2016_0420_trinity_Meeting_minutes.pdf

4/26/2016

CA HBP TRI CR104(1), Trinity County Bridges Design‐Build

4/20/16 SITE VISIT‐ Meeting Minutes

FHWA Presentation:

‐ CFLHD will be the lead agency for the D/B project to be delivered to Trinity County. There will be no CalTrans involvement. This is a FEDERAL contract, the state is not involved.

‐ Design Standards (see Draft RFP):

o Bridge Design Criteria: AASHTO LRFD Specs/Caltrans Amendments to the AASHTO Specs are the primary specs.

o Roadway: PDDM/VLVR/AASHTO Green Book

‐ Schedule for the D/B contract (See SOQ):

o Phase‐One, Statement of Qualifications, is due on 05/16/16.

Early June 2016 – CFL to shortlist to 3 firms and send the RFP out to those firms o Phase‐Two: The 3 shortlisted teams will have 60 days to prepare their proposals

Approx. Aug 16‐30 – D/B proposals are due and will be reviewed by CFL o Award: Because of the end of the Federal fiscal year, the contract may be awarded in late September or October.

‐ One firm will ultimately be selected as the Design/Build firm.

o The contract will be awarded as a firm‐fixed price that will be broken out by items as noted in the draft RFP and will be an A+B contract where the firms set their own schedule with their proposal.

Liquidated damages will be assessed if the firm does not meet their schedule.

‐ The RFP requires the contractor to perform geotechnical investigation and preliminary analysis and preliminary hydraulic analysis to support the design and bid. Thus the RFP does not dictate where to drill.

‐ Per Trinity County: the county requires a permit for a portable batch plant.

‐ Pay attention to Section 156 in the RFP for road closure requirements.

‐ Jacobs (engineering firm) has been involved with the contract and therefore is not allowed to propose on this contract.

‐ FLH uses the FP‐14 Construction Specifications (not CA construction specifications) as referenced in the RFP and they can be downloaded off the link in the RFP. For design specifications, the RFP lists the hierarchy of references in order of descending importance.

‐ CFL will post meeting minutes and the sign‐in sheet on the website after this meeting.

General Q & A

Qn: What is the weight of the proposal vs. the price in the scoring?

A: The Draft RFP is shown in the SOQ. The technical proposal is considered “approximately equal” to the price proposal in terms of scoring. The evaluation factors, both in the SOQ and the RFP, are listed in descending order of importance.

Qn: Will CALTRANs be involved in the review process?

A: No. CFL will administer the design and construction for Trinity County. See the RFP for the submittal review requirements.

Qn: Will ATC’s be shared with other D/B firm?

A: During Phase‐Two, the RFP phase, ATC’s will be reviewed by CFL and the firm will be notified whether their ATC is acceptable prior to submitting the technical and price proposals. If a firm does include ATC’s when they propose, and they accept the stipend, then those ideas can be used by the CFLHD during final design and construction. All design submittals can be used during final design if a non‐winning firm accepts the stipend. The stipend, in effect, buys the design ideas from the contractor.

Qn: Are negative days accounted for in the contract with A+B?

A: The RFP has parameters for the earliest and latest possible finish dates. There is no incentive for early completion.

Qn: How does the contractor acquire ROW?

A: Must follow the Uniform Act.

Qn: What about NEPA/CEQA?

A: CFL has established an area that is cleared at each project site and the boundary will be provided.

Contractor must secure permits, such as 401 and 404.

Qn: What about wetlands mitigation?

A: CFL is not anticipating mitigation unless the contractor’s design results in impacts. CFL is establishing the delineation and will provide to the final three firms. If there is mitigation, it will be up to the contractor on his method of mitigation: wetland bank or on‐site mitigation. Contractor will need a CA encroachment permit. All environmental work to date will be provided to the final 3 firms.

Qn: What surfacing is required on the approaches?

A: Paved surfacing on Jordan Road approaches, but gravel/aggregate surface on all others.

5C‐187 Jordan Rd over Little Creek Area (first site visited)

CFL:

‐ This bridge is the only two‐lane bridge. Due to ROW issues, the roadway will shift away from the residence such that the downstream edge of the new bridge is approximately at the upstream edge of the old bridge.

Qn: What happens with the pumphouse on the upstream corner of the bridge?

A: Since this is private property, it must be relocated and maintain connection to the water tank up the hill and to the private residence which is currently under the road.

5C‐157 East Fork Rd over Hayfork Creek (second site visited)

CFL:

‐ The Bailey Bridge can be used as a detour bridge at this site or at other sites. It can be upgraded if needed for construction loading and must be maintained, but then must be returned to the county in equivalent condition. The bridge must be delivered to the Trinity County Maintenance

Yard in Weaverville, CA.

‐ Trinity County: The bridge can currently handle logging equipment, but not fire equipment.

‐ Section 108 in the draft RFP describes environmental restrictions, including tree cutting and in‐ water work.

‐ In the past, low water crossing at a location downstream from the bridge was used for temporary access, but needs some method for the stream to pass

Qn: What is the minimum size piece that the bridge must be broken down into?

A: Small enough to transport.

5C‐061 Ramshorn Rd. over Mumbo Creek Area (third site visited)

Trinity County:

‐ The road beyond the bridge leads to I‐5 and is about 22 miles long and may be in better condition than the road leading off of Highway 3.

‐ If a portable batch plant permit is submitted at this site, it shouldn’t take long for a county review due to the location.

Q&A:

Qn: Can the old bridge be moved off of the abutments and left in the area.

A: Per the contract, the old bridge must be removed and must be properly disposed of by the contractor. There may be people interested in taking it, but the contractor must coordinate on their own.

Qn: Are closures acceptable.

A: Since there are two ways of accessing the site, the area at the bridge can be closed to traffic, but the not the roads leading in.

5C‐048 Coffee Creek Rd. over Coffee Creek Area (fourth site visited)

CFL comments:

‐ Section 156 of the draft RFP specifies allowance of 1‐ hour road closures between 9‐12 and 1‐4

Monday through Friday and 15 minute traffic delays outside of those times.

‐ There may be naturally occurring asbestos at this site.

Qn: Is the goal to build the bridge on the existing alignment?

A: It’s up to the contractor.

5C‐196 Coffee Creek Rd. over Adams Creek Area (fifth site visited)

CFL comments:

‐ Section 156 of the draft RFP specifies allowance of 1‐ hour road closures between 9‐12 and 1‐4

Monday through Friday and 15 minute traffic delays outside of those times.