COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF HENRICO
CECELIA H. STOWE, CPPO, C.P.M.
PURCHASING DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
CHRISTOPHER L. WINSTEAD, P.E.
DIRECTOR
RFP #15-9720-1CS – Phase II Archaeological Evaluations for
White Oak Technology Park Expansion
Questions and Answers
February 18, 2015
Q1.
What is the current schedule for development?
A1.
Offerors should propose a schedule for consideration as part of their proposal submission
Q2.
How quickly must the archaeological work be completed?
A2.
Offerors should propose a schedule based upon their experience on a project of this scope
and size. The EDA’s expectation is that the work would be completed and invoiced no later
than June 30, 2015.
Q3.
Can the County provide a copy of the 1998 Phase I Evaluation “Environmental Resources
Inventory for the Elko Tract, Henrico County” to potential bidders? The Phase I report would
allow for a more accurate development of a research design, scope-of-work, and budget.
A3.
Offerors may contact Wendy Miller at EDA 804-501-7654 to schedule a time to review.
Q4.
Is it possible to bring in a backhoe with a flat blade to assist in the delineation of the
cemeteries on Sites 44HE0387 and 44HE0692? Is there road access of any kind near these
sites? Is the power line corridor gated off? And is it too wooded for a backhoe to operate at
these sites? Or would the County assist in clearing the cemetery area in advance, perhaps
with archaeological monitoring?
A4.
No real road access except for the main roads at Portugee and Elko. The County will
perform any clearing of the cemetery area. The power line corridor is not gated off.
power substation is fenced.
Q5.
Are the sites physically marked on the ground in any way (flagging or rebar from original
surveys?) or will we have relocate all the sites as part of our SOW?
A5.
No. The sites are not marked in any way. The Successful Offeror will be responsible for this.
Q6.
What is the expected timeline for the proposed investigation?
A6.
Offerors should propose a schedule based upon their experience on a project of this
and size.
Q7.
The RFP mentions that Attachment E includes the Master Plan for the White Oak Technology
Park, but this attachment was not included in the RFP, could you provide this Attachment?
A7.
Attachment E was posted with the RFP (page 21) on eVA and the County website. For your
convenience a copy is included with this Q&A.
not
The
scope
Q8.
Sites 44HE387 and 44HE706 include historic cemeteries and site 44HE692 contains possible
grave depressions. Are the locations and boundaries of the cemeteries/possible graves
known? Should the proposal include archeological cemetery delineation or GPR investigation
of the cemeteries?
A8.
No. The locations and the boundaries are not known. The Successful Offeror will be
responsible for archeological cemetery delineations or GPR investigations.
Q9.
The Berger report mentions a WWII decoy airport and WWII era foxholes at sites 44HE692
and 44HE696. Is there a potential for unexploded ordinances on the property? Should the
proposal include costs for UXO oversight? Do you know of any other health hazards that may
be encountered during field excavations (contaminated soils, etc.)?
A9.
Yes. There is a possibility for UXO but there are not any known at this time on the sites.
There are no other known health hazards.
Q10. Will funding for this project be allotted from the Authority’s 2014-2015 budget?
A10. Funding is available for the project.
Q11. Has a specific funding been set aside for the archeological work? If so, what amount?
A11. Funding is available for the project. Offerors should propose detailed pricing for all costs
associated with the providing the services requested in the Scope of Services section of the
RFP.
Q12. Does the County need GIS spatial data?
A12. Yes
2