RFI_and_pre-bid_tour_notes.pdf

Trabuco Canyon Bridge

RFP AG-9A40-S-14-0034

RFI Questions and Answers

C.W. Crosser Construction, Inc.

1. In part 1 of the project specification page 6 of 59, paragraph C5 subsection 4.

Question:

Can the Government extend the project duration to 180 days to accommodate the time for design and the upcoming winter rainy season, because this project requires contractor to provide streambed simulation design? The project 120 days will be insufficient.

Response: The Contracting Officer will issue a partial Notice to Proceed upon award of the contract, so that the Contractor can start the submittal process. This will allow work to start, but no time will be charged against the 120 day contract time until construction is ready to begin. At that point the CO will issue a full Notice to Proceed and the time will start.

2. In the project special specification page 61 of 80 stated “Mix streambed simulation rock in proportions based on Table 705-4.”

Question: We cannot find where is the table 705-4. Instead we could only find table 705-5.

Response: The reference in Special Project Specification 648 is wrong.

The correct reference should be to Table 705.5.

3. In the project special specification page 62 of 80 stated “The information collected on the current conditions is attached to this solicitation.

Question: Where is the attachment?

Response: This was omitted from the initial posting. The information is now posted with this amendment.

This information is contained in the following documents:

Reference Reach Design Trabuco ERFO Bridge LongPro Pebble Count Trabuco ERFO 2nd and 3rd Crossings Site Assessment

Question: Where is this document?

Response: This was omitted from the initial posting. The information is now posted with this amendment.

The Contractor shall use the design guide from San Dimas and the reference reach data to produce an acceptable design. The design guide is “Stream Simulation: An Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road Stream Crossings”. U.S. Forest Service, 2008. A copy of the design guide can be downloaded at http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/StreamSimulation/.

Question: The web link is not valid. Please provide valid web link.

Response: The web link worked for us. We will contact you directly to figure out why it isn’t working.

4. In the project special specification page 64, 65 of 80 stated “AS SHOWN ON

THE PLANS”.

Question: The drawings did not show any of those referenced information. Please clarify.

Response: The reference is intended to apply to the Drawings that the Contractor will provide.

5. Because the streambed simulation design criteria and related information are missing from the bid package, can the Government provide the information as soon as possible? At this moment contractor will not have a base to even prepare the bid proposal. The bid date is August 20, 2014.

Question:

Can the Government extend the bid date to August 27, 2014 to allow contractor reasonable amount of time to prepare for the bid proposal and technical approach for the Streambed simulation?

Response: The Contracting Officer has extended the bid date to August 29, 2014.

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/StreamSimulation/

DRP Construction

*Permitting* Questions

1. Who are the permitting agencies and what permits are required. My experience has been that the Forest Service were the only agency to satisfy.

Response: The two permitting agencies are the Corps of Engineers and the State Water Resources Board. This project requires a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers. The State Water Resources Board will be issuing two permits, a 401 and a Stormwater Discharge permit.

2. Is an US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit required?

Response: Yes.

3. Is a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Dept of Fish and Wildlife required?

Response: No. The Solicitation incorrectly said that one was required. We have learned since then that one is not required for work performed by the Forest Service on Forest Service land.

4. Has the project undergone a NEPA or CEQA review?

*Available Data Questions*

5. Is the topographic and control survey point data available in ASCII format?

Response: We don’t know.

6. Are the civil engineering drawings available in Autocad format?

*Design Methods*

7. Is a specific design method required (e.g. Forest Service Stream Simulation (2008) or HEC-26)?

Response: Yes, the Stream Simulation is required to use the reference provided (Stream Simulation: An Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road Stream Crossings. U.S. Forest Service, 2008).

8. Is a hydrologic design required for the temporary crossing?

Response: Yes. See SPS 156.03.

Questions from the Project Review (Aug. 6) and Pre-bid Meeting (Aug. 7)

1. How long does the FS have to review submittals?

Response: We have 30 days to review submittals (104.03- Specifications and Drawings).

2. What submittals are required in this contract?

Response: There are a number of submittals required in the Solicitation. In addition, bidders should review the following Special Project Specifications (SPS) for required submittals related to the construction: 104, 107, 156, 157, 201, 553, 633, and 648. Submittals are also required on the materials incorporated into the project. Please refer to the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects FP-03 for additional information on required submittals.

3. Question: Is a Traffic Control Plan required?

Response: Yes. See SPS 156.

4. Question: What areas need to be included in the Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP)?

Response: The SWPPP shall apply to all areas that are directly related to construction activities and other site work including, but not limited to, staging areas, storage yards, and access roads within or outside of the Project limits. See SPS 157.

5. Question: does this contract include liquidated damages?

Response: No. There was a reference to liquidated damages in Special Project Specification 157- Soil Erosion Control. This reference in Section

157.12 D.3 is deleted from this Solicitation and the resulting contract.

6. Question: Who is responsible for obtaining the permits?

Response: The Forest Service is responsible for obtaining the permits.

7. Question: How much clearing is required?

Response: This depends on the design of the temporary bypass, and the design of the Stream Simulation. The design of the new road alignment will require removing 6 trees. We anticipate that the temporary bypass could require removal of an additional 9 trees. Any clearing proposed in the stream channel will be identified on the plans for the stream restoration.

8. Question: What happens to the trees that are removed?

Response: Unless the trees are incorporated into the stream simulation work, the trees become the property of the Contractor. See SPS 201 for the disposal requirements.

9. Question: Where is the roadway obliteration taking place?

Response: The only existing roadway that is being obliterated is adjacent to the low water crossing that is being removed. This work is incidental to the other construction and is being dropped from the Schedule of Items.

10. Question: Where is the Road Reconditioning planned?

Response: The Road Reconditioning starts at the end of the County road, which is the location of the white gate. It extends to the bridge at Holy Jim Creek. The proposed bridge is located at milepost 1.06. Holy Jim Creek is located at milepost 1.91. The quantity shown in the Schedule of Items has been changed to reflect this increase.

11. Question: The Road Reconditioning SPS mentions ditches, cattleguards, asphalt surfaces and aggregate surfaces. Where are these located?

Response: This is generic language. There are no ditches, cattleguards, asphalt surfaces or aggregate surfaces that need to be maintained on this section of road.

12. Question: The existing road has drainage dips that will be difficult for the construction equipment to cross. What do we do in those areas?

Response: These can be filled with Class II Aggregate Base as part of the Road Reconditioning work. The Contractor isn’t required to remove this fill at the end of the project. However, the road drainage system must be left in a functioning condition.

13. Question: SPS 403.01 makes a reference to saw cutting where new asphalt is joining old asphalt. Where is this required?

Response: This was an error. The paving starts at the end of Low Water Crossing #2, which is a concrete slab. The Plans have been changed to clarify this work.

14. Question: What size and species of trees are we panting under 626.01- Native sapling planting?

Response: We want 15 gallon trees that are a minimum of 6 feet tall. Oak and alder are acceptable species.

15. Question: The Schedule of Items has Item 648.01- Streambed Simulation, Placement Method A. What is Placement Method A?

Response: The reference to Placement Method A is left over from another contract, and has been deleted from the revised Schedule of Items.

16. Question: The Forest Service has some existing improvements next to the proposed staging area, including a toilet, bollards and a picnic table. Is their removal part of this contract?

Response: The picnic area improvements (table, toilet and bollards) and the pipe rail barrier located at the proposed intersection of the bypass will be removed by FS personnel prior to construction.

17. Question: Can an alternative design be proposed as part of the bid?

Response: Yes. Section L.4 of the Solicitation allows proposing an alternative design and describes the process for bidding on the alternative.

18. Question: Are there any Limited Operating Periods (LOP) associated with

Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Species in this contract?

Response: No.

19. Question: Why has the Schedule of Items been revised?

Response: The revisions include additions and deletions described in this Request for Information. In addition, the Schedule has been reorganized to group the road and bridge construction into a Base Bid, the Stream Simulation construction into Option 1, and the design of the stream simulation into Option 2.

20. Question: What parts of the package are we required to bid on?

Response: Bids are required on the Base Bid and Option 1.

21. Question: Is the design of the Stream Simulation a required part of the contract?

Response: No. The Schedule of Items has been modified to reflect this change. The design is now listed under Option 2 of the Solicitation. Bidders are encouraged, but not required, to bid on Option 2.

22. Question: Who is going to design the Stream Simulation if the Contractor isn’t responsible to do it?

Response: If Bid Option #2 isn’t awarded, the Forest Service will take back that responsibility.