April 4, 2018 ADDENDUM NO. 4 To: All Potential Bidders Re: ITB 18-12 Christopher s Crossing (Sanner) Roadway Construction Consisting of: Sign-in Sheet, Meeting Minutes, CAD File, Dry Utility Relocate, Revised Bid Form, RFIs and City Response This addendum is made part of the solicitation documents to the same extent as though it was originally included therein. In the event of conflict with the original contract documents, the addendum shall govern over all other contract documents to the extent specified. Subsequent addendums shall govern over prior addenda only to the extent specified. The bidder shall be required to acknowledge receipt of the informational addendum by signing the addendum and including it with the bid. Failure of a bidder to include a signed informational addendum in their bid shall deem their bid non-responsive, however, the City may waive this requirement if determined to be in its best interest. The City will not be responsible for any other explanation or interpretation made verbally or in writing by any other city representative. We look forward to receiving your bids. Sincerely, Keisha L. Brown, CPPB Purchasing Manager 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #4 The undersigned acknowledges that Addendum No. 4 for ITB 18-12 has been received by the undersigned and will be incorporated in all copies of said solicitation in the possession of the undersigned. It is understood that all bids submitted in response to this project will be presumed to be based upon full knowledge of the contents of Addendum No. 4. (Company Name) (Signature-Authorized Official) (Title) (Date) 2
PRE-BID MEETING MINUTES Date: March 27, 2018 Time: 10:00 am at Annex Location: Conference Room C Project: ITB 18-12 Christopher s Crossing (Sanner) Roadway Construction Attendees: Keisha Brown The City of Frederick Purchasing Manager Kiley Slimmer The City of Frederick Purchasing Administrative Assistant Tracy Coleman The City of Frederick Deputy Director of Engineering Taeko Wakasono The City of Frederick Project Engineer, Land Development Ron Wingfield The City of Frederick - DPW Project Manager Ken Ott The City of Frederick - Superintendent of Light/Signal Mike Battern Fox & Associates Designer/ Project Consultant Prospective Bidders See sign-in sheet issued by The City of Frederick A. Comments by Purchasing 1. This is an optional pre-bid meeting for all interested parties. 2. All questions pertaining to this solicitation shall be sent in writing to klbrown@cityoffrederick.com or fax at 301-600-3871, with email being the preferred method. 3. All addendums pertaining to this solicitation will be posted on The City of Frederick website and e- Maryland Marketplace. 4. Minutes of this meeting and responses to submitted questions will be part of an addendum which should be issued this week. 5. The last day for questions prior to the submittal date will be 4/9/18 by 3:00 p.m. 6. This is a City-funded project and there is no percentage or set-aside. Due diligence should be shown in attempting to include MBE/DBEs. 7. All forms in the solicitation package must be completed in their entirety and returned. 3
8. Bid opening is 4/19/18 at 2:00 p.m. at the Department of Public Works. B. Comments Mike Battern, Fox & Associates Designer/Project Consultant: Mike informed potential bidders that all plans could be found on the City s website. He explained that this project would extend from Clover Ridge to Poole Jones/Walter Martz/Christopher s Crossing intersection. He also mentioned that there would be a traffic circle constructed, along with water main extensions. There is a short piece of the project to complete along Walter Martz Road. A preliminary earthwork was computed and the cut/fill quantities shown on plan sheet 1 are rough estimates. Ron Wingfield - DPW Project Manager: Ron explained that there would need to be communication between the selected bidder and various utility companies due to the relocation of some lines. This includes both Potomac Edison & Verizon. The City will be funding the relocation but the contractor shall coordinate all efforts with the utility companies. The plan is to relocate the existing overhead utility lines underground and relocate one pole. The selected contractor will be required to install the underground conduits and pull rope for the utility relocation; this will be paid under bid items # 2008 and 2011. (See attached drawing for approximate locations.) The existing gas is 6 deep and will not conflict with the project. Tracy Coleman - Deputy Director of Engineering: Tracey informed proposers that all major permits were completed for the stream crossing and are being updated as needed. C. Questions 1. Can you provide the CAD files? Yes, they will be posted along with the addendum. 2. When should we expect the notice to proceed? Probably sometime in June. 3. What is the nature of the stream area? Should we expect it to flood? 4 The 100 year flood plain model shows that the area may flood; although, historically it has not flooded. It can actually be totally dry at times.
4. All the earthwork on this project is lump sum. Where can we find the current specs for the City? They can be found on the City Engineering webpage. http://cityoffrederick.com/179/engineering 5. Is the topsoil we strip okay to be re-spread? There is no amendment for this? Yes, no amendment. 6. Are there any identified stockpile locations? The City owns all property surrounding this project. The City inspectors and the selected contractor will work together to find a suitable location. 7. The solicitation mentions the use of Amorflex. Is another equal product allowed for bidding? Per Pages 120-121of the spec: Alternative materials from qualified suppliers may be considered; to qualify, proposed alternative suppliers must own and operate their own manufacturing facility, and shall directly employ a minimum of five (5) registered Professional Engineers. Full documentation consistent with the foregoing must be submitted in writing to the EOR a minimum of twenty (20) business days prior to bid date, and must be pre-approved in writing as an addendum to the bid documents and drawings by the EOR at least ten (10) business days prior to bid date. Submittal packages must also include, as a minimum, the following: 1. Evidence of satisfactory full-scale laboratory testing in accordance with ASTM D 7277, Standard Test Method for Performance Testing of Articulating Concrete Block (ACB) Revetment Systems for Hydraulic Stability in Open Channel Flow, performed on behalf the submitting manufacturer on a qualifying test flume of sufficient lengths for the test flows to achieve normal depth in all cases, and associated engineered calculations quantifying the FoS of the proposed ACB system under the design conditions of the specific project, stamped and signed by a registered Professional Engineer residing in and licensed to practice in the state where the project is located; 5
2. A list of 5 comparable projects, in terms of size and applications, in the United States, where the satisfactory performance of the specific alternate ACB system can be verified after a minimum of five (5) years of service life; 3. Information about, or certifications of, all materials associated with the ACB system as detailed above, including (but not limited to) cable, fittings, geotextile, and any other materials required for satisfactory installation in accordance with ASTM D 6884, Standard Practice for Installation of Articulating Concrete Block (ACB) Revetment Systems; 4. The names and contact information (phone numbers and e-mail addresses, at a minimum) for the suppliers representatives, for technical, production or logistics questions, at least one of whom must reside in the state where the project is located. RFIs Jody P. Bell Chief Estimator/Project Manager Kibler Construction Co., Inc. P.O. Box 408 T: (410) 833-5345 3332 Baltimore, Boulevard F: (410) 833-1732 Finksburg, Maryland 21048 M: (240)-674-7862 jbell@kiblerconstruction.com 1 Page 3 of the MDE (item # 16) Little Tuscarora Creek is a Use III waterway; in-stream work may not be conducted between October 1 and April 30. Unless I am mistaken, Little Tuscarora Creek is further downstream and is not included in the LOD of this project. It appears that applicable permit for the Tributary 89 waterway in the job limits does not specify a stream restriction period. Does one apply to Tributary 89? There is also a note # 4 on page 16 of 18 that matches the stream closure, but again, it appears to be specific for Little Tuscarora Creek, please confirm. The MDE permit is for Tributary 89 disturbance and the in-stream work may not be conducted within the dates listed. 2 Regarding the stream (Tributary 89) there is a typical detail Figure D in the MDE permit for a pump around. However, I did not see a specification or detail for a temporary stream diversion (bid item # 1055). Is this up to the contractor to design and implement? 6
Yes. 3 Page 27 of the IFB states bidders are to submit a schedule and a quality control plan at the time of bid. Typically this requirement is for after the bid process prior to Notice to Proceed. Please confirm. This is required for us to evaluate our bids and will be based on a June NTP. The schedule will then be modified after contract award to coincide with the actual NTP. 4 Is there an engineer s estimate or cost classification code? No engineer s estimate will be provided. CIP information for the full project is available on the City website. 5 Regarding item 1003 Please clarify the intent of this item and how it is to be used, measured and paid. We understand there will be transitions from existing pavement to new pavement. Most likely, these transitions will be for permanent tie-ins not temporary. Typically, temporary paving (if necessary) for maintenance of traffic is measured and paid by the ton. There is no way a contractor can anticipate or be responsible for failures of adjacent access points, especially with a project that has the amount of loads and deliveries such as a project of this nature. Wedge and level to satisfy tie-ins is typically also by the ton and for a permanent application. Would the City consider creating two items 1 for asphalt for MOT and 1 for wedge and level and provide estimated quantities? Item 1003 was intended as listed temporary paving during MOT 6 Please provide clarification and the intents of items 1094 and 1095. They appear to be the same thing. For this project, the specifications state that the contractor is responsible for providing all geotechnical testing which would include the con span work. Delete 1095, see revised Bid Form. 7 Bid item 1058 Select granular material backfill in Critical Zone B of 1,990 CY seems to imply an aggregate backfill whereas the specifications on page 117 state that soil material meeting is acceptable. Can you please clarify? The plans and spec state for the specific span width and fill height, backfill in critical zone B can be AASHTO Group A1, A2, A3, or A4 as listed in the table which is granular material. The bid item does not imply aggregate. 7
8 ADDENDUM NO. 4 John Kelble, Estimator Gray & Son Inc. Excavating, Paving & Utility Contractor 430 West Padonia Rd. Timonium, MD 21093 Phone: 410.771.4311 ext. 2207 Cell: 443.340.9305 Fax: 410.771.8125 jkelble@graynson.com www.graynson.com 1) The unit for Contingency item 2012, Silt Fence, is currently Lump Sum. We request that this changed to a linear foot item. Bid Item 2012 will be changed to super silt fence at 200 LF. 2) Please provide for and explain the difference between bid items 1094, Geotechnical Service per city standard and per Con-Span bridge system and item 1095, Geotechnical Service per Con-Span bridge system. Addressed in an earlier RFI. 3) Bid item 2010 is for 1,500 CY of Hydrated Lime or Kiln Dust for Soil Drying. Please confirm that this quantity refers to the quantity of Lime or Kiln dust not the quantity of soil these materials are treating. If this is the case, what percent of mixture of these materials with the soil are we to assume. Bid item 2010 refers to quantity of lime or kiln dust. Contractor shall make their own assumptions. 4) On page 58 of the specifications it states that all bid items are to be considered as contingent items. What then is the difference between the 1000 series bid items and the 2000 series bid items? Bid form defines which items are contingent items. All unit cost bid items under the 1000 series will be paid by actual units installed. 5) Specification section 02930, Seeding and Sodding, states that areas to be temporarily seeded, mulched, fertilized and maintained shall be lump sum. Under what item will this lump sum payment be made? Temporary seeding is only listed as a contingent item (#2006) and should be quantified in SY. The specification will be revised as noted below. 6) Specification section 02930, Seeding and Sodding, states that Temporary Seeding shall be a contingent item and used only if directed by the city. Please confirm this is referring to item 2006. Under what conditions will payment be made under this item rather than the lump sum item designated to include temporary seeding.
The specification section for temporary seed mulch and fertilizer will be paid per square yard. Bid form will be changed to include mulching and fertilizer. 7) To what stockpile does bid item 1006 refer to? Where is this stockpile to be located? Bid item 1006 should read strip floodplain topsoil to stockpile and maintain stockpile. The location to be determined in the field as stated in the sequence of construction. Item 1005 includes topsoil strip to stockpile for the remainder of the site. 8) Under what conditions would bid item 1019, Low Maintenance Seed Mix, be paid rather than this work be part of the lump sum seed items? Item 1019 to be paid by SY as listed. Low maintenance seed mix is used in the bio swales. 9) Under what item is the 6 Spill Curb and Gutter paid? Item 1020. 10) The referenced detail in bid item 1036, Penndot Type 2 Strong Post Guide Rail RC-52M was deleted from Penndot s standards in August 2017. It is not clear if this style of barrier is still available. Please confirm that this is the required barrier. This guide rail was selected due to the minimal cover over the ConSpan structures. 11) Please explain the difference between bid items 1056, Maintain Stream Channel through Cell #1 and 1055 Temporary Stream Diversion. Temporary stream diversion is for construction of the main channel through cell #1. 1056 is for maintaining the channel once constructed for the duration of the project. The temporary stream diversion is not necessarily needed for the duration of the project. 9