IFB 41684_ Add_2.pdf
PDF 267 KB Posted
- Attached to
- IFB Burrell Dam Rehabilitation Project
- Solicitation number
- ITB-14558
- Issued by
- Putnam County, Florida
About this file
This is Addendum 2 to Invitation for Bids 41684 issued by the St. Johns River Water Management District for the Burrell Dam Rehabilitation Project located on Haines Creek in Florida. The addendum, dated December 8, 2025, extends the bid submission deadline by two days to 10:00 a.m. on December 19, 2025. The project encompasses rehabilitation of the Burrell Dam structure, including sheet pile installation, cofferdam design and construction, H-pile replacement, slide gate refurbishment, concrete repairs, riprap placement, dewatering operations, and associated structural work. The addendum clarifies that staging areas are available directly west of the dam structure, in-water work must be completed by July 31, 2026 to ensure dam operability before hurricane season, and contractors are responsible for clearing trees only as necessary to accommodate equipment access. The District anticipates releasing geotechnical information on or shortly after December 12, 2025, and requires acknowledgment of the addendum in bid submittals.
The estimated project budget is $5.1 million, with bidders required to submit a bid bond equal to five percent of the total base bid amount. Contractors may propose alternate dewatering systems using staggered completion methodology and may supply qualified gate component suppliers meeting construction document specifications. Key technical clarifications address cofferdam design parameters, concrete testing procedures using ASTM C109 conducted in laboratory settings, slide gate testing requirements of three cycles, lubricant and hydraulic fluid specifications requiring manufacturer compliance and bio-degradable products where applicable, and pile embedment depths assumed consistent with existing engineering plans from 1977. The addendum confirms that existing aluminum deck grating requires no replacement, HS20-44 load rating assessments should inform bid pricing, and compliance with local noise ordinances and Lake County building permits is mandatory for pile driving operations.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| IFB 41684_ Add_1_Final.pdf | ||
| 41684_IFB BURRELL DAM REHAB final.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
DATE: December 8, 2025
TO: Interested Firms
FROM: Kendall Siemiatkoski, Contracts Manager
SUBJECT: Invitation for Bids 41684, Addendum 2 Burrell Dam Rehabilitation Project
Please be advised of the following regarding the subject Invitation for Bids:
1. The deadline for receipt of Responses is extended by two days, to 10:00 a.m. on December 19, 2025.
2. Question: Based on the load rating of HS20-44 a crane will be unable to install sheet piles while sitting on top of this structure necessitates the need of a barge.
Answer: Bid pricing should be based on your assessment of the subject load rating. Staging areas outside of the structure are accessible.
3. Question: Your time frame for in-water work is still insufficient even with the extension to july31st.
Answer: The District is unable to extend the bid any further, due to the need for reasonable assurance that the dam structure will be operational by hurricane season.
4. Question: Where is the laydown area the district will let the contractor use for material & equipment storage?
Answer: Directly west adjacent of the dam structure.
5. Question: Is the contractor responsible for clearing trees that overhang the access road?
Answer: Only as needed, to accommodate contractor equipment.
6. Question: Please clarify whether the cofferdam is to be designed to withstand the max high-water elevation or top of sheet elevation?
UPSTREAM COFFERDAM
MAX HIGH WATER EL. = 9.82’ OF WATER TOP OF SHEET = 11.82’ OF WATER
Answer: The coffer dam should be designed to prevent overflow at the elevations listed above but should also be designed to withstand overflows (note bid item 47 for overflow rate).
7. Question: Why is the top of sheet pile at the Centerline higher than top of bank on the north end?
Answer: District will consider a note to the fence specifications.
8. Question: Concrete testing- please note that ASTM C109 is a testing procedure meant for a lab controlled environment and is not suitable for field testing procedures and results in inconsistent break results. What other test procedure is acceptable?
Answer: ASTM C109 is the correct testing specification. The contractor’s testing firm will take samples in the field and take them to their lab for strength tests.
9. Question: Could you please provide the locations of each type of riprap and which requires bedding stone?
IFB 41864
Addendum 1
- 2 -
Answer: Locations are generally at the shoreline of each corner of the dam structure. These bid line items (31, 32, 33, and 34) are listed as “if required” due to additional field and joint inspection between District and Contractor.
10. Question: What is the estimated budget for this project?
Answer: 5.1 million
11. Question: Are there any coatings required for the replacement H-piles upstream and downstream? HDG, Painted, etc.
Answer: See answer published in Add_1
12. Question: Are there any specifications for bypass/maintenance pumping or is the district solely relying on the over-flow costs? Answered in Add_1
Answer: See answer published in Add_1
13. Question: Will the overhead powerlines be able to be removed during sheet-pile installation as this will be directly in the path of material?
Answer: See answer published in Add_1
14. Question: What are the specifications driving piles. Due to preventing damage to surrounding structures both SJRWMD and private is there a vibration monitoring, decibel monitoring, or other associated protections/specs provided?
Answer: The only restrictions are related to local noise ordinances, and any work should comply with any restrictions outlined in the Contractor obtained building permit issued by Lake County. When selecting the driving method the Contractor should take into account the local soil conditions and the driving method selected should be appropriate for the in situ soil conditions.
15. Question: Can you provide a list of approved refurbishing/replacement part suppliers for the L-120’s and other gate components?
Answer: There is not an approved list. The contractor can propose and supply qualified gate component suppliers and components meeting the construction document requirements.
16. Question: Please confirm the extension of the in-water completion deadline.
Answer: See answer published in Add_1, July 31, 2026
17. Question: What are the requirements for dry and wet testing of the slide gates upon re-install? 1-cycle, 10, etc.?
Answer: 3-cycles are sufficient
18. Question: What is the requirement for the wet testing final approval? Is there a min-max allowable flow-rate?
Answer: Under full operations condition
19. Question: Will the district accept alternate bids to complete the de-watering in a staggered system?
(Dewater 1-3, complete scope of work, Dewater 4-6, complete scope of work?).
Answer: Yes, please see answer published in Add_1
20. Question: What are the specifications for any grease, hydraulic fluids, or lubricants utilized in the system? (petroleum, bio-degradable).
Answer: These products should meet the equipment manufacturer requirements, and be bio-degradable if a bio-degradable product meets the manufacturers requirements.
21. Question: Is the aluminum deck grating to be re-utilized or replaced?
IFB 41864
Addendum 1
- 3 -
Answer: No replacement required
22. Question: Which pay item should additional de-watering grout or poly injection be applied to in the event of groundwater intrusion?
Answer: Crack repair pay item, as required
23. Question: Are the existing concrete piles to be removed in whole or cut below the mudline?
Answer: See answer published in Add_1
24. Question: In the event of a breakage during whole removal due to age of the structure what is the recourse?
Answer: This will be evaluated on a case by case basis, however the contractor should use care in removal of all materials to be reused. If the condition of a portion to be removed is in question this should be brought to the attention of the District Project Manager prior to attempting to remove.
25. Question: Can the district confirm the embedment depth of the center piles? The existing engineering plans denote 10’ on DRW-12, but this appears to be the end piles.
Answer: The District has done no exploratory testing on these piles. An assumption of the same embedment depth should be assumed.
26. Question: Can the district confirm that the rip-rap wing walls do not have any reinforcing, tie-backs, or other substructures that may impact sheet-pile driving?
Answer: Refer to the Greiner Engineering plans, dated 1977. Tie-backs are shown on these plans. These tie-backs should be accounted for in any sheet-pile driving. If additional tie-backs are discovered, addressing these will be negotiated with the contractor.
27. The District anticipates releasing the geotechnical information on or shortly after December 12, 2025.
NOTE: Please acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in your submittal.
If you have any questions regarding this addendum, contact Kendall Siemiatkoski at (386) 312-2324 or via email at ksiemiat@sjrwmd.com.
mailto:ksiemiat@sjrwmd.com
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .