Please Note: If this is the first time accessing our system on our new web site, you will be required to reset your password.
| Date Asked: 07/19/2017 | Date Answered: 07/20/2017 |
| Poster: Dan Kelley | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
Will bolt-down barrier be allowed on the bridge decks over the winter shutdown provided 3-lanes of travel and a breakdown a lane remain open in each direction? |
|
|
Answer:
As long as the requirements stated within Addendum No. 3 of having no lane or shoulder closures on I-295 are met, this is acceptable. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/19/2017 | Date Answered: 07/21/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
As a follow-up to our previous question regarding the Schedule for Participation, we would suggest that this form be modified to mimic the form used for the recent RhodeWorks Tolling RFP (Form K). |
|
|
Answer:
Noted. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/19/2017 | Date Answered: 07/19/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please confirm that on the Schedule for Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises we would only identify a percentage (in columns (a) (b) and (c)) for each DBE we list, as this form is included in the Technical Proposal, not the Price Proposal. |
|
|
Answer:
Confirmed. Only the percentage for each DBE should be listed on the Schedule of Participation Form. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/19/2017 | Date Answered: 07/19/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
For the form that was issued in Addendum for titled "DBE Letter of Intent to Perform", who is considered the Proposer? It does not appear to be the contractor, since the third line shows that the form is directed to the Contractor. |
|
|
Answer:
The Proposer is the firm submitting the proposal to the State. The Contractor is the Design / Build team member that will subcontract with the DBE firm. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2017 | Date Answered: 07/20/2017 |
| Poster: Susan Cullen | Company: J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc. |
|
Question:
On Page 12 of the Instructions for Respondents, it states “Tabs shall separate sections with the sections corresponding to the order set forth below.” Then listed below are three levels of bullet points. Do you want separate tabs for all of the solid black circle bullets, i.e. Cover Page, Letter of Transmittal, RIVIP Form,…Qualifications/Technical Proposal, Required Forms? And should we also separate additional information in the Appendices with tabs (ex. Résumés, Technical Plans, etc.)? |
|
|
Answer:
One tab for each of the solid black circle bullets is sufficient. It is your choice if you chose to separate additional information within the Appendices with tabs. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2017 | Date Answered: 07/19/2017 |
| Poster: Tracy Dusablon | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
Please provide further clarification regarding forms required for DBE companies with the proposal. Previously, subcontracts and all forms such as anti-collusion, conflicts disclosure, title VI assurance, etc were required of the DBE's. Is that no longer the case? The most recent addendum states that only the DBE Letter of Intent of Perform and the DBE letter of certification is required of a potential DBE subcontractor. |
|
|
Answer:
Proposers do not need to submit executed DBE subcontracts with Technical Proposal. Proposers only need to submit the DBE Letter of Intent Form and the DBE Schedule of Participation Form. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2017 | Date Answered: 07/20/2017 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
The “Stage Construction Sections” sheets of the BTC Plans show temporary double face precast concrete barriers that are anchored on both faces of the barrier. Is it acceptable to use double face barriers that are anchored on only one side? |
|
|
Answer:
All temporary barrier must satisfy the criteria outlined in TAC 0296 for TL-3 criteria. The requirements of Standard Specification 926 dated 5/11/2017 shall also apply. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2017 | Date Answered: 07/19/2017 |
| Poster: Christine King | Company: BETA Group, Inc. |
|
Question:
Based on the form provided in addendum 4, do we still need to "submit executed DBE subcontracts with technical proposal" as asked and answered on 6/7 and 6/8 or is the Letter of Intent to Perform sufficient? |
|
|
Answer:
Proposers do not need to submit executed DBE subcontracts with Technical Proposal. Proposers only need to submit the DBE Letter of Intent Form and the DBE Schedule of Participation Form. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2017 | Date Answered: 07/21/2017 |
| Poster: Dan Kelley | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
As a follow up to the response on 7/13 stating that utility relocation costs will be paid by RIDOT using conventional force account but that the contractor shall assume all cost and schedule risks associated with said relocations. What cost risk is the D/B contractor assuming if RIDOT is paying the cost by force account? Is the response referring to any indirect cost the contractor may incur as a result of a schedule impact only? Please clarify. |
|
|
Answer:
This refers to the following statement on page 27 of the RFP: "No additional compensation or time will be granted for any delays, inconveniences, or damage sustained by the D/B Team or its subcontractors due to interference from utilities or the operation of relocating utilities. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2017 | Date Answered: 07/21/2017 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
PLEASE CLARIFY IF THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE UTILITY POLES WITH GUY WIRES ON SCOTT ROAD AND LEIGH ROAD ARE BY OTHERS. |
|
|
Answer:
The removal and replacement of the utility poles with guy wires will be handled by the utility companies. You are responsible for coordination with the utility companies. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2017 | |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
PLEASE CLARIFY HOW THE CONTRACTOR GETS REIMBURSED FOR TRAINEE MANHOURS AS STATED ON PAGE 10 OF 32. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2017 | Date Answered: 07/20/2017 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
IS THERE A LIQUID ASPHALT ADJUSTMENTS ON THIS PROJECT? |
|
|
Answer:
There is no higher or lower adjustment for liquid asphalt on this project as it is lump sum. It is anticipated that the DB Teams will bid accordingly. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/14/2017 | Date Answered: 07/21/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Other Design Build projects require copies of the RFP to be included in an appendix. Is this required for proposals for this project? If so, there are many different file types for information that was included as bid documents, including program files, TIFF's, JPEG, Word files, CADD files. Not all of these can easily be converted to .pdfs. If RFP documents are required, please clearly direct (by file name preferably) which documents should be included. |
|
|
Answer:
It is not necessary to include a copy of the RFP, as it was not specified to do so within the RFP. If you so choose, you may include an acknowledgement form that you received the RFP, all supporting files, as well as addendums. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/13/2017 | Date Answered: 07/17/2017 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
.The “Stage Construction Sections” sheets of the BTC Plans show temporary precast concrete barriers that are anchored on both faces of the barrier. Please confirm that the barrier shown on RIDOT Bridge Standards Drawing Number 10.13, which has been used in the past for other bridge construction work along I-295, satisfies the requirements of RIDOT Standard Specifications Section 926 and the requirements of the RFP documents. |
|
|
Answer:
Please clarify the drawing number as there is no 10.13 within the RIDOT Bridge Design Standard Details. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/13/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Dan Kelley | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
Project Technical Requirements, page 27 of 35, states "the D/B specifically assumes all cost risks and risk of schedule delays associated with the utility work. Page 28 of 35, Section 2.14.2 states "utility reimbursement for this project for all work performed or contracted by the private utilities will be through RIDOT utilizing conventional force account agreements". Please confirm that RIDOT will be making direct payments to the utility companies for their relocation costs and the D/B contractor is only required to carry the cost for the specific tasks outlined in the 3rd paragraph of Section 2.14.2 in their price proposal. |
|
|
Answer:
Utility reimbursement for this project for all work performed or contracted by the private utilities will be made through RIDOT utilizing conventional force account agreements. The Design-Build Team specifically assumes all cost risks and risk of schedule delays associated with the utility work. We anticipate that the Design-Build Team will assign the appropriate value to the risk. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/13/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
The Purchasing website was down for several days. We went to RIDOT and picked up a hard copy of Addendum 3. Purchasing website is back up now and Addendum 3 is not posted. Is addendum 3 a valid Contract Document? Will it be posted to the Purchasing website? |
|
|
Answer:
Addendum #3 has been reposted to the purchasing website and is still a valid Contract Document. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/12/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Addendum #3 has been removed from the purchasing web site. Is it no longer valid? |
|
|
Answer:
Addendum #3 has been reposted to the purchasing website and is still a valid Contract Document. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2017 | Date Answered: 07/12/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Page 5 of Addendum #3 states that the full I-295 travelway must be reopened prior to the start of winter shutdown period. Is this statement referring to the full I-295 travelway as the current phase traffic configuration (which may be two lanes in each direction) with no short term closures to one lane or is it requiring the I-295 be opened to three lanes in each direction, which may mean splitting traffic between a new section of bridge and an old section of bridge? If three lanes are required to be open between the bridge phases, then what are the required lane and shoulder widths, noting that barrier would need to be included at the phase line for both bridges. |
|
|
Answer:
Please reference Page 25 Part B of Addendum 3 that states that no lane and/or shoulder closures on I-295 will be allowed during the winter shutdown period. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/28/2017 | Date Answered: 06/29/2017 |
| Poster: paul grimaldi | Company: J. F. WHITE CONTRACTING CO. |
|
Question:
RIDOT sent ---to all consultants-----TAC-0298---dated june 25, 2017------subject: Design Loads for simple and continuous span bridges at the Strength and Service Limit States---------"Effective immediately, "--------does this apply to the design criteria for the Design/Build replacement of Cumberland I-295 Corridor Bridges-----2017-DB-018 |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. TAC 0298 dated June 25, 2017 does apply to 2017-DB-018. It will be added via addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/27/2017 | Date Answered: 06/30/2017 |
| Poster: paul grimaldi | Company: J. F. WHITE CONTRACTING CO. |
|
Question:
addendum no. 2 changed the proposal submission date to july 26,2017 ( 1:30 pm )--------will any of the dates listed in Article 2.3--Project Milestone Schedule be revised also ? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. The revised schedule will be issued via addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/22/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: paul grimaldi | Company: J. F. WHITE CONTRACTING CO. |
|
Question:
reference article 4.1----the 6 forms all D-B team members, including subcontractors, must fill out and submit------- one of these is the DBE SPECIAL PROVISION form------ it is our understanding that the DBE subcontractor will not have to submit this form------ please confirm |
|
|
Answer:
Correct, The DBE DOES NOT need to submit the DBE special provisions form. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/20/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The project plans specify HP concrete for bridge decks. RIDOT requires HP bridge decks to be wet cured for 2 weeks prior to loading. Can an alternate mix or reduced wet curing of HP bridge decks be specified to support accelerated bridge construction? |
|
|
Answer:
The reason we have a 14 day wet cure spec is for the purpose of developing the concrete tensile strength properties necessary to minimize cracking from loading. However, being that these closure pours are limited in size tensile stresses do not appear to be an issue. As such RIDOT will revising the specification to 7 days wet curing. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/20/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Will the RIDOT approved hot applied prefabricated waterproofing membrane "Dek-Shield" be an allowable alternate to the specified spray applied membrane? |
|
|
Answer:
No. The spray applied as specified will be required as it provides a better "bridging" capability over the link slabs. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/14/2017 | Date Answered: 06/15/2017 |
| Poster: Christine King | Company: BETA Group, Inc. |
|
Question:
1. Please verify limit of milling and overlay on I-295. Part A Section 2.1 states repaving to the limits shown on the BTC plans: Part B Section 2.3.2 states milling and paving limits at each bridge location shall extend to where the existing pavement markings are altered for the shifting of traffic. 2. Does the Department’s Storm water Consent Decree apply to this project? If it does, what additional requirements for storm water inspection, reporting and design will be required? 3. Part B Section 2.10.2 Pavement Markings, the RFP stipulates the use of waterborne pavement markings for all temporary markings which appears to go against RIDOT’s policy for the use of epoxy resin. Waterborne markings could impact the required limits of mill and overlay. |
|
|
Answer:
1. The intent of the BTC is that the limits of paving shown on the BTC Plans coincide with the limits of pavement marking alteration. 2. Yes. Please reference the Consent Decree at http://www.dot.ri.gov/about/stormwater.php for specifics. 3. The use of temporary waterborne markings on this project is acceptable. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/14/2017 | Date Answered: 06/15/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
We would like to submit a table of contents with our proposal. Please confirm that it will not count toward the 20 page limit. |
|
|
Answer:
The table of contents will not be counted towards the 20 page limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/13/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
In light of the many questions yet to be answered, and the potential impact these answers may have on our design and proposal preparation, we respectfully request a two week postponement of the RFP due date. |
|
|
Answer:
An addendum will be posted moving the Proposal due date to 7/26 @ 1:30pm. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/12/2017 | Date Answered: 06/15/2017 |
| Poster: Christine King | Company: BETA Group, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section 4.6b, Design Concepts, requests numerous design plans be provided. If there are no changes to the BTC plans, do those plans need to be included in our response? If they need to be included, can the BTC plans be utilized as provided? |
|
|
Answer:
The D-B Team may utilize the BTC plans as provided. However, as noted in the RFP Documents, the D-B Team is responsible for reviewing and verifying the BTC design. RIDOT assumes no liability for errors, omissions or defects in the RIDOT supplied BTC design documentation. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/12/2017 | Date Answered: 06/12/2017 |
| Poster: paul grimaldi | Company: J. F. WHITE CONTRACTING CO. |
|
Question:
addendum 1 --certification cover page has the bid proposal submission time as 11:30 am--------page 5 of 32 , in part A : Instructions to bidders, has the submission time as 1:30 pm------please clarify which time the proposal is due |
|
|
Answer:
Currently the Proposal is due 6/23 @ 1:30 PM |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/15/2017 |
| Poster: Susan Cullen | Company: J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc. |
|
Question:
The BTC Plans show a proposed “Sawcut & Seal Joint” as typical at each abutment. Section 14.3.2 of the RI LRFD Bridge Design Manual limits fixed joint details to movements up to ⅜". However, the structure lengths and temperature range for steel structures result in total movements greater than ⅜" at the abutments. Please verify whether or not RIDOT will consider “Sawcut & Seal Joints” to be acceptable at each abutment. |
|
|
Answer:
The abutment/joint detail shown on the BTC Plans is considered acceptable for use on this project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/21/2017 |
| Poster: Christine King | Company: BETA Group, Inc. |
|
Question:
1. In Part B of the Request for Proposals, Section 2.6.1 indicates that the Contractor “cannot proceed with any activity classified as final design” prior to the completion of the NEPA Process. The NEPA clearance is anticipated to be in February 2018. What activities are considered Final Design? There is approximately 4 months from Notice to Proceed to NEPA approval. Are there any design activities allowed in this timeframe? |
|
|
Answer:
o The gantry NEPA process has been separated from the bridge construction project. o It is anticipated that a Categorical Exclusion (CE) will be issued for this project prior to the issuance of the Notice To Proceed. o Final design activities are allowed to begin upon the issuance of the CE. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/15/2017 |
| Poster: Christine King | Company: BETA Group, Inc. |
|
Question:
Who will be completing the PA Form 1 listed in section 2.6.4? |
|
|
Answer:
The PA Form 1 will be completed by RIDOT with information provided by the Design Build team. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/21/2017 |
| Poster: Susan Cullen | Company: J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc. |
|
Question:
Clarification of the NEPA process for this project is critical for scoping the design/permitting and for developing the project schedule. Can you please provide a status update to the NEPA question posted on 5/18 and when you might include the response in an Addendum as indicated in your response on 6/2? |
|
|
Answer:
o The gantry NEPA process has been separated from the bridge construction project. o It is anticipated that a Categorical Exclusion (CE) will be issued for this project prior to the issuance of the Notice To Proceed. o Final design activities are allowed to begin upon the issuance of the CE. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/15/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The Job Specific specification for the PBU's states that a P.E. registered in Massachusetts is required to prepare the assembly plan. Please consider revising the requirement to a P.E. registered in Rhode Island. |
|
|
Answer:
This will be changed to Rhode Island. Addendum to follow. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/12/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
An answer posted on 6/7 states that “RIDOT is required to submit executed DBE subcontracts within 5 days of bid opening”. It is not reasonable for the Contractor to issue a subcontract prior to even knowing if they are low bidder. RIDOT could still meet their obligation to submit executed DBE subcontracts within 5 days after bid price opening. The date the bid proposals are opened, it will be apparent who the best value contractor is and then that contractor can submit executed DBE subcontracts to RIDOT within the 5 day period. We request that the DBE subcontracts only be required within 5 days of bid price opening. |
|
|
Answer:
Subcontract agreements must be submitted with the Technical proposal. We will not wait till the price proposal is opened as it is well after the 5 day requirement. You should provide agreements for your initial proposed DBE team. There is a 10% DBE goal on BOTH construction and design on this project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/07/2017 | Date Answered: 06/15/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Section 4.2 under Format states "The Proposal shall use Times New Roman font with a minimum size of eleven points". Is it permissible to use a minimum size of ten point font for figures, charts, and tables? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. Ten point is acceptable for figures, charts and tables. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/07/2017 | Date Answered: 06/13/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Section 4.2 under the Organization heading the RFP lists "DBE & OJT Requirements" as part of the 20 page limit. Can we assume that the DBE requirement is the 3 page DBE Utilization Plan? These document will add at least 3+ pages to the 20 page limit. Will the DBE and OJT Requirements count toward the 20 page limit? |
|
|
Answer:
The DBE utilization form and any subcontract agreements DO NOT count towards the 20 page limit. These documents are considered supporting documents and therefore do not count towards the page limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/05/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Section 4.1 of Instruction for Respondents requires six forms to be submitted with the Technical Proposal. This section also states that all forms (Except W-9) are available for download with the RFP Documents. We cannot locate the “DBE Special Provision” form. Will RIDOT please provide? |
|
|
Answer:
Please refer to BID# 7553481. Click on REQUIRED FORMS within the proposal files. You can find the DBE special Provisions form within those forms. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/05/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Section 3.1 of Instruction for Respondents reads “DBE Goal: Respondents must provide a written statement, RIDOT’s Letter of Intent to Perform as a Subcontractor form, signed by authorized representatives of the Respondent Team, that Respondent is committed to meeting or exceeding a Total of TEN PERCENT (10%) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation goal for construction Qualifying work, and TEN (10%) Percent for consultant qualifying work with Rhode Island certified firms during design and construction of the project.” Please clarify this statement. We have the following questions a. Is the “written statement” and the “Letter of Intent to Perform as a Subcontractor form” one in the same document? b. We cannot locate any forms within the RFP that match these titles. Will RIDOT please issue the Letter of Intent to Perform as a Subcontractor form? |
|
|
Answer:
Please refer to the DBE utilization plan form. This is the form which you would use to list any intended DBE sub-contractors/sub-consultants. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/02/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Previous question was answered as "Subcontract agreements MUST be submitted with the PRICE proposal. It is part of the DBE Utilization form requirements." Follow up question: it is not reasonable to expect a fully executed subcontract BEFORE a contract is awarded. This may place unnecessary risk on either the subcontractor or contractor. Previous RIDOT design-build project only required the DBE utilization form to be filled out with subcontractor names and expected work and amounts. Request this previous answer be modified. |
|
|
Answer:
Effective January 1, 2017 RIDOT is required to submit executed DBE subcontracts within 5 days of bid openings. All subcontracts would always be contingent upon the prime being awarded the contract when being executed to prevent unnecessary risk to the prime. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/31/2017 | Date Answered: 06/01/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The RFP mandates a Professional Liability Insurance limit of $2 million. The most common and accepted PLI limit for projects of this size and engineering firms of a size likely to bid on this project is $1 million, according to industry statistics. We request that the Department please consider lowering the PLI limit to $1 million. |
|
|
Answer:
An addendum will be posted to lower the Professional Liability Insurance to 1 Million with valuable papers valued at $150,000. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/31/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Is the design deflection criteria based on 125% of the HL-93 truck, and the combination of 33% of the HL-93 truck and the design lane load, per the RIDOT LRFD Bridge Design Manual? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes it is. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/31/2017 | Date Answered: 06/05/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Please consider adjusting the minimum proposed vertical clearance for Bridge 075221 from 14’-11” to 14’-8” so that it matches the minimum proposed vertical clearance for Bridge 075201. |
|
|
Answer:
The Vertical clearances provided shall remain as stated. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/31/2017 | Date Answered: 06/05/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Do the substructure reactions used in the RFP’s geotechnical reports consider RIDOT TACs 0250 and 0251 (Design for RI Legal Loads)? |
|
|
Answer:
The substructure reactions in the Geotechnical Reports include the HL-93 design vehicle only. The existing substructures do not have to be evaluated for the RIDOT Legal Loads. However, the new superstructure shall be designed in accordance with RIDOT TACs 0250 and 0251 per RIDOT policy. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/31/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Requested clarification for the question asked on 5/30 regarding the D-B Team and forms required for the RFP. There is no specific definition for “D-B Team Participant” included in the RFP. We would consider the D-B Team Participants the Lean Constructor and any design firms that have a D-B agreement in place. Many other firms may be subcontracted, whether they be construction or design firms. These firms may not have a formal agreement in place with the lead contractor at this time. Would this other firms be required to submit the forms listed in section 4.1? We do not feel it necessary if there is no formal agreement or subcontract in place. It seems more reasonable to expect the forms from only those current members of the Team with a formal agreement in place. Please clarify. |
|
|
Answer:
Only the members of the DBE team that have formal agreements in place at the time of submission will be required to submit forms. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/30/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: paul grimaldi | Company: J. F. WHITE CONTRACTING CO. |
|
Question:
Reference Part B : Project Technical Requirements-----page 13 of 35---states that the " minimum bridge thickness shall be 8 inches... "----------RIDOT Standards require a 7.5 inch minimum bridge thickness.------will the RIDOT Standard of 7.5 inches be acceptable ? |
|
|
Answer:
No. Please utilize the 8" minimum as specified within the Base Technical Concept. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/30/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Due to the large amount of detailed information that is requested in this RFP, we request that the page limit for the Proposal be increased from 20 to 30. Previous RFP's have allowed 30 pages for similar content. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will keep the 20 page maximum in place as we feel it is adequate. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/30/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Request further clarification for the question that was asked on 5/24 pertaining to section 4.1 requirements and was subsequently answered by the Department. Are we to consider the D-B Team to include subcontractors and sub-consultants that may not have an exclusive relationship with the Lead Contractor or the Lead Designer for this project? It is more than likely that contractors are soliciting many of the same subcontractors at this time. Would it be more appropriate to consider the D-B Team firms that have an exclusive contract in place or one whose personnel are shown as part of the key personnel listing? |
|
|
Answer:
Please clarify the question? |
|
| Date Asked: 05/30/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
The current price proposal form designates four design items in separate line items: D-1 Bridge Design; D-2 Roadway/MOT Design; D-3 Drainage/Environmental Design; and D-4 Utility Coordination and Design. From our perspective, the design tasks are missing two items: Design Management/Administration, and Design Services During Construction. We request that either the price proposal form be revised to add these two tasks or please provide direction on how these design services are to be accounted for in the current form. |
|
|
Answer:
Any Design Management/Administration costs should be built into the overall design costs and spread over the Design Items as deemed appropriate by the DB Team. The costs for any construction related design services should be built into the appropriate Construction Items provided. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/30/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: paul grimaldi | Company: J. F. WHITE CONTRACTING CO. |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the signed DBE Subcontract is not required to be submitted with the Proposal |
|
|
Answer:
Subcontract agreements MUST be submitted with the PRICE proposal. It is part of the DBE Utilization form requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/26/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: Susan Cullen | Company: J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the following items shall be included as appendices and will not count towards the 20 page limit for the Qualifications/Technical Proposal: 1. Letter of Intent to Perform as a Subcontractor 2. OJT Acknowledgement/Statement of Intent 3. Work Breakdown Structure 4. Primavera P6 Preliminary Schedule |
|
|
Answer:
Any supporting documents do not count towards the 20 page limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/26/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: Susan Cullen | Company: J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc. |
|
Question:
With the preliminary design mostly complete and many of the outside services from the prime engineering services also complete, most likely performed during the preliminary design, there is limited opportunity to bring in sub-consulting services in an effort to meet the 10% DBE/MBE/WBE Goal. With that being said is there still a goal for the 10% DBE/MBE/WBE required for the final design, or has it been met during preliminary design? |
|
|
Answer:
There is a 10% design goal and a 10% construction goal. Each must be met by the CONCULSION of the contract. If preliminary design has eliminated some DBE work then an additional design work may be opportunity for DBE utilization. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/25/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Page 10 of the Technical section, paragraph “f” states “The vertical clearance under all four (4) bridges shall be increased to the minimum value indicated for each bridge shown on the BTC Plans. Additional increase in the vertical under clearance is desirable and will be a consideration in the review of Technical Proposals.” Please clarify the technical proposal scoring value for increasing proposed vertical clearances on Scott and Leigh Roads from the proposed clearances shown in the base concept drawings. |
|
|
Answer:
There is not a specific value that has been assigned to the additional increase in vertical clearance. However, it will be factored into the 20 points within the Design Concept including Approach & Understanding. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/24/2017 | Date Answered: 05/25/2017 |
| Poster: paul grimaldi | Company: J. F. WHITE CONTRACTING CO. |
|
Question:
Based on the required amount of time to prepare design/engineered drawings for certain elements of the project: such as --bridge beams, prefabricated bridge units, bridge bearings, etc.----and then provide these to qualified suppliers and subcontractors for their proposals----we request a postponement of two weeks to the Proposal Submission Date-----so that a comprehensive and competitive proposal can be provided |
|
|
Answer:
The time frame for this solicitation allowed for 8 weeks for response time. At this time RIDOT feels that 8 weeks is an appropriate time frame for Design Build teams to submit proposals if interested. The time frame will not be adjusted further. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/24/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: paul grimaldi | Company: J. F. WHITE CONTRACTING CO. |
|
Question:
Article 4.6a. , Respondents Qualifications , requires resumes for key personnel,------Do these resumes count toward the 20 page limit ? |
|
|
Answer:
Only summary resumes are to be included within the proposals. 1 paragraph per person within the proposal is adequate. Full resumes may be provided within the appendices. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/24/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 2.16.2 – Construction Management of the Project Technical Requirements Identifies quality control testing for off-site materials that will be performed by RIDOT. Is RIDOT requiring the D-B Respondent to perform quality control inspection and testing at the place of manufacture for the steel girders? If so, will RIDOT provide specific inspection and testing criteria? |
|
|
Answer:
No. RIDOT is not requiring the D-B Respondent to perform quality control inspection and testing. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/24/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 2.16.2 – Construction Management of the Project Technical Requirements Identifies quality control testing for off-site materials that will be performed by RIDOT. Does RIDOT require quality control testing at the Portland cement concrete producing plant? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes as concrete is not excluded in section 2.16.2. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/24/2017 | Date Answered: 05/24/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 4.1, Due date, Time and Location states “RIDOT also requires that the following SIX (6) Forms be completed by EACH D-B Team Participant and included in your package in line with federal regulations and departmental policy.” Please clarify what constitutes a D-B Team Participant. Does this include subcontractor relationships? |
|
|
Answer:
ALL PARTIES INCLUDED in the D-B team including subcontractors will need to fill out and submit all required forms. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/24/2017 | Date Answered: 05/30/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 4.3, Price Proposal requires the Respondent to provide the required information set forth in the RIDOT Adjustments to Asphalt, Fuel and Steel Prices. Please provide detail as to what required information RIDOT is requesting. |
|
|
Answer:
This requirement will be deleted via addendum. Please disregard. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/24/2017 | Date Answered: 05/24/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 4.6b, Technical Criteria – Schedule and Cost Control; requires that the Preliminary Proposal Schedule be developed using Primavera Project Planner (P3) Software. Is the more updated (P6) version of the software acceptable for the submission? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. Please use P6. An addendum will follow. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/24/2017 | Date Answered: 05/24/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Do the 30” deep steel plate girders shown in the BTC plans, whose dead load weights are included in the RFP’s geotechnical reports, satisfy the L/800 live load deflection criteria for the center spans? |
|
|
Answer:
The original design was based upon the L/1100 vehicular deflection criteria. Due to the waiver request, it is the responsibility of the Design Build teams to ensure that their proposed design meets the AASHTO L/800 criteria for live load deflection. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/22/2017 | Date Answered: 05/24/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The bridge typical sections in the BTC plans show a proposed minimum vertical clearance increase of up to 1’. The existing girders appear to be a W33 section and the proposed section in the BTC plans show 30” deep girders. The BTC general plans for Scott Rd and Leigh Rd show 2” cold plane and pave. The BTC highway general plans show full depth reconstruction to a point just behind the approach slabs and only cold plane and pave beyond that point. It does not seem reasonable to increase vertical clearance of the bridges up to 9” with the restrictions shown in the BTC plans. Please describe the intent of how this increased clearance is to be achieved. |
|
|
Answer:
The intent is to increase vertical clearance through a combination of reduced structure depth and slight profile increase on I-295. The existing clearances shown on the Plans are per the latest inspection reports. However, the proposed clearances provided are per the survey data. There may be slight differences between the inspection and survey data. The proposed required clearances, however, are adjusted for the following 2 bridges: 075201 – 14’-8”; 075221 – 14’-11”; The clearances for bridges 075301 & 075321 remain per the BTC plans. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/22/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Considering that there is no pedestrian traffic on the bridges, the use of the AASHTO L/800 criteria for live load deflection would result in significant weight reductions of the center span girders. The RIDOT LRFD Bridge Design Manual states that the L/1100 vehicular deflection criteria may be waived, subject to the approval of the Managing Bridge Engineer. Will the Department allow the use of L/800 for live load deflection in the girder design? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will waive the L/1100 live load deflection criteria for the less stringent vehicular only live load deflection criteria that is currently specified in the AASHTO. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/19/2017 | Date Answered: 05/24/2017 |
| Poster: Dan Kelley | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
Please reconsider the response which prohibits the contractor from the on-site casting of PBU's. RIDOT is allowing on-site casting of PBU's for the current Design/Build RFP Oxford Street Bridge No. 653 and it has been RIDOT's practice to allow it on previous projects. Granting the contractor the flexibility to cast on site will offer RIDOT the greatest potential for cost savings and schedule development on the project. |
|
|
Answer:
If it is proven that the same Quality Control measures called for in the RFP can be met in the field, it will be allowed. Addendum to follow. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/18/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 4.6a, Respondents Qualifications, of the RFP requires an organizational chart and a one page narrative describing the functional relationships among the participants listed on the organizational chart be submitted with the technical proposal. Does the one page functional relationship narrative apply towards the maximum 20 page count or is it to be included with the appendices? |
|
|
Answer:
No it does not count toward the 20 page limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/18/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
If the RIDOT is interested in receiving Alternative Technical Concepts, please provide detailed instructions on how these are to be submitted from a technical and cost perspective. |
|
|
Answer:
As this is a single step process and a relatively straight forward scope of work, it was not the intent of RIDOT to have a formal ATC process for this project. However, prospective DB Teams are free to include alterations or changes to the BTC that provide benefit (cost/schedule savings) for the project. These changes must be demonstrated to provide equal or better value than the BTC. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/18/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
The scope of work for the project includes repairs to deteriorated areas of the existing substructure to remain. It is not feasible to determine and quantify the extent of the areas needing repair nor the depth of the areas to be repaired prior to the proposal submission. On previous design build projects, the owners have provided an allowance for all bidders to carry in their proposals to eliminate this unknown condition and to level the bidder’s responses. The work can then be paid on a time and material basis or by unit pricing submitted with the proposal and charged against the allowance. Will RIDOT consider revising the RFP to eliminate this unknown?e your questions here. |
|
|
Answer:
A detailed inspection was performed and drawings were provided that indicated the expected repair areas. RIDOT feels that it is possible to put together a reasonable estimate based upon the plans and a visit to the bridges. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/18/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Can RIDOT make the relevant NEPA documents available? Is there a schedule available that includes the anticipated NEPA approval dates. More information is necessary to scope how the NEPA process will affect the cost and schedule of this project. Please provide any information that you can. |
|
|
Answer:
The NEPA process is no longer tied to the tolling project. Clarification will follow via addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/17/2017 | Date Answered: 05/25/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The RFP states that "the D/B Team specifically assumes all cost risks and risk of schedule delays associated with the utility work". We have contacted the utility companies and they are not willing to provide any sort of estimates for their design or construction, even based on the BTC plan set. Since this is the case, we request that the stipulation for the D/B Team assuming the risk of cost and schedule be removed from the RFP, as it appears that the utilities will not provide any required information to base our proposal on. The contractor does not typically assume these risks caused by third party utilities and we do not fell that is is appropriate to do so in this project, especially at this early stage. |
|
|
Answer:
The contract language will remain as is. We anticipate that the DB Team will assign the appropriate value to the risk. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/17/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: David Giardino | Company: Turino Group |
|
Question:
Is RIDOT interested in receiving Alternative Technical Concepts? |
|
|
Answer:
As this is a single step process and a relatively straight forward scope of work, it was not the intent of RIDOT to have a formal ATC process for this project. However, prospective DB Teams are free to include alterations or changes to the BTC that provide benefit (cost/schedule savings) for the project. These changes must be demonstrated to provide equal or better value than the BTC. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/16/2017 | Date Answered: 05/25/2017 |
| Poster: David Giardino | Company: Turino Group |
|
Question:
Will the department utilize a “Release for Construction” process to approve the D/B to proceed with early or advanced construction prior to approval of final design documents? This would be for work such as ordering and fabrication of materials, utility relocation, and other work that could provide a cost or time benefit to the project. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. The Department will utilize a "Release for Construction" process. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/16/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The RFP does not mention who is responsible for paying for State/local Police details. Is this the State's responsibility for this contract? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will be responsible for paying State/local Police details. This will be handled as it is on all projects. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/16/2017 | Date Answered: 05/18/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Is deck concrete on the PBU's required to be cast by an precast manufacturer, or can this be done on or near the sites by the contractor? |
|
|
Answer:
On-site precasting is not permitted per the Job Specific Specification provided with the RFP documents (See Page 3 of 7 of PBU spec under “Quality Control” heading.) The precasting must be performed at a PCI certified facility. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/16/2017 | Date Answered: 05/24/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Part B – paragraph 2.17 Field Office states that the field office will be operational throughout the duration of the project. Should this be for the duration of the construction portion of the contract or is the field office required from NTP until completion and then for a specified period after completion? If required after completion, how many months should be carried from completion until the end of the period requiring a field office? |
|
|
Answer:
Field office will be provided from 1 month prior to the estimated start of construction operations to Three months after all items on the punch list and the required documents have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Engineer. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/12/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
We would like to request that the CAD files from the BTC plans be released for D-B team's use in preparing proposals and contract plans? |
|
|
Answer:
The CAD files will be available via disc and can be picked up through the RIDOT Contracts office starting 05-17-2017. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2017 | Date Answered: 05/10/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The minimum key personnel listing in the RFP requires two full time supervisory personnel on site 100% of the time, the Construction Manager and the Construction Quality Control Manager. Additionally a Construction Superintendent is required, who would need to be on site a significant amount of time, regardless of RFP requirements. These personnel requirements seems excessive for the relatively straight forward scope of the construction portion of this project and the costs would need to be carried in the bid price. Additionally, the requirement for the Construction Quality Control Manager to be a P.E. seems excessive for this scope. Please confirm the RFPvrequirement for time on project and qualifications for these personnel. Is it acceptable for one person to fill multiple roles (i.e. Construction Manager and Construction Quality Control Manager) if this is supported by our QC plan? |
|
|
Answer:
1.The Construction Quality Control Manager does NOT need to be a P.E. (They must have a B.S. in Civil Engineering). However, the Quality Control Administrator must be a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Rhode Island. 2.The Construction QC Manager does not need to be on site full time. They would be on site on an as needed basis to perform periodic inspections and formal QC checks. 3.The DB Team may propose dual roles. However, quality control activities should not be performed by personnel that are responsible for actual design/construction production. The DB Team shall adequately staff considering that construction should be ongoing simultaneously at both locations. Addendum to follow. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2017 | Date Answered: 05/10/2017 |
| Poster: paul grimaldi | Company: J. F. WHITE CONTRACTING CO. |
|
Question:
SECTION 2.5 RFP DOCUMENTS--------when will the referenced Desugn-Build Contract be provided |
|
|
Answer:
Design-Build Contract referred to in Section 2.5 is simply stating that the final Design-Build Contract will consist of all of the RFP Documents, all reference documents, any addendums, and the selected D-B Team's Proposal which will be issued upon award. An addendum will be issued to clarify the language. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2017 | Date Answered: 05/09/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The scope of work in Part B - Project Technical Requirements lists "Replacement of the Radar Vehicle Detector system located just west of Scott Road adjacent to I-295 Southbound". Please confirm that this work is required as this RVD system was recently replaced in contract 2011-CB-011. |
|
|
Answer:
The current RVD at this location is a Wavtronix SS125 and is 6 years old. These units usually have a life expectancy of 8-10 years depending on the seasonal temperature fluctuation, weather events, road debris, etc. Since we are in the area with this project, it makes sense to update the unit. |
|