BID – 22 – 05 Addendum #2
Bid 22-05




This Addendum # 2 dated October 31, 2022, is issued to modify the above-mentioned BID, and is hereby made part of the BID documents. Please attach this Addendum #2 to the original documents in your possession and ensure same is included in your proposal. This addendum includes:

Q1:  It would be appreciated if a Site Logistics Site Plan Drawing can be issued for this project that shows how and where the Contractor is to gain access to the work areas with equipment and concrete trucks, and that shows the locations where the Contractor can set-up a Construction Trailer and provide a laydown area and a location for craft parking.

A1:  A Site Logistics Plan (Dwg No. C-501, Sheet 10 of 10) has been prepared and added to the drawing set. Access to the project area will be via a vacant lot southwest of the project area. Entrance to the lot will be from Park Avenue. Sections of the vacant lot have been allocated for use by the Contractor. The designated areas can be used to set up a Construction Trailer, provide a laydown area, used for craft parking, and for storage of removed items to be re-installed.

Q2:  Please clarify the location(s) where the Contractor is to store the existing pavers, light poles and benches that are to be removed, stored and re-installed for this project.

A2:  See response to Q1.

Q3:  Please explain why all 205 LF of the existing Railing is be removed and re-set.

A3.   To avoid cutting the existing railing, the railing will be removed in sections. The end of the first section beyond the bulkhead cap replacement work requires 205 LF of railing be removed. If our section information is inaccurate and less of the railing need to be removed the Engineer should be notified.

Q4:  Please explain why all 8,033 SF of the existing Pavers are to be removed and re-set.

A4:  The site is experiencing some settlement issues.  The entire existing pavers are recommended for removal to identify the cause(s) and to make remediation of problem(s) possible before resetting the pavers.

Q5:  It would be appreciated if the Bidders could be provided with details that show how the existing curb-wall, pavers, benches and light poles were originally installed.

A5:  There are no as-built drawings showing existing conditions. Details of the existing curb-wall, pavers, benches and light poles were obtained from design drawings prepared for Weehawken Cove Walkway, City of Hoboken and Township of Weehawken, Prepared by Birdsall Engineering, Inc., dated 02/05/2009 (the Design

Drawings). Design details showing the curb wall are provided below. Design details of the existing pavers, benches and light poles were added to the Site Plan Details (Drawing No. C-102, Sheet 5 of 10) of the drawing set.

Q6:  With regard to the removal of the existing pavers, please clarify whether or not any of the existing gravel base course (under the pavers) is to be removed and replaced. We ask this question because the drawings do not state that the existing gravel base course is to be removed; yet, Bid Item #8 is to provide 107 CY of DGA, 4” thick. Also, the drawings do not indicate where this new DGA is to be installed. Please clarify.

A6:  Based on the Design Drawings, the existing walkway sections includes a 1-inch setting bed, over a 4” concrete base over a 4” DGA base. As such, the concrete and DGA bases will remain as is. Removal and replacement of the existing DGA is no longer required.

Q7:  Please confirm our assumption that the Sand Bed in Bid Item #10 is to be installed under all new and all reset pavers.

A7:  A sand bed shall be installed under all areas of new pavers. If needed, sand may be used to supplement the existing traprock screenings setting bed below the existing concrete pavers to be reset.

Q8:  Please clarify where the Brick Border Pavers in Bid Item #11 are to be installed. Are these Border Pavers to be provided only for the new Pavers or will these Border Pavers also be used for the re-set pavers?

A8:  The locations of the 2 soldier courses of border pavers reset are shown on the Site Plan (Dwg No. C-101, Sheet 4 of 10) of the drawing set.

Q9:  Based on the proposal quantities for Bid Item #1 and Bid Item #12, it appears that not all of the existing pavers are to be re-set. Please clarify what is to be done with the leftover pavers.

A9:  All leftover site items are to be returned to the City of Hoboken. Guidance will be provided by the City.

Q10: Please clarify the thickness of the existing and proposed concrete pavers.

A10:  The Design Drawings indicate the existing pavers are concrete pavers as manufactured by EP Henry, Unilock, Hanover Architectural products or an approved equal. We presume the existing pavers are 2 3/8 inches thick. Because it may be difficult to obtain the EP Henry pavers, we are specifying pavers as manufactured by Nicolock. The Nicolock pavers are 2 3/8 inches thick. See Drawing No. C-102.

Q11:  Since the Contractor is expected to match the existing concrete pavers, please identify the manufacturer and type of concrete pavers that were originally used to construct the existing walkway.

A11: See response to Q10.

Q12:  With regard to the Bulkhead Repair Work, please confirm our interpretation that no new walers are to be furnished and installed by the Contractor.

A12:  The pile cap is to act as the wale for the new tiebacks.

Q13:  Please clarify why there is only 42 CY of existing Pile Cap to be removed when there is 45 CY of proposed Pile Cap to be constructed.

A13:  The proposed pile cap is larger than the existing pile cap and will be require more concrete.

Q14:  Please clarify the height/thickness and width of the Proposed Pile Cap because the dimensions for the Proposed Pile Cap are not shown on Drawing C-202. Based on the scaled dimensions for the proposed Pile Cap, it appears to be 2’-0” thick x 3’-0” wide. Please clarify.

A14:  The proposed cap is 2’ x 2’-11”. See Detail B on the Marine Proposal Detail (Drawing No. C-202, Sheet 7 of 10).

Q15:  Please provide the minimum 28-day compressive strength for the concrete that is to be used for the proposed Pile Cap, as well as for the concrete encasement that is to be used for the proposed Trench Drain.

A15:  The proposed pile cap is specified to have a compressive strength of 5,000 psi. See Notes on Drawing No. C-202. The proposed trench drain is specified to be encased in 4,000 PSI concrete. Sheet Detail on Drawing No. C-102.

Q16:  Please clarify whether or not the rebar for the Proposed Pile Cap is to be uncoated, epoxy coated, or hot-dipped galvanized.

A16:  Rebars are specified to be hot-dipped galvanized, and have a yield strength of fy = 60 ksi. See Notes on Drawing No. C-202.

Q17:  Please clarify the depth from the existing ground surface of the existing Walers on the North and South Walls, and provide a detail that shows how the new Concrete Cap is to encapsulate the existing Walers on the north and south walls of the bulkhead.

A17:  Because there are no as-built drawings showing existing conditions, the location of wales must be verified in the field.  The Design Drawings show the centerline of tieback to be 2’-5”, with the highest part of the wale being 2’ below grade

Q18:  Please provide an Anchor Bolt Detail that shows how the existing railing is to be secured to the new pile cap.

A18:  The condition of the existing anchor bolt must be field verified. The Design Drawings show four(4) 5/8” dia. x 8” long bolts (see design Detail below).  The use of post installed Hilti Kwik bolt wedge anchor (or other approved post installed anchor products) of the same size to replace the exist anchors of the same size. Take care to avoid rebar in cap.

Q19:  Please provide a Coating Specification for the refurbishing of the existing railing, which is to be repainted to match the existing railing.

A19:  Water-based and low VOC primers and coatings as manufactured by Tnemec Company, Inc. or an approved equal are specified for use on the project.  Paint specifications are forthcoming.

Q20:  Please clarify whether or not the entire 205 lineal feet of existing railing is to be re- coated.

A20:  Bids should reflect the entire 205 LF of existing railing being removed, recoated, and reset once the new pile cap is constructed.

Q21:  Drawing C-202 provides three proposed Bulkhead Details, but these three Bulkhead Details are not identified or cross-referenced on the Bulkhead Repair Plan, which makes it difficult to determine how and where the three Bulkhead Details are to be applied.

A21:  The Details on Drawing C-202 have been revised to clarify the proposed construction. Section A (two (2) existing wales) occurs on the north and south side of the structure. Section B (one (1) existing wale) occurs on the east and west sides of the overlook. The pile cap section gives rebar information for the proposed cap. The pile cap shall be the same on all sides of the overlook.

Q22:  Please confirm that Turnbuckles can be used to install the proposed Tie-Rods, if desired by the Contractor.

A22:  Turnbuckles are required to tension the tie-rods.

Q23:  Please specify the yield strength for the proposed Tie-Rods, and provide the type of corrosion protection system that is to be provided for the new Tie-Rods, Nuts and Washers.

A23:  Tie-rods are to be hot dipped galvanized with a yield strength of fy=75 ksi. See Notes on Drawing No. C-202.

Q24:  Size and type of tie rods. Any special coating or wrapping for corrosion resistance is required?

A24:  All tiebacks are to be #10 threaded bars ASTM A615, galvanized. GR75. See Notes on Drawing No. C-202.

Q25:  Connection details of the Tie Rod to " C" channel bracing and elevation of the tie rods. This information is critical to evaluate whether work can be performed during high tide etc.

A25:  Channel connections are existing and shall remain. See detail below from the Design Drawings.

Q26:  Is "C" change bracing "epoxy coated" or "plan steel"? A26:  Channels are existing and shall not to be modified.

Q27:  Any repairs or anti-corrosion protection needed to be performed for existing tie rods.

A27:  No repairs/corrosion protection are specified for the existing tiebacks.  If during construction, existing tiebacks are found to have significant corrosion, notify the Engineer.

Q28:  Please clarify how existing tie rods are connected to the sheeting bulkhead.

A28:  See response to Q25 for connection detail.

Q29:  We noticed several hexagonal concrete pavers and brick pavers were missing. As it is difficult to match new pavers (both color and type) does the owner have a stock of missing pavers? Additionally, the contact information of the paver supplier would be very helpful.

A29: See response to Q10.

Q30:  We could not find any restrictions on heavy equipment working near a water body. As it might be needed to use heavy equipment to remove armor stone during the demolition of timber wave screens, we would like to be aware of any constraints to be considered.

A30:  Per the design drawings prepared by Birdsall Engineering, dated 02/05/2009, the walkway and overlook are rated for a surcharge of 250 psf, any equipment with a surcharge of less than 250 psf is acceptable.

Q31:  Finally, access to the project location seems to be very restrictive. Is there an access or approach road to the bulkhead for heavy equipment and material delivery access?

A31: See response to Q1.

This addendum is posted on the City of Hoboken website to ensure compliance. The City will not

accept any further RFI/questions at this time.

There are no other changes to the BID documents as part of this addendum.

ATTEST:                            Date: October 31,2022

Jennifer Mastropietro, QPA Purchasing Agent



BID – 22 – 05


The undersigned Bidder hereby acknowledges receipt of the following Addenda:

Addendum Number        Date             Acknowledge Receipt (Initial)

Addendum # 1      October 27, 2022  

Addendum # 2      October 31, 2022  

No addenda were received:

Acknowledged for:

(Name of Bidder)

By:                         Date:       (Signature of Authorized Representative)

Name:                       Title/Position:

(Print or Type)

← Back to Jobs, RFPs and RFQs Page