Addendum_2.pdf

Purchasing Services 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way

Building C, Room 303 Viera, Florida 32940

Sykes Creek Phase II Muck Removal Project

B-8-26-36 July 31, 2026

ADDENDUM 2

TO ALL PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS

This is an Addendum to and shall be considered as part of the original bid package for the above-mentioned bid. Please acknowledge receipt of Addendum 2 in space provided on Price Sheet.

Bidders are requested to acknowledge receipt of this addendum with their bid.

CLARIFICATION TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED

Question 1: Can you confirm that the disposal sites identified in the RFP are currently not permitted to receive the dredge material?

Answer: The Owner does not represent or warrant that either disposal site identified through RFP-8- 26-01currently possesses all permits or regulatory authorizations required to receive dredged material from this Project. Before bid submittal, the Bidder shall independently verify each proposed site’s current permitting status and suitability. The Contractor remains responsible for obtaining any permits, authorizations, or modifications required for its selected disposal site and for obtaining Owner approval before use.

Question 2: Upon award would the owner wait to issue NTP after permits are approved in the case that the permitting process drags on that time is not eating into the time to complete the dredging? If no, would the owner consider a time extension to the contract if the permit approval duration exceeds what would be reasonable?

Answer: The Owner does not intend to defer NTP 1 until all required permit modifications are approved. Following award and the required preconstruction meeting, NTP 1 will authorize the Contractor to begin permit-modification activities and designated site-preparation work. The 1,400-calendar-day Contract period begins upon issuance of NTP 1. NTP 2 and NTP 3 will be issued separately, and dredging will not commence until NTP 3 is issued.

The Contractor shall account for the anticipated permitting schedule and diligently pursue all required approvals. If a documented regulatory-agency review delay outside the Contractor’s control affects the Project’s critical path, the Contractor may submit a request for a non-compensable extension of Contract time in accordance with the Contract Documents. Any request will be evaluated by the Owner based on the circumstances and may be authorized only in writing. No extension is automatic or guaranteed.

Question 3: Can you confirm that the contractor bears the risk and costs related to any permit modifications for the sites to receive the dredge material? If the Contractor is responsible, will the County incorporate a mechanism to address schedule and cost impacts if those approvals are delayed, conditioned, or denied through no fault of the Contractor.

Answer: The Contractor is responsible for the costs, risks, and schedule considerations associated with obtaining the permits, authorizations, or modifications required for its selected permanent upland disposal site. These costs shall be included in the applicable bid prices, and no additional compensation will be provided. If a documented regulatory-agency review delay outside the Contractor’s control affects the Project’s critical path, the Contractor may submit a request for a non-compensable extension of Contract time in accordance with the Contract Documents. Any request will be evaluated by the Owner based on the circumstances and may be authorized only in writing. No extension is automatic or guaranteed, and the Contractor remains responsible for diligently pursuing all approvals and securing an acceptable disposal site.

Question 4: Will the County consider establishing disposal — tipping fees and permitting — as a separate bid allowance or unit-price pay item rather than lump sum, so all bidders price disposal equally and actual permitted-site costs can be reconciled.

Answer: The Owner will not establish a disposal allowance or reconcile the Contractor’s actual disposal-site costs. Section 01 29 00 is revised to clarify that Bid Item 14 includes the fixed costs associated with securing, permitting, preparing, and closing out the selected permanent upland disposal site. Bid Item 20.X includes the quantity-dependent costs of transporting, accepting, placing, disposing of, or reusing the dewatered material, including applicable tipping or per-unit landowner fees.

Consistent with the response to Question 4 of Addendum No. 1, payment under Bid Item 20.X will be based on the accepted in-situ quantity payable under Bid Item 18.X. No reconciliation will be made based on actual invoices, truck volumes, weights, number of loads, or post-excavation material quantities.

Revisions to Section 01 29 00 – Measurement and Payment

Delete the description of Item 14: Permanent Upland Disposal Costs in its entirety and replace it with the following:

Item 14: Permanent Upland Disposal Costs – Payment for this item will be made as a lump sum for all fixed costs required to secure, permit, prepare, and close out the Contractor’s selected permanent upland disposal site. This item shall include, as applicable:

1. Property acquisition or site-use agreements;

2. Fixed landowner, site-use, or administrative fees that are not dependent on the quantity of material transported or disposed of;

3. Site preparation and access improvements;

4. Site permits, regulatory authorizations, and required professional services; and

5. Site restoration and closeout.

This item does not include quantity-dependent transportation, tipping, acceptance, disposal, or reuse costs, which shall be included in the applicable Bid Item 20.X.

Payment arrangements between the Contractor and any landowner are separate from this Contract and shall not modify the Contractor’s compensation. No additional compensation will be made based on the Contractor’s election to use a landowner identified through RFP-8-26-01 or an alternate Contractor-secured disposal site.

Delete the description of Item 20.X: Dewatered Muck Transport and Permanent Disposal in its entirety and replace it with the following:

Item 20.X: Dewatered Muck Transport and Permanent Disposal – Payment for this item will be made at the Contract unit price per cubic yard for all quantity-dependent costs associated with transporting the dewatered dredged material from the Nandivada DMMA and placing, disposing of, or beneficially reusing the material at the approved permanent upland disposal site. This item shall include applicable per-unit or per-load landowner fees, tipping or acceptance fees, transportation, offloading, placement, and other quantity-dependent disposal or reuse costs.

This item does not include the fixed disposal-site costs included in Bid Item 14.

Progress and final payments will be based on the cumulative accepted in-situ quantity payable under the applicable Bid Item 18.X, Muck Removal Dredging. Final payment will be based on the measured in-situ volume removed upon completion of dredging. In no case shall the quantity paid through progress payments exceed the measured or estimated in-situ volume removed, less the estimated volume of dredged material remaining at the Nandivada DMMA.

Question 5: If the contractor identifies a disposal site and clarifies that that is the basis of their bid during submission and after award that disposal site is denied a permit or not approved to accept the material through no fault of the Contractor, will the County allow substitution of an alternative permitted site, and will any resulting difference in haul distance, tipping fees, or disposal cost be resolved by change order?

Answer: This will be addressed through a change order.

Question 6: Are there any labor wage decisions required on the project? Will certified payroll be required? If required, can you provide a copy of the wage decisions.

Answer: No project-specific prevailing-wage decision is included in the Bid Documents, and certified payroll is not required for this Project. The Contractor remains responsible for complying with all otherwise applicable labor and employment laws.

Question 7: Would the owner consider adding a payment item for Manatee Downtime allowance payable by the shift and/or hour?

Answer: A separate Manatee downtime allowance or payment item will not be added. The Contractor shall account in its Bid for temporary downtime and resumption of in-water activities required by the permits and Section 01 35 43, Environmental Protection.

Costs associated with the required Manatee observation, monitoring, and reporting shall be included under Bid Item 25.X, Environmental Species Monitoring. Other costs associated with Manatee protection compliance, including any operational downtime, shall be included in the applicable Bid Items. No separate payment will be made based on shift or operational hours affected by manatee-related work stoppages. Any request for an adjustment of Contract time shall be governed by the Contract Documents.

Question 8: Can you confirm that no treatment of water will be required prior to discharge from the dewatering site?

Answer: The Owner does not represent or warrant that treatment will not be required. The Bid Documents do not prescribe a specific treatment process. However, the Contractor shall design, permit, construct, and operate its dewatering and treatment systems to return clarified effluent in compliance with the Project permits, Section 01 35 43, Environmental Protection, and all applicable State and Federal water quality standards.

The Contractor shall determine and provide treatment necessary based on its selected means and methods, and effluent characteristics. Polymers, flocculants, or coagulants may be used in accordance with applicable permit requirements but are not prescribed by the Owner as mandatory treatment methods. All associated treatment costs shall be included in the applicable Bid Items.

See the response to Question 10 for additional clarification regarding effluent treatment.

Question 9: Can you provide details (drawings/specifications) for the acoustic barrier that will be required at the DMMA?

Answer: The acoustical barrier system shall utilize Acousti Fence® by Acousti blok, Inc. or an approved equal demonstrated to be equal or better than the specified product in all material respects.

In accordance with Addendum No. 1, the barrier shall be a neutral, natural color, subject to Owner approval.

Product information for the specified material is included as an attachment to Addendum No. 2 for reference.

Question 10: The permit appears to require that DMMA return-flow discharge meet a turbidity limit of 29 NTU above background, along with the specified polymer jar testing and whole-effluent toxicity (WET) testing requirements. Can you confirm that these are the only treatment requirements bidders should include in their base bid, and that no additional water treatment for parameters such as metals, nutrients, or other contaminants is intended?

Answer: The current Project permits and Contract Documents do not establish effluent performance criteria or require removal, treatment, monitoring, or testing specifically for nitrogen, phosphorus, metals, or other identified parameters beyond the presently stated turbidity in Attachment C-7.

Accordingly, no separate interstitial nutrient removal or metals-treatment process is specified for the Base Bid. Please note Attachment C-8 - FDEP Permit Mod 2 (Permit No.: 331649-004-EM) has been removed from this bid package, as it is unrelated.

However, the Owner does not represent or warrant that these will be the only requirements imposed through future permit modifications. The Contractor is responsible for obtaining the permit modifications and regulatory authorizations required for its proposed dewatering and treatment systems, design, and means and methods. The Contractor shall comply with any additional treatment, monitoring, or testing conditions imposed by the applicable regulatory agencies through those authorizations and shall account for that permitting risk in its Bid.

Question 11: FDEP Permit Modification 006-EM appears to require a generic dewatering permit for any discharge to surface waters, which seems applicable to the proposed return-flow discharge to the Indian River Lagoon. Can you confirm whether this permit is required for Phase II and clarify whether it is the Owner's or the Contractor's responsibility to obtain it, and at what stage of the project it must be in place?

Answer: The Contractor remains solely responsible for obtaining all permits required for their chosen means and methods of dewatering. Owner anticipates this permit being in place prior to the issuance of Notice-to-Proceed 3.

Question 12: FDEP Permit Modification 006-EM indicates that a Water Use Permit may be required if dewatering withdrawals exceed 1 MGD. Can you confirm whether this requirement applies, clarify whether the permit is the Owner's or the Contractor's responsibility.

Answer: The Contractor remains solely responsible for obtaining all permits required for their chosen means and methods of dewatering.

Question 13: The permit documents identify the existing 18-inch utility pipe as the return-flow discharge from the DMMA to the Indian River Lagoon. Can you confirm that this pipe will be available, and advise whether there are any capacity limitations, operational restrictions, or monitoring requirements that bidders should account for in their design and pricing?

Answer: The 18-inch HDPE utility pipe is intended to be available for the Contractor’s use following completion of the separate Nandivada Multi-Use Facility Phase I improvements, currently expected by September 22, 2026, as stated in Addendum No. 1. The Contractor shall incorporate the pipe into its proposed DMMA and effluent-discharge system unless otherwise approved by the Owner.

The Bid Documents do not specify or guarantee a particular hydraulic capacity or allowable discharge rate for the pipe. WSP reports the pie size is intended to allow return water to flow up to 3,000 gpm.

However, the Contractor’s Professional Engineer shall design the proposed DMMA, dewatering, treatment, and discharge systems to be compatible with the pipe and applicable permit requirements based on the information provided in the Bid Documents and clearly identified design assumptions.

The pipe shall be used only to convey clarified effluent meeting the applicable discharge requirements. The Contractor shall protect the pipe, keep it free of sediment and debris, and install the required blank or cap following completion of dewatering activities. Discharge monitoring and testing shall be performed in accordance with the Project permits and Section 01 35 43, Environmental Protection. No separate pipe-specific monitoring requirements are identified beyond those applicable to the discharge.

Question 14: The permit requires acute and chronic whole-effluent toxicity (WET) testing and states that dredging must cease if a test failure occurs until the issue is resolved. Can you clarify whether historical Phase I WET test results are available for review and how any schedule or cost impacts associated with a WET test failure will be addressed under the contract?

Answer: Please see response to Question 10.

Question 15: Can the Owner provide any available geotechnical information for the Nandivada DMMA site? If no subsurface investigation has been completed, please confirm the geotechnical assumptions bidders should use for pricing and how unforeseen subsurface conditions requiring ground improvement will be handled under the contract.

Answer: See the response to Question No. 8 of Addendum No. 1 and the Geotechnical Survey attached there too. No additional geotechnical information or assumptions are being provided. The Contractor’s responsibilities identified or clarified in Addendum No. 1 remain unchanged.

Question 16: Will each of the 3 NTP’s be award in such a way to not delay work and keeping it continuous? For example, NTP 2 will be award prior to NTP 1 being completed?

Answer: The Owner intends to coordinate issuance of the three NTPs to minimize avoidable interruptions to the Work. A subsequent Notice to Proceed may be issued before all activities authorized under the preceding Notice to Proceed are complete, provided the applicable permits, submittals, approvals, site conditions, and other prerequisites have been satisfied. The Contractor shall not begin work associated with a subsequent phase until the applicable written Notice to Proceed has been issued. Continuous or uninterrupted work between Notices to Proceed is not guaranteed.

Question 17: Will all bid items in the optional line items be executed if an “Option” is awarded? Or can some of the individual line items be executed while other are not? Furthermore, will volumes remain the same for each Option or can volumes of be adjusted based on funding?

Answer: If an option is awarded, the Owner intends to authorize all Bid items associated with that Option. The Owner does not intend to selectively award individual Bid Items within an Option. Funding availability may affect which Options are awarded.

The quantities shown in the Bid Schedule are estimates and are not guaranteed. Actual payable quantities for an awarded Option will be determined from the applicable surveys and accepted Work in accordance with Section 01 29 00, Measurement and Payment.

Question 18: The volume summary in the Project Plans has a Base Bid total Cubic Yardage of 223,600. But, if you add the 68,300 CY in 3A-North and the 157,300 CY in 3B-North, you get a total of 225,600 CY. Please advise of the correct Base Bid total volume and adjust the bid documents if necessary.

Answer: For clarification, the Base Bid consists of Zones 3A-North and 3B-South, as opposed to Zones 3A-North and 3B-North as stated in the question. The individual quantities of 68,300 CY for Zone 3A-North and 157,300 CY for Zone 3B-South are correct. Accordingly, the Base Bid total is revised from223,600 CY to 225,600 CY, and the total quantity including all Options is revised from 352,400 CY to354,400 CY. The individual quantities for the optional dredge zones remain unchanged.

Revisions to the Contract Documents:

1.In Section 00 41 00, Bid Forms, under “Basis of Bids,” substitute 354,400 CY for 352,400 CY and substitute 225,600 CY for 223,600 CY.

2.In Section 01 11 00, Summary of Work, under “Project Description,” substitute 354,400 CY for352,400 CY and substitute 225,600 CY for 223,600 CY.

3.Replace entire Construction Drawing Bid Set with the Construction Drawing Set (JUL 2026)included with Addendum No. 2. The revised Construction Drawing Sheet C-3 identifies a Base Bid total of 225,600 CY and a Total Cut of 354,400 CY.

4.Replace the Price Sheet with the revised Price Sheet included with Addendum No. 2. All Base Bid unit-price quantities based on the estimated in-situ dredging volume are revised from 223,600CY to

225,600 CY.

5.In the Invitation to Bid, under “Scope of Services,” replace each reference to 223,600 CY with

225,600 CY.

Question 19: Attachment C4 (USACE Permit Modification No. 2, SAJ-2015-00111) states the Nationwide Permit 27 re-verification is “valid until March 14, 2026.” No further USACE modification is included in the Bid Documents. Please confirm the current status of the federal authorization and provide a copy of any subsequent re-verification, as this governs the manatee observer, cultural resources, and general permit conditions the Contractor must comply with and price.

Answer: Please see attached: USACE Permit Modification that extend the permit to March 15, 2031.

Question 20: The FDEP permit family (Attachments C6–C10) identifies the authorized Dredged Material Management Area at Tax Parcel ID 24-36-25-00-1, centered near Kiwanis Island Park.

Section 01 11 00 and the Construction Drawings identify the “Nandivada DMMA” at Tax Parcel ID 24- 37-31-00-4. Please confirm whether these refer to the same site, or whether a separate or updated permit modification authorizing the Nandivada parcel exists, and if so, please provide it.

Answer: Please discard any reference to Tax Parcel ID 24-36-25-00-1 in any permits or permit modifications, and completely disregard Attachment C-8 as requested in the pre-bid meeting. The Kiwanis Island DMMA will not be used for dewatering dredged material associated with the Sykes Creek Phase 2 Muck Removal Project. The designated dewatering site for this project is the Nandivada DMMA, located on Tax Parcel ID 24-37-31-00-4.

Question 21: Section 31 12 00, General Preservation of Existing Vegetation, states the Owner may select, mark, or designate trees or vegetation for preservation “before or after award of the Contract or commencement of construction.” Has the Owner already identified or marked any trees or vegetation for preservation within the Nandivada DMMA site, outside of the 15-foot north and east vegetated construction buffers described in Section 35 20 23.33? If so, please identify their location and extent on the Construction Drawings.

Answer: Only trees in the 15-foot north and east vegetated buffers, and all vegetation west of the delineated wetland (marked with pink flags and partially buried iron posts) need to be preserved.

Please adhere to any permit conditions regarding wetland protection. The wetland is delineated on Sheet 4 of 5 on the Topographic Survey provided in Addendum 1.

Question 22: Please confirm whether any trees within the general DMMA clearing limits (i.e., outside the north and east construction buffers) are anticipated to remain, or whether the Contractor should price full clear-and-grub authority within those limits per Section 31 12 00, Paragraph 1.01.B.

Answer: Contractor shall price full clear and grub in remaining DMMA area outside areas in the 15-foot north and east vegetated buffers, and the delineated wetland.

Question 23: Attachment C2 (USACE Permit, Special Condition 6.i(3)) requires manatee observers to “rotate their positions every four hours during shift lengths lasting more than six hours.” Please confirm that this requirement is satisfied by the two on-duty FWC-approved observers rotating positions with each other and does not require a third observer or a full personnel/shift change for work shifts exceeding six hours.

Answer: Confirmed as stated.

Question 24: The USACE Permit (Attachment C2, Special Conditions 7 and 8) incorporates by reference the NMFS “Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions” (2006) and the USFWS “Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake” (2013), neither of which appears in Section 01 35 43 Environmental Protection or elsewhere in the Technical Specifications.

Please confirm these conditions remain applicable to this Contract and provide the full text of both standard conditions documents so the Contractor can identify and price any associated compliance measures.

Answer: The conditions are applicable and full text can be found at end of Attachment C-2 – pages 48-52.

Question 25: Is the Contractor required to construct the Phase 2 improvements (pond, berm, storm sewer system) shown in Attachment D-8, or is Phase 2 being completed under a separate contract? If Phase 2 is within the Contractor’s scope, does it get priced as part of the DMMA design/construction bid items, or somewhere else?

Answer: No, Attachment D-8 is for the 18” utility pipe location reference only. Phase 1 and 2 in Attachment D-8 will be a separate project contract not related to this muck dredging project.

Removed Attachment:

Attachment C-8 FDEP Permit Mod 2

Attachments:

USACE Permit Modification Acousti Fence – Product Data Sheet Revised Attachment F – Price Sheet Revised Attachment B – Construction Drawings 00 41 00 Bid Form (Jul2026)

The questions deadline has been extended to Wednesday, August 12, 2026 @ 5:00 PM.

Please note that the bid opening date and time have changed to Friday, August 21, 2026 @ 9:00

AM.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Sincerely, Mary Bowers Purchasing Manager

END OF ADDENDUM 2