1. Is it possible that each site will become divided into its own project contract? The projects will not be divided into separate contracts.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "1. Is it possible that each site will become divided into its own project contract? The projects will not be divided into separate contracts."

Harvey Nash
5 years ago
Views:

1 Ferry Landings Resilience Upgrades Project 6727 / Contract Questions & Answers June 20, Is it possible that each site will become divided into its own project contract? The projects will not be divided into separate contracts. 2. Will there be a CM contract issued in relation to the project? There will be a single CM contract issued. 3. Is there schedule for the contract negotiation period of the award for the RFP? The current plan is to complete evaluations by the end of July and award a contract in the Fall of What is the project construction budget for each of the four sites? See the construction budget below per site. This is separate from the budget for CM, Resident Engineering and Design. Construction Budget Brooklyn Cruise Terminal $ 7,716,374 Landing Hardening East 34th Street $ 773,992 Schaefer Landing BargeReplacement $ 2,079,733 Barge Replacement and Landing Hardening HPS $ 4,655, What do surveys mean in the context in the scope? The surveys as they relate to the different projects are as follows: Barge Replacement and Landing Hardening Hunters Point South Surveys refer to any technical analysis of site conditions that is needed to facilitate the removal of the current barge, installation of a new barge and implementation of landing hardening measures. Brooklyn Cruise Terminal Upgrades Surveys refer to any technical analysis of site conditions that is needed to facilitate the expansion of the pier. 1

2 Landing Hardening East 34 th Street Surveys refer to any technical analysis of site conditions that is needed to facilitate the implementation of landing hardening measures. Schaefer Landing Barge Replacement Surveys refer to any technical analysis of site conditions that is needed to facilitate the removal of the current barge and installation of a new barge. 6. Part III, Appendix M is referenced numerous times as the Contract Draft containing additional provisions related to the Corporation s DBE Program. Please: Provide Appendix M The references to Appendix M should be Appendix J. Confirm that the certification described in Part II, Paragraph 4 under the New York State Unified Certification Program ( NYSUCP ) is sufficient and not changed by any requirements of Appendix M. The references to Appendix M should be Appendix J. The certification is sufficient and is not changed by Appendix J. 7. Please provide an extension from June 29 th to July 13 th to reflect the level of effort required to prepare a fully responsive proposal addressing the four separate projects. Respectfully, the proposal deadline will remain as June 29 th. 8. The third paragraph of page B-8 references five individual projects. Please confirm that there are only four individual projects. The referenced paragraph is a typographical error. There are four individual projects as shown below: 2

9. Part III, Appendix M of the Contract Draft for DBE Requirements, referenced in 2.2.7 of Part of the RFP has not been provided. Please provide this reference.

3 9. Part III, Appendix M of the Contract Draft for DBE Requirements, referenced in of Part of the RFP has not been provided. Please provide this reference. The references to Appendix M should be Appendix J. 10. Please provide more information on the flex landings referenced on page B-8. Do any flex landings exist or have performance specifications or drawings and technical specifications been developed for them previously? Please ignore references to the flex-landings in this context. The current barge replacement projects do not necessarily need to be flex landings. However NYCEDC favors the installation of spuds that can be unbolted from the barge. 11. Please provide drawings to the proposers of the standardized ferry landing (barge) designed for the Citywide Ferry Service. A list of technical documents/drawings is being provided in response to this request in Addendum 1 to this Request for Proposals. The Design Consultant will be responsible for determining whether additional information is required. 12. Are the Citywide Ferry Service ferry landing barges designed and built to ABS Class? The current NYC Ferry barges are built to ABS class. 13. If it is determined that the Citywide Ferry Service landing barge design can be used with little or no modifications, would EDC consider procuring additional barges from the same fabricators without additional design and ABS reviews? 3

4 EDC would consider procuring from the same fabricators however any procurement would need to follow federal or city guidelines as applicable. 14. The description of Project 2 states that the pier needs to be expanded and reconfigured to better align with vessel doors. Is this referring to cruise vessels or Ollis Class vessels? This is in reference to Ollis-Class vessels. 15. Is the Design Consultant expected to analyze passenger flows for cruise vessels and to design replacement gangways and/or additional gangways for the cruise vessels at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal? The Design Consultant is not expected to design replacement or additional gangways at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. The design Consultant is not expected to analyze passenger flows for cruise vessels. The consultant should ensure that any pier modifications do not negatively impact existing cruise capabilities. 16. Notwithstanding the requirement to comply with FTA codes and regulations, please confirm that drawings and specifications may be provided in standard EDC formats. The drawings and specifications may be provided in standard EDC as long as FTA codes and regulations are met. 17. Would EDC consider providing an allowance to be included in each respondent s submission to reflect the direct costs associated with site assessments that might include topographic survey, bathymetric (hydrographic) survey, geotechnical borings, and underwater inspections? Please include the direct costs associated with these items as part of the project costs. 18. Task 2, Item C states, Where deemed necessary by EDC, the Design Consultant shall meet with Community Boards, elected officials, adjacent property owners, or interested groups, as directed by EDC. Please estimate the number of meetings to be held to allow all respondents to assume the same level of effort for this task. Please anticipate four community board meetings total (not per project). 19. Please confirm that ADA and Local Law 68 of 2005 the Accessible Water Borne Commuter Services Facilities Transportation Act do not apply to the ramps and gangways that would be used in emergency situations such as those that require passenger movement to and from Ollis Class ferries. 4

5 The Design Consultant should consider Local Law For Task 5, please provide the respondents with the assumptions to be made on the need for an EA or EIS for each of the project sites to allow all respondents to assume the same level of effort for this task. Respondents should indicate whether the ferry landing replacements at Schaefer s Landing, Hunters Point South, and the E34th Street landing hardening will require more than the NEPA Checklist and a Categorical Exclusion. If the respondent believes Schaefer s Landing, Hunters Point South, and the E34th Street landing hardening are eligible for NEPA categorical exclusions, the respondent s response should reflect that amount of work. If the respondent is of the professional opinion these projects will require a full NEPA review, respondents should indicate why and propose the resources required to perform the associated NEPA EA/EIS work. NYCEDC does anticipate the apron expansion at Brooklyn Cruise Terminal will require a full NEPA review. Respondents should indicate the amount of work anticipated to be required to perform a full EA and should provide an explanation of why the respondent believes the work may require an EIS. 21. Item E of the section of the RFP titled Requirements for Hunters Point South and Schaefer Landing Barge Replacement requires some activities by the Design Consultant that would require the Consultant to have a representative in the shipyard for items such as keeping a complete set of drawings on the job site, a written narrative describing the Consultant s quality assurance program and the qualifications of individuals responsible for supervising the program. Item F of the same section requires the Consultant to engage an ABS certified inspector to monitor the construction and assembly of the Barge and to ensure that such construction and assembly is performed in accordance with ABS Certification and Classing Procedures. The ABS certified inspector shall be local to the shipyard and shall be paid by the Consultant. All Work is to be carried out according to ABS standards and first class modern marine practices. If an ABS certified inspector is engaged by the Consultant to ensure compliance with ABS standards, there will be a duplication of effort between the consultant and the ABS Surveyor resident in the shipyard. Please confirm that the ABS surveyor may act on behalf of the Consultant in meeting the requirements of documenting and overseeing the barge construction, as applicable. The ABS surveyor may act on behalf on behalf of the Consultant in meeting the requirements of documenting and overseeing the barge construction, as applicable. 5

6 22. Please confirm that ABS Certification or Classification of the barges is not required. The barges are required to be built to ABS Class, however ABS certification is not required. 23. If sites require dredging, this could extend the contract duration. Has this been considered in the three-year contract duration stated in the RFP? No dredging work is anticipated as part of this contract. 24. Are there available boring logs or subsurface information at each of the four sites that EDC can provide to all proposers? There are no boring logs or subsurface information available for the sites. 25. Can you please clarify the need for waterproofing, sea-wall, or shoreline improvements at East 34th Street Landing? It is not anticipated that the East 34 th Landing scope will include waterproofing, sea-wall or shoreline improvements. 26. Can you please clarify the required improvements for the existing Brooklyn Cruise Terminal Pier 12, specifically what scope is expected for hardening the facility? The extension of the pier satisfies the scope requirements for the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. 27. Can you provide as-built drawings for each of the four facilities to the winning bidder? Drawings and associated documents related to existing facilities will be provided to the winning responder. The Design Consultant will be responsible for determining whether additional information is required beyond the documents provided. 28. For the Hunter Point South Site, what is the purpose of the micro-pier as mentioned in the description of Project 1? The purpose of the micro-pier is to provide a platform for the gangway as an alternative to connecting the gangway to the existing bulkhead. 29. What is the present rating of the existing Shore Connection Receptacle, for the following Terminal? For example 200 Amperes, 208V, 3 Phase/4 Wire, 60 Hertz with built-in circuit breaker interlock with the receptacle. 6

7 A. Hunter Point South B. Brooklyn Cruise terminal C. East 34 th Street Ferry Landing D. Schaefer Landing No installation of shore power connections is anticipated as part of this contract. 30. What size and type of Generator to be installed on the Barge? The size and type of generator shall be determined by the Design Consultant. The barge should be designed to have a manual transfer switch. The Design Consultant is responsible for sizing the appropriate generator. The generator installation will be procured under a separate contract 31. Will there be Automatic barge positioning System installed on the Barge? Automatic Barge Positioning System is not anticipated to be installed on the barge. 32. It seems that NYCEDC intends to have standard design size 35x90, and also noted it requires to have the capability side load the Ollis class fleet. The Ollis fleet, the design load draft is 13 ft. and main deck is 21 ft. 6 in. The freeboard is 8 ft. 6 in. The Freeboard may have variation. The variation of freeboard over 1 ft., and Ramp slope requirement is 1:12. The side load may have problem. The width of the barge seems too narrow. Although the intent is for accommodation of the Ollis Class fleet, the Design Consultant is responsible for determining feasibility and alternative berthing options. 33. For two Ollis class ferry end loader, the width of Ollis class ferry is 70 ft., the width of barge 35 ft. seems too tight. Although the intent is for accommodation of the Ollis Class fleet, the Design Consultant is responsible for determining feasibility and alternative berthing options. 34. A company is certified as Minority Business Enterprise by The Port Authority of NY and NJ, Is this company meets DBE requirement? Please advise The firm must be certified as a DBE and should be listed on the NY State Unified Certification Program Directory. The Directory is available at As long as the DBE is on this directory, they can be certified by the Port Authority of NY and NJ. Certification as MBE does not meet the DBE requirements for this project. 7

8 35. Is accommodation of an Ollis class Staten Island Ferry a 100% requirement of the new ferry landings at HPS and Schaffer's Landing? Or is it just a concept that EDC wants to see if it could work? The issue is that these landings are designed to accommodate the landings of a ~100 ton high-speed commuter ferry. The SI Ferries weigh about 4,000 tons, and you would need a landing much more substantial than a 90'x35' barge to withstand their impact loads. Taking an Ollis class ferry would require a much larger, heavier landing barge with much more substantial guide pile moorings than is being contemplated here. The Design Consultant shall analyze whether such a concept is feasible and recommend feasible alternatives if necessary. 36. The quality control procedures specified in the RFP (Page 141 Item H) appears excessive for a little barge like this. Small barges like this are usually only given a dye penetration test of the butt welds. X-raying of welds are reserved for vessel subjected to high stresses such as ocean service or tank vessels carrying hazardous cargo. Please confirm the quality control requirements. Alternative quality control requirements are acceptable as long as they are performed per ABS standards. 37. Again having to do with quality control, item I on page 142 states that all fillet welds should be double continuous. This is typically seen on tanks carrying salt water or chemicals, but I feel it is excessive for a landing barge. Intermittent welding is much more common in this application and is permitted by ABS rules. Please confirm the quality control requirements. Alternative quality control requirements are acceptable as long as they are performed per ABS standards. 38. The scope for Hunters Point South indicates the need to install a micro-pier as a resilience upgrade. Did NYCEDC perform any concept level studies that would indicate the type of structure desired at this location, and if so, is this information shareable? Does NYCEDC envision the pier to be an extension of the existing approach of the Hunters Point landing, a new structure extending from the top of the existing riprap slope, or a new structure extending from the adjacent structure to the North? The NYC Ferry landings all use a pile supported micro-pier (15 x 3 ). NYCEDC envisions the micro-pier acting as a platform for the gangway as an alternative to connecting to the existing bulkhead. 39. The BCT is a Port Authority owned Facility. Will there be additional Port Authority requirements with regards to design, constraints on permitting, general involvement, or other details which may affect the teams work? Please provide any further details affecting the teams work. 8

9 No Port Authority permitting or design constraints are anticipated. 40. For Project 2 (BCT) the RFP indicates that the pier needs to be expanded and reconfigured to better align with vessel doors. It also goes on to note that the scope includes replacement of existing gangways to facilitate multiple vessel requirements. The scope, as written, appears to indicate that the project team will be responsible for design of the wharf expansion and cruise-ship style gangways not only for the Ollis Class fleet, but also for a range of cruise ships which currently utilize the site. Please clarify the scope for this site. The Design Consultant should only consider the expansion of the pier with appropriate fendering and bollards as part of the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal Scope. 41. Appendix B Part II Paragraph A indicates that the barge shall measure 90'x30'x 9' in depth. The recent barges procured by NYCEDC measure 90'x35'x11' deep. Please confirm barge geometry intended for Hunters Point South and Schaefer Landing. The barge geometry is 90'x35'x11' 42. Can the construction approval and permitting be performed by the DOB rather than the SBS? It is expected that SBS will be the permitting agency as opposed to DOB. 43. How should the respondents go about pricing the ABS certified inspector? The respondent should include pricing for the ABS certified inspector. The ABS certified inspector shall be a sub-consultant of the respondent. 44. Please provide an assumed location of the shipyard and duration of the fabrication so fees can be uniformly estimated. It is expected that the shipyard will be approximately within 1,000 miles of New York City. 45. Has the barge previously been designed by a Naval Architect and approved by the city or are we designing a barge from scratch? The barges have not been previously designed by a Naval Architect. Please refer to the supporting documents provided regarding the barge design. 46. Is the 35 x 90 barge a requirement or could a different size be used? Alternative barge dimensions can be recommended with the appropriate site 9

10 specific justification. 47. The Task 3: Schematic Design does not mention the 30% milestone later outlined in Task 7. Is a 30% SD milestone required and if so are the same additional submissions and solicitation and repose to stakeholder comments listed in Task 3 items l-n required for the 30% set?30% drawings are required. A 30% Design submission is required. The consultant should expect coordination with NYCEDC on the 30% s. 48. Is a 30% cost estimate required or only with the 50% SD deliverable? 30 % cost estimate required. A cost estimate is required for the 30% submission. 49. The contract draft indicates that construction is to begin on all or a portion of the project by the end of Discussions at the pre-bid meeting suggested contact award mid-july at the earliest. Considering the required technical surveys, is it a contract requirement that construction begins in 2017 or was 2018 intended? Project schedule will be adjusted accordingly based on date of executed contract. 50. Please confirm that there is no intent to upgrade the ticking options for the city ferry service at any of the sites. There is no intent to upgrade the ticketing options for the NYC Ferry Service at any of the sites. 51. What is the anticipated length of time for mooring? It the program intended for temporary, emergency use for pickup and discharge of passengers only? The intent is for emergency use for pickup and discharge of passengers. 52. Will the ferry ever be unmanned at the sites? It is not anticipated that ferries will be unmanned. 53. Is ADA compliance intended for loading and unloading of the Ollis class in an emergency condition or merely the city ferry service that may use the barge floats with the SI ferry is not docked? The Design Consultant should consider ADA Compliance, specifically Local Law 68 for both conditions. 54. Can we assume tug assistance to get the ferries positioned? 10

11 No tug assistance is anticipated. 55. Please clarify the EDC s intent in upgrading the upland areas (i.e. inshore of the bulkhead) at each of the sites. For all sites, there is no intent to upgrade the upland areas. 56. Please clarify where EDC believes Task 4, item maintenance and protection of traffic may require. Is there intent to relocate traffic patterns for the sake of connectivity with the Ollis class ferries? Please disregard the maintenance and protection of traffic requirements as described in Task 4, Section m. 57. Please provide a copy of the FTA grant application. The FTA grant application is not exclusive to this procurement and will not be made available. 58. Is shore power required for the SI ferry at the 4 sites considered? Shore power for the Staten Island Ferry is not required as part of the design. 11

Manhattan Greenway Harlem River Project 7394 / Contract Questions & Answers September 13 th, 2018

Manhattan Greenway Harlem River Project 7394 / Contract 73940001 Questions & Answers September 13 th, 2018 In connection with the Request for Proposals relating to the Manhattan Greenway Harlem River released