Oyster Fishing Pier - Addendum 1.pdf

ADDENDUM #1

Issued February 11, 2025

Invitation to Bid for

Construction of New Fishing Pier at Oyster Harbor

Please accept this memorandum as Addendum #1 to the above-noted Invitation to Bid.

MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS

Vibratory installation of the 12” Class B piles may be acceptable in lieu of pile driving via hammering provided that the minimum bearing capacity of 7 tons is achieved and the minimum embedment depths are accomplished. If this method is chosen, the County will provide a geotechnical engineer to be present during the installation of the test pile to determine the actual energy being transferred into the pile. Contractor shall coordinate the installation of the test pile with the engineer. If the engineer determines the minimum 7 ton bearing capacity is not being met, then the contractor will not be allowed to move forward until this requirement can be achieved.

BIDDER QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

1. QUESTION: Can you provide a bid pile length for the Class B piles?

ANSWER: For bid purposes, Contractor shall use a bid length of 30’ piles for those shown for 15’ minimum embedment and 40’ piles for those shown for 20’ minimum embedment. The contract price shall be adjusted once actual pile lengths have been determined.

2. QUESTION: Reference Drawings: Sheet S2.1, Detail 1/S2.1: Please provide a manufacturer or product data sheet for the ½”x16” Spiral Dowels.

ANSWER: Sea Port Marine in Chesapeake, VA is one supplier of this product.

3. QUESTION: Reference Drawings: Sheet S2.1, Detail 1/S2.1: Would the county of Northampton be opposed to using hurricane straps in lieu of the spiral dowels?

ANSWER: Hurricane straps would be acceptable, however, they must be stainless steel straps, such as Simpson H8SS.

4. QUESTION: Is there any geotechnical information for this project?

ANSWER: No geotechnical information is available.

5. QUESTION: The coordinates shown for the point at the southwest corner of the pier appear to be in error. Please confirm that the coordinates for this point should be 12232082.900, 3638699.370 (the zero before 82.900 appears to have been dropped when typing the data.)

ANSWER: Yes, this appears to be a typo. The noted correction is the correct coordinate.

6. QUESTION: There is no indication of pile lengths on the drawings or elsewhere in the contract documents, other than calling for 20’ minimum embedment below the mudline. The drawings state that the final pile lengths will be dictated by the test pile. Will the engineer or owner give a set “bid length” for piles as a basis of bids to ensure uniformity of bid prices?

ANSWER: See response to Question 1.

7. QUESTION: The contract documents do not specify the method of testing the required test pile for capacity. Please define the test method and minimum requirements for an acceptable test.

ANSWER: ENR or ENR modified would be acceptable testing methods. Contractor may also submit other proposed methods for consideration. Most standard testing methods would be accepted.

8. QUESTION: Please define the elevations shown on S1.1. Are they in reference to

NAVD88?

ANSWER: Yes

9. QUESTION: Mean Low Water (MLW) and Mean High Water (MHW) are shown in Section 2 on S2.1. Are these elevations in reference to the same datum as the elevations shown on S1.1?

ANSWER: Yes, that is the intention. The tidal range shown matches that used by the USACE for dredge survey, however, they reference MLLW. Shown MHW and MLW elevations may vary. Contractor to confirm in field.

10. QUESTION: Have any water depths or mudline elevations been measured for the off shore portion of the pier that runs parallel to the Dredge Boundary?

ANSWER: USACE dredge survey is attached for reference. They appear to dredge to - 6 MLLW. See their drawing attached for conversion to NAVD88.

11. QUESTION: What depth is the channel routinely dredged to, and how often?

ANSWER: See attached USACE drawing and answer to Question 10. The frequency of dredging must be obtained from the USACE. The channel was last dredged in 2021.

12. QUESTION: We assume that all timber below the deck shall be rough cut timber. Should the 2x8 decking, 4x4 rail posts, and 2x6 railing, 6x6 seat posts, and 2x8 seat framing be rough cut or S4S nominal lumber?

ANSWER: All lumber to be S4S.

13. QUESTION: What treatment is desired for the seat framing and posts? 1.5# CCA or

0.15# CCA?

ANSWER: 1.5 CCA

14. QUESTION: Detail 5 on S2.1 shows the seat frame (without the composite skirt boards) as 2’ wide. Section 6 on the same sheet shows the overall seat (including the composite skirt boards) as 2’ wide. Which is correct?

ANSWER: 2’ wide including composite skirts

15. QUESTION: General Note 4 on S1.2 calls for the “Rail Top Cap” to be 5/4x8” PVC Composite Board. On S2.1, Sections and details 3, 4, and 7 also call for the Rail Top Cap to be 5/4x8”. However, Section 10 calls for a 1x8 Composite Rail Cap. Please confirm this is to be 5/4x8” Composite.

ANSWER: Yes, 5/4x8 nominal

16. QUESTION: The permit doesn’t say anything about constructing a temporary trestle to build the pier from. Will this be allowed?

ANSWER: Contractor shall check with permitting agencies.

Please note that, in the event of a conflict with the information stated in this document and governing building codes, the building codes shall supersede. Any changes to the contract documents outlined above represent only what is acceptable to the owner, but may not necessarily meet the minimum requirements of local building codes. It shall be the bidder’s responsibility to follow the requirements of any governing building codes in the event of any discrepancy.

Please note receipt of Addendum #1 on your bid submittal.

Chris Thomas, P.E.

Public Works Director