RFQ 2504 TCP Addendum2.pdf
PDF 443 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Twin Bridges Monte Cristo Mining Area
- Solicitation number
- RFQ 2504 TCP
- Issued by
- Adams County, Asotin County, Benton County, Chelan County, Clallam County, Clark County, Columbia County, Cowlitz County, Douglas County, Ferry County, Franklin County, Garfield County, Grant County, Grays Harbor County, Island County, Jefferson County, King County, Kitsap County, Kittitas County, Klickitat County, Lewis County, Lincoln County, Mason County, Okanogan County, Pacific County, Pend Oreille County, Pierce County, San Juan County, Skagit County, Skamania County, Snohomish County, Spokane County, Stevens County, Thurston County, Wahkiakum County, Walla Walla County, Whatcom County, Whitman County, Yakima County, Asotin City, Clarkston City, Clarkston Heights-Vineland CDP, West Clarkston-Highland CDP, Benton City, Chelan City, Chelan Falls CDP, Clallam Bay CDP, Lewisville CDP, Rock Island City, Pacific Beach CDP, Whidbey Island Station CDP, Mercer Island City, Pacific City, Bainbridge Island City, Kingston CDP, Kitsap Lake CDP, Kittitas City, Klickitat CDP, Okanogan City, Anderson Island CDP, Fort Lewis CDP, Fox Island CDP, Herron Island CDP, Ketron Island CDP, North Fort Lewis CDP, Raft Island CDP, Stevenson City, Hat Island CDP, Lake Stevens City, Snohomish City, Spokane City, Spokane Valley City, Puget Island CDP, Garfield Town, Yakima City, Washington
About this file
This document is an Addendum (Number 2) to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology for the Monte Cristo Twin Bridge Removal project (RFQ Reference #2504 TCP). The addendum, dated April 7, 2025, provides clarifications and responses to questions from a prior informational meeting held on April 3, 2025. The RFQ seeks an architectural and engineering (A/E) firm to provide design, bidding, construction, and project closeout services for removing two dilapidated bridges. The original RFQ due date remains unchanged at May 1, 2025, prior to 3:00 PM, with the selected firm expected to conduct site work in accordance with hazardous waste operations regulations.
The project will be funded through the Asarco Settlement fund, with Ecology expecting the funding source to remain available through design and construction phases. The site access is contingent on snowpack conditions, with mid-May typically offering better accessibility. The project does not include bridge replacement, though this may be discussed. Key modifications in this addendum include clarifying the project scope from soil and sediment cleanup to specifically focusing on bridge removal, and adding a Box.com link with reference documents including a Twin Bridge Site Visit Report, Site Plan, and Vicinity Map. The selected firm will need to assemble an engineering team capable of managing the project, including potential non-engineering disciplines like landscape architecture and public involvement.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFQ 2504_TCP_Addendum1.pdf | ||
| RFQ 2504 TCP_AE-Services_MCMA.TwinBridges .pdf | ||
| RFQ 2504 TCP Addendum3.pdf | ||
| RFQ 2504 TCP_AE-Services_MCMA.TwinBridges .pdf.crdownload | CRDOWNLOAD file |
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
RFQ Addendum
RFQ Reference #: RFQ 2504 TCP RFQ Title: Monte Cristo Twin Bridge Removal
Addendum number: 2 (TWO) Date issued: April 7, 2025
This RFQ is amended as follows:
Purpose: 1) Provide answers to Questions from Firms – see below
2) Revised RFQ Language– See below
Section 1, Paragraph 2 clarification Section 2.4, Box.com link added
All other Terms, Conditions, and Specifications remain unchanged.
Original RFQ due date and time: REVISED RFQ DUE DATE AND TIME:
May 1, 2025 prior to 3:00 PM
NO CHANGE
Name: Nick Fitzgerald, PE Date signed: 4/7/2025 Procurement Coordinator (signature on file)
(For questions concerning this amendment contact the Procurement Coordinator.)
THIS ADDENDUM IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
AND
DOES NOT NEED TO BE RETURNED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Addendum number: 2 (TWO) Date issued: April 7, 2025
Page: 2 of 3
RESPONSE TO FIRM QUESTIONS AT THE APRIL 3, 2025 INFORMATIONAL
MEETING:
Q1: Is there documentation provided for the extent of the (creosote) contamination or is it part of the design package to do further investigation of creosote contamination?
A1: This will be part of the design work performed by the selected AE firm. Rather than performing sampling and characterization of any creosote onsite, it is intended that the design will address any potential creosote contamination onsite through simpler processes, such as over-excavation in areas around buried creosote treated timbers.
Q2: Has the funding been fully secured or is assumed to be in phases yet for the design and then construction?
A2: The funding source for this project is the Asarco Settlement fund (RFQ section 2.8).
Ecology expects that this funding source will remain available through design and construction.
Q3: Are the bridges to be replaced with a foot bridge as part of the design?
A3: A replacement bridge is not part of this project design but may be taken into consideration during the project (e.g. as a discussion point).
Q4: Is access to the site available now?
A4: It could be, but is dependent on the snowpack. Mid May is typically when access is more available. Spring access is also dependent on the forest service clearing debris as well. See additional photos on the box.com site referenced in section 2.4 of this addendum.
Q5: Are there additional photos of the site? What is access like?
A5: Yes, Ecology has additional photos that have been posted to the project Box.com site. The access route is single track and gravel, which has been used previously for articulating dump trucks, track hoes, etc.
Q6: Will there be a question/answer period to ask Ecology additional questions about this project?
A6: Yes, questions will be taken and answered until Thursday April 10, 2025 (per the
RFQ section 3.1).
Addendum number: 2 (TWO) Date issued: April 7, 2025
Page: 3 of 3
REVISED LANGUAGE SECTION:
Deleted text is indicated with strike thru (sample) and new text is indicated with underlined (sample).
Section 1, Paragraph 2 is modified as follows:
This Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is for selecting an A/E firm for design, bidding, construction, and project closeout services for soil and sediment cleanup at the site the removal of two dilapidated bridges. The selected A/E firm will act as the prime A/E firm in the development of documents for the public works design/bid/build delivery method that require an engineering team to develop. Interested firms shall assemble the appropriate engineering disciplines for this project, which includes professional engineering management and construction oversight. The firm’s team includes non-engineering disciplines as necessary such as landscape architecture and public involvement. In addition to the necessary engineering qualifications, the selected A/E firm will have the qualifications and training necessary to conduct site work in accordance with Chapter 296-843 WAC, Hazardous Waste Operations.
Section 2.4 is modified as follows:
2.4 Reference Documents
Existing reference documents applicable to the engineering services covered by this RFQ include (available on Ecology’s Box.com site referenced in section 1.6): found here: https://app.box.com/s/3b23kr3avj7e2yvw33vsiy4ulcaeee7e):
1. Twin Bridge Site Visit Report
2. Site Plan
3. Vicinity Map
End of Addendum
NOTICE: A/E Firms are encouraged to continue checking WEBS for any other addendums.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .