B09_-_CASA_324271_Updated__Consolidated_RFIs_as_of_1-21-26_0005.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 459 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 140P2026R0016
About this file
This is a Consolidated Request for Information (RFI) document containing 44 responses to bidder questions regarding the CASA 324271 Castillo de San Marco National Monument Seawall Repair and Raise project, administered by the National Park Service under Department of the Interior. The RFIs address design clarifications, permit requirements, construction sequencing, material specifications, and scope delineations across multiple contract line items.
Key responses include: the bid due date has been extended to January 23, 2026 at 5:00 PM ET; structural plans for the new ticketing/fee station building have been provided in Amendment 02; no permits are required for the fee station building, though the project is governed by issued FDEP and USACE permits for seawall components; landscaping and irrigation work is distributed across CLINs 1-4 with specific geographic areas defined for each; the 200-foot scaffolding limitation applies per wall side (allowing concurrent 200-foot deployments on land and sea sides); cofferdams are limited to 120-day closure periods per section, with full removal and grade restoration required by day 120; an SOI-qualified archaeologist is required for all archaeological monitoring during construction; salvaged coquina material does not require cleaning or palletizing; the predrill equipment for permanent steel sheet pile installation must be included in cost proposals regardless of whether obstructions are encountered; granite must be quarried in the US to comply with the Buy American Act; and stainless steel handrails should remain exposed. Additional clarifications address concrete strength specifications, seawall cap demolition sequencing, dewatering discharge management, form liner finishes, and mockup requirements for masonry and concrete work.
View the file
Other files
Show all 27
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
| RFI # | Description | Document | Responses to RFIs |
| 1 | Structural plans missing for the new ticketing/fee station building foundations | See Amendment 02 | Drawings added as attachment #13. |
| 2 | Due to the Bid date of 01/08/2026 falling immediately after the upcoming Holiday (Christmas/New Years) breaks where most companies will not be working, can we expect the Bid Due Date to be pushed back to allow more time for bidders to submit their bid? | See Amendment 03 | The Bid Due Date will be extended to January 15, 2026. |
| 3 | Can you provide more clarification on which Contract Line-Item Number (“CLIN”) the Landscaping & irrigation work will fall under. Will it fall under the CLIN 1-4 scope demarcation per sheet G102 CLIN PLAN, or will it all fall under Base Bid, or all under Options? | See Amendment 03 | Refer to the CLIN Plan, sheet G102. Here is an additional explanation. |
| CLIN 1 includes: |
•All landscaping and irrigation shown behind the Center Wall, behind the South Wall, around the sidewalk from the visitor parking lot to the entrance plaza, area around and under the new timber stairs, behind the North Wall, around the sidewalk along the north lawn.
CLIN 2 includes:
•Grass in northeast corner of entrance plaza.
CLIN 3, Option A includes:
•Landscaping along the existing sidewalk on the south side of the fort from the existing stairs into the plaza to the sidewalk connection to A1A, and landscaping along the new pedestrian path from the plaza to the proposed connection point to A1A (south and southwest of the fort).
CLIN 4, Option B includes:
•Landscaping along the proposed pedestrian path from the new timber stair structure to the location where the path splits to connect to A1A (north and northwest side of the fort).
| 4 | Can you provide the following clarification on Page 2 of 75 of the Solicitation Document under the Offer section – What Dollar Value do we enter at the “AMOUNTS” block below item #17? Will that be TOTAL BASE PRICE (Contract Line-Item Number 1 through 2), or TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE – BASE PLUS ALL OPTIONS (CLIN 1 through 4), or other? | See Amendment 03 | For Block 17 of page 2 the following can be written - “See Section B – Bid Schedule” For the Bid Schedule fill out as stated. |
| 5 | For the new fee station building, can you provide more clarification on which permits are required, by which entity(s) and/or jurisdiction(s), and who will be responsible for pulling them (GC or Owner)? | See Amendment 03 | No permits are required for the new fee station building. |
| 6 | Sheet(s) / Sub Sheet(s): 98/120 - SM103 Center Seawall Repair Plan |
Detail A has a 4’ dimension and a 3’-6” Max. dimension that contradicts.
| Please advise. | See Amendment 03 | There are varying stone dimensions at the landside and waterside. At the waterside edge, the maximum stone length is 3’-6”. At the landside edge, stones are more regular at approximately 4’-0”. | |
| 7 | Sheet(s) / Sub Sheet(s): 94/120 - SM001 Structural Notes (1 of 2) |
31/119 - C501 Site Details Plan sheet 94 of 120 (SM001) concrete item 10 states Cast-in-Place Concrete is 5500 PSI. Plan Sheet 31 of 119 (C501) details 3 and 6 indicate concrete is 3500 PSI.
| Please advise. | See Amendment 03 | The notes on SM001 related to concrete strength only apply to elements in the marine (SM) sheets. The notes on C501 are valid for details on that sheet. | |
| 8 | Sheet(s) / Sub Sheet(s): 88/120 - DM101 Demolition Plan |
97/120 - SM102 Enlarged Seawall Plans Plan sheet 88 of 120 (DM101) shows the steel sheet pile cofferdam at the south wall only and not at the south transition wall. We will need to extend the cofferdam to be able to form and pour the concrete wall per detail 2 on SM102.
| Please advise. | See Amendment 03 | The cofferdams have been permitted as shown. The intent of the south transition wall construction is to use watertight forms as has been employed successfully on similar bulkhead/seawall projects including outfall extensions. | |
| 9 | Sheet(s) / Sub Sheet(s): 82/120 – GM102 Environmental Control Plan |
Plan sheet 82 of 120 (GM102) shows 970 SF of existing scattered oyster clumps behind south wall to be relocated to the recipient site. Upon visiting the site last Tuesday, 12/16/25, we observed that these oysters appear to be dead or destroyed.
| Please advise. | See Amendment 03 | The quantity of oyster clumps was documented at the time of the project biological assessment and submitted to permit agencies. Assume the same quantity of oysters to be relocated and will be confirmed with the project team during preconstruction. | |
| 10 | Sheet(s) / Sub Sheet(s): 94/120 – SM001 Structural Notes (1 of 2) |
112/120 – SM502 Center Seawall Repair Details Please confirm that plan sheet 94 of 120 (SM001) concrete note 10C Coquina Concrete 1000 PSI is the same as the Shelled Concrete shown on plan sheet 122 of 120 (SM502) Section 1 “Replace Edge Stone with Shell Concrete.”
| Please advise. | See Amendment 03 | Confirmed. | |
| 11 | Sheet(s) / Sub Sheet(s): 27/119 – C302 Utility Plan 2 of 2 |
Can the short coquina wall at the north end of the South Wall be demolished to allow for the installation of the new Force Main line?
Please advise. See Amendment 03 The existing wall is to remain intact during demolition of the existing force main and installation of the proposed force main. The proposed force main shall be pipe jacked or bored under the wall. The existing depth of the wall is unknown and will require coordination during construction to impact the wall as little as possible.
12 Sheet(s) / Sub Sheet(s): 89/120 – DM301 Demolition Sections 107/120 – SM302 Typical Seawall Sections (2 of 3) On plan sheet 89 of 120 (DM301) at Detail 4, it does not state to “Demolish Existing Wall” like it does on Details 1 and 3. However, this wall needs to be demolished in order to install the new wall design as shown on plan sheet 107 of 120 (SM302).
| Please advise. | See Amendment 03 | Correct, the south wall is to be demolished under this scope of work. | |
| 13 | Sheet(s) / Sub Sheet(s): 98/120 – SM103 Center Seawall Repair Plan (Detail A) |
Clarification: Will the demo of the center seawall cap be done in sequences of 4 as outlined in Detail A (1,2,3,4) and repeat sequence similar to an underpin? Or will the sections continue in numerical order (5,6,7…)? Please see the hand sketch attached below.
Clarification: Will the contractor have to demolish and replace the cap as we go so we are not disturbing too much of the cap at one time?
Notice: Since the width of each tabby and oyster shell section A,B,C differs, the control joints would end up being staggered from water side to land side and NOT align edge to edge as shown on Detail A. Please see the hand sketch attached below. See Amendment 04 a. The demo does not need to be conducted in any specific sequencing provided the means and methods do no damage or otherwise destabilize material to remain. The proposed repair sequencing is provided to create cold joints in the finished project. Alternate methods of achieving this jointing may be proposed.
b. The contractor is not restricted to demolishing and replacing the top surface in immediate sequence; however, there is a permit limit on the length of scaffolding allowed at one time.
c. Correct, the locations of joints will vary. Refer to RFI response #6. The intent of rehabilitation is to match existing joint pattern to the maximum extent practicable.
d. Please note that mockups are required per the specifications prior to proceeding with the full scope of work.
14 We have identified an Archeological Firm to provide us continuing archeological monitor and investigation services during the construction and excavation phases. However, this firm, SEARCH Florida, provided cultural resource background research, survey, and monitoring during the design phase of the project.
Would the Competitive Source Selection clause in the bid solicitation apply to this firm and disqualify our proposal if we included them on our team as our Archeological Monitor?
| In accordance with FAR 36.209, all firms, Prime Contractors or subconsultants, involved in developing the design or specifications for this construction solicitation are not eligible and prohibited from receiving any part of this construction award. Proposals from or containing firms under these circumstances will not be considered for award. | See amendment 04 | As it states in FAR 36.209 if you use that firm your proposal would not be considered for award. | ||||
| 15 | Please provide sheet C601 (Sheet 33 of 119) | See Amendment 04 | See attached sheet C601 | |||
| 16 | Please provide sheet # 79 (Between C502 & C801) | See Amendment 04 | See attached sheet GM001 | |||
| 17 | Please confirm all government furnished permits and provide copies of permits for review | See Amendment 04 | All government furnished permits, as referenced in in Specification Section 013100,1.9,B, have been obtained. Permits will be provided to the successful bidder. | |||
| 18 | 2/DM101 States that the north wall footing depth is unknown and to assume structure is 5'-0" tall, what heights should bidders assume at the Northwall Transition and South Walls. | See Amendment 04 | There is no available information regarding wall construction or footing depths. Contractors are to make a reasonable assumption for gravity type walls of similar dimensions and construction. | |||
| 19 | Handling existing Coquina; Should the contractor assume salvaged coquina will need to br cleaned of hardened mortar residue and palletized or is the intent to return the material in its existing condition | See Amendment 04 | Salvaged coquina meeting the minimum dimensions specified does not need to be cleaned or scraped of existing mortar. Once deemed acceptable by an NPS representative, the Contractor will transport the accepted stones to a stockpile location on the north side of the property as directed by NPS at which point the material will be considered transferred. | |||
| 20 | With the Christmas and New Years Holidays falling mid week several of the subcontractors we have reached out to have offices closed and not reopening until 1/5/26. Would a 30 day extension be possible to ensure we are providing maximum coverage for each trade and offering the best value to the government. | See Amendment 04 | The proposal due date will be extended to 23 Jan 2026 at 5:00PM ET. | |||
| 21 | Will construction fencing with scrim be allowed around laydown area in lieu of tree saving fencing, as hatched | See Amendment 04 | This is acceptable as long as it is clear the trees are to be protected. | |||
| 22 | Note 1, States the scaffold may not exceed 200 Lf. at any given time. Scaffold will br required at both the land and sea side. Please clarify if the 200 lf limitation is intended to be : total aggregate (combined total of 200 LF) or per side (200' at the land and 200' at the seaside simultaneously 400 Lf total) | See Amendment 04 | The 200’ limit is measured along the length of wall and is not additive of seaside and landside. Contractor may deploy 200’ of seaside scaffolding simultaneously with 200’ of landside scaffolding. | |||
| 23 | Section 01 35 13.22, Part 1.2.D requires the Contractor to retain a Secretary of the Interior (SOI)–qualified archaeologist to oversee construction activities that may disturb archaeological resources. This requirement is understood to mean that an SOI-qualified archaeologist must provide overall supervision, direction, and responsibility for the archaeological monitoring program. It is correct to assume that qualified archaeological monitors who do not meet SOI professional standards may perform day-to-day monitoring at individual excavation locations, provided they work under the direct supervision and authority of the SOI-qualified archaeologist. | See Amendment 04 | An SOI-qualified archeologist is required for all monitoring required during construction, including those an individual excavation locations. | |||
| 24 | 1. | Plan sheet SM501, detail 1 indicates welded shear studs. | ||||
| a. | Is it the intent to have these installed in the field? | |||||
| Do the shear studs need to be coated? | See Amendment 05 | Yes these are generally field welded elements, they are not required to be coated | ||||
| 25 | Are turbidity barriers required along North and North Transition Walls | See Amendment 05 | No, the temporary control wall/cofferdam is intended to function as a turbidity barrier. | |||
| 26 | The dewatering specification indicates that we are to dispose of discharge water and collected sediment as directed by the Contracting Officer. This is an open-ended statement. Please provide clarification on expectations for the contractor to price accordingly. | See Amendment 05 | Water may be discharged to tidal waters however, FDEP Permit Specific Condition #9 states “All wetland areas or water bodies that are outside the specific limits of construction authorized by this permit must be protected from erosion, siltation, scouring or excess turbidity, and dewatering.” Dewatering activities need to be managed to not create turbidity in surface waters not within the project footprint. Collected silt/sediment should be stockpiled/stored to restore existing site grades outboard of the walls at the end of construction. | |||
| 27 | 5. | There are multiple references to piling and test piles (see SM001, section Permanent Sheet Pile (SSP), and specification section 31 41 16). There does not appear to be any king or pipe pile on the project that would warrant the suggested test program. Please provide clarification on where this is applicable or remove the requirements as necessary. | See Amendment 05 | Please disregard any pile testing or reference to king piles. | ||
| 28 | 6. | Plan sheet SM001, Section Permanent Steel Sheet Pile (SSP) paragraph 18, states that the contractor is expected to have equipment on site and be prepared to predrill the drive line. This equipment is specialized, costly, and while it can be made available, this statement is indicative that we should have these operations on standby on site. This would be a significant expense to include in our proposal that could ultimately not be needed. We recommend any predrill operations be looked at as a change in conditions to avoid artificially inflating the proposal for a potentially unnecessary operation. | ||||
| Please clarify the intent. | See Amendment 05 | Bidders are directed to include this item in cost proposals whether or not obstructions are encountered in order to maintain the contract period of performance and avoid schedule delay due to unforeseen ground conditions. | ||||
| 29 | Is the contractor required to procure any permits from local, state or federal entities to discharge water from the dewatering system? | See Amendment 05 | The issued project FDEP and USACE permits govern for the seawall components of the project. | |||
| 30 | Please clarify the 120-day cofferdam closure allowance. Does the closure duration begin once the cofferdam installation is complete at each location, or is it once installation of the cofferdam begins? Does it end when removal starts, or does the cofferdam need to be completely removed within that 120-day window? | See Amendment 05 | The clock starts the day the cofferdam is closed/sealed and at day 120 the cofferdam must be fully removed and original grades restored. That said, the cofferdam may be subdivided into smaller sections. Each section is subject to 120 days of use. | |||
| 31 | Plan sheet SM303 details the north return wall but does not call out a finish for the exposed concrete. Does this need to be concrete with coquina shells or is a rubbed concrete finish acceptable. Please clarify. | See Amendment 05 | Assume a form liner to match the stone veneer coursing on the south face of the wall. | |||
| 32 | Per details, the proposed unexposed concrete required for the north and south wall does not require coquina shells. Only the exposed concrete for the South Transition wall as indicated on plan sheet SM301, detail 2. Please confirm. | See Amendment 05 | Correct. | |||
| 33 | Are there any control joints required along the concrete walls. If so, please specify the horizontal spacing. | See Amendment 05 | For cap and fascia Please see 5/SM501; Expansion joints are not required. Refer to SM202 for north return wall. | |||
| 34 | Typical block pin 7/SM501 detail indicates that a 7'-4", #8, A955, Grade 60, deformed stainless steel pin be installed @ 5'-0" OC. Does this condition occur at both the North and South stacked granite walls or only the South Wall? | See Amendment 05 | The pin length varies along the wall based on the anchorage into specified caps but is required on all walls. | |||
| 35 | Will government furnished items, such as lockers and refrigerator, be installed by the government or contractor? 5/A101 | See Amendment 05 | Lockers and refrigerators will be installed by the Park following construction. Installation will not be required in the contractor's scope. | |||
| 36 | The in water scaffold will need to be anchored will scaffold anchors be allowed at the granite portion of the center wall. | See Amendment 05 | No anchoring will be allowed for the center wall. | |||
| 37 | Factor 3 Schedule Lists a assumed notice to proceed date of March 1, 2025 is this correct? | See Amendment 05 | Assume 1 March NTP for proposal schedule submission. | |||
| 38 | Can the turbidity curtains be anchored to the sea wall. | See Amendment 05 | Anchoring or attachments to the center seawall to remain should be avoided. Requests for anchorage or connection will be evaluated on a case by case basis through submittals. | |||
| 39 | 01 43 39 -outlines expectations for masonry and concrete mockups, however doesn't address any of the required mockups for construction of the ticket booth. Will a wall mockup wall be required for the ticket booth and if so can a drawing be provided indicating size and elements to include. | See Amendment 05 | 01 43 39 addresses mock-ups required for the seawalls. Additional mock-up requirements are detailed throughout the specifications. | |||
| 40 | The feedback we are receiving from a concrete subcontractors is coquina concrete can not be finished with a stamped finish. This is because the coquina concrete requires that a retarder is installed, similar to the exposed aggregate process, the slurry is washed away and shells are broadcast in any areas of low density. Stamped concrete requires a chemical release agent to be broadcast over the slab to prevent the stamps from sticking. this agent comes in either liquid or powder form. My understanding is that these two products are not compatible. Please advise. | See Amendment 05 | Bids may include a score pattern for the entrance plaza in the same 2’x2’ stamped pattern as shown on the site details. Bidders who chose to use scoring instead of the stamped concrete should clearly state so in their bid. | |||
| 41 | A granite vendor is asking if granite quarried in the US and cut to size in Canada would be acceptable on this project with the Buy American Act in place. | See Amendment 05 | Granite quarried in the US falls under the Buy American Act. | |||
| 42 | The specifications call for the mortar joints to be cut to a depth 2.5 times the width of the joints. With the varying mortar joint widths, what size should be assumed for bidding purposes. | See Amendment 05 | Assume 1/2". | |||
| 43 | Please provide a basis of design for the granite. Bidders are requesting clarification for finish (thermal, split face, bushhammered etc) and acceptable color range. | See Amendment 05 | A base finish and color was provided in the technical specifications. The intent is to match the existing granite and for it to be slip resistant. This will be verified through the mockup program. | |||
| 44 | Should stainless steel handrails be coated or exposed? If coated please provide specification. | See Amendment 05 | Design intent is to leave the rails exposed. |
image1.emf image2.emf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .