Skip to main content

Illinois Beach State Park Shoreline Stabilization

March 8, 2022


At their regularly scheduled meeting on March 8, 2022 the Capital Development Board concurred with the Design-Build Selection Committee's recommendation to award the contract to Michels Corporation.

TEAMS SHORTLISTED FOR PHASE II

Kokosing Industrial, Inc.

Michels Corporation

Walsh Construction Company II, LLC (formally withdrew from consideration on 08/26/2021)

All of the teams that submitted in Phase I were shortlisted to move on to Phase II.

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADVERTISE

The Capital Development Board ("CDB") intends to issue (on or after April 29, 2021) a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the following Design-Build project:

CDB Project No. 102-311-099
Shoreline Stabilization
Illinois Beach State Park
Zion, Lake County, Illinois

Project Budget - $41,000,000.00

 

Pre-Submittal Meeting


There will be a Pre-Submittal Meeting held at 2:00pm on Thursday, May 6, 2021 via Webex:

Join from the meeting link: https://illinois.webex.com/illinois/j.php?MTID=m92bab5e878d38c51c4883bc8cc0dd33d
Join by meeting number
Meeting number (access code): 133 166 4267
Meeting password: fvGeXbQh758

PowerPoint Slides from May 6th Pre-Submittal Meeting

Recording of May 6th Pre-Submittal Meeting

 

Phase II Pre-Proposal Meeting


A Pre-Proposal Meeting was held via Webex at 2:00pm on Tuesday, July 6, 2021.

PowerPoint Slides from Pre-Proposal Meeting

Recording of Pre-Proposal Meeting

​CDB Project No. 102-311-099 - Stabilize Shoreline at Illinois Beach State Park
Published 04/29/2021​
Request for Proposals​
​Design-Build Proposal Transmittal Form (DB-PTF)
​Design-Build Pricing Schedule (DBPS)
​Replaced by Amendment 1
​Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Standard Certifications
​Financial Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest
​DB Entity Qualifications Form and Instructions (DBQ)
​Reference Questionaire
​MBE/WBE/VBE/PBE Phase I Utilization Plan
​MBE/WBE/VBE/PBE Phase II Utilization Plan
​PC-2 Workforce Projection
​Bid Bond
​Selection Criteria Weighting
​Supplement to SD-DB
Project Labor Agreement
​Bridging Documents - Basis of Design
​Bridging Documents - Project Manual
​Bridging Documents - Drawings
​Bridging Documents - Joint Permit Application

​210115 - Sand Survey Summary and Report
​05/24/2021
Appendix E - Ground Samples - GSD
​05/24/2021
​IBSP Vibracore Logs
​05/24/2021

​Illinois Beach Shoreline Protection Appendices - RPT 2019-0913
​7/15/2021
​Illinois Beach Shoreline Protection v0 - Design Report - RFP 2019-0913
​7/15/2021​
​Flume Report HRW - RPT 2021-0112 2D
​​7/15/2021
​3D Basin Reports HRW - RPT 2021-0122
​​7/15/2021
​Physical Modeling Summary - RPT 2021-0225
​​7/15/2021

Amendment 1
Published ​9/29/2021
Design-Build Pricing Schedule Unit Cost Sheet (DBPS)


Littoral Drift Study
​10/06/2021

Important Information for Offerors

Because of their involvement with the preparation of the Bridging Documents for the Design-Build RFP for the above project the following individuals are PROHIBITED from participating on any of the submitting Design-Build teams for this project.

Margaret Boshek (Moffat & Nichol)

Heidi Anderson (Applied Technology Management)

Nicole Rusek (Baird)

The participation of the above individuals would violate 30 ILCS 537/20.d which prohibits design professionals involved in the preparation of scope and performance criteria from participating in any design-build entity proposal for the project. Submittals from any Design-Build Entity which include any of the above named individuals will be subject to disqualification.

To be clear, this prohibition applies to the individuals listed above and does not prohibit the organizations they are employed by from pursuing the project as long as they are not an active participant on the project team.
 

RFI's with Responses

Updated May 24, 2021​
 

Q. Key Personnel: the DBQ in Section 2 of the Phase 1 Proposal contains templates for key personnel resumes. Key personnel are also asked to be described in Section 3 of the Phase 1 Proposal. The key personnel identified to be described for this Project include: "...project manager; the project architect; the engineers responsible for civil, electrical, mechanical, fire protection, communication systems and structural design; the quality control manager; and the construction manager and/or project superintendent..." The scope of this project does not coincide with several of these positions. We intend to include, as a minimum, the following key personnel positions in our proposal: Project Manager, Design Manager, Coastal Engineer, Civil Engineer, Landscape Architect, Structural Design Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Quality Control Manager, Construction Manager, and Project

A. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to determine (based on the information available in the bridging documents) what disciplines need to be included on the Design-Build Entities team. For any disciplines that may not be necessary (ie., electrical, mechanical, fire protection ect.) they should not be included on the project team.

Q. The Offeror is required to submit Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Standard Certifications for each entity listed on the DB-PTF. Other than the form CDB provided entitled "Standard Terms and Conditions 3.2017", are there any other forms/documents required to be submitted in this section related to Standard Certifications?

A. For each team member identified on the DB-PTF you must provide the following as indicated on Page 6 of the RFP: 1) Standard Business Terms as Conditions and Standard Certfications, 2) Financial Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest (either Form A or Form B as applicable), 3) Illinois State Board of Elections Certificate.

Q. In Section 00 42 10 B. General Proposal Contents List by Phase of the RFP, Section 4 - Financial Capacity includes items i., ii., and iii. pertain to Bonding, Insurance and Bank References. This section is not included in 00 42 10 .2 Qualifications Submittal Contents - Phase I. Are there any templates, forms, or specific submittal requirements for this information to be included in the Phase I Proposal? Our bonding and insurance representatives will likely need instructions by which to prepare a letter/certification of financial capacity.

A. Financial Capacity and Bank References are typically addressed via a letter from the Offeror's financial institution. Bonding capacity and availability is typically addressed with a letter from the Offeror's Surety.

Q. Page Count Requirements: There are various page count maximums identified throughout the document. -Page 11 of the pdf says Section 2 - Past Performance is limited to 25 pages. The DBQ form included in this section could easily exceed 25 pages once all resumes and past projects are included into the form. -Page 24 of the pdf says Past Performance is limited to 50 pages. -Page 24 of the pdf also state that the entire submittal shall not exceed 100 pages. There is also reference to numerous sub-sections with page count maximums as well. Please clarify maximum page counts by section 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the Phase I Proposal submittal.

A. The very same sentence that provides the 25 page limit also explicitly states that the Past Performance Questionnaires and Phase I Utilization Plan are not included in the page limit. The 50 page limit indicated on Page 22 (24 of the PDF file) will be reduced to 25 by Amendment to match what is indicated on Page 9. The 100 page limit for the overall submittal does not include those items specifically excluded from the pages limits such as those listed above. Section 1 has no page limits and is not included in any of the page limitations set forth in the RFP. Section 1 can sometimes included hundreds of pages of certifications and disclosures when all many team members are included. Section 2 is limited to 25 pages for the narrative not including the Past Performance Questionnaires and Phase I Utilization Plan. Section 3 Technical Approach narrative is limited to 5 pages, Offeror's Team Experience narrative is limited to 5 pages, and Other Capability narrative is limited to 2 pages for a total maximum of 12 pages of narrative in this section. Section 4 has no specific page limitations. Sections 2, 3 & 4 Combined (excluding those items identified above) should not exceed 100 pages.

Q. The instructions for the MBE/WBE/VBE/PBE Phase I Utilization Plan, item B. state, "Provide a written narrative describing MBE/WBE/VBE/PBE goals for past projects, including design and construction, and indicating what level of participation the offeror was able to achieve on those same projects." Proposal Phase I, Section 2 iii also asks for Past performance of MBE/WBE/VBE (page 6 of pdf). Please clarify if this information is to be included as part of the Phase I Utilization Plan, the Section 2 narrative, or both.

A. The written narrative referenced in the item "B" of the instructions on the Phase I Utilization Plan refer to the narrative that is required for Section 2 of the submittal. A narrative is not required as part of the Phase I Utilization Plan form itself.

Q. For the Phase I Evaluation Criteria, it is not apparent where or how Section 3 - Technical Capability of the Phase I Proposal is scored or weighted. Please clarify where this section of the proposal will be scored.

A. While there is no single criteria for the evaluation of the "Technical Capability" in Phase I it can and does have influence a number of other related criteria. Scoring for Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 8 can all be influenced by a team's technical capabilities.

Q. Please confirm that the $4M difference between the $45,000,000 Project Budget and the $41,000,000 on the bid form is the CDB's contingency.

A. Much of the difference between the overall project budget and the published budget amount of $41,000,000 in the RFP is accounted for in fees for bridging documents and laboratory analysis/verification of the schematic design during bridging. Although a small amount may be held back CDB does not specifically set aside contingency funds for Design-Build projects. Some difference may also be attributable to rounding prior to publication of the RFP. The published budget for this project is $41,000,000 as noted in the RFP.

Q. Please provide the status of funding for the project, and if there are any fiscal year constraints for 2022 and 2023.

A. $4.5m has been released for the project to get it to this stage. Remaining funds will be released in the near future to fund the construction phase of the project. That funding is not constrained by fiscal year limitations once it has been released.

Q. Please confirm how the CDB will assess the Construction Administration Fee from the DBE.

A. The Design-Build Entity will be required to invoice for the CAF on Pay Application No. 1. After payment has been issued they are then required to submit payment for the CAF back to CDB before Pay Application No. 2 will be processed.

Q. Section 003119 Physical Data appears to be a copy/paste typo from Section 003117, please confirm.

A. Section 003119 Physical Data should read "Data and information furnished or referred to below is for the Contractor's information. The CDB shall not be responsible for any interpretation of or conclusion drawn from the data or information by the Contractor.

(a) The indications of physical conditions on the drawings and in the specifications are the result of site investigations by SmithGroup. Information to be provided in bridging documents."

Q. What is the anticipated duration for the Joint Permit approval?

A. Joint Permit Applications have been submitted to the USACE, DNR and IDEM, duration of the permitting is based on the complexity of the project and can take upwards of 6 months. Early conversation with the regulatory agencies indicates that permitting should be complete by October based on initial reviews. Changes to the project which require alterations to the permits may extend that timeline.

Q. With an anticipated ATP of 2/2/2022, design will not commence until February 2022. Between final design approvals and permitting, much of the 2022 Lake Michigan marine season (May thru October) will be lost. Will CDB consider an earlier ATP or an extended project duration to compensate the short Lake Michigan marine season

A. The ATP date included in the RFP is to allow all teams to submit Phase II Proposals based on a defined timeline for comparison. Actual ATP may be earlier or later depending on a number of outside factors. The overall project duration has been determined with consideration given to the Lake Michigan marine season.

Q. What is the DBE's responsibility for the CERP (Comprehensive Environmental Review Process)? Please provide any documents for the CERP.

A. CERP, is being completed by DNR. CERP restrictions/documentation will be provided during Phase 2.

Q. Please define the roles and responsibilities of the IDNR during this project. Will they be performing design reviews, if so, will they be done concurrently with CDB?

A. It is important to understand that reviews completed by CDB and/or IDNR during the "construction" phase of this project are informational only and not for approval of a design. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with the RFP/Bridging Documents lies with the Design-Build entity.

Q. Will the IDNR be performing on-site inspections during construction?

A. CDB/IDNR will review and inspect work as needed.

Q. Will the CDB have an on-site Construction Manager in addition to their A/E performing onsite inspections? If so, please identify the CM.

A. There is no Construction Manager on this project.

Q. Please provide a copy of the Gahagan and Bryant report " Illinois Beach State Park Sand Source Survey" dated December 2020.

A. SmithGroup has attached a copy of the report as this was a sub to Edgewater Resources (part of the SmithGroup project team)

Q. Please confirm no plantings are required for this project since no scope of work nor specifications were provided.

A. The addition of plantings would be part of the final design proposed by the DBE and as part of the habitat enhancements. Currently there are no specific plantings in the project.

Q. Please confirm that one Engineer's Field Office Type A will be furnished by the DBE for the CDB's use for the duration of construction in accordance with Section 015200 of the Standard Documents for Design-Build Projects dated August 2007.

A. The number of field offices furnished by the DBE shall be in accordance with the space requirements outlined in Section 015200 of the Standard Documents for Design-Build Projects dated August 2007

Q. Please confirm there is no scope of work for this contract for Plumbing, Heating, Ventilating and Electrical.

A. There is no scope for the addition of Plumbing, Heating, Ventilation or Electrical. Any existing utilities in use need to be protected and preserved.

Q. Please confirm that the Insurance requirements listed in sections 007318 and 007319 of the SD-DB 2007 are correct for this project.

A. Insurance requirements in SD-DB 2007 are applicable to this project.

Q. Please confirm if letters from our surety and insurance broker are adequate documentation for section 4 of the phase I evaluation.

A. Yes.

Q. Are there CAD files available that show the contours of the Project that can be added to the Bridging Documents?

A. CAD files are available that show the contours of the proposed work. Contouring for the proposed work will need to be updated based on topographic and bathymetric surveys to be completed as a part of Phase 2.

Q. If a company is not currently prequalified with the CDB, can the company begin the prequalification process AND submit the Phase I submittal for the May 26, 2021 deadline (even though the company would not be prequalified with the CBD by May 26, 2021)?

A. Firms must be pre-qualified at the time of submittal.

Q. Can the Phase 1 submittal be submitted as a Joint Venture?

A. Yes. All members of a Joint-Venture must be pre-qualified at the time of submittal.

Q. Can the Phase 1 submittal deadline be extended to June 22, 2021. For the purpose of allowing a company to become prequalified with the CDB.

A. No.

Q. Has SmithGroup performed and completed the necessary numerical and hydraulic lab studies for the design they have presented?

A. Complete numerical and physical hydraulic lab studies have been performed and will be made available in Phase II.

Q. Do all entities (Engineering Firms and Contractors) that propose on the SOQ need to be pre-approved by the State of Illinois Capital Development Board?

A. Only those that are required to be licensed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation or those subcontractors falling into the classification of "protected subcontractors" are required to be pre-qualified.

Q. We request a minimum 3 week extension to the proposal due date. The time needed to assemble the design-build team, solicit responses from past projects and assemble the comprehensive proposal exceeds the current allotted time frame. Another consideration is that historically and consistently, May and June are the busiest months for bidding and submitting proposals for marine projects.

A. While the RFP was published on April 29th, the Notice of Intent was posted on April 15th giving Offerors 6 weeks to assemble a team. The proposal deadline will not be extended.

Q. Under Section 3, Technical Capability, part 2.e. asks to discuss the MBE/VBE/WBE programs for the past projects listed in this section and the strategy for including them. Is this the same information presented in the Phase 1 Utilization plan? Is it a requirement of this RFP to discuss MBE/WBE/VBE utilization for this project? If so, where does that go? The 5 pages allowed for "Offeror's Team Experience" is hardly enough to discuss bullet points A-D under that section and also lay out a Small Business utilization plan.

A. This requirement is the same as that used on projects in excess of $200,000,000 and the teams submitting were able comply.

Q. Does the Form 05.00 41 09 Certifications and Disclosures completely fulfill the requirements for Section 1 -General Documents, "Financial Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest"?

A. Yes.

Q. Is a Bid Bond required to be submitted for Phase 1 Proposal?

A. No.

Q. Is there any update to the status of the permits?

A. Joint Permit Applications have been submitted to the USACE, Illinois DNR and Illinois EPA based on the bridging documents. The pre-filing meeting request for CleanWater Act Section 401 Certification has been received by the Illinois EPA (dated May 13, 2021).

Q. Will the Area 1, 2 and 3 beaches be closed to the public during construction?

A. It is our understanding that they will be closed during construction of each individual area.

Q. Are the type, size and location (TSL) of the 22 breakwaters a defined requirement, or does the DBE have the leeway to change the TSL of the breakwaters?

A. Please refer to Basis of Design, Chapter 6 Design Development Philosophy. The DBE has leeway to change the TSL of the breakwaters within specified criteria.

Q. Are the tolerance requirements in specification section 353119 a requirement, or does the DBE have leeway to change this specification?

A.  Tolerances are a requirement, and no changes are allowed.

Q. Due to the signficant amount of documentation required in the Phase I submittal, we request that the submittal date be extended one week until June 2, 2021.

A. The submittal deadline will not be extended.

Q. Please clarify the language regarding "offeror" We assume a typical arrangement of a DB Contractor engaging with independent engineering subcontractors to form a team (not an entity) is acceptable? Is the "offeror" the team or the lead firm?

A. The Offeror may be the lead firm on a team that assumes financial/contractual responsibility for the team or it may be Joint-Venture either one.

Q. Please clarify the language regarding "Subcontractor". Can a "design consultant" be a subcontractor?

A. In the technical sense sub-consultants are sub-contractors as their contractual relationship is with the Offeror and not the State.

Q. Please clarify the language regarding "Designer or Record". Is this the DB design subconsultant?

A. The "Designer of Record" is the design subconsultant from the Design-Build team as they will be responsible for signing and sealing all design documents related to the final design.

Q. Has an EIA been completed for the project?

A. A project specific EIA has not been completed for the Project.

Q. What is the status of the Regulatory Approval process? Has the Joint Permit Application that was included with the RFP been submitted yet?

A. Joint Permit Applications have been submitted to the USACE, Illinois DNR and Illinois EPA based on the bridging documents. The pre-filing meeting request for CleanWater Act Section 401 Certification has been received by the Illinois EPA (dated May 13, 2021).

Updated July 22, 2021​

Q. Can the CDB please clarify the elements of the project the DB Entity will hold performance liability for? Presumably the CDB will hold the performance liability for shoreline stability/morphology and user safety given that they have fixed the alignment of the structures? Will the Contract Documents provide additional clarity regarding which documents provided by the CDB can be “relied upon” by the DB Entity vs those that are for “information only”? We assume all “relied upon” documents will be provided signed and sealed by a PE?

A. ​"Relied upon" documents include the Drawings and Specifications provided in the bridging documents. All other documents provided in the bridging documents are for "information only." Proprietary meetings are intended to discuss and review designs that deviate from "relied upon" information to confirm that deviations meet the project goals and objectives.

Q. During the Phase I qualification process the CDB indicated that "Complete numerical and physical hydraulic lab studies have been performed and will be made available in Phase II". Can all background information be made available as soon as possible, preferrable prior to the meetings on July 13th? Site investigations (surveys, sediment sampling, subsurface investigations, etc). Coastal analyses – waves, water levels, currents, sediment transport, ice, numerical and physical model study reports Watershed hydrology and hydraulic modeling and analyses d. Environmental impact and permitting information

A. All available background information have been provided for download online at: https://www2.illinois.gov/cdb/procurement/Pages/Design-BuildProjects.aspx. Requests for CAD survey and plan files require signature of SmithGroup's DESIGN-BUILDER ELECTRONIC/DATA/DIGITAL FILES AGREEMENT prior to release. Please email CDB.102-311-099@illinois.gov for DESIGN-BUILDER ELECTRONIC/DATA/DIGITAL FILES AGREEMENT.

Q. ​We understand the CDB will entertain deviations and betterments. Would the CDB prefer a project that 1) replicates the bridging documents as closely as possible while also matching the available budget, 2) utilizes deviations to decrease cost to the extent possible (final project under budget), 3) utilizes deviations to the extent possible + betterments to match the available budget?

A. ​Use Deviations to reduce the overall cost of the project as needed and/or use Betterments to maximize the available budget.

Q. ​Will the CDB elaborate with respect to the planned payment method, specifically will payment be based upon a guaranteed maximum price, firm fixed price, cost plus, remeasurable quantities, etc.

A. This RFP is for a Firm-Fixed Price Contract except as otherwise explicitly noted.

Q. During the Phase II Pre-Proposal Meeting, it was indicated that the questions and clarifications for Phase II of the procurement would be answered via direct email to and from the Proposer Point of Contact.

A. All questions will be posted and responded to publicly. The shortlisted teams will be notified when the posting occur via direct email.

Q. ​Per the referenced RFP sections, there are several references to Project Cost and budget throughout the documents. Most state that the project budget is $41,000,000. Section 2.2.5 of the Basis of Design states the Construction Budget at $42,362, 555. In order to submit a compliant proposal, the contract price must be within 10% of the budget number. Please verify which budget number is correct for this 10% to be applied to. Additionally, the RFP states that a contract administration fee (CAF) of 3% will be assessed to the contractor based upon their award amount. Is the Proposer to include this 3% within its proposed cost for the project? In other words, Do we need to stay within 7% of the RFP budget instead of the previously stated 10%?

A. ​As stated in the RFP Line 18 on the Pricing Schedule must be within 10% of the published budget. The published budget is the amount stated in the RFP which is $41,000,000.00. Please see Section 00 21 16.6 (page 3).

Q. Realizing that our team was recently notified of shortlisting on June 29th and the Independence Day Holiday occurred shortly after, we have limited time to develop project deviations prior to our scheduled One on One on July 13th or 14th.

A. ​A second "Check-In" meeting has been scheduled between each individual team and CDB/DNR/SmithGroup just past the mid-point of the Phase II Process. Meeting invitations have already been sent out to the team leaders.

Q. The first sentence of this document references, "The Standard Documents for Construction and Standard Documents for Construction for Projects with a Construction Manager are hereby changed. The following articles replace those in the 2006 and 2009 editions. All other articles remain applicable." These documents referenced, nor the SD-DB 2007 are included in the posted contract documents for the Project. What will be the standard contract terms for the Project and will we be able to review and comment on these prior to proposal submittal?

A. ​The referenced documents are all available for download from CDB's reference library on the CDB website. While you may review and comment it should be clearly understood that these documents will not be modified.

Q. Does the Design Build Pricing Schedule (excel file) correlate with the RFP Section 00 51 02 .9 B 2)- Phase II Cost Evaluation? For Example, does the formula calculation for Total Project Cost Points in 2)a. correlate with Item No. 14 or No. 18 on the excel spreadsheet, sheet 1? Similarly, does the formula calculation for Construction Cost Points in 2)b. correlate with Item No. 13 on the excel spreadsheet, sheet 1?

A. The pricing schedule will be used to calculate the total project costs points and construction costs points. Line 14 relates to total project cost and Line 13 relates to construction costs.

Q. Items No. 10 and 11 of the Technical Evaluation Criteria Weighting Sheet do not have a description in the RFP Section 00 51 02 - Phase II Evaluation. Please provide a description of what is to be included in the Technical Proposal for these two scored items. Additionally, the RFP Section 00 51 02 .10 describes the interview process which occurs after the proposal has been submitted. Does the interview have a scoring component that will be included in the Selection Criteria Weighting and will that be scored prior to or after the Cost Evaluation Criteria is scored?

A. The Phase II Evaluation Criteria are used for scoring both the proposal submittal and the interview/presentation. Criteria 10 is a good example of something that is primarily a component of the interview/presentation and typically is not associated with the submittal. Item 11, however, could be a scored on a combination of what is included in the submittal as well as what is presented during the interview. It is also important to understand that while some criteria are scored in an exacting manner (those score using formulas identified in the RFP) others are highly subjective and it is not uncommon for opinions to vary widely among committee members. The selection committee is comprised of a diverse group of industry professionals that each bring unique perspectives to the selection process. It is this diversity of perspective that makes CDB's selection processes work well in identifying the best teams for each specific project.

Q. Are there CAD files available that show the contours of the Project that can be added to the Bridging Documents?

A. Files will be made available after teams execute a usage agreement with the SmithGroup.

Updated August 5, 2021

Q. The July 22 RFI responses say that this is a firm fixed price contract, which can contain unit prices. How will the CDB handle quantity changes due to natural erosion occurring between latest survey and construction, or other differing site conditions?

A. We are currently reviewing the different scenarios and trying to determine what works best for the State. If unit prices are put into play it will be accomplished through an Amendment to the RFP in the very near future.

Q. Will the CDB be issuing an updated pricing schedule more closely resembling the scope of the work for the project with relevant bid items?

A. Yes, a revised pricing schedule will be issued via Amendment.

Q. The May 24 RFI responses say “Contouring for the proposed work will need to be updated based on topographic and bathymetric surveys to be completed as a part of Phase 2.” Question: Is the CDB performing this survey and sharing this information to all 3 contractors or is this the responsibility of each DB contractor to perform as they see fit? If it is the contractor’s responsibility, do we need to provide notification to anyone when performing a survey on land, water or by drone?

A. As noted on G-002, "CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE AN UPDATED BATHYMETRIC SURVEY PRIOR TO FINAL DESIGN. SEE SPECIFICATION 02 21 13
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION." CDB will not be performing surveys as a part of phase 2. If the DE entity wishes to conduct a survey as a part of phase 2 it is at their discretion. Notify Illinois Department of Natural Resources staff Dale Brockamp (dale.brockamp@illinois.gov) prior to conducting field work.

Q. ​When the site was surveyed in 2018, they may have used a Planned Line File to run their sounding lines. Can we get their Planned Line File?

A. CAD file representing the intended lines of the bathymetric survey for navigating the boat is available for download at https://www2.illinois.gov/cdb/procurement/Pages/Design-BuildProjects.aspx. These were the intended lines, although the wind & fog played factors into running these routes.

Q. ​There appears to be significant erosion at the 3 beach locations compared to the drawings. A. Is the contractor to construct the top of slope at 585' contour for the new beach fill at the alignment shown on the drawings? B. Is the contractor to construct the 585' contour crest width shown on the drawings for the new beach fill (from the existing land location above water)? Erosion may have widened the crest. C. Which is the controlling factor; The alignment, or the crest width?

A. ​As noted in the Basis of Design, "Sand is to be tied into to the highest elevation of the existing land. Where deemed appropriate to protect infrastructure, it is
recommended that sand be placed at the back of the beach to create a dune system that will protect the leeside land from storm-related flood inundation A. Yes. The beach needs to be built to the 585 feet contour alignment shown on drawings. B. No C. The controlling factor in the drawings is the alignment location, the crest width will need to be adjusted if erosion has occurred.

Q. ​The drawings show Breakwater Designs based on the water depths from prior bathymetry. A. If the 2022 Construction lake bottom elevation is (ex.) 3 feet lower at the location shown on the drawings, is the Design still suitable?

A. ​The lake bottom could have suffered changes the structures are located in a dynamic coastal zone as per the project characteristics. It is the responsibility of the DB team to review any unforeseen change and propose solutions based upon their updated information as part of the final design effort.

Q. In the 3 Beach Areas: A. Is the Design Build Team to cover the existing revetment stones and concrete blocks with new beach fill to a minimum coverage thickness?

A. As the General notes on G-002 state, "EXISTING CONCRETE BLOCKS SHOWN ON SHEETS C-001 THROUGH C-003 SHALL BE REMOVED IF LOCATED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE NEW STRUCTURES OR BEACH FILL. CONCRETE BLOCKS SHALL BE SALVAGED FOR REUSE ON SITE WITHIN BREAKWATER STRUCTURES; THIS SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN THE FINAL DESIGN." Additionally, in Area 3 a minimum coverage of 24 inches over existing revetment stone should be used.

Q. ​In Beach Area 2, If the 2022 existing shoreline is west of Burnett Ave.: A. Is the Design Build Team to cover the remnants of Burnett Ave. with new beach fill? B. Is the Design Build Team to remove the remnants of Burnett Ave. prior to placing the new beach fill?

A. As shown on C-002 the shoreline is presently west of Burnett Ave. A. Yes B. No.

Q. Drawings G-003 through G-005 show temporary connections/improvements, etc. for continuous access construction routes. A. Do these connections/improvements have to be removed at completion of the project? B. Can these Construction access routes be used for the delivery of stone materials? C. Can these Construction access routes be used for the delivery sand materials?

A. In general construction access connection/improvements made to areas which are not existing roadways shall be removed at the completion of the project, except where indicated on the drawings. B. Yes C. Yes

Q. We request the second Proprietary meeting be held sooner than the September 7th date, are there options for changing that meeting date?

A. The currently scheduled dates for the Phase II Proprietary Meetings are the first available dates on the calendar where we can accommodate such meetings.

Q. ​The CDB comment response document provided on July 22, 2021 indicates that the Drawings and Specification Documents provided in the RFP can be “Relied Upon” by the DB Entity. As such, The DB Entity can assume that the DB Entity will hold no performance liability for either the shoreline stability morphology since the beach position, erosion potential, and shoreline position are a function of the breakwater designs and associated modeling performed by SMITHGROUP, user safety or breakwater structure(s) performance if the structures and beach are constructed as provided for in the “relied upon” documents. As such, these documents will be provided to the DB Entity by CDB with signatures and seal of the engineer of record that prepared these documents. The performance includes all aspects of the design documents including but not limited to all stone structures including their specifie

A. As noted in the RFP the design is developed to approximately 35%. As defined in the Standard Documents for Design-Build Projects 2007 the Responsibility of the DB Entity for Design states, " The DB entity shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, and any other non-construction services furnished by the DB entity under this contract. The DB entity shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiency in its designs, drawings, specifications, and other non-construction services. Neither the CDB’s review, approval or acceptance of, nor payment for, the services required under this contract shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this contact or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this contract, and the DB entity shall be and remain liable to the CDB in accordance with applicable law for all damages to the CDB caused by the DB entity’s negligent performance of any of the services furnished under this contract."

Q. Please provide an update on the status of the Permit applications with USACE, Illinois DNR, and Illinois EPA. When is the anticipated approval of these permits and will approved permits be available to the design-build teams prior to bid submission?

A. Public notices for the project are slated to be published the week of 8/2/21 and USACE and IEPA have initiated 401 water quality certification consultation. Initial consultation with USACE and DNR have indicated that completing permitting prior to October 2021 is considered feasible. We are unable to know if approved permits will be available to the design-build teams prior to bid submission as permit approval cannot be set on a specified timeline. Updates regarding anticipated conditions of the permits as discussion with the regulatory agencies continue will be provided to the design-Build teams as they become available.

Q. Please confirm that posted RFI responses for Phase II are contractual.

A. Posted RFI responses are intended to provide clarity but do not change the actual RFP or the requirements of the Bridging Documents. As such the RFI responses are not contractual.

Updated September 24, 2021 ​

Q. Is the Illinois Beach State Park Shoreline Rehabilitation Project tax-exempt?

A. Yes, the IBSP project is tax-exempt. A copy of the exemption letter can be found on CDB's website in the Reference Library.

Q. Are there any anticipated "no work" windows for this project? For example, fish spawning window where no in water work can take place?

A. DNR and USACE have indicated that they do not foresee there being "no work" windows as a condition of the permits. Consultation is on-going with USFWS regarding any work restrictions related to Piping plovers. Initial discussion have indicated that if special conditions related to the piping plover were to be included in the permits, it may be permissible to conduct a field survey for their presence to allow work to occur during any work restrictions related to piping plovers.

Q. Can the CDB provide the document "Littoral Drift Study April 2021" that was listed as an attachment to the permit submission.

A. The Littoral Drift Study April 2021 has been provided for download online at: https://www2.illinois.gov/cdb/procurement/Pages/Design-BuildProjects.aspx

Q. The proposed access roads will need to be improved and maintained in order to support the required truck traffic delivering materials to the project sites. Please verify that the access roadways detailed in the drawings can be improved and maintained with a 6-inch thick by 10-foot wide layer of PGE (Porous Granular Embankment), AKA Breaker Run or CA-18. Please verify that brush and branches can be trimmed along the roadway alignment to promote a clear width of 10-feet and a height of 15-feet.

A. Roadway improvements and limited tree trimming along the roadway alignment are considered acceptable to the routes shown in the Bridging Documents. Bidders should anticipate review of final construction access plans with IDNR Field Staff.

Q. The AutoCAD files the CBD provided are still missing a large number of reference files. These missing reference files make it more complex to complete the drawing package. Please provide all reference files of the Bridging Documents design drawing package.

A. Revised CAD files with corrected reference paths have been provided for download online at: https://www2.illinois.gov/cdb/procurement/Pages/Design-BuildProjects.aspx

Q. The legend in the contract plans detail the symbol for a Navigation Aid. However, this symbol is not used on any of the structures to indicate the placement of a Navigation Aid. Please verify that Navigation Aids are not required.

A. Based on conversations with Jeromy Sherill of the US Coast Guard (USCG) in February of 2021, no navigation aides would be required by the USCG on the breakwater structures. The USCG has requested notification around the time of construction so that Navigation Charts can be updated by the USCG

Q. The BOD 4.5.3 Steel suggests that the damaged sheetpile at the outfall discharge as described in 3.6.4 and the sheetpile wall wrapping around the conference center grounds needs to be repaired. Please provide describe the scope of work at required at each area.

A. The outfall discharge described in 3.6.4 needs to be maintained and protected to preserve the storm water discharge. The Design Build team shall provide the final design and construction repair of the sheet pile to maintain the functionality of the outfall with the proposed beach nourishment. The DB team is to determine the necessary repairs or the replacement of this sheet pile with a similar or other final design solution as they deem necessary for final design. Additionally, The DB team needs to consider the sheet pile that wraps around the Conference Center in Area 3 as a part of final design. The DB team shall determine if the sheet pile is necessary during extreme events and whether modification can be made to the sheet pile to avoid a trip hazard or if it can remain in place. The DB team shall consider the use for this area as mentioned in the BOD 4.7.2, "Area 3 is a recreational swimming beach and as such, some grooming and maintenance will be required to maintain a clean and enjoyable recreational space. However, the intent is to avoid requiring major re-nourishment within the established service life. Regrading following a large storm event at higher water levels which results in shoreline flooding should be expected." when designing any modification needed to the sheet pile for final design.

Q. The BOD 5.5.2 Hazards suggests that access to the breakwaters should be discouraged. Please describe the scope of work that the contractor should include to discourage breakwater access.

A. BOD 5.5.2 indicates that high currents could be experienced at certain locations along the breakwaters which could be dangerous. It is the responsibility of the DB team to determine the locations where this could occur and provide the necessary signage to discourage access to the breakwaters.

Q. Access road/Staging areas. a) Can the bidder use additional access routes that are currently roads on the property but not listed on the drawings for use? b) The haul road shown on the drawings in area 1 may require removal of trees, is this allowable?

A. a) Only roads shown on the construction access drawings are considered acceptable for use by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources for the purposes of bidding. Alternate routes would require amended IDNR Comprehensive Environmental Review (CERP) be obtained. b) Tree removal along access routes is not considered acceptable by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, tree trimming and other improvements to the roads will require approval from Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Q. There is a creek in area 1, are we to fill with sand as depicted in the bridging drawings and block off the creek? If not, should the design consider the creek outlet? There is no mention of this in the Bridging documents.

A. Bidders should accommodate an outlet discharge path for Dead Dog Creek in Area 1 in their final designs to allow the creek to discharge from its current elevation.

Q. If existing abandoned utilities/structures do not obstruct construction, do they have to be removed?

A. Existing utilities within the construction area that do not obstruct construction should be buried in place with a minimum of 2 feet of cover. Existing utilities /structures which will not be buried by the minimum coverage shall be removed.

Q. The bridging documents mention re-use of existing eco-blocks in the new breakwall construction. In the past we have seen the use of old concrete restricted in breakwall construction in permit conditions. Is the CDB confident that this will be permitted?

A. Re-use of eco-block is permittable as long as the re-use is done in a manner that fits the material requirements outlined in the Basis of Design and Specifications

Q. Are all of the exposed utilities along the shoreline from past development inactive and shut off?

A. Based on available information from the Illinois DNR and surveys the existing exposed utilities along the shoreline are inactive and shutoff. Per Specification Section 024119 Selective Structure Demolition 3.1.A "Verify that utilities have been disconnected and capped before starting selective demolition operations."

Q. Specifications mention a storm sewer and manholes that need to be connected/replaced. Where is this shown on the plans? Or located on the Property?

A. This question has already been addressed. Please see response above.

Q. Please provide any additional sediment budget information that is available. Ideally detailed incoming and outgoing sediment at critical points along the project reach, such as points defining Area 1, 2 & 3. This information will allow us to better evaluate the leakiness or loss rate from each of the three Areas. We also request a sediment budget explanation related to downdrift erosion impacts. For example, if Area 1 is indeed a closed (non-leaky cell), where is erosion made up along the shore (i.e. to make up the net 100k cy/y somewhere in the park area).

A. The information used in development of the bridging documents regarding sediment budget and down drift erosional impacts is provided in the Littoral Drift Study and other reference documents provided. This information has been provided to the USACE and IDNR during permitting to discuss the assessment and evaluation of the project's minimization of potential impacts to adjacent property owners. Bidders shall confirm that changes as a part of final design minimize potential impacts to adjacent property owners.

Q. Physical modeling (second) RFI: Any information that can be provided on the physical model to better quantify shoreline stability with respect to performance criteria or the leakiness of Area 1, 2, and 3.

A. Available information developed as a part of the Bridging documents regarding the physical modeling are available at: https://www2.illinois.gov/cdb/procurement/Pages/Design-BuildProjects.aspx

Q. RFI Responses from the CDB on August 5th indicate a forthcoming amendment addressing a pricing schedule and unit pricing structure would be coming in the "very near future". When will this amendment be posted?

A. The team is currently working to finalize a form for use by the teams and an Amendment should follow in the next few days.

Q. If permit modifications are required that take time to go through the regulatory process, will additional time to the schedule be granted?

A. Delays resulting from regulatory processes outside of the Design-Build Entity's control will be considered if additional time is needed as a direct result.

Q. Due to the short time remaining until proposal submission deadline and the current unanswered RFI questions, we ask for a minimum 1 week extension to the proposal due date. It is a general guideline in proposal and bid submission practice that offerors are allowed ample time after requests for information are answered.

A. We will extend the submittal deadline 1 week until 2:00pm on Friday, October 8, 2021. This will be formalized in the upcoming Amendment.

Q. Typically, the acquisition of permits from the regulatory agency require 6 months, if there are no objection from the agencies. If the design somewhat differs from the bridging documents necessitating a resubmittal of the permit, an additional 6 months or more of permit review may be required. Please consider award or authorization to proceed for the contract in November 2021 or allow for schedule adjustment to account for the potential delays caused by the Permits.

A. The schedule provided in the Phase II submittals is for the purposes of comparing the different approaches that different teams may bring to the table. The final schedule may vary depending on the terms and scope negotiated into the contract.

Q. Is there a preferred sequence of restoring the three Areas?

A. IDNR has no specific sequence requirements, however, it makes most sense to work north to south in regards to sand nourishment efforts along the shoreline. If possible, IDNR prefers that the shoreline work in area 3 between the main beach and lodge be completed either before Memorial Day or after Labor Day to best accommodate lodge guests and park visitors. Offshore work can take place at any time.

Q. Please rank the three restoration work Areas in order of importance to the State of Illinois? Example; which area is the Most Important, Important, Least Important?

A. See answer posted above.

Q. Page 7 of the RFP indicates that Volume 1 of the Phase II proposal includes the Phase II utilization plan which only details construction small business goals. On page 12 of the RFP it indicates that Design Goals also be submitted. Are we to resubmit the Phase 1 Utilization plan with the Phase 2 proposal?

A. Page 12 does not require that you resubmit the Phase I Utilization Plan. Page 12 requires that you include discussion about your team's MBE/WBE/VBE programs (including both construction and design) in the Narrative supporting the Team's Experience.

Footer