Site_Visit_Minutes.pdf

Pre Bid minutes – WRP – Hyde County, NC – Aug 24, 2016 – 12:34 pm – NRCS SO Raleigh, NC

Solicitation #AG-2B46-S-16-0013 Bull Hill Farms

Steven Lord, note keeper from 08/24/16 12:34 pm. – 1:05 pm.

Chris Bellamy, note keeper from 08/24/16 12:34 pm. – 1:05 pm.

Shelton Baker, note keeper from 08/24/16 12:34 pm. – 1:05 pm.

VTC with Scott Crist Project CO, Commenced 12:34 pm.

1 (one) Individual in the room, all completed sign-in sheet.

• Solicitation is located on FedBizOps.

• Will issue an amendment that contains today’s minutes.

• Potential bidder’s attendance at today’s meeting is not required.

COR: NRCS personnel in room and introduced:

• Jonathan Hinkle, Project Engineer, COR, Goldsboro, NC

• Bill Edwards, Biologist, WRP, Goldsboro, NC

• Steven Lord, CET, Primary Inspector, Goldsboro, NC

• Chris Bellamy, Alternate Project Engineer, Alternate COR, Greenville, NC

• Shelton Baker, ATAC NRCS, Alternative Inspector, Goldsboro, NC

Pre-Construction Summary as follows:

CO: Introduction to Solicitation # AG-2B46-S-16-0013 Bull Hill Farms.

o CO Commented that this would be a special situation, because there was only one contractor and she had been in the last two Pre-Bid meetings. CO posed the question to the contractor if they would be acceptable to compress this meeting to just items that were grossly different from the previous two meetings. It was agreed to by the contractor.

o CO Advised that this was a limited scope project.

o CO contract length to be 184 Days.

o CO Advised the contractor to pay attention to the estimated price range $100k - $250k, as recent bids were coming in too high and we were simply canceling the solicitation and rolling on.

Section F –Deliveries or Performance o CO Advised that there would be no 52.211-12 Liquidated Damages.

o COR Advised that 41-52.249-70 Time Extension for Unusually Severe Weather that the weather days were slightly different than previous two projects.

o COR Advised that the Maximum Workweek – Construction Schedule section contained a typo, in that the work week of Monday – Saturday should read Monday – Friday.

o CO No hunting shut down applicable

Section E – Inspection and Acceptance o CO advised that the CO, COR and Inspectors would remain the same as the previous project o CO the following items would remain the same:

Section H – Special Contract Requirements o CO Advised that 22.407(a) Construction Wage Rate Requirements would remain the same.

Section G –Contractor Administration Data o COR Advised the contractor that Project Meetings was absent from this section and advised that they would need to be bi-weekly.

NRCS Supplement to OSHA Part 1910 and 1926 o COR Advised that Page 19 section 4.4 Safety Vests was omitted the Construction Contract and shall be included.

Part II – Section I –Contract Clauses o CO Advised the contractor that 52.219-6 Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside. (Nov

2011) applies to this project.

Again CO commented: CO posed the question to the contractor if they would be acceptable to compress this meeting to just items that were grossly different from the previous two meetings. It was agreed to by the contractor.

Construction Specifications:

o COR Mentioned a typo in the table of contents page iii:

• COR: Made a comment that the table of contents in that construction specification 405 -

Linear Low Density Polyethylene is not in the set and should be replaced with construction specification 97 – Geomembrane Liner which is in the set.

o COR reviewed Liner Specification CS 97.16

• Items of work and construction details: previous statements within this specification are revised and/or removed (not applicable)

5. Anchor Trench

6. Liner Placement

7. Seaming Method

9. Seam Testing

13. Cover Soil

14. Placement of Concrete

• 16.A.1, 3.a, 3..b, 4-6, 8 o COR Reviewed Construction specification 23 – Earthfill section 10.A.7 o COR reviewed Project site on google earth and showed proximity to morning pre-bid location.

o COR reiterated that the same bear threat existed here as does on the previous site.

Construction Drawings o COR Advised contractor that the control points on the site had not been verified for some time and that he would visually verify them on Friday 08/26/16.

Sheet – 2 General Notes o Survey and general notes

Sheet – 3 Overall Site Plan o COR reviewed the locations of soil borings.

o COR reviewed the locations of the Control Points.

o COR reviewed the locations of LLDPE curtain.

Sheet – 4 Water Control Structure #1 o COR reviewed water control structure location.

Sheet – 5 Dike o Pointed out profile lines: top of dike, top of curtain, bottom of curtain, etc.

Sheet – 8 Details o COR advised the contractor of a minor deviation in the slope protection of the water control structure.

Sheet – 9 Details and Typical Sections o COR advised the contractor to pay close attention to the required 0.25 foot of capping material above the designed elevation.

o COR advised the contractor that the core trench identified as 2 foot wide would be changed to 3 foot wide to accommodate the typical backhoe bucket.

o COR advised the contractor that a revised LLDPE Curtain Typical Installation Detail would be forthcoming.

Sheet – 6 Dike Station 9+62.87 TO 19+25.73 o COR advised the contractor that the auxiliary spillway would require turf reinforcement as specified. Also noted that seeding rates are doubled in this area per construction specifications.

Sheet – 9 Details and Typical Sections o COR advised the contractor that the borrow area as depicted in the detail and mentioned in the previous pre-bid would be the same. As stated 4 foot deep once closed and the spoil was to be separated into two piles and be no more than 5 foot tall.

Sheet – 3 Overall Site Plan o COR Advised the Contractor that site access would be off of New Lake road, on to the site and that the contractor would have to traverse around the perimeter to access the interior of the site, along the perimeter path which is rough and heavily wooded.

Pre-Bid was complete NRCS’s Shelton Baker asked for an aerial view of the site to get a better location

COR responded that one was included in the bid package, however a better one could be uploaded to

FEDBIZOPS.

CO Advised the contractor that Bid submissions would be to the NRCS State Office and that the correct address could be found in block 8 on the solicitation cover.

COR Pre-Bid is complete, at 1:05. Thank you for your time and good luck, will look for your questions and post the map.

Jonathan Hinkle COR ran the CO’s portion of the on-site – Phase II part of the site visit. Notes provided below.

Site Visit – WRP – Bull Hill Farm Project site Hyde County, NC

– Aug. 26, 2016 – 12:43 pm

4 Individuals arrive at site (3 to start an additional individual showed up at the end, which was one of the other contractors employees), all completed sign-in sheet.

NRCS personnel on site:

• Jonathan Hinkle, Project Engineer, COR, Goldsboro, NC

• Bill Edwards, Biologist, WRP, Goldsboro, NC

• Steven Lord, CET, Inspector, Goldsboro, NC

Site Visit Summary as follows:

12:43 pm COR laid out on the construction documents on truck tailgate along with the sign in sheet for the contractor’s inspection and sign in.

Starting point NW of IP set #2

12:45 pm COR confirmed that all contractors had signed in on the sign in sheet.

12:47 pm COR advised the contractors that no questions would be answered at this time and that all questions would need to be submitted to the CO in writing.

12:48 COR introduced and oriented the site using Sheets 3 of the construction drawings.

Bill Edwards points out the proposed location of the site entrance and said they would confirm it later in the site showing.

12:55 COR advised the contractors that the site was extremely rough and tater plowed in the Evans Road Fire. He went on to describe the construction as small and simple, with one structure, a dike and LLDPE curtain. COR continued to say that the LLDPE curtain was an experiment for hydrologic restoration and hydraulic cutoff. COR advised the contractors that the site tour would take them along the perimeter path to the interior of the site. COR pointed out the soil boring locations.

COR advised the contractor that at the Pre-Bid meeting he had advised everyone that a revised LLDPE Curtain Detail would be issued in the next addendum.

COR clarified the site orientation and where we were located at that given point in time.

COR explained how we were going to access the site:

• Driving on the perimeter path we will travel NE, N, SW.

COR advised the contractor that the path would be rough.

COR stated that the existing grade and dike location where the two intersect would need to have smooth transitions as this site was extremely rough.

1:15 pm NRCS staff and contractor drove to the SW corner of the project site near the end of the dike.

COR stopped the trucks along the westerly path and pointed in the direction of the proposed borrow area. Offering the contractors an opportunity to investigate the borrow area, all declined and observed it from a distance.

COR reiterated to the contractors that the LLDPE was an experiment and would be used as a hydraulic cut off and that it is a different application and the contractor would need to pay close attention to it. The LLDPE is typically used in a horizontal orientation in a landfill and that this design had it in a vertical orientation for hydraulic cutoff.

COR advised the contractors that at the location of the water control structure there were some good sized cypress that would need to be protected and informed the contractors he would show them which ones.

1:23 pm NRCS staff and contractor drove to the Starting point near IP set #2.

COR lead contractor’s on foot to the location of the water control structure and pointed out a number of medium sized cypress on the downstream side of the structure on both banks. COR went on to say save all that you can.

COR clarified that the dike ties into the path just south of the structure and went on to describe the flow of water on the site.

1:28 COR lead contractors back to starting point and reiterated that no questions would be answered at this time and that all questions would need to be submitted to the CO in writing. COR advised the contractors that answers and a copy of the sign in sheet would be sent out.

Site Visit Closed at 1:30 pm.

At 1:45 COR received a call from CO stating that a contractor had called and stated he was on the way to the site visit location. COR informed the CO that the site visit had concluded and that 3 contractor (4 individuals) attended. COR asked if they needed to turn around and at a minimum allow the contractor to view the site. CO stated yes. COR complied.

At 1:52 COR received a second call from CO stating that he had been in conversation with the contractor and stated that he (the contractor) was familiar with the site therefore he didn’t need a tour. COR stated OK and turned around to head to the office.