0120S150021_PreBidMtgNts_A002.pdf

AG-0120-S-15-0021, A002

PRE BID CONFERENCE CALL

18 Aug 2015/10 am

Kosciusko Road and Bridge Reconstruction

AG-0120-S-15-0021

Forest Service Attendees: Vaughn Hazel; Rod Dell’Andrea and Denise Murphy

Interested Bidder Attendees: Ralph Swinton, SE Road Builders; Jackie Durette, Durette

Construction; Harold Enright & Tammy Carroll, both with Ketchikan Ready Mix and Quarry

Reviewed items 1 – 6 below. There were no questions asked regarding items 1 – 6.

1. Bids may be submitted two (2) ways:

a. To the address in block 8 of the SF1442, 161 East 1 st Avenue, Door 8, Anchorage

AK 99501; or

b. By email to denisemurphy@fs.fed.us. NOTE: Bid bond must be received, in original paper form, at the time and date specified at the address in block 8, on the

SF1442.

c. Bids must be received by 1 pm Alaska time on 24 Aug 2015. NOTE: after the pre-bid meeting, decision made to extend bid due date to 2 Sep 2015. The time due remains unchanged

d. This is an invitation for bid and therefor there will be a public bid opening. If you cannot attend the bid opening in person, you may call in to 1-888-844-9904, access code 8687575. Award will be made to the low responsive, responsible bidder. No discussions will be conducted.

2. All amendments will be posted on FedBizOpps. One (1) amendment has already been posed to FBO. The notes from this meeting will be posted as an amendment to the solicitation. Do not rely on obtaining documents from other sources. All amendments must be acknowledged with bid.

3. In order to maintain the bid opening date on 24 Aug 2015 all contractors are encouraged to submit questions, in writing, to the Contracting Officer (Denise Murphy) prior to 21

Aug 2014. This will allow sufficient time to provide responses and issue amendments.

4. The estimated date for issuance of the NTP is on or about 1 Oct 2015. The contract time for the base items is from award to 31 Dec 2016. If option items are awarded, they shall be completed by 1 Nov 2017.

5. Amendment 001 and specification 555- Steel Structures, 555.03 General. It is expected that by the submission of a bid, bidders meet the qualifying factors called out in the IFB and all amendments. Further, the apparent successful shall supply the documentation identified in amendment 001 when verifying bid prices.

6. Questions emailed prior to the meeting:

Reviewed all the questions listed below that were emailed prior to the pre-bid meeting.

Q1. Can you recommend or provide a lead for a certified bridge supplier for the mailto:denisemurphy@fs.fed.us

18 Aug 2015/10 am

Kosciusko Road and Bridge Reconstruction longer bridges in this project?

FS Response: The specification as clarified in amendment 001to include AISC simple bridge certified fabricators with a specific demonstrated experience level.

Meeting discussion: Forest Service mentioned that Roscoe Steel and Culvert and Mohawk

Metals should have the qualifications called out in A001. Forest Service discussed Mohawk

Metals purchased Hamilton EZ Bridge design and fabrication rights; the specifications called out in A001 and mentioned RTI and Rainer Bridges as possible sources. The Forest Service is not making any recommendation for any specific manufacturer. Prospective bidders are free to select any manufacturer that meets the specifications called out in A001. Bidder asked if EZ Bridge is okay supplier for shorter bridges (refer to first statement above in this section). Bridge Suppler must meet qualifications called out in A001.

Bidder asked if he can use two-piece modular bridge. Forest Service responded with a clarification that shorter span steel modular bridges are typically supplied in two longitudinal halves with full length girders not possessing splices. The longer bridges (Sites 2 and 3) were designed with girder splices. (Manufacturer must be specifications called out in A001.)

Bidder mentioned that they called Big R and Mohawk and were told they do not meet specifications in A001. Forest Service aware that Mohawk has supplied bridges that meet the specifications and not aware of the level of AISC certification of either firm.

Q2. Are there any other pits available to work from other than the one listed as

“designated” pit?

FS Response: Reference H.10 Local Material Sources, in the solicitation package for more information regarding pits.

Meeting discussion: FS clarified that there is one designated source each for Edna Bay and

Cape Pole work. Sheet 2 provides information about non-federal sources. There is potential for bidder to work with local land owners. It is up to each bidder to research non-federal sources. Bidder looked at quarries there is one large developed quarry that appears to be on

Forest Service land (1520 road, mp 11.81). Forest Service to verify ownership.

Q3. Ref. 20401 and 20411 items. I can’t find “placement method 1”. Can you point that out?

FS Response: Placement method 1 is not specifically called out in the specifications:

Placement Method 1 allows is for side-casting ( by backhoe) and end dumping of suitable material found in road cuts and pit run or unclassified borrow rock, versus having to build all embankments by layer placement which isn’t possible in much of SE Alaska conditions.

Meeting discussion: Forest Service explained that “placement method 1” is carry over from old specifications. No questions from bidders.

Q4. Ref. 20411 items. Is the borrow unclassified or select?

FS Response: 20411 Borrow is intended to convey unclassified borrow as spelled out in 704

Soil Spec.

Meeting discussion: Forest Service clarified that if select borrow is called out—should state gradation.

18 Aug 2015/10 am

Kosciusko Road and Bridge Reconstruction

Q5. Ref. 20411 items. Are the contract quantities calculated in embankment or in borrow location?

FS Response: Contract Quantities are determined in compacted and final position; also called prism or in-place yardages, as stated in the specifications.

Meeting discussion: no further discussion.

Q6. The plans limit the preservative treatment to the use of Copper Napthenate for all wood items. Supplemental Specifications at 557.04 further state: “Use a Type A solvent for all copper naththenate treated timber.” Copper Napthenate treatment is available from only one west-coast treating plant creating in effect, a propriety specification. Pentachlorophenol type

A (heavy oil) preservative treatment is available from several sources and is considered as an

“equal” treatment by the specified AWPA Standards. Will the use of pentachlorophenol be allowed for this project? All other requirements for treating can be met using Penta-A.

FS Response: No. The use of pentachlorophenol will not be allowed for this project. The reason for that is because Region 10, of the Forest Service, has an agreement with the Alaska

Department of Fish and Game that states that the use of penta or creosote treatments will not be used in/over freshwater.

Meeting discussion: Bidder stated that if concern about Penta is harm over water Forest

Service is not eliminating the problem. Forest Service explained the agreement between

Forest Service Region 10 and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Research has shown there is more than one source on the West Coast. Bidder requested the name of the sources. (McFarland –Cascade, Corporate Office in Tacoma, WA Phil Schumock, 253-

798-5861, treatment facility is in Sheridan , OR). Bidder noted that treatment plants change chemicals all the time. Asked if Forest Service has considered water bourne treatment.

Forest Service responded that waterborne treatments are not suited for glued-laminated bridge material. Forest service requested detailed email from the bidder with specific issues regarding treatment. Bidder stated that all treatments carry same AWPA standard for preservative. Forest Service requested that bidder include information in detailed email.

Bidder talked about different between type A and C solvents and the differences between the two. Forest Service agreed with what was said regarding type A (heavy oil) and type C (light oil) solvents (AWPA Standard, P9).

Q7. Is the Forest Service willing to accept Big R Bridges?

FS Response: Per Bridge Engineer: Yes the Forest Service believes that Big R would be an acceptable bridge product manufacturer as would Roscoe Steel and Culvert (Missoula MO);

provided they meet all requirements of the certification, bridge plans and specifications.

(The FS is not recommending any one manufacturer.)

Q8. What are the lengths of the existing bridges?

FS Response: Site 1 and 2 (Thayer) are 23’. Charlie Creek (3) is 39’. Site 4 is 22’.

Meeting discussion: Forest Service explained that the response is from the A-E firm who designed the bridge plans. Lengths based upon survey shots taken in the field by the A-E firm on the corners of the existing log stringer bridges.

18 Aug 2015/10 am

Kosciusko Road and Bridge Reconstruction

Q9. The telephone pole bid item is listed in the Base bid however it’s on the drawings as part of Option 2.

FS Response: Bridge drawings labeled as Sites 2 and 3 were also originally labeled Options

2 and 3; however, Bridge Sites 2 & 3 became the Base Bid. Site 4 became Bid option 1, Site

1 became Bid option 2.

Q10. The work list shows to remove and install a 72” x 48” culvert on option 4 however it’s not on the bid schedule.

FS Response: True, a 72” x 48” CPP should be on Option 4 bid schedule. New schedule of items will be included in amendment 002.

Meeting discussion: Bidder asked if the Forest Service expects 24 Aug 2015 as the response date. At this time, yes, we are maintaining the 24 Aug 2015 response date.

Q11. Site 3 is part of the base bid however it’s listed in Opt 3

FS Response: Correct statement for the bid schedule only. It is labeled as Option 3 on bridge plans. Bridge site 3 and 2, Thayer and Charlie creeks, are base bid work. See question 9 above. Option 3 is Cape Pole area work with no bridge items.

Q12. How old are the control points and has anyone verified them in the field recently?

FS Response: Control points for bridges were either established or re-established this Spring, they were evident in March/May 2015.

Q13. The term “typical fish pipes” is a broad description. Can we have further detail?

FS Response: Road typicals sheet R8 & R9 have specific details of “Fish Pipes.”

Meeting discussion: Cape Pole pipes—two—simplified pipe, low gradient, salt water. FS

Engineers considered installation using standard fish pipe typical; however, biologists would not allow it and that is why clarification provided R8 & R9. Bidder asked if solid rock removal is included in the line item? Forest Service stated that successful would have to bury pipe into sub-straight for passage because existing pipes look perched so there is an assumption that a contractor would have to chisel down. Bidder stated that the bed rock is very hard and probably would have to be drilled and shot.

Q14. What is the distance to the logs needed to build the log culverts?

FS Response: Unknown. Assume they will come from FS land. Reference map showing ownership.

Meeting discussion: The Forest Service has not marked the logs yet. Forest Service will work with the successful bidder to find the closest, reasonably sized logs. There is a possibility to find some that are closer; however, they would have to be purchased. There is a contractor working in the area with log decks. Bidder asked if the Forest Service would consider an engineered alternative? It could be considered. Forest Service working on AOP

18 Aug 2015/10 am

Kosciusko Road and Bridge Reconstruction designs. The problem with engineered alternatives is that some are very steep and badly skewed.

Not discussed during the meeting: Bidders shall bid the project as per the specifications in the solicitation. Any alternatives would have to be discussed and considered after award.

Q15. Option 4 lists bid item to furrow ditch however it’s listed on work list for #5

FS Response: Yes, furrow ditch at mp 9.538 is shown in work list 5 and a bid item in Option

4.

Q16. Fish timing – Would the Forest Service be willing to discuss extending the fish timing with the State?

FS Response: The fish timing dates, in the solicitation, are based on the best information available at the time the solicitation package was created. The fish timing dates are subject to expansion. Any changes to the fishing timing would be site specific and coordinated through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Meeting discussion: Forest Service clarified that concurrences on fish timing windows are not complete. Forest Service was given a standard fish timing window for solicitation purposes. The chances are that the Forest Service can work with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, after award; however, there is no guarantee.

Q17. The plans read site 1 as option 1 (MP 7.430 on plans) however it should be listed as

Option 2

FS Response: Yes, and site 4 is Option 1. See issue with bridge drawings as question # 9.

Meeting discussion: Forest Service clarified that the designs were created based on a plan that changed before the solicitation package was created.

Open Discussion:

All attendees, who were still on the call, were asked if they had any additional comments or questions regarding the project.

Bidder asked if the Forest Service would consider an alternate design for bridge with wire wall. Forest Service clarified that the bridge referred to is Charley Creek. Yes the Forest

Service would consider an alternate design; however, bidders shall bid the project as per the specifications in the solicitation. Any alternatives would have to be discussed and considered after award.

Forest Service clarified Option 5, Additional Clearing 20 feet is on the left side. Mile posts are going backwards. The clearing is on the uphill side of the road for the bridge mobilizations.

Meeting ended at approximately 10:53 am.

18 Aug 2015/10 am

Kosciusko Road and Bridge Reconstruction

18 Aug 2015/10 am

Kosciusko Road and Bridge Reconstruction

Questions that were emailed after the meeting:

Q1A. The MSE wall infill is Select Granular Backfill 704.10. If we use the government furnished source do we have to do the testing according to 704.10 b,c?

FS Response: Yes, the contractor shall provide passing test results for Select Backfill for

MSE walls.

Q2A. Can you tell me what “Reference Staking 2” is?

FS Response: Method II Is found in FS Supplemental Specification 152.03(c ).

However, no slope staking notes or design printout information exists for any road reconstruction sections. No leveling or electronic design runs were done on existing roads because only additional widening, new lifts of rock and drainage structure replacements at the existing grades and elevations is needed. The purpose of even including Reference

Staking pay item was to allow compensation for hanging clearing flags and referencing drainage locations for Contractors Quality Control purposes. Therefore, a bearing and distance to structures from an RP stake was all that was envisioned. If a Contractor wishes to establish any vertical control for their QC, Method 1 which is actual slope staking from existing ground elevations and inverts would be needed.