Okaloosa County Sealed Solicitation

Title: County Road 2 Widening and Resurfacing Project

Deadline: 4/19/2023 3:00 PM   (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)

Status: Awarded

Solicitation Number: ITB PW 06-23

Description: The Project consists of clearing and grubbing, full depth repair of existing asphalt, grading and excavation, installation of new subbase and asphalt, maintenance of traffic, sodding, repair or replacement of stormwater systems, and other work as shown on the construction drawings and described in the specifications. The work is further defined as shown on the Plans and as described by the Contract Documents.  Bids will be received for a single prime Contract. Bids shall be on a unit price basis as indicated in the Bid Form. All terms, specifications and conditions set forth in this ITB are incorporated into your response. A bid will not be accepted unless all conditions have been met.

Pre-Bid Meeting Date: 2/23/2023 9:00 AM

Pre-Bid Meeting Details: Please sign up if you plan to attend the pre-bid meeting.A mandatory pre-bid conference will be held at 9:00 AM local time on February 23, 2023 at the Okaloosa County Public Works Office, 1759 South Ferdon Blvd, Crestview, FL 32536

Documents:

Documents as of 1/30/2023
Login to view documents
Addition 1

Posted: 1/31/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: See pdf attached.

Deadline: 4/5/2023 3:00 PM

Pre-Bid Meeting Details: A mandatory pre-bid conference will be held at 9:00 AM local time on February 23, 2023 at the Okaloosa County Public Works Office, 1759 South Ferdon Blvd, Crestview, FL 32536.

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Addition 2

Posted: 2/6/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: Addendum 2 attached

Deadline: 4/5/2023 3:00 PM

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Addition 3

Posted: 2/23/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: Addendum 3 attached.

Deadline: 4/19/2023 3:00 PM

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Addition 4

Posted: 2/24/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: See addendum attached.

Deadline: 4/19/2023 3:00 PM

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Addition 5

Posted: 3/28/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: See addendum 5

Deadline: 4/19/2023 3:00 PM

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Addition 6

Posted: 4/4/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: Addendum 6

Deadline: 4/19/2023 3:00 PM

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Addition 7

Posted: 6/15/2023

Type of Addition: Award Information

Question 1

Posted: 1/30/2023

Question: All I see available for download is the project manual. Can you please add the Plans, Bid Schedule and Specs

Response: Please see addendum uploaded on January 31, 2023.

Question 2

Posted: 2/3/2023

Question: Page 00100-2 in the ITB says the Pre-Bid Conference is on February 22. Vendor registry has the pre bid scheduled for Feb 23. Please clarify the correct date for the pre bid conference.

Response: February 23, 2023

Question 3

Posted: 2/3/2023

Question: What is the Engineers Estimated Price for the project?

Response: $10-$15 million

Question 4

Posted: 2/9/2023

Question: Regarding the bid schedule, page 2 of Addendum 1 only covers Item No. 101-1 to 430-536-100. However, the Summary of Pay Items in the Roadway Plans Sheet No. 4 and 5 include pay items No. to 711-16-231. Are the pay items listed in the plans, Sheets 4 & 5 Pay Items 101-1 through 711-16-231 to be used for our unit price basis for the bid total in the bid summary?

Response: See addendum posted

Question 5

Posted: 2/10/2023

Question: In regards to the pipe liner, I only see some of the linear feet listed on the plans? Where is the additional pipe to be lined located? Also, I do not see any specs for the coating. Is fold and form (thermoform) liner an acceptable method to line these pipes? Thank you!

Response: See addendum posted

Question 6

Posted: 2/14/2023

Question: Please provide specifications for the Pipe Liner, Coating, Pay items. -431-1-618, 431-1-624, and 431-1-648.

Response: See addendum posted

Question 7

Posted: 2/14/2023

Question: Roadway Plan Sheet No. 6, Typical Section 1 and the Shoulder/Turn Lane Pavement Detail illustrate a thicker proposed overlay thickness on the shoulder vs the cold in place mix and resurfacing. But both sections are specified to receive 2.5" of Type SP Structural Course Asphalt. Please clarify.

Response: See addendum posted

Question 8

Posted: 2/15/2023

Question: Roadway Plan Sheet No. 16 has four locations of "Const. Alignment Curb" at the connection to Big Horse Creek Bridge. There is not a pay item for curb or a detail for this curb. Please clarify.

Response: See addendum posted

Question 9

Posted: 2/15/2023

Question: Will a Geotechnical Report be provided as a bid document?

Response: See addendum posted

Question 10

Posted: 2/20/2023

Question: Will CAD files be provided for bidding and for use during construction?

Response: See addendum posted

Question 11

Posted: 2/20/2023

Question: Roadway Plan Sheet No. 20 has four notes for "Const. Type A Fence". There is not a pay item for Type A Fence and the item the fence depicts is also referenced as "Const. Guardrail" by a different arrow. Please clarify.

Response: See addendum posted

Question 12

Posted: 2/28/2023

Question: Concrete driveways are specified in the plans. No details are available for these driveways and the only related bid item references "Sidewalk and Driveways 4 Thick." Concrete driveways are typically 6" thick. Please clarify.

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 13

Posted: 3/1/2023

Question: Bid Schedule Item 104-10-3 Sediment Barrier has a quantity of 9,813 LF. The Summary of Quantities on Sheet No. SQ-3 shows a total of 12,446 LF. Please clarify the correct quantity.

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 14

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: Special Technical Provision Part 3, A states, "For the laboratory testing requirements refer to Part 3, d and FDOT Standard Specifications 283." Specification 283 is for Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Base used that is typically imported, stockpiled and spread on a roadway and not mixed in any way. The spec refers to taking samples from stockpiles and constructing the base course in lifts not exceeding 6". Will this line be removed from the Technical Specification package?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 15

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: Technical Special Provision Part 1 B states, "Conduct a minimum of three extraction gradation analyses of the reclaimed base material." Will these gradations be required soley for the test strip or will additional gradation testing and sampling be required?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 16

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: Technical Special Provision Part 2 C and Part 1 B i contradict one another. Spec 914 requires a minimum of 97% passing the 3 1/2" screen. Part 1 B i, requires 97% to be passing a 2 inch sieve. Which spec will be required?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 17

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: Technical Specification Part 1 B iii, states, "The contractor shall determine the optimum amount to be added based on laboratory testing." in regards to the amount of cement to be added. The contractor will need specifications added to define what is the "optimum amount."

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 18

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: Technical Special Provision Part 3 B states, "Any section deficient by 1/2" or more from the specified depth shall be removed and satisfactorily replaced by the contractor at no additional cost." Will scarifying, adding base rock, and recompaction be allowed to reach the specified depth or must all the reclaimed material be removed and replaced with imported base material?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 19

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: The geotechnical report encountered material within the limits of reclamation that has Plasticity Index and Liquid Limits that exceeded the requirements set forth in FDOT Standard Spec 914. If this unsuitable material is encountered and the reclaimed material does not meet the requirements of Spec 914 after the mixing process what method/direction will be required by the owner and the contractor to achieve desirable results?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 20

Posted: 3/17/2023

Question: Please add a specific pay item for Portland Cement Concrete Type I, by weight. The TSP's state "The Plan quantity was initially determined to be 6% by weight. The contractor shall determine the optimum amount to be added based on laboratory testing." Having read this the engineer has already determined a quantity and the contractor has to bear all the risk on determining rate what is optimum. It will be in the best interest of both parties to have a unit price pay item established for the portland cement and this in turn will save the County money.

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 21

Posted: 3/17/2023

Question: Are the centerline grades for top of new asphalt elevations illustrated in the cross sections 2.5" higher than existing grade? If not, what elevation difference did the engineer use to establish new profile grades? Reclamation with the addition of cement typically swells and does not compact back down to the existing grades prior to reclamation. If the CL grades established by the profile are simply 2.5" higher than existing, then a portion of the reclaimed base will need excavated and removed, increasing costs. Additionally, the TSP's require UTS equipment to grade the reclaimed base. Once the material has cured and traffic is allowed, rutting will occur. This material cannot be scarified and reworked once rutted. Most contractors are allowed to profile mill, directly in front of paving to establish the correct cross slope. Profile milling also is a great way to remove the excess base and remove ruts. Will profile milling of the reclaimed base be allowed?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 22

Posted: 3/22/2023

Question: Are the Existing Bridge Plans available?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 23

Posted: 3/22/2023

Question: Has a Lead inspection been done on the bridge? If so, is the report available?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 24

Posted: 3/22/2023

Question: Are we to sandblast, clean, and paint only 2 bearing assemblies on Bent 19? Or all four?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Question 25

Posted: 3/29/2023

Question: The contract time of 360 calendar days to substantial completion is insufficient. Will a revision be made to the ITB to revise the contract time?

Response: See addendum 6 posted.

Question 26

Posted: 3/29/2023

Question: The answer to Question 8 in addendum 5 states that the top of new asphalt plotted in the cross section matches existing grade. While knowing that the road is going to raise a minimum of 2.5" for the new asphalt plus the extra height from the reclamation with addition of cement there will be a significant amount of base to be cut and removed from the roadway so that our UTS equipment can meet the grades established in the cross sections. It would be much more cost effective for the county to eliminate the OBG 6 widening of the shoulders and utilize the extra reclaimed material as base for the 2' widening.

Response: See addendum 6 posted.

Question 27

Posted: 3/30/2023

Question: Will a bid form be provided? There appears to be a discrepancy between the bid items and some of the quantities reflected in Addendum #4 and those reflected in Addendum #5.

Response: See addendum 6 posted.

Posted: 1/31/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: See pdf attached.

Deadline: 4/5/2023 3:00 PM

Pre-Bid Meeting Details: A mandatory pre-bid conference will be held at 9:00 AM local time on February 23, 2023 at the Okaloosa County Public Works Office, 1759 South Ferdon Blvd, Crestview, FL 32536.

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Posted: 2/6/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: Addendum 2 attached

Deadline: 4/5/2023 3:00 PM

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Posted: 2/23/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: Addendum 3 attached.

Deadline: 4/19/2023 3:00 PM

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Posted: 2/24/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: See addendum attached.

Deadline: 4/19/2023 3:00 PM

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Posted: 3/28/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: See addendum 5

Deadline: 4/19/2023 3:00 PM

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Posted: 4/4/2023

Type of Addition: Addendum

Overview: Addendum 6

Deadline: 4/19/2023 3:00 PM

Solicitation #: ITB PW 06-23

Documents:

Posted: 6/15/2023

Type of Addition: Award Information

Posted: 1/30/2023

Question: All I see available for download is the project manual. Can you please add the Plans, Bid Schedule and Specs

Response: Please see addendum uploaded on January 31, 2023.

Posted: 2/3/2023

Question: Page 00100-2 in the ITB says the Pre-Bid Conference is on February 22. Vendor registry has the pre bid scheduled for Feb 23. Please clarify the correct date for the pre bid conference.

Response: February 23, 2023

Posted: 2/3/2023

Question: What is the Engineers Estimated Price for the project?

Response: $10-$15 million

Posted: 2/9/2023

Question: Regarding the bid schedule, page 2 of Addendum 1 only covers Item No. 101-1 to 430-536-100. However, the Summary of Pay Items in the Roadway Plans Sheet No. 4 and 5 include pay items No. to 711-16-231. Are the pay items listed in the plans, Sheets 4 & 5 Pay Items 101-1 through 711-16-231 to be used for our unit price basis for the bid total in the bid summary?

Response: See addendum posted

Posted: 2/10/2023

Question: In regards to the pipe liner, I only see some of the linear feet listed on the plans? Where is the additional pipe to be lined located? Also, I do not see any specs for the coating. Is fold and form (thermoform) liner an acceptable method to line these pipes? Thank you!

Response: See addendum posted

Posted: 2/14/2023

Question: Please provide specifications for the Pipe Liner, Coating, Pay items. -431-1-618, 431-1-624, and 431-1-648.

Response: See addendum posted

Posted: 2/14/2023

Question: Roadway Plan Sheet No. 6, Typical Section 1 and the Shoulder/Turn Lane Pavement Detail illustrate a thicker proposed overlay thickness on the shoulder vs the cold in place mix and resurfacing. But both sections are specified to receive 2.5" of Type SP Structural Course Asphalt. Please clarify.

Response: See addendum posted

Posted: 2/15/2023

Question: Roadway Plan Sheet No. 16 has four locations of "Const. Alignment Curb" at the connection to Big Horse Creek Bridge. There is not a pay item for curb or a detail for this curb. Please clarify.

Response: See addendum posted

Posted: 2/15/2023

Question: Will a Geotechnical Report be provided as a bid document?

Response: See addendum posted

Posted: 2/20/2023

Question: Will CAD files be provided for bidding and for use during construction?

Response: See addendum posted

Posted: 2/20/2023

Question: Roadway Plan Sheet No. 20 has four notes for "Const. Type A Fence". There is not a pay item for Type A Fence and the item the fence depicts is also referenced as "Const. Guardrail" by a different arrow. Please clarify.

Response: See addendum posted

Posted: 2/28/2023

Question: Concrete driveways are specified in the plans. No details are available for these driveways and the only related bid item references "Sidewalk and Driveways 4 Thick." Concrete driveways are typically 6" thick. Please clarify.

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/1/2023

Question: Bid Schedule Item 104-10-3 Sediment Barrier has a quantity of 9,813 LF. The Summary of Quantities on Sheet No. SQ-3 shows a total of 12,446 LF. Please clarify the correct quantity.

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: Special Technical Provision Part 3, A states, "For the laboratory testing requirements refer to Part 3, d and FDOT Standard Specifications 283." Specification 283 is for Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Base used that is typically imported, stockpiled and spread on a roadway and not mixed in any way. The spec refers to taking samples from stockpiles and constructing the base course in lifts not exceeding 6". Will this line be removed from the Technical Specification package?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: Technical Special Provision Part 1 B states, "Conduct a minimum of three extraction gradation analyses of the reclaimed base material." Will these gradations be required soley for the test strip or will additional gradation testing and sampling be required?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: Technical Special Provision Part 2 C and Part 1 B i contradict one another. Spec 914 requires a minimum of 97% passing the 3 1/2" screen. Part 1 B i, requires 97% to be passing a 2 inch sieve. Which spec will be required?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: Technical Specification Part 1 B iii, states, "The contractor shall determine the optimum amount to be added based on laboratory testing." in regards to the amount of cement to be added. The contractor will need specifications added to define what is the "optimum amount."

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: Technical Special Provision Part 3 B states, "Any section deficient by 1/2" or more from the specified depth shall be removed and satisfactorily replaced by the contractor at no additional cost." Will scarifying, adding base rock, and recompaction be allowed to reach the specified depth or must all the reclaimed material be removed and replaced with imported base material?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/3/2023

Question: The geotechnical report encountered material within the limits of reclamation that has Plasticity Index and Liquid Limits that exceeded the requirements set forth in FDOT Standard Spec 914. If this unsuitable material is encountered and the reclaimed material does not meet the requirements of Spec 914 after the mixing process what method/direction will be required by the owner and the contractor to achieve desirable results?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/17/2023

Question: Please add a specific pay item for Portland Cement Concrete Type I, by weight. The TSP's state "The Plan quantity was initially determined to be 6% by weight. The contractor shall determine the optimum amount to be added based on laboratory testing." Having read this the engineer has already determined a quantity and the contractor has to bear all the risk on determining rate what is optimum. It will be in the best interest of both parties to have a unit price pay item established for the portland cement and this in turn will save the County money.

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/17/2023

Question: Are the centerline grades for top of new asphalt elevations illustrated in the cross sections 2.5" higher than existing grade? If not, what elevation difference did the engineer use to establish new profile grades? Reclamation with the addition of cement typically swells and does not compact back down to the existing grades prior to reclamation. If the CL grades established by the profile are simply 2.5" higher than existing, then a portion of the reclaimed base will need excavated and removed, increasing costs. Additionally, the TSP's require UTS equipment to grade the reclaimed base. Once the material has cured and traffic is allowed, rutting will occur. This material cannot be scarified and reworked once rutted. Most contractors are allowed to profile mill, directly in front of paving to establish the correct cross slope. Profile milling also is a great way to remove the excess base and remove ruts. Will profile milling of the reclaimed base be allowed?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/22/2023

Question: Are the Existing Bridge Plans available?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/22/2023

Question: Has a Lead inspection been done on the bridge? If so, is the report available?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/22/2023

Question: Are we to sandblast, clean, and paint only 2 bearing assemblies on Bent 19? Or all four?

Response: See addendum posted-Addendum 5

Posted: 3/29/2023

Question: The contract time of 360 calendar days to substantial completion is insufficient. Will a revision be made to the ITB to revise the contract time?

Response: See addendum 6 posted.

Posted: 3/29/2023

Question: The answer to Question 8 in addendum 5 states that the top of new asphalt plotted in the cross section matches existing grade. While knowing that the road is going to raise a minimum of 2.5" for the new asphalt plus the extra height from the reclamation with addition of cement there will be a significant amount of base to be cut and removed from the roadway so that our UTS equipment can meet the grades established in the cross sections. It would be much more cost effective for the county to eliminate the OBG 6 widening of the shoulders and utilize the extra reclaimed material as base for the 2' widening.

Response: See addendum 6 posted.

Posted: 3/30/2023

Question: Will a bid form be provided? There appears to be a discrepancy between the bid items and some of the quantities reflected in Addendum #4 and those reflected in Addendum #5.

Response: See addendum 6 posted.