MALBONE WETLAND MITIGATION SITE VDOT RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Transcription

1 C DB17: Questions and Answers MALBONE WETLAND MITIGATION SITE VDOT RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS Date: June 2, 2009 Project: Subject: Malbone Wetland Mitigation Site C DB17 - VDOT Responses to Questions 1. Will there be Retainage on this project? No, see Part 3, Article When does Final Completion occur? Final Completion is as defined in Part 4, Article 1. Final payment is made in accordance with Part 4, Section 6.7, see also Part 3, Article How are work packages defined and paid? Work Package is as defined in Part 4, Article 1. The Offeror is responsible for identifying the work packages and should refer to Part 3, Section , Baseline Schedule for additional information on work packages. Part 4, Section 6.1 Schedule of Payments and Part 4, Section 6.2, Monthly/Quarterly Progress Payments address how work packages are paid. 4. Does the existing permit cover construction? The Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality permits cover construction of the mitigation site. Additional permits may be required (such as a Land Disturbing Activities permit), which will be the responsibility of the Design-Builder. 5. Do we submit a Revenue-Loaded Schedule with the bid package? As stated in Part 1, Section 8.3.3, the resource-loaded CPM Schedule is required by the successful Offeror within 60 days after award and is not required as part of the proposal. Part 1, Section will be amended to remove the requirement of a Proposal Schedule. 6. Are bonds renewed for the life of the project? A Performance and Payment bond is required during construction and is 100% of the contract value. A three year, $300,000 renewable bond or other financial assurances will be required until Final Completion. Refer to Part 3, Section 10.3 and Part 5, Section for specific requirements. Report Date: 6/02/09 Page 1 of 14

2 7. Is the $300,000 renewable financial assurance a maximum or could this be claimed by VDOT once every three years (i.e., could the potential loss to the Offeror equal $900,000)? $300,000 is the maximum amount of the bond that the Design-builder must obtain from Substantial Completion to Final Completion. 8. Will copies of the sign-in sheet be available? A list of attendees and their company has been made available on-line, along with the presentation and additional information as discussed in the pre-proposal meeting. 9. Can the deadline for submitting questions be extended? No, the deadline for submitting questions was May 21, Can VDOT summarize the Health, Safety and Welfare requirements of this contract? A sample Health, Safety and Welfare plan has been posted on VDOT s website at Is a boundary survey required and will a conservation easement be required? A boundary survey has not yet been performed. VDOT will complete the survey and will stake the property boundaries prior to the Notice to Proceed. The Offeror will not be required to record a conservation easement, as deed restrictions for this site will be managed by VDOT. 12. The original Jurisdictional Determination for the Malbone property expired in Has this been renewed? Under Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-02, jurisdictional determinations for Individual Permits are valid for five years, or the life of the permit, whichever is greater. The permit for which this property was delineated is valid through December 31, The Corps representative has indicated that no validation is required at this time. 13. Can the QAM be from the same contracting company? No, the QAM must be independent of the contractor; however, the QAM may be from the design firm. If the firm has design and contracting capabilities, then the QAM must be from an independent third party firm, please refer to Part 2, Section 2.9. Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 2 of 14

3 14. Is LandMark Design Group eligible to bid on this project? No. VDOT has determined that based on LandMark s prior work on this project that they are ineligible to participate, please refer to Part 1, Section Under Part 2, Section 1, it is unclear what is required for monitoring. Please clarify. Part 2, Section 1.8 provides a general description of the anticipated scope of services. The requirements for Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring is as defined in Section D of the Special Provision for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Design, Construction and Monitoring. 16. Will VDOT post any additional data for this project? Any additional data above and beyond that provided in the RFP Information package and identified as RFP Information Package Addendum 1 has been posted for access by all interested parties at Additional data include: - Boring logs for data logger installation (.pdf) - Excel file tables for use with VDOT Mitigation Monitoring Template (xls.) - Groundwater Levels from Data Loggers (Sept May 2009) (xls.) - Site Plan, Virginia Beach Mitigation Site (.tif) - Elevation data (.asc) - Sample Health, Safety and Welfare Plan 17. Is there wind tide data available? No. 18. Is there a location for on-site disposal of excess material? On-site disposal is allowed; however, it is the responsibility of the Design-Builder to determine the appropriate on-site disposal area, while meeting the requirements of the contract. This information should be included in the Design-Builder s design submittals. The Design-Builder is responsible for off-site disposal if there is insufficient space on-site. 19. Is there construction access to the site? Yes, currently access is available directly from West Neck Creek Road. However, it is up to the design-builder to determine the exact location of the access point, and it is their responsibility to consider the safety and potential operational issues with respect to adjacent properties (such as the marina across the street). The Design-Builder will be Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 3 of 14

4 responsible for providing an appropriate construction entrance in compliance with the VDOT Work Area Protection Manual and city ordinances. 20. Who are the regulatory agency contacts for this project? The agency contacts are Alice Allen-Grimes (Corps of Engineers) and Steve Hardwick (VDEQ). VDOT requests that prospective Offerors refrain from contacting the agencies at this time. 21. Have other requirements, such as cultural resource and endangered species reviews been conducted? Will a survey be required? All additional clearances related to issuance of water quality and wetland permits and for completion of the NEPA documents, such as review by Department of Historic Resources, USFWS, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and Division of Natural Heritage were completed prior to permit issuance. 22. Who is responsible if delays result from review by the regulatory agencies? The Design-Builder is responsible for these delays. 23. Utility lines cross a portion of the property. Are there any utility easements on the property? The Title Report has no reference to any existing utility easements that are recorded on the property; however, there may be recorded utility easements on the property that did not show up within the Title Report. Known aboveground utility owners and their respective contact numbers include but are not limited to the following: Dominion Virginia Power Mr. William E. Sleasman 1601 Hamilton Avenue Portsmouth, Va (757) (office) (757) (cell) bill.sleasman@dom.com Verizon South OSP Engineering--2nd Floor Mr. Joseph R. Gibson 3011 Hungary Spring Road Richmond, Va Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 4 of 14

5 (804) (office) (804) (fax) Cox Communications Mrs. Robin Parker 5200 Cleveland Street Virginia Beach, VA (757) (office) (757) (fax) (757) (cell) It is the responsibility of the Offeror to identify and manage utility conflicts, pursuant to Part 2, Section Does VDOT have boring logs for the site? Geotechnical data, including boring logs, are included in the RFP information package. Additional logs recorded during well installation have been made available at How will VDOT address undesirable designs in a low bid scenario? VDOT will accept any design that meets or exceeds the requirements of the contract and that has received regulatory agency approval. Regardless of the bid price, by submitting its proposal, the Design-Builder is responsible for developing a design that meets or exceeds the contract requirements and can obtain regulatory agency approvals. 26. Will there be access provided to the Malbone site throughout the pre-proposal period? Please describe the access procedure for potential bidders, if applicable? Access is available. There are no restrictions for accessing the state property and no special procedures are required. 27. Does the QA manager need to be on-site for the duration of the construction, or can the QA manager designate a representative? The QAM does not need to be on-site for the duration of construction. However, the QAM must determine the appropriate project needs to meet or exceed the contract requirements and his/her obligations to the contract. Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 5 of 14

6 28. Please clarify that the design-build bid does not include any activity associated with the West Neck on-site compensation area? The Design-Build bid does NOT include the on-site compensation associated with construction of the bridge across West Neck Creek. 29. What requirements must be met following final grading and prior to planting? The Offeror must receive approval prior to planting from the Corps and VDEQ, refer also to the Corps and VDEQ permits. 30. Is the existing wetland delineation surveyed, and when will the jurisdictional determination expire? Refer to the response to Question Will the plans require submittal to Virginia Beach? No. 32. Will DCR provide Erosion and Sediment Control Plan approvals/inspections in accordance with typical VDOT projects/procedures? VDOT has a General Permit with DCR for land disturbing activities. DCR reviews our Standards and Specifications and procedures annually and allows VDOT or its consultants to design and certify E&SC plans in accordance with the General Permit. DCR reserves their right to inspect any VDOT project to ensure compliance with the General Permit. The requirements for Erosion and Sediment Control Plans are included in Part 2, Section By assumption, it appears that VDOT has already coordinated or will be coordinating a conservation easement or restrictive covenant on the site. Please verify that the designbuilder will not be required to coordinate any preservation mechanism, or if the design/builder is to handle this, then which mechanism will be preferable? Refer to the response to Question What is the source and datum for the topographic data shown in design drawings and on the Advanced Right of Way Acquisition Sheet? Included in the RFP Information Package Addendum 1 is an ASCII file of the point data for the Malbone site. The format is PNEZD. The elevations are based on the NGVD 1929 (1972 adj) datum. The City of Virginia Beach Station used is J-20-2, elev= The meridian is based on City of Virginia Beach, Virginia State Plane Coordinate System, Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 6 of 14

7 South Zone, NAD The coordinates were determined by RTK GPS methods using stations , J-20-2 and The data points for the monitoring wells are from the top of the casing. 35. Is a boundary survey available? If not, will one be required? Refer to the response to Question Is the Offeror responsible for the land disturbance application and fee? Yes, pursuant to Part 4, Section 2.6.1, the Offeror is responsible for obtaining Governmental Approvals. The requirements for land disturbance applications and fees are included in Part 2, Section Section of the Instructions to Offerors requires that the surety or insurance company be a Financial size Category VIII for better as rated by A.M. Best. This seems excessive for a $2.3 million dollar project. Will VDOT accept a Financial Size Category V? VDOT will not accept a Financial Size Category less than VIII. 38. Does VDOT have any use for the material generated from the grading activity for the Princess Anne Road/Nimmo Parkway project? The Princess Anne Road project will be advertised in January 2010 and does require fill material. Suitable materials from this project may be used on the Princess Anne Road project, if coordinated between the Design-Builder and the road contractor and/or the City of Virginia Beach. 39. Will deer grazing on the saplings or other planted vegetation be considered a force majeure item? No, this would not be considered a force majeure event. Issues such as deer grazing, plant die-off, invasive species control, etc. may require remediation, as should be defined in the successful Offeror s adaptive management plan, required by the Special Provision for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Design, Construction, and Monitoring. Items that might be considered force majeure are identified in Part 4, Article The City of Virginia Beach owns a strip of land adjacent to the mitigation site which appears to contain a water control structure on it affecting hydrology on the site. Has any discussion taken place with the City concerning access to its property to remove or modify the structure? The adjacent property is a wetland mitigation site owned by the City of Virginia Beach. Any water control structure associated with that is related to hydrology of that site. Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 7 of 14

8 Removal or modification of the water control structure is not within the scope of this project. A copy of the site plan has been made available at Does VDOT have a boundary survey of the site and, if so, can it be provided to all bidders? Refer to the response to Question Other than Phragmites and Typha, are there any other species that VDOT or the regulatory agencies consider invasive? The Corps of Engineers permit references the DCR Invasive Alien Plant List (Special Condition number 4) with respect to seed sources, but does not specify which species would require management. The VDEQ permit requires a monitoring and control plan for the species on this list. VDOT, in the past, has managed species based on perceived threat to site success within distinct vegetation types, nearby seed and propagules sources, and opportunities for management. This approach has eliminated the need to manage against those species that occur on the list, but would have little effect on site success. The successful Offeror will need to identify its management approach in its design plan submittals pursuant to the Special Provision for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Design, Construction, and Monitoring. 43. In the event of a disagreement between the regulatory agencies and the contractor regarding compliance with success criteria will VDOT provide assistance to the Contractor in resolving the issue, if it believes the Contractor is justified in its position? VDOT will provide assistance; however, it is the Offeror s responsibility to obtain Governmental Approvals. 44. Is it the Offeror s responsibility to develop and record the restrictive covenant for this project? Refer to the response to Question Is there a digital boundary survey available or is it expected that the Offeror will perform a boundary survey? Refer to the response to Question Is the Offeror responsible for the land disturbance application and fee? Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 8 of 14

9 Refer to the response to Question Can Offeror obtain one bond to cover performance and payment bonding? RFP language suggests that these are 2 separate bonds. Pursuant to Part 5, Section (a) and (b), the performance and payment bonds are separate. 48. Will the actual amount of performance and payment bonds be based on the contract amount or on the estimated contract amount of $2.3mm? At the time of proposal submission, the Offeror must demonstrate its ability to obtain bonding (Part 1, Section 4.2.7), this is based on the estimated contract amount of $2.3M. The successful Offeror is required to obtain a bond based on the Contract Price (Part 5, ). 49. It does not appear from the EA that an archaeological survey was performed on the mitigation site? Will a survey be required as part of this project? Refer to the response to Question Has the Army Corps approved the wetland delineation and is it still valid? Refer to the response to Question Can Offeror be an engineering firm with a general contractor as sub-contractor? No, to enter into contract with VDOT, the Offeror must be a pre-qualified contractor. 52. It is suggested in several places that schedule is a Project Priority, that the Offeror s Letter of Submittal will be evaluated, and that Offerors may be evaluated and ranked but can you verify that low bid is the deciding factor among all qualified bidders? Will schedule or quality of submittal play a role in contract award recommendation? The Letter of Submittal will be evaluated for responsiveness as stated in Part 1, Section 5.0. The Offeror who is responsive and submits the lowest price proposal pursuant to Part 1, Section 8.1 will be awarded the contract. 53. Can the Quality Assurance Manager position be someone employed by the Offeror, so long as the Offeror is not the General Contractor performing the project construction? The QAM cannot be part of the production work, refer also to the response to Question 13 and 51. Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 9 of 14

10 54. Also, can the QAM and Design Manager be the same person? No. 55. If the Offeror is not the general contractor performing the project construction, does the Offeror need to be pre-qualified with VDOT per the statement in section 4.2.5? In accordance with Part 1, Section 4.2.5, the lead contractor must demonstrate that it is pre-qualified with VDOT or proof that it has submitted its request for prequalification. The requirements for prequalification are included at Team members performing professional services should provide evidence of registration/certification in accordance with Part 1, Section 4.2.6, as needed. See also the response to Question Also regarding 4.2.5, what documents proof of submittal for pre-qualification? A Certificate of Qualification signed by the Department s Contract Engineer is issued following the firm s prequalification approval. This may be provided as proof of prequalification. Proof of submittal for pre-qualification should include a copy of the application and letter demonstrating submittal to VDOT. 57. To follow up on a question that arose during last weeks pre-proposal meeting for the Malbone Mitigation site, are we allowed to access the site during this proposal period to do further field evaluations? Refer to the response to Question Will a boundary survey be performed by VDOT? If so, will the survey be provided to the selected Design-Builder and at what time after contract execution? Refer to the response to Question Is the wetland delineation on the Malbone Site still valid and will VDOT ensure the delineation remains valid until an as-built survey is approved by the agencies? Refer to the response to Question Has VDOT used and have the permitting agencies accepted data from soil temperature data loggers to determine an actual start and end of the growing season for a VDOT mitigation site? No, VDOT has installed a number of temperature data loggers as a matter of protocol on Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 10 of 14

11 several mitigation sites, but has not had a need to use the additional weeks of growing season time to meet site hydrology. 61. Prior to planting a mitigation site, has VDOT requested and received approval from the permitting agencies to bypass the hydrologic verification period and proceed with site planting? If so, were the mitigation sites of comparable size to the Malbone Mitigation Site? Since post-construction monitoring has been required by the agencies and included in our contracts, VDOT has not requested approval to eliminate that step in the design and construction process. 62. Will the selected Design-Builder provide the services of the wetland professional in accordance with Special Condition 12 of the Corps permit? Yes. 63. Are there any right-of-ways (e.g. utility, etc.) on the property that have vegetative maintenance requirements or agreements in place or that would otherwise preclude grading and planting activities? Refer to the response to Question Please specify the exact area and type of compensatory mitigation at the Malbone Mitigation Site that will satisfy both the Corps and DEQ permits. The Special Provision for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Design, Construction and Monitoring describes the final acreage by mitigation type, based on the planned acreages after construction. Included within this amount will be some acreage of wetland creation and some wetland enhancement, of which a portion will be something other than emergent wetlands. The property also includes acres of wetlands preservation and 2.86 acres of uplands preservation. The Design-Builder is not responsible for preservation as described in the preceding paragraph. Additionally, the Design-Builder s design plan cannot impact such preservation areas. 65. Can VDOT provide a CADD or other electronic file, such as an ASCII file or DTM that shows all of the surveyed elevation points? The data provided seems to end very close to the property line and did not have as much spot elevation information as we would have imagined. Refer to the response to Question 34. Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 11 of 14

12 66. Is the VDOT confirming that the Design Build Team is not responsible for compliance with any and all requirements of City of Virginia Beach Ordinances, including for example their floodplain ordinance, E&S requirements, stockpiling limitations? The RFP, Part 4, Section 3.5.1, and Exhibit make no mention of local government requirements nor review and coordination with the local government. VDOT is only responsible for the Governmental Approvals identified in Exhibit Pursuant to Part 4, Section 2.6.1the Offeror is responsible for any other Governmental Approvals necessary to meet the requirements of the contract. 67. We were unclear as to what enhancement measures VDOT intends for the Emergent Wetland Enhancement. The Special Provisions didn t seem to specify and the Conceptual Plan prepared by LandMark Design (LMDG) only specified that the emergent wetlands would be enhanced by removal of grazing pressure and creation of additional wetlands surrounding those areas (page 9, section 6.1). The cross section and proposed contours can be interpreted as no grading in most of the existing emergent wetlands. In other areas it appears as those the existing emergent wetlands are to be lowered. Is grading to occur in all emergent wetlands, some or none? The final grading plan is the responsibility of (and is contingent upon what, if any, changes are made by) the Design-Builder. Provided the acreage requirements and success critieria are met, VDOT is not concerned with the location of proposed grading activities. 68. The requirements for mitigation acreage do not appear to be consistent. a. Part 1 of Request for Proposals, Part 2.1 states: i acres of compensatory Mitigation ac or restoration and creation type unspecificed - presumably Forested Wetlands or acres of Forested and 0.1 acres Scrub/Shrub acres of emergent wetland enhancement b. Section II of Special Provision Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Design, Construction and Monitoring (January 14, 2009) i acres of wetland restoration and creation - type unspecificed - presumably Forested Wetlands or acres of Forested and 0.1 acres Scrub/Shrub ii acres of emergent wetland enhancement iii. But then states: final side design must include : ac emergent wetland ac scrub-shrub wetland ac forested wetland c. Conceptual Plan by LandMark Design i ac of emergent wetland creation ii ac of emergent wetland enhancement iii. 0.1 ac of scrub shrub wetland creation iv ac of forested wetland creation Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 12 of 14

13 It appears the acreages and wetland types are internally consistent except for the computations related to forested wetland compensation (20.53 acres for forested wetland vs ac of forested wetland creation, vs total creation of all wetland types = 19.05ac). Can you please clarify and/or provide a table like that in the Conceptual Plan that shows the three wetland types vs forms of compensation (creation, enhancement, preservation) acreages by category, and totals. Refer to Question Is the acres of PFO1E wetlands (to be dominated by bald cypress and black gum) a voluntary item. This item in the Special Provisions (Section II, 3) uses the term should implying it is voluntary. The final design must provide no less than acres of PFO1E, bald cypress/black gum wetland community type. 70. The DEQ permit indicates preservation of 2.86 acres of Uplands which implies they remain undisturbed; where is this area? The 2.86 acres of uplands are included within the larger, forested parcel that was not delineated. Estimates of upland acreage were based upon an evaluation of infrared aerial photography. See also Question Has the VDOT had a wetland delineation performed and confirmed by the Corps for the entire parcel? The data sheets in LMDGs Conceptual Plan only cover the farm fields, and there is no exhibit illustrating wetland lines on the parcel other than in the old fields. Refer to the response to Question 12. Also, the farm fields were the only area in which a delineation was conducted, as this area is the focus of the proposed wetland compensation site. Much of the remaining area is existing wetland associated with West Neck Creek, although there are some small upland ridges dominated by pine (Pinus taeda) that are included in the predominantly forested tract. 72. Please confirm that the Design Build Team is not responsible for the preparation of perpetual preservation/real estate instrument, and associated exhibits, plats etc. Refer to the response to Question The Corps Permit (Special Condition For Malbone Site.Condition 5, page 4) references a planting plan and indicates that any change in species dominance from the plan must be coordinated with the Corps.... Can we receive the planting plan as the plant list in the Concept Plan does not include relative dominance of species? The Special Condition referenced herein is referring to the final approved planting plan Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 13 of 14

14 that is to be developed by the Offeror. The plant list contained in the Conceptual Mitigation plan should be taken as a preliminary list of species that can be changed, if needed. 74. Regarding the emergent wetland enhancement/creation: The Corps permit (Special Conditions for the Malbone Site, #8, page 4) states: a. The wetland hydrology criteria is water at the ground surface for all months of the year except July and August b. The hydrology can be a similar hydroperiod to ensure that a sustainable emergent system is established. Is this VDOT s requirement for the Emergent wetland enhancement and creation, as it appears an emergent system that transitions to forested over time is in violation of this permit condition? This requirement is a condition of the permit and is the standard to which emergent wetlands on this site will be held by the regulatory agencies. 75. The Special Conditions for the Malbone Site, #8, page 4, of the Corps permit also discusses specifically the 1987 Corps Manual for the hydrology criteria for the balance of the site. Will VDOT confirm that the newly released, Corps Regional Manual is not applicable to this project, or if it is applicable, for what specific issues (e.g.: hydrology, soils, vegetation etc). The success criteria of the permit supersede any subsequent revisions to the Corps Manual, per discussion with the Corps of Engineers. 76. The Corps permit indicates that an aerial photograph is required during monitoring (16. Monitoring Report Criteria Subsection c. 3), page 8) is this the responsibility of the Design Build Team, and if so, must it be: 1) planimetric and to scale, or 2) low altitude and at an angle (not to scale). Yes, this is the responsibility of the Design-Builder to meet this requirement and the aerial photography must be planimetric and to scale. VDOT routinely flies compensation sites as part of its annual monitoring program and may be able to include this site in its flight plans for one year, with proper coordination and given sufficient notice. Our final product is typically orthorectified infrared aerial photomosaics that are flown during leaf-on. 77. I am trying to find out what qualifies as "proof" (see page 8, of the RFP document) that our information has been submitted requesting prequalification. Refer to the response to Questions 55 and 56 Report Date: 06/02/09 Page 14 of 14