and Figures contains historic drawings and photos of the spillway and embankment, and historic descriptions and specifications of dam/parkway’s original construction. Note that while a March 1005 evaluation report containing a geotechnical assessment is also available, it was not included in this exhibit.

Att 23 Exhibit D NPS Clean Fill Protocol contains NPS requirements for clean fill.

Although not referenced in this section, Exhibit A contains only the parkway rehabilitation drawings (70% plans, plotted 11/22/23), and is not needed for this requirement and is not included.

17. Question: General Construction Requirements note #24 discusses seasonal periods for work. Please confirm there are no time of year restrictions in place for the work under this contract, including within the LOD and within Cub Creek?

Answer: Refer to the permits and exemptions outlined in answers 11 and 53.

18. Question: Based on discussion during the field visit, it was noted that NTP will not be provided until after a minimum 30 day review of the proposal, followed by contract execution. Page 59 of the solicitation indicates to assume a 9/15/24 NTP date, which is not feasible. Please consider revising the NTP date assumption.

Answer: Section L Volume 2: Factor 2, Schedule of the Solicitation states for evaluation purposes only, assume a Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of September 15, 2024. This is to compare all offerors’ schedules with the same NTP date for consistency purposes.

However, this has been updated to October 30, 2024, but the date is for evaluation purposes only and it is not to be assumed that the NTP will be issued on this date.

19. Question: The wage determination provided in attachment 10 is for Heavy Dredging.

Please verify this is accurate, or provide the correct one.

Answer: Please refer to updated Att 20 Wage Determination VA20240204 Heavy.

20. Question: Specification 31 68 16 for helical foundation anchors require submission of a request for approval of the installer based on specified criteria. Please consider the following:

a. Revising this requirement to a post bid submission.

b. Tempering the requirements to a lessor number of projects and time frame.

c. Allow for submission and evaluation of geotechnical capabilities based on more complex work such as tiedown anchors, soil nails, hollow bars, etc.

Answer:

a. A post bid submission requirement is acceptable. Also refer to answer in Question 1 where evidence of required experience similar to this project will be evaluated.

b. Tempering the requirements to a lesser number of projects and time frame.

c. Evidence of required experience similar to this project will be evaluated.

21. Question: During the site visit, it was evident that there may be significantly more areas of brick and masonry repair to the control structure than are indicated in the plans. The plans have multiple notes indicating the repairs are approximate. Will repairs beyond those quantities specified in the plans be compensable to the Contractor?

Answer: The project is firm fixed price. Contractor shall review the plans and additional attachments, and price accordingly.

22. Question: Specification section 31 68 16 requires certain delegated design submissions for the helical foundation anchors. Subsection 1.5 A requires analysis of the sliding resistance of the Articulated Concrete Block Matting (ACBM), and a global stability analysis. Is it the intent to have the Contractor’s design professional perform these costly analyses when they appear to have already been performed as part of WSP’s

Stability and Seepage Analysis?

Answer: The contractor shall be required to retain a qualified professional engineer to complete the indicated evaluations for the contractor’s proposed helical anchor system demonstrating conformance to the respective stated requirements, for the Contracting

Officer’s review and acceptance.

23. Question: In regard to the helical anchors, we have the following questions:

a. Note 1 on CX-301 indicates anchors shall be installed 2’ from the upper end of the

ACBM. The intent of this requirement is unclear. Does this mean that the anchors shall be within 2’ from the edge of the mat along its length or does it mean that no anchor should be installed 2’ from any edge? Please clarify. Based on the clarification, this could dictate spacing more stringent than outlined in notes 3 & 4.

Answer: Anchors shall be installed two (2) feet from the upgradient end of ACBM along both shoulders of the parkway at the spacings indicated on Notes 3 and 4. No anchors shall be installed within two (2) feet of the edge of any ACB mat. Spacings indicated on these notes shall dictate the spacing of remaining anchors downgradient of these upgradient anchors on both upstream and downstream embankment slopes.

b. Note 7 on CX-301 indicates that the helical anchors should be partially installed prior to placement of the geo layers, and final installation after the placement of the

ACBM. Please confirm that post installation subgrade disturbance below the geotextile/geogrid/PVC liner layers is acceptable.

Answer: This is acceptable. It is noted that while some disturbance of the 6" cellular confinement layer is expected due to placement of the overlying geo/liner layers, the integrity and uniformity of the 6” cellular confinement layer shall be maintained. The native soil subgrade shall also be protected during placement of woven geotextile and 6” cellular confinement layer.

While disturbance from of the native subgrade foot-traffic is expected during/following placement of the woven geotextile prior to placement of the 6” cellular confinement layer, said foot-traffic shall be kept to a minimum to minimize disturbance.

Similarly, foot traffic on the cellular confinement layer shall be kept to a minimum following its placement and until placement of the ACBM.

The contractor shall be required to restore damage to the native subgrade of 6” cellular confinement layer resulting from excessive foot traffic, equipment, uncontrolled placement of overlying materials or other environmental conditions within the control of the contractor during all phases of construction.

c. There will be various penetrations throughout the PVC liner for the helical anchors and guardrail posts that will not be able to be sealed since they are being final installed after placement of the geo layers and ACBM. Please confirm this is acceptable.

Answer: All penetrations, including helical anchors and guardrail posts, shall be sealed using flared boots and clamps to prevent the existence of preferential seepage pathways or locations where soil migration may occur.

Submittals per the above are required under Section 31 35 26 Part 1.4A.

24. Question: Sheet CS-104 show two parking area drainage swale at approximately STA

883+00 RT. Detail sheet CD-502 does not depict any helical soil anchors for this section.

Please confirm they are not required.

Answer: Helical piles shall be installed wherever the ACBM are to be installed; for these two swales anchors shall be installed in accordance with Note 4 on Sheet CX-301.

25. Question: There seems to be inconsistency in regards to the depiction of geogrid reinforcement on sheets CS-301 and CD-504. Section A & B on CX-301 call for geogrid reinforcement below the concrete pavement. The pavement sections on CD-504 do not depict geogrid reinforcement under the pavements.

Answer: Geogrid is not to be installed below the exposed aggregate concrete pavement.

26. Question: Pavement section on CD-504 calls for a 6” layer of soil-cement under the concrete pavements. This is not feasible, as the in-situ mixing operation required for soil cement will damage the geotextile/geogrid/PVC liner layers below. Please consider revising the soil-cement to a different material that allows for installation.

Answer: The soil/cement mixing is not an in-situ process but entails placement of imported materials mixed and placed at the site in accordance with Section 307 of the

Virginia Department of Transportation Road and Bridge Specifications (referred to as

“Standard Specifications” in the project technical specifications. All processes entailed in the operation shall be conducted in a controlled manner, in accordance with Section

307 and to avoid damage to other adjacent existing structures to remain and to other improvements proposed under the project.

27. Question: Specification section 31 20 00 requires proof rolling of subgrade with loaded dump truck. While this will be able to be performed for the roadway subgrade, it will not be able to be performed on the impoundment slopes. Please confirm inspector’s visual observations during placement will be acceptable.

Answer: The inspector’s visual observations during placement will be the basis for acceptance/non-acceptance of prepared subgrades per Paragraph 3.8 of Specification

Section 31 20 00.

28. Question: The following questions are in regard to the Articulated Concrete Block (ACB)

Matting:

On Sheet CD-503 (19 if 34) the following ACB Callout and hydraulic data is given

Several places in the written specifications and supporting documents call out The

Shoreblock SD 600 OCT for the main embankment and Shoreblock SD 475 OCT for the outlet swale.

When we use the Max velocity and Max shear above no known ACB system provides a

FOS above 1.0 which is unacceptable. When we take the design overtopping depth of 2 ft (unit discharge of 7.5 CFS/ft) and run a simple step hydraulic mode; (SSHM program developed by Colorado State University Forty Collins CO) using a manning’s n value of

0.03 and looking at the velocity and shear values at the 70-75 ft down the slope range, we get a velocity and shear value of 17.7 ft/sec and 9.8 psf respectively. This leads to a

FOS value of greater than 2.0 for the Shoreblock SD 475 OCT system which is what is called out on the plans.

The reason for this difference we believe in reading the hydraulic model study conducted by WSP is that the HEC-RAS model used was the 2-D version and had tailwater present and includes the vertical drop into the outlet channel from the headwall in the downstream portion of the embankment. HEC-RAS 2D needs careful interpretation when tailwater and vertical drops are part of the modeled area. The

SSHM analysis is a worst case flow scenario accurately depicting the actual hydraulic conditions of the project rather than some erroneous numbers generated by the 2D model under know unstable conditions in the model. If we look at the model as presented and go a couple of feet up stream of the tail water and drop off locations this would provide a different result that shown in the plan set.

Please provide direction as to how the hydraulic information should be analyzed and interpreted.

Answer: Any references to Shoreblock SD 600 OCT shall be replaced with Shoreblock SD

475 OCT. Revised Specification will be forthcoming.

a. Question: In several places within the contract documents the geotextile is called out as a woven needle punched fabric. Do you mean non-woven needle punched fabric?

Answer: References to needle punched should be deleted from locations calling for woven geotextile. Specifically, the second sentence of Paragraph 2.4.A of Section 34 35

23 should be revised to “The fabric furnished shall be woven geotextile, manufactured for subsurface drainage applications, made from polypropylene or polyester fibers interlaced; with elongation greater than 50 percent; complying with AASHTO M 288 and the following minimum requirements, measured per test methods referenced.”

b. Question: The freeze thaw durability is called out for 50 cycles in saline. The industry has moved away from the saline freeze thaw test on dry cast ACBs due to inconsistency in the test itself. Will freshwater Freeze Thaw 100 cycles be accepted?

Answer: Based on this project’s location, yes – freshwater tests will be acceptable.

c. Question: ACB are being specified with Stainless steel washers (domestic). The industry standard is either Nylon or galvanized. The washers are only used to keep the loads from shifting during installation and do not contribute anything towards the FOS of the system. Will nylon or galvanized washers be allowed as an alternative to stainless steel?

Answer: Nylon washers are acceptable; galvanized washers are not acceptable.

d. Question: The specification calls for placing the drainage stone in 2 6 inch lifts with a pass of a vibratory roller. Vibratory rollers will not be able to be properly utilized on the side slopes of the impoundment. The stone will be placed in 6 inch lifts and the recommendation is no vibratory roller should be used. Will this be accepted?

Answer: Yes, this method of placement of drainage stone is acceptable.

e. Question: Places in the written documents call for a 0.5 inch protrusion allowance for the tapered block. The industry standard is 0 inch protrusion in the direction of flow. Can this be changed in the contract documents?

Answer: The existing protrusion allowance shall be retained.

29. Question: For the tree/stumps removal, can government provide the quantity, the size

(height and diameter) of the trees/stumps?

Answer: Refer to Att 19 Tree Removal Map.

30. Question: Can government provide site visit attendees list?

Answer: Refer to Att 24 Site Visit Sign-in List.

31. Question: (Pg 17 of Solicitation) Is it required to submit fillable Section H Special Contract

Requirements to declare key personnel?

Answer: Section H Special Requirement 1: Key Personnel is for reference only. Refer to

Section L Volume 2: Factor 3, Technical Experience for submittal information.

32. Question: (Volume I: Required Documentation) #5 says that we must submit any SBA review or approval documentation. Please confirm that one document showing our SBA approval will meet this requirement. If not, please clarify exactly what must be submitted.

Answer: One document is sufficient if it demonstrates SBA approval for a joint venture, in addition to the Joint Venture Agreement as stated in Section L Volume 1: Required

Documentation.

33. Question: If each volume must be contained in a separate file labeled with the volume number and title, should each one have a cover letter with the same requirements specified for Volume 1?

Answer: No additional cover letter is needed for Volumes 2, 3 and 4.

34. Question: (Past Performance) We are having an issue getting PPQs filled out by POCs if the project has a completed CPARS. A POC at USACE said they do not have to complete

PPQs if there is a completed CPARS evaluation available. Can we please ask that we be allowed to submit CPARS instead of getting past performance questionnaires filled out because of this?

Answer: Refer to Section M Factor 4 – Past Performance for NPS.

35. Question: (Past Performance) May we submit a previously completed PPQ if we cannot get a new one?

Answer: Refer to Section L Volume 3: Factor 4, Past Performance.

36. Question: May we please ask for an extension, so we have adequate time to revise our proposal based off the answers given in the RFI?

Answer: Refer to Amendment 0001 of the Solicitation.

37. Question: (Response to Questions) Please clarify these are the only 2 (two) questions to answer in this section. It says to refence “highlighted areas” in Section I clauses, but I do not see any other questions in these sections. Please advise.

Answer: Refer to Section L Volume I: Required Documentation Response to Questions showing three bullet points to address.

38. Question: Can we confirm there will be no more tree clearing required? Just stumps.

Answer: Trees were cleared under separate contract however some new growth has come up since. Clearing and grubbing as well as stump removal will be required per the contract documents.

39. Question: Davis Bacon wage scale is titled heavy dredging. Can we get a highway wage scale?

Answer: Please refer to updated Att 20 Wage Determination VA20240204 Heavy since it better fits the majority of the work required.

40. Question: What is the schedule of the other project? Who is the contractor?

Answer: The other project is on-going with the detour in segment F (location of Jones

Mill Pond) to begin late October and continue until completion, not later than June

2026. The contractor for the design-build parkway project is Wagman Heavy Civil/JMT.

41. Question: Daily access? With the other project, will there always be access?

Answer: Coordination will need to occur between contractors. The other project team is aware of the need for daily access and is required to not hinder other work.

42. Question: What maintenance is expected after completion for veg? Watering? One year warranty period?

Answer: Refer to Specifications Section 32 92 19. The intent is to maintain a viable stand of vegetation throughout the warranty period. The specification will be updated to include “The minimum coverage of vegetation (turf?) must be at least 95%” and will be amended after the bid period. Revised Specifications Section 32 92 19 will be forthcoming.

43. Question: Is there a boat ramp? Boat access? No recreating on pond?

Answer: The pond is for US Navy recreation and training. NPS ROW is shown on the plans. No motorized boats will be allowed. If contractors wish to use small vessels, they need to remain within the ROW and have electric motors only. There are no boat ramps and the only access point would be from the project site.

44. Question: When were the photos taken?

Answer: All photos on CD-507 were 11/2022, and all photos on CD-508 were 3/2023.

45. Question: Helical pile certification prior to bid? Might be pushed until after. Something about matting?

Answer: Refer to Question #1 response.

46. Question: We missed the original site visit, could we arrange a site visit or is there any reason why we would not be able to access the site on our own?

Answer: Since the site is open to the public, the contractor may visit the site at any time.

This is an active roadway so vehicles must be parked in the parking area and high-vis vests must be worn. We will not host another NPS attended visit, however if the requestor sends notice of when they wish to visit, if available a representative may be able to attend.

47. Question: Would the National Park Service consider postponing the due date by 3 weeks?

48. Question: Please consider delaying the proposal due date by three weeks to September

20 to allow us the time to put together a comprehensive proposal.

49. Question: Will a plan holder’s list or site visit attendance list be provided in an addendum?

Answer: Refer to Att 24 Site Visit Sign-in List.

50. Question: Will it be required to install the articulating mats in prefabricated panels or can the installation be done in 2 phases by installing the individual blocks and then threading the wire through the blocks tying them together?

Answer: Articulating mats will only be accepted as being furnished as prefabricated panels.

51. Question: Is the Prime allowed to use subcontractor relevant projects for past performance/experience requirements?

Answer: Yes.

52. Question: Can the owner provide the boring logs. The specifications indicate the owner has them and we may request them.

Answer: Refer to answer #3 above.

53. Question: We have been unable to determine the status of any submissions to DEQ for the NPDES/VPDES permit. This submission and permit acquisition is typically performed by the owner on a typical bid-build solicitation. The review and approval is lengthy, and may require multiple resubmissions of the E&S design, which was not designed by nor under the control of the Contractor. Given this, we have the following questions:

a. Has the NPDES/VPDES permit from VADEQ been obtained?

b. Will NPS be obtaining the NPDES/VPDES permit from VADEQ?

c. Has any submission or review of the erosion and sediment control plan been submitted to or reviewed by VADEQ?

d. The VADEQ review typically takes approximately 90-120 days to complete, not counting any required resubmission. Acquisition of this permit will delay the start of the project and will not allow for installation of the sheet pile cofferdam and pond drawdown prior to the winter season. Furthermore, any required revisions to the E&S design will require the participation of the Owner’s designer. Will the Contractor be granted a compensable time extension for obtaining the permit beyond a certain timeframe, and if so, please define the timeframe.

e. Please consider providing direction for the Contractor to base their bid on a certain length of time for acquisition process of the NPDES/VPDES permit from VADEQ.

Answer: Virginia Stormwater Management Program’s permit for Stormwater Discharges

Associated with Construction Activities issued by York County is to be prepared by the contractor, with NPS to provide the already prepared erosion and sediment control plan, stormwater management plan and stormwater pollution prevention plan for inclusion in the

NPS is willing to work with the DEQ to request a courtesy expediting of the application since we have already engaged them on the project previously. Depending on means and methods proposed, the drawdown may or may not be affected by the permit and may not preclude an initial non-earth disturbing notice to proceed.

The NPS requires the SWPP and all other Division 1 documents to be submitted and accepted prior to the NTP per specification section therefore it will not affect the period of performance. The supporting documentation has been completed by the Designer of

Record and will be provided to the winning offeror to attach to the contractor's

54. Question: Will there be an amendment issued for this project answering questions that have been submitted along with any requested data?

Answer: Yes.

55. Question: Will the bid date be moved due to the proximity of the amendment and the current bid date?

56. Question: Under Volume 1 instructions for the cover letter to include limitations on subcontracting acknowledgement. Is there a specific statement that needs to be shown or will simply stating that the prime contractor will perform 15% of the work be sufficient?

Answer: Refer to Section L Volume 1: Required Documentation Limitations on

Subcontracting revised wording.

57. Question: Under Volume 1 subsection 9 (Limitations on subcontracting) it stated that the offeror is required to submit Attachment 16 that details the offerors level of subcontracting at the conclusion of the period of performance. I just want to verify that this is only to be submitted when you are performing work on the project and is not part of your bid proposal. Additionally, is there anything else regarding this section that needs to be submitted?

Answer: Refer to Section L Volume 1: Required Documentation Limitations on

Subcontracting revised wording.

58. Question: Under Volume 3 Factor 4 it stated that PPQ’s (Attachment 14) must be submitted for the projects used in Volume 2 factor 3. Can CPARS be utilized in lieu of submitting Attachment 14?

Answer: Refer to Section M Factor 4 – Past Performance.

59. Question: Will the Government please consider extending the due date for this RFQ?