QA_10-21-2025.pdf

OR NPS CRLA 2018(1)

Cleetwood Trail and Marina Improvements

# General Technical Question Answer Date

1 X I'd like to confirm the correct contact phone number for FHWA, as I am seeing multiple used in the RFP

For questions on this solicitation please use the following: 360.619.7520

8/21/2025

2 X Floating Docks are Specifies 50 PSF live Load which far Exceeds Industry Standard, Can this be Readjusted to 20 PSF or 30 PSF?

No change in the live loading specified, bid as shown

9/15/2025

3 X Are live load and Snow Load to be Considered Concurrent Loads for the Docks and Gangway.

Snowload is not considered concurrent with live load

9/15/2025

4 X

The listed requirements for Technical Evaluation Factor 1 are overly restrictive and will preclude some capable / qualified contractors from bidding on this opportunity. Please consider relaxing the requirements for Technical Evaluation Factor 1 by modifying the current requirement to meet all of the Construction Elements and Operational Elements with experience on previous projects. A suggestion might be to modify the language to ‘a minimum of six

(6) of the Construction Elements and a minimum of four (4) of the Operational Elements are collectively represented.’

This will be addressed in Amendment A002.

Proposed subcontractors' experience may be used for Construction and Operational Elements. There will be no other changes at this time.

9/19/2025

5 X

The listed requirements for Technical Evaluation Factor 1 are overly restrictive and will preclude some capable / qualified contractors from bidding on this opportunity. Please consider relaxing the requirements for Technical Evaluation Factor 1 by reducing the project value required for Operational Element 3, ‘Performance heavily dependent on air support for delivery of equipment and materials’ to $1 million and remove the multi-year requirement

At this time, there are no changes. Please submit proposal accordingly.

9/19/2025

6 X

The listed requirements for Technical Evaluation Factor 1 are overly restrictive and will preclude some capable / qualified contractors from bidding on this opportunity. Please consider relaxing the requirements for Technical Evaluation Factor 1 by allowing subcontractors to carry the experience for the Construction Elements and Operational Elements.

This will be addressed in Amendment A002.

Proposed subcontractors' experience may be used for Construction and Operational Elements.

9/19/2025

7 X

In the event that the Prime Contractor meets the General Requirements, all of the Operational Elements, and all but 1 of the Construction Elements, (specifically Construction Element Item 1), can this requirement be meet utilizing the experience of a Listed Qualified Subcontractor who would be performing that portion of the work?

This will be addressed in Amendment A002.

Proposed subcontractors' experience may be used for Construction and Operational Elements.

9/22/2025

Check General or Technical

8 X Can you provide a full prime bidders list for the above referenced project?

The Government does not provide this since bidders may obtain the Interested Vendors List (similar to prime bidder list) from sam.gov after linking their entity to their registration. If you are signed into SAM.gov with your registered entity and you cannot see the Interested Vendors List, you will need to be assigned the Contract Opportunities Administrator role for your entity in SAM.gov.

Link to Federal Help Desk on how to view and add your company to the Interested Vendor List:

https://www.fsd.gov/gsafsd_sp/en/how-do-i-add-myself-to-the-interested-vendors-list?id=kb_article_v…

If you need additional assistance, you can reach the Federal Service Desk at 866-606- 8220.

9/22/2025

9 X

For the anchored wired mesh can you verify that two layers of mesh, DTWM and G65 mesh, are required for the Type II anchored area? Is there any offset of these meshes required?

No, we do not need a double twist wire mesh (DTWM) backing fabric in the Type II anchored wire mesh. Amendment A003 will address this.

9/22/2025

10 X

Are the trailside rockfall fence, anchored mesh and draped mesh liens shown on the topographic sheets anywhere? The line shapes, curves, etc are important for proper take-off.

No, they are not in the solicitation documents and will not be made available.

9/22/2025

11 X Would gunite be an accepted alternative to shotcrete provided the required specifications are met?

Please refer to Table 566-1 in Section 566 of the SCRs. Wet, wet (AE), and dry options are allowed for shotcrete mixtures.

9/24/2025

12 X Is the contractor permitted to utilise small tractors/ ATVs and trailers for transporting materials, equipment and waste up and down the trail?

Yes 9/24/2025

13 X

Are all scaled rocks to be chased right down to the water’s edge, or completely removed from site? If not ,please advise under what circumstances and where they could be left on the slope.

Please refer to Subsection 623.02A(e) “Continue scaling until all unstable, loose, or detached rock inside the general scaling limits is disposed of in the location shown on the plans. Do not leave scaled debris in proposed construction areas.” Please also refer to Subsections 6.1.3 and 6.2.5.2 of Geotechnical Report 05-24 for additional information on reuse of scaled materials and the general approach to scaling, respectively. “In particular, large boulder-sized rocks that are firmly embedded into soil deposits and that are stable should be left in place, as the scaling of these rocks will create more soil erosion and slope instability.”

9/24/2025

14 X Please advise what is to be done with removed trees and vegetation that are not determined to become landscaping logs?

Blasting is not allowed in Crater Lake National Park. Blasting is allowed at Summit Quarry.

9/24/2025

15 X I am enquiring to find out whether any contracting licence would be required to perform works as a subcontractor on the above-mentioned project?

The Government will not review contracting licenses, please refer to the State's requirement.

9/24/2025

16 X

If a subcontractor’s experience is used:

a.What documents must the subcontractor turn in to satisfy Technical Factor 1?

b.Does the proposed subcontractor need to have been the prime contractor on previous relevant work?

c.Does the same size standard sƟll apply to the previous relevant work?

a. Please refer to Page B-20, part b.

b. No, the subcontractor does not need to have been the prime.

c. Previous response was in error, project must be a multi-year road construction project with excess of $15 million (either as a prime or subcontractor).

9/24/2025

17 X Please clarify options available to the Contractor for disposal of excess soil generated from wall excavations?

The material may be reused, however the contractor is responsible for testing these materials and meeting the requirements as described in the applicable FP-14 sections prior to use. Excess and unsuitable material from structure excavations must be disposed of according to Subsection 209.03, which in turn refers to 204.14, which in turn refers to Subsection 203.05(a). “(a) Remove from project. Recycle or dispose of material legally off the project. Submit a statement documenting the nature and quantity of material processed or sold for recycling. Otherwise, submit a signed copy of the disposal agreement before disposal begins.”

9/24/2025

18 X Can the contractor side cast wall excavation spoils for permanent disposal?

No. See response to question #17 above. 9/24/2025

19 X

Due to the complex nature of this project, numerous logistical challenges, and continued clarification of bidder questions, please provide an extra month for this solicitation (i.e. please extend the bid date).

We will be extending the solicitation date by 30 days to 11/06/2025 1400 PST. This will be addressed in Amendment A004.

9/24/2025

20 X Please consider bidding this project on a Thursday or Friday and not a Monday. Mondays are difficult days to conduct bids.

We will be extending the solicitation date by 30 days to 11/06/2025 1400 PST. This will be addressed in Amendment A004.

9/24/2025

21 X Is the FHWA Subcontracting Plan due at time of bid?

If not, when is it due?

Please refer to page A-6. Subcontracting plans are not due with the proposals submitted; only right before award.

9/24/2025

22 X Please clarify if there are any revegetation requirements

Revegetation to be performed by others (the Park).

9/24/2025

23 X What is the warranty period at the completion of the project?

There are no project warranty requirements defined in the FP-14. Project warranty requirements are defined in the Special Contract Requirements

9/25/2025

24 X Please confirm the new question close date now that the bid has been extended?

Question due date has been updated through Amendment A004

9/26/2025

25 X What is the design life of the soil nail walls, and specifically the soil nails?

Refer to Plan Sheet I.9. 75 years. 9/26/2025

26 X

I notice the soil nails in the typical section have double encapsulation, is this necessary or is corrosion protection determined by the contractor to satisfy the required design life?

Refer to Table 6-13 of GR 05-24. Class A corrosion protection is required.

9/26/2025

27 X If the double encapsulation is required, does this need to be pregrouted before insertion in the hole?

Refer to GR-5-24 and Sections 257 and 259 for design and installation requirements.

9/26/2025

29 X Please confirm the new question close date now that the bid has been extended?

See Amendment A004. 9/26/2025

30 X Is specific work scope required or desired to be completed each season, or is that at the discretion of the contractor?

We do not require certain things to be done each season. There are limitations on the sequencing of work items in various SCRs.

Please review SCRs and bid accordingly.

9/26/2025

31 X

Are you able to provide any photos with associated vicinity/ plan view map showing the soil nails wall locations, as well photos as existing walls that are to be removed?

Please review Plan Sheets D.16 to D.32 for soil nail location locations. Refer to GR 05- 24 and the Geotechnical Assessment Report by Golder for pictures of the existing walls.

Amendment A005 will address this by including additional physical data.

9/26/2025

32 X

We are trying to decipher if we meet the minimum Technical Evaluation Factor 1 requirements or not.

The document appears to require that all projects utilized to meet the construction and operational elements must be in excess of $15 million. Q&A answer no. 16 c. seems to contradict this when you state, “No, we will not look at the size standard for previous relevant work”.

Previous response was in error, project must be a multi-year road construction project with excess of $15 million (either as a prime or subcontractor).

9/30/2025

33 X

Our question is if we can list multiple projects over $15 million, however we will need to list several smaller projects to cover all the construction and operational elements required. Will this approach be compliant with technical requirements?

A minimum of two but no more than seven projects may be submitted to address all the construction and operational elements.

Each project submitted must be a multi-year road construction project with excess of $15 million (either as a prime or subcontractor).

9/30/2025

34 X Is there an engineer's estimate on Type I pinned mesh compared to type II pinned mesh?

No. The two mesh types are combined into a single pay item.

10/6/2025

35 X

Section 710.12(g) specifies that the wire mesh utilized for draped and pinned mesh applications must be capable of accommodating a 2.5-inch diameter circle within the mesh opening. We seek clarification regarding the necessity of this parameter, as it appears that the specification may have been drafted in a manner that, perhaps inadvertently and along with other requirements, limits competition. Would the engineer consider accepting an equivalent product that satisfies all other requirements outlined in this section, but with a slightly smaller opening size (1.96 inches square), in order to encourage broader competition in the supply of these materials? From an engineering perspective, the smaller opening size may be considered advantageous, as it enhances system performance by reducing the likelihood of smaller fragments escaping through the mesh.

You are correct, a smaller opening size would be more advantageous in this case.

Alternative products with a smaller opening size will be considered if they meet the other salient characteristics in 710.12.

10/6/2025

36 X

Section 717.01(h) specifies requirements for “diamond-shaped spike plates” that are not performance-based and can only be supplied by a single manufacturer, thereby restricting competition.

We respectfully request that the design engineer consider permitting an alternative complete system (comprising high-tensile mesh and spike plates that are designed for the alternative system) that delivers equivalent structural performance, regardless of the geometric configuration of the spike plate.

Under 717.01(h)(4), it states that it is specified as part of the anchored wire mesh system, a system using the mesh specified in

710.12. Therefore, we will consider an

alternative geometric configuration of the spike plate if it works in conjunction with a proposed alternative 710.12 mesh.

10/6/2025

37 X

Location US7 calls for a 750kJ rockfall barrier with up to 15 feet of elongation permitted. Would the engineer consider allowing up to 16 feet of elongation for a system rated to 1000 kJ with the understanding that a modeled lower energy impact of 750 kJ would theoretically result in less than 16 feet of elongation.

Negative. The max elongation requirements must be based on EAD 340059-00-0106 tested values, not theoretical. See 654.04(c).

10/6/2025

38 X

Section 654.04(c) states, "Include evidence no more than 1 year old from the manufacturer that the flexible rockfall barrier system supplied has been tested and verified to equal or exceed the flexible rockfall barrier system requirements as shown in the plans." Can the engineer please verify that what is required is a valid ETA certificate for the rockfall fence and not that the system has to have been tested within the last year as this is not possible nor does it have any bearing on validity of certification.

You are correct. A valid ETA certificate for the rockfall fence is required, the rockfall fence system itself is not required to have been tested in the past year.

10/6/2025

39 X

Would the design engineer consider relocating the 750-kJ barrier approximately one foot upslope to allow for up to 16 feet of system elongation, thereby enabling additional material suppliers to provide competitive quotations for this barrier system? As currently specified, it appears that only one commercially available system appears capable of meeting the requirements as written.

Yes. This is acceptable. 10/6/2025

40 X

Specification 646C.07 requires the float manufacturer to fabricate structural steel in a fabricating plant that is Certified Bridge Fabricator – Simple under the AISC Quality Certification Program and use steel erectors certified under the AISC Quality Certification Program. The floating dock structure is not a bridge and most fabricators and installers with similar project experience are not certified under these programs. Please consider waiving this requirement and allowing the use of alternate fabricators / erectors if sufficient qualifications are submitted for approval.

Special Contract Requirement 555.07 Fabrication will be amended to permit fabricators that have BU (Certified Building Fabricator) AISC certification. See Amendment A005

9/24/2025

41 X

Section 646C.04 requires tank, immersion, and incline test results for EPS foam-filled polyethylene drums be submitted 7 days before transportation. Please clarify the intent of this requirement.

This sentence will be removed from the Special Contract Requirement. See Amendment A005

9/24/2025

42 X Is the restroom being removed and the rockfall fence starting and ending in its location?

The restroom is being removed under an option to the contract. So if that option is not exercised, it will remain. The fence is required to be offset 20 feet minimum upslope from the existing restroom location.

10/6/2025

43 X Can the two barriers, both ending and starting at 64+20 and offset 20 feet, be one continuous system?

Yes, that is the intent. The only difference is the reference point for the offset. The first reference point is the uphill edge of the trail (until approximately Station 64+20), the other is the restroom because the restroom is closer to the uphill slope than the trail is beyond Station 64+20

10/6/2025

44 X

It appears the end of the barrier at 64+70 and a 20 ft offset is at elevation 6165, while the elevation at station ~64+65 is ~6188. Rockfall barriers cannot be installed on slopes this steep. Modifications to the barrier layout (shorter) and other system changes will be required. Is this acceptable?

Yes. 10/6/2025

45 X Can you confirm that rockfall barriers, mesh, and spike plates need to be Natina stained?

That is correct. 10/16/2025

46 X How do you anticipate maintaining the tension of the rock bolts (i.e. to 25 and 50 kips) after they are flush cut?

Two-staging is required. Fill the minimum bond zone length under stage one, and fill the free-stressing (unbonded) length with grout under stage two, after successful post tensioning of the bolt. Refer to Subsections 260.07, 260.08, and 260.09

10/17/2025

47 X

Will plan and profile views as well as associated wall surveys and grading in the field based on the profiles be provided for each soil nail wall? Or are these required to be provided by the contractor

No additional information will be provided.

See Sections 257 and 259 for submittal requirements.

10/17/2025

48 X

Is contractor furnished design required for any component of the works other than the soil nails and rock bolts? E.g. temp shoring, marina micropiles, rockfall barriers, or rockfall mesh?

Refer to the FP-14 and project SCRs for each project element for the contractor design and submittal requirements.

10/17/2025