CHARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT ITB NO PINEFIELD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

Transcription

1 CHARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Department of Fiscal and Administrative Services Purchasing Division Telephone: August 19, 2015 ITB NO PINEFIELD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO TO: All Bidders Please be advised of the following modification(s) & information related to Invitation to Bid These modifications, comments, and attachments are hereby made a part of the solicitation documents to the same extent as if bound therein. The due dates for questions and bids remain the same from Addendum 1. I. Changes, Additions, and Modifications to the ITB No Changes, Additions or Modifications at this time. Another addendum is forthcoming. A. Attachments 1. Attachment A Storm Drain Type A Specification II. Pre-Bid Meeting Notes Introduction Good morning, and welcome to the pre-bid meeting for ITB 16-05, Pinefield Drainage Improvements. My name is Shanna Reese, Assistant Chief of Purchasing for Charles County Government. Also with us today is Mr. Mike Snyder, of the Department of Planning & Growth Management, Capital Services Division, project manager for this project. The primary purpose of this project is to improve failing drainage systems in the neighborhood of Pinefield. This project consists of drainage improvements in three separate areas of Pinefield that are not connected in scope of work. Procurement Discussion / Questions All solicitation documents may be found on the County Bid Board. Ensure all required forms and any other information required is complete and in your bid package. o o o Bid Form Bidder s Experience Certification Bidder s Project Experience 1

2 o Addendum Certification Submit two (2) unbound originals and two (2) copies of your bid. All questions should be directed to me in writing via the contact information provided in the ITB. No information obtained from any source other than the Solicitation documents found on the County Bid Board, or Mr. Snyder (during this meeting), or myself may be considered to be accurate. NOTE: COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH PURCHASING REPRESENTATIVE ONLY. Bids must state that they are valid for 120 days from the due date. There is an aspirational 25% MBE goal for this solicitation. We encourage you to meet that goal. This program is subject to the County s SLBE program. The Contractor shall complete the scope of work and all requirements contained herein within 365 consecutive calendar days as bid each Item on the Bid Form after start date to be specified in a written a Notice to Proceed issued by the County. Insurance requirements are located on page I-10 of the ITB. A bid security and bonds are required for this project. See page I-4 for more information. The protest policy may be found on page I-10. The County may reject any and all bids for any reason it deems necessary, and may waive any irregularities and/or informalities, and make award in any manner that is in the best interest of the County. Award will be to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, provided it is in the County's best interest to do so. By submitting a bid in response to this solicitation, the bidder certifies that their firm is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible for participation in government procurement by the federal government, the State of Maryland, or any other state, county, or municipal government. Procurement Questions Question 1 Question: Are separate bid bonds required for each area bid? Response: Bid sureties may be submitted by each Bidder separately for each Bid Item or consolidated into one Bid Surety as long as the bid sureties are equal to the Total Price of all items bid. Question 2 Question: Prevailing wages certified bound by payroll? Separate contracts for each? Response: Yes, if required (Contract(s) of $500,000 or greater) prevailing wages must be certified bound by payroll. There will only be separate contracts for tasks if awarded to different bidders. Bidders shall include prevailing wages in their bids for each Bid Item if the Total Bid Item Price is greater than or equal to $500,000. Question 3 Question: The wage rates provided in the solicitation are information wage rates. Will these be the wage rates for the project? Response: Yes. Technical Discussion The County plans have been permitted. These have been broken up into the three areas, but there may be some overlap in the sets. We put reddish highlights over the applicable pages to help delineate the scope of work in each bid set. However there will be duplications on the E&S plans. Only use the info that is specific for that bid package; we want three separate bids. 2

3 On Holly Tree, we have an addendum sheet we ll be putting out regarding a culvert which shall be part of Holly Ave Bid Sheet. The contract specifies 365 days for each bid item, however, we will agree to a schedule once a contract has been signed. All projects are mutually exclusive in the same area and can be done separately at the same time. We anticipate a limited road closure at Holly Ave so bid on the job with that in mind. We are working on gas relocations on Spruce; have designs forthcoming to relocate the gas lines. It has been test pitted with the results reflected on the plans; where conflicts were found- Wash Gas was told where they need to move the gas lines. Wash Gas has notified to provide an engineering design to relocate the lines. It is ongoing. There could be a few delays getting that done. The County may use sewer easement between lots so have a way in there if needed. New pipe coming in off Lisa Way. Should not be affecting fencing at top of swales. Scope of work pertains to the bottom of the swale. County has personally spoken to each homeowner to discuss work effort. Work should minimize any disturbance to private property other than conflicts noted for pipe installation. Technical Questions Question 4 Question: Item C, Spruce Street. There are utility conflicts that are partial to this job. We suggest that an item be added on a unit day basis for test pitting. We have water, sewer, gas, cable, phone and they are all within the same ROW as the piping that is to be removed and replaced. It will be an issue especially on Spruce Street. Response: A Proposed Change Order shall be submitted if additional test pits are required. Additional test pits should be completed utilizing SOFT DIG or Hydro Excavation methods only. A backhoe should not be used. Question 5 Question: Project A, B and C, each are 365 days to complete. Is that three years total or one year for all three projects combined to be completed? Response: One year for all three to be completed. Question 6 Question: Spruce Street, H1 Pre-caster for inlets said that because of minimum depth problems, all COG inlets will have to be switched to A inlets. In order for them to work with minimum depth; COS inlets, BG2, BG1, BE and B17 are round. We need rectangular boxes in order to make it work. Response: COS inlets BG2, BG1, BE and B17 are all associated with the Lisa Circle/Lisa Way work effort. However, in all instances, it is acceptable to the County to switch to a standard PG County Type A inlet (see Attachment A). In effect, the BG2 inlet could be switched to an A-10, BG1 to an A-15, BE to an A-15, and inlet B17 to an A-5. It also acceptable to the County to switch from circular manholes to rectangular types for other inlets/structures as needed. Question 7 Question: On Spruce, there is a note 1 on page 7, pipe profile shows that the contractor shall backfill trench between storm drain pipes and driveway culverts with crush and run, CR-6. We have lots 5, 6, and 7, (7 has two entrances), 8 and 27 that all would meet the requirements for that note, yet it is only shown on lot 5 profile to be done. As seen on sheet 7 on the profile. Response: The intent is for the note to apply to all lots where the existing driveway culverts are replaced along Spruce Street. This goes for all of the affected lots in question. Thus, for all the affected lots, the 3

4 CR-6 note shall apply, and CR-6 compacted in lifts shall be used as backfill under the driveway pavement areas that will be removed and replaced. Question 8 Question: Spruce Street is getting an upgrade on roadside ditches. As part of the sediment control, stone check dams are being installed. Then the permanent stabilization after the work is done will be sod. When the sod is placed do you want the check dams to remain in place permanently? Response: No, the check dams shall be removed once all upstream areas are stabilized, and approval is given to remove the erosion and sediment control devices. Question 9 Question: The ROW where we re doing the pipework, it s not specific about what you want back do you want sod or seed and mulch? Response: All permanent stabilization shall be sod. Question 10 Question: Lisa Dr and Pinefield Dr (referring to bid item C- Lisa Drive). There is an existing drainage open swale that is overgrown where top out clearing is required. The profiles of the ditch and swale are to be lowered a foot and a half. The problem is that there are huge trees and bamboo, etc. grown up there. Do we clear the entire ROW so we can grade the whole thing or do we cut off existing trees at the ground and leave stumps in place? Response: The intent of the clearing in these ditches is to be minimal and focused on the width required to deepen the bottom to allow proper drainage. We want to reestablish the bottom of the swale to at least a three-foot wide section. We do not want to clear all the trees out of the ROW, and we don t want to clear high up the on slopes as this vegetation serves to stabilize the ditches. It is envisioned that small machinery and hand labor would be utilized to clear and deepen the bottom of the ditches, taking out the minimal amount of trees in the bottom of the swale to restore a three foot channel back suitable to convey upstream runoffs. Question 11 Question: What is the possibility before the bid to see that area? Everyone has a fence on the property line. There s no access to see the area. Response: A site visit was conducted on August 18, 2015 and contained in Addendum 1. Question 12 Question: From the Pinefield Dr side, there will be significant clearing; some large trees will have to come down. But we don t need to do that all the way down there. Response: Tree clearing should be minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and will be more limited as you move downstream toward Truro Lane. However, there are some large trees in the existing ditch near the Pinefield Road outfall that will need to be removed to clear the ditch line. Question 13 Question: We are concerned with access areas to the work site (Lisa Drive, Bid Item C).What will the access points be? Response: There are access routes on the plans through the Melwood site (County owned) and a private property owner for the lower section of the proposed improvements. Access locations are as shown on the plans for the other sections. 4

5 Question 14 Question: The fences that will be impacted do we have to remove and replace? Response: Some fences will be affected. Every attempt has been made to reflect all fence lines which will be impacted during construction on the approved plans. However, some fences may have been missed. Essentially, if you need to work in the vicinity of an existing fence, it is your responsibility to remove and store the fence during construction, and then re-install the fence after all work in that area is completed. Care should be taken to limit the extent of fence removal, and the duration of its removal to limit impacts to affected homeowners. Question 15 Question: So where the piping is going, all the fencing will have to be done. Response: Yes, that s correct. III. Written Questions Received through 8/12/15 Question 16 Question: What is the estimated dollar range on this project? We are trying to determine approx. cost and the value of work that will require bonding on this project. Is minority participation required and what percentage? Response: The value depends on the areas bid and should be determined by each Bidder based on the requirements set forth in the solicitation. The County highly encourages the use of Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs) and has a 25 percent aspirational goal. Question 17 Question: Is a cost estimate/range available for the above project, which is scheduled to bid on August 2? Response: The information requested is not available. Question 18 Question: Our Pre-Cast Concrete Structure supplier made the observation that the majority of the Structures are minimum depth and will have to be amended as far as what is shown on the Structure schedule. The Round Bottoms on the COS structures will need to be rectangular and the COG Inlets will need to be changed to A-Inlets. Can you ask the design engineer to look into this? Response: The project engineer has reviewed this question, and their response may be found under Question 6, above. Question 19 Question: Note 1 on sheet 7 of the Spruce Street plans call for select CR-6 backfill in the area of the driveway aprons. The symbol for this on the pipe profile is only shown for one apron on Lot 5. Is it the intent that all aprons which have new Storm Drain and Culvert pipes be backfilled with the select CR-6? Response: See response to Question 7 of this addendum. Question 20 Question: There are schedules regarding the new and rehabilitated Swales that show SOD as the permanent stabilization to be used. What is the permanent stabilization required in the ROW in front of the existing homes? Response: Sod shall be installed as permanent stabilization for all disturbed areas. Question 21 Question: There are a number of water house connections that are shown to be relocated. What is the scope of work required? Should a new connection be made and the existing abandon? Should a splice in the copper be made and a new connection made from there? How deep beneath the new pipe should the WHC be? 5

6 Response: A splice is to be made in the existing copper pipe before the meter pit, and a new line run a minimum clearance of 12 inches below the proposed storm drain pipe to the previous water meter pit location where it is to be reconnected to the meter. Contractor to coordinate with the County and homeowner before any water services are disconnected, and all work shall be inspected and approved by the County before any water services are turned back on to the homes. Question 22 Question: There are heavy utility conflicts shown. Should there be a UNIT PRICE added for a unit day of Test Pitting that would prevent the contractor taking a chance or increasing the bid price exponentionaly? Should the method of test pitting be a SOFT DIG, Hydro Excavation, rather than a backhoe? Response: A Proposed Change Order shall be submitted if additional test pits are required. Additional test pits should be completed utilizing SOFT DIG or Hydro Excavation methods only. A backhoe should not be used. Question 23 Question: Can a Site visit be set up particularly in the area between Pinefield Road and Lisa Circle? Fences are preventing access and it may not be prudent to just enter private property without an escort. Response: See response to Question 11 of this addendum. 6

7 ATTACHMENT A 7

8 8