B09-Amed1-RFIs_0001.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- A250 Emergency Repairs to Pier 1
- Solicitation number
- 140P4326R0001
About this file
This file is a Request for Information (RFI) Q&A document for the A250 Emergency Repairs to Pier 1 project at Boston National Historic Park in Charlestown, Massachusetts. The document addresses 29 contractor inquiries regarding technical specifications, repair methodologies, material requirements, scheduling, and site access for this lump sum construction contract with an estimated value between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.
Key technical clarifications from the government responses include: existing reinforcement will be retained and cleaned per specifications unless section loss exceeds 20%; all new steel hardware and fabrications shall be hot dipped galvanized per ASTM A-123/A-153; stainless steel WWF is required for underdeck spall repairs while other repairs use galvanized WWF; concrete repairs need only be squared within the top 12 inches with an 18-inch diameter bore acceptable below that depth; sinkhole excavation should not exceed 10 feet in depth unless field conditions warrant otherwise; and bituminous pavement consists of a 4-inch layer over crushed stone. Government responses also address procurement concerns, clarifying that pricing should be based on conditions currently detailed in project drawings, with potential modifications reviewed if significant changes in repair treatments occur during demolition; that all work must be completed by the end of the period of performance to ensure safe pedestrian access ahead of summer events; that the USS Cassin Young will not be relocated during work; and that additional documentation regarding subsurface conditions may be available pending commissioning party permission. The RFI document reflects contractor concerns regarding the tight 72-calendar-day project timeline, soil contamination testing and disposal procedures, utility conflicts, and detailed dimensional specifications for beam repair depths and angles.
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
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
| 140P4326R0001 - BOST Pier 1 A250 | ||
| RFI Number | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Details on Sheet S7 for Repair Types 1,2 & 3 show new reinforcement being installed, but does not show existing reinforcement. Will existing reinforcement be cut out of the way, or will the existing reinforcement be chipped around, left in place and cleaned? | Per the Specs, Section 030100 pg 15, "Clean existing reinforcement that will remain. Remove corrosion and/or other laitance and notify the Contracting Officer if section loss is greater than 20%." Assuming the reinforcement materials do not have greater than 20% loss, they will be retained and coated per ASTM780/A780M. |
| 2 | Detail C/S7 for repair Type 3 indicates the installation of bolted angle iron/plate at bottom of existing beam.The detail does not show the bottom flange of the existing beam. Are contractors to assume it is not there, or does it need to be cut off? | On Sheet S5, Detail B, it specifices to "cut corroded beam flange" |
| 3 | Please confirm if steel angle/plates should be Hot Dipped Galvanized. It is unclear in the details | Per Sheet G1 under Structural Steel and Miscellaneous Metals, "All New steel hardware and fabrications shall be hot dipped galvanized and conform to astm a-123 and/or A-153 unless otherwise noted. |
| 4 | Is it required that the steel angles/plates be one continuous length of the repair? If not, what is the minimum required length? | |
| 5 | Detail D/S7 indicates Stainless Steel WWF for underdeck spall repairs. All other repairs indicate Hot Dipped Galvanized WWF. Please confirm SS WWF is required for underdeck spall repairs | |
| 6 | Detail D/S7 indicates “NEW ?” S.S. HDG HOOKED REBAR”. Please clarify if hooked bars shall be S.S. or HDG | |
| 7 | Detail 3/S8, is it the intent for the concrete repair to be 9 ft down the face of concrete, or is the repair just at the top and the detail is just showing that the bollard has to be drilled 9’ into the concrete? Please confirm18” dia round core hole is acceptable in lieu of square 18”x18” footing as shown on the drawing. | The details #2 & #3 on S8 do reflect that the bollards must be set 9' into the pier. The 18"x18" c.i.p. Repairs need only to be "squared" within the top 12" of repair. Below the 12" c.i.p. Repair, a 18" diameter bore for the 12" bollard is acceptable. |
| 8 | Please confirm rebar required for details on S8. Some show epoxy, some don’t specify. Should it be assume that all rebar is HDG? | All rebar specified per Sheet G1 under Structural Steel and Miscellaneous Metals, "All New steel hardware and fabrications shall be hot dipped galvanized and conform to astm a-123 and/or A-153 unless otherwise noted. The epoxy note refers to the embedding method for new rebar and not for use of epoxy coated rebar. |
| 9 | Is there a basis of design for the new 30” cleat? | |
| 10 | Detail 1/S8 indicates excavation for sink hole repair shall be at least 10ft deep with 1/1 slopes: Many of the sink holes are small at the surface. Following this detail will make the repair area of each sink hole very large (at least 25’x25’ at the surface). Please confirm this is the intent of the detail. | Repairs for each sink hole will likely not need to be 10' in depth but should not exceed 10' depth. The note in the detail for the 10' limit for excavation includes the condition, "UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED IN THE FIELD TO REPAIR THE SETTLEMENT IN THE ASPHALT." |
| 11 | The detail indicates removal of existing soil and replacement with ?” crushed stone. If done according to detail, a significant amount of excess soil will be generated. Given the history of the site, are there any known contaminated soils? Should soil be tested prior to disposal? If found to be contaminated how will that be handled? | |
| 12 | As it is impossible to know the cause of the sinkholes until they are excavated, to what extent will the contractor be responsible to repair the cause such as broken utility, structure, etc? This is difficult for a contractor to quantify at the bidding stage without additional information. | Once the cause of the sinkhole is discovered, potential repairs will be evaluated and may be addressed by modification to adequately cover any increase in scope. |
| 13 | Details on S7 indicate the use of a manufactured repair mortar for concrete repairs, however the specifications appear to only specify a ready mix concrete. Please clarify if a manufactured repair mortar is acceptable and a list of acceptable products or specification. | |
| 14 | There are two specifications for concrete, 03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE and 03 31 30 MARINE CONCRETE. Please clarify which spec section is relevant. | |
| 15 | Is the use of shotcrete for concrete repairs acceptable. | |
| 16 | Will cutting or drilling of holes in the concrete deck for the purpose of depositing concrete into the underdeck forms be permitted? | |
| 17 | To what extent shall the existing steel beam be cleaned of corrosion? | |
| 18 | Note 3 on S4 states “ “REPAIR TYPE 1 MAY BECOME REPAIR TYPE 2 OR REPAIR TYPE 3 BASED ON DEMOLITION FINDINGS”. Repair types are clearly indicated on the plans and the project has been solicited as a Lump Sum project. How will these changes be handled on the fly, especially given the extremely tight work schedule? Please note many of the individual USACE spec section provided in the project documents indicate measurement and payment is unit price, however project is lump sum. Please advise. | Pricing for this contract should be based on the conditions currently detailed in project drawings. As demolition occurs and conditions are better understood, any potential modifications based on significant changes in repair treatments will be reviewed at that time. |
| 19 | Considering the bid due date and experience with the Government procurement process, the absolute best case scenario for an NTP would likely be April 1st at the earliest. This would only leave approximately 72 calendar days to complete the work. Significant efforts will be required to gain access to the underdeck work areas. In addition, irregular work schedules may be required due to tides. These and other factors will make it extremely difficult to complete this work by June 12th. Meeting this schedule will likely result in significant additional expense and will require much more flexibility in regards to permissible work hours. Would the NPS consider prioritizing work to be completed prior to planned events and continuing work after the event has concluded? | All work included in this scope must be completed by the end of the period of performance. This work is critical to providing safe pedestrian access and moorings for visiting ships ahead of key summer events. |
| 20 | Please confirm Cassin Young will not be re-located to allow access to work areas immediately adjacent to the ship. | The ship will not be relocated while this work is under way. |
| 21 | Please clarify the number of bollard replacements required. S1 appears to require a bollard replacement in the area of Vault 12 however it only looks like a cleat replacement. Please advise. | |
| 22 | Access to the underside of the Pier is very difficult and we are not able to easily access at this point to review the concrete repair work. Is there and engineering report, photos, or any other detailed information available that show the existing conditions of the underside of vaults 7, 12 and 13? | We may have a report that we can share but will need permission from the party that has commission this work to release it. |
| 23 | The Sinkhole Detail on Drawing S8 indicates a 10’-0” minimum excavation depth and a 5’-0” width at the bottom of the excavation with a 1 to 1 slope on one side of the excavation. However, many of the sinkholes identified on Drawings S1 – S3 are small in area and will need to be excavated to a greater width and length to reach a depth of 10’-0”. Please advise if sinkhole repair areas need to be excavated to 10’-0” deep and if so, will the extra area of excavation and restoration be paid as an additional cost beyond the Base Bid? | Repairs for each sink hole will likely not need to be 10' in depth but should not exceed 10' depth. The note in the detail for the 10' limit for excavation includes the condition, "UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED IN THE FIELD TO REPAIR THE SETTLEMENT IN THE ASPHALT." |
| 24 | Some of the sinkholes in the paved area abut concrete walks that will be impacted by sinkhole repairs. Please advise on a detail for restoring sections of disturbed concrete. | The only concrete areas adjacent to identified sink holes include 2 storm drains at the end of the Pier near Section AB-9. Neither section of concrete appears to be failing as a result of the sink holes and all efforts to retain and backfill underneath these sections is preferred in order to avoid concrete repairs or replacement. |
| 25 | Some of the sinkholes are located over or adjacent to existing utilities. Please advise if the excavation for the repair is to extend below the bottom of the utility as their depth is likely less than 10’-0”. | Excavation below a utility shall only be necessary if it can be positively identified that the uncovered utility was the source cause of the sink hole and the utility requires repair. The note in the detail for the 10' limit for excavation includes the condition, "UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED IN THE FIELD TO REPAIR THE SETTLEMENT IN THE ASPHALT." |
| 26 | The Sinkhole Detail on Drawing S8 indicates 4” bituminous concrete installed over crushed stone. Please advise if the bituminous concrete consists of binder and top courses and the thickness of each. Please also advise if the top 8” to 12” should be gravel/ dense graded crushed as a subbase for the asphalt. | Detail 1 on S8 shows 4" layer of "bituminous pavement" not concrete. |
| 27 | Will definitive quantities be provided for the Type 1/2 and Type 3 Beam Repairs as no depth is provided in the details and it is presumed that the repair depths vary by area. For the Type 3 Beam Repair, no dimensions are provided for the lengths and heights of the flanges to be repaired as well as the repair angles. | Please review sheet G5 and S7, detail 3 for answers to your questions about dimensions for flanges and repair angles. Width of top flanges are detailed on G5 and replacement bottom flange width/thickness shall match the top flanges. Repair angles are shown on S7, detail 3 and are 8"x4" 1/2" thick. |
| 28 | Please advise if there is a designated stockpile area(s) for material excavated from sinkholes. | |
| 29 | Is there any characterization of the soils that will be excavated in the sinkholes for determining how the material will be disposed of? | |
| 30 | ||
| 31 | ||
| 32 | ||
| 33 | ||
| 34 | ||
| 35 | ||
| 36 | ||
| 37 | ||
| 38 | ||
| 39 | ||
| 40 | ||
| 41 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .