CA_PFH_112-1(3)__Pre-proposal_Meeting_Notes_Sign_In_7.23.13.pdf

CA PFH 112-1(3) South Fork Smith River Road

CM/GC Pre-proposal Meeting

Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:00 a.m. at the George E. Tryon Bridge Site

Attendees: see sign-in sheet

CFLHD opened the meeting with the following remarks:

1. Thank you to everyone for attending and for their interest in the project

2. Sign in sheet passed around

3. Goal of meeting:

highlight key points of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and the governments intent with the

CM/GC contract;

emphasize main project elements; and reiterate what the proposals must address

4. Questions:

At direction of CFLHD’s Contracting Officer, all comments/questions were documented, no answers provided at the meeting. Answers to questions will be posted within the week.

Additional questions should be emailed to cflcontracts@dot.gov. Contractors are not to contact the County or CFLHD staff directly.

RFP Points/Governments Intent:

a) Why CM/GC is a good fit for this project:

Technically challenging design and construction;

Desire to expedite schedule; and

Sensitive environmental setting

b) To bring a Construction Manager on board to act as an extension of the design team to identify cost-effective, environmentally sensitive solutions.

c) Constructability input and review to reduce cost, expedite schedule (design and construction) and assist in coordination with resource/permitting agencies to complete NEPA compliance

d) Construction cost estimating based on design milestones to include labor, time, and materials, with input from sub-contractors.

e) Identify, reduce, and allocate risk to minimize cost and potential for contract modifications during construction.

Project Elements:

a) Land ownership pointed out (California State Parks, USDA Forest Service, private)

b) Route is County maintained

c) Environmental issues highlighted:

mailto:cflcontracts@dot.gov

Access in the river may result in impacts to the designated Wild and Scenic River and potentially to Federally Threatened and Endangered Species

Demolition and debris containment plans will be critical in obtaining permits and will be developed with input from contractor

Environmentally sensitive areas and site limit areas for staging

Potential for asbestos in the rock

Lead based paint on bridge

d) Bridge:

Only a deck arch to be considered to maintain current aesthetic

Current alignment to take advantage of existing rock with shortest span and minimize long term environmental impacts

Downstream temporary alignment to maintain traffic and minimize environmental impacts

Temporary bridge will need to be designed to withstand high water flows

e) Geotechnical

Recommendations include rock bolting to avoid localized failures beneath both anchor blocks

Proposal:

a) Discuss in detail your methods, approach and schedule

Address project as shown in RFP 30% plans;

Discuss any proposed innovations/recommendations resulting in cost and /or schedule savings;

and

Include all elements in the evaluation criteria in your proposal

b) Show bridge and alternate delivery experience at both the company level and at the project staffing level

c) Overview of the evaluation procedures as described in RFP

Technical evaluation completed prior to reviewing price component

Questions asked by contractors during the pre-proposal meeting:

1. Who will be the designer for the project?

The Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD), will be the designer.

2. What is the likelihood of getting in the water (South Fork of the Smith River)?

Specific restrictions on accessing or being in the river have not been identified to date. CFLHD recognizes that the temporary bridge, as shown in the 30% plans (part of the Request for Proposal

(RFP) package), will require work below the ordinary high water mark. Continued coordination with the resource agencies may result in restrictions. Those consultations cannot be completed without a more detailed description of the construction methods and durations proposed. Base your proposal only on information provided in the RFP.

3. Has FHWA considered expanding the bid items in Option X?

The bid items provided as part of Option X are the major, project-defining items with low associated risk. These unit bid prices will be considered firm-fixed prices in the negotiations to award Option X.

CFLHD does not want to expand this list to include higher risk bid items as they are firm-fixed prices and we do not want risk factored into those prices.

4. Can the bid opening date be moved out 2 weeks to allow more time to prepare proposals?

The bid opening date/time will remain as 8/15/2013 by 2:00 pm as stated in the RFP.

5. Have any staging areas been identified?

Existing pullouts along South Fork Road can be used for staging. The Forest Service has also mentioned a couple areas off of the road, along South Fork Road, as potential staging areas. There is also a large paved area off State Highway 199 at the intersection with South Fork Road.

Coordination between CFLHD and Caltrans would be needed to determine feasibility of using this area for staging.

6. Are there known utilities? Are utility relocations required?

There are overhead power, telephone, and cable facilities in the project area that share the same utility pole. One utility pole is in the project area (adjacent to the SW corner of the existing bridge), which may need to be relocated. Wire heights over the roadway are probably in conflict as well. No underground utilities are known at this time. There is reasonable certainty that there are no underground gas facilities in the project area. No other information is available to date.