Amend_0016_70Z04721RMYERDB_pg2-3.pdf

Amendment 0016

70Z04721RMYERDB

THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION/CLARIFICATIONS WERE RECEIVED:

1. The response to RFI 128 was as follows: "No changes to site grading are expected, therefore match existing elevations along the full length of the bulkhead. At this location, provide a step as currently shown or a tapered transition."

However, the RFP Attachment E, Draft EA page 2-10 states (bold emphasis added) “The existing 415-foot-long bulkhead, which extends along the entire boundary with Matanzas Pass, would be replaced with a steel sheet pile bulkhead. The proposed bulkhead would have a uniform height approximately 1 foot taller than the existing bulkhead to account for long-term sea level rise projections. Additionally, the bulkhead would be approximately 6 inches taller than the existing pavement to create a 6-inch curb that precludes runoff from the Station directly entering into Matanzas Pass."

Please clarify the desired height of the top of bulkhead.

ANSWER: “Interpret the intended design height of the bulkhead to be at least one foot higher than the current bulkhead at all locations. The specific elevation will be as deemed appropriate by the DOR/EOR, but should account for items such as (but maybe not limited to): weather-event induced wave overtopping and/or storm surge; upland site grading and drainage requirements; waterside structure and/or utility connectivity & access; and projected sea level rise elevations. The bulkhead may not be a consistent elevation over its entire length, but the top of cap should generally be higher than the existing elevation to account for the above factors (for the location in question in RFI 128, provide a step or tapered transition to connect the differential elevation). Additionally, final top of cap elevation must comply with local and national water quality standards, and thus, will likely need to incorporate at least a 6-8” height difference (as dictated by the environmental permits) above adjacent upland grades to prevent unwanted surface water runoff.“

2. Response to RFI 109 make it mandatory to extend the concrete bulkhead cap to below low waterline whereas response to RFI 157 leaves it to discretion of DOR. Which is it?

Responses pasted below:

RFI 109 Response: "In order to meet the required design service life, the concrete cap shall extend below the low waterline (to an elevation as deemed appropriate by the design engineer) to protect the steel sheet pile within the splash zone similar to that which is commonly employed at other government (i.e. Navy) and industrial port facilities."

RFI 157 Response: "It is preferred to have the concrete cap extend below the low waterline to put the sheet pile below the splash zone and provide a uniform visual profile from the water. However, the cap design and geometry ultimately is at the discretion of the Designer of Record."

Amendment 0016

70Z04721RMYERDB

ANSWER: “Extend the cap/fascia below the waterline. The final dimensions, geometry, and specific elevations shall be determined by the DOR/EOR, as deemed appropriate, and shall take into consideration various factors such as (but potentially not limited to): bulkhead sheet pile section dimensions; lateral support/anchorage system (if required); cathodic protection system(s); typical tidal elevation range (i.e. protection within the splash zone); and the required structure design/service life.

However, as a general guide, typical industry standards for bulkhead designs of industrial port/government facilities require the bulkhead cap (fascia) to extend at least 1-2ft below the MLWL in order to achieve the required service life.“

Note

Failure to acknowledge amendments may be cause for rejection of your offer.