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: 07/24/2017 | Date Answered: 07/26/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Who is required to fill out and submit the RIVIP Bidder Certification Sheet? Lead Contractor and Lead Designer only, or Lead Contractor and Lead Designer and all subcontractors and subconsultants? |
|
|
Answer:
The Design / Build Team lead entity submits the RIVIP Certification Sheet. Only one RIVIP Certification Sheet is submitted. Subcontractors do not submit RIVIP Certification Sheets. |
|
| 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 only need to submit the DBE Letter of Intent Form and the DBE Schedule of Participation Form with the Technical Proposals. Other required forms will be requested from the apparent best value respondent prior to award of contract. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2017 | Date Answered: 07/25/2017 |
| Poster: Mark Soares | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Sheet 16 of the BTC drawings indicate 8 new scuppers with 6" diameter drain lines running below the bridge deck. The drawing implies that the drain lines would pitch south westerly just beyond Pier #3 in an effort to direct the drain water to the proposed BMP area. In order to accomplish this without reducing the overhead clearance at mechanics street, the drain lines would need to run through the existing diaphragms. Will coring thru the diaphragms be allowed in order to accomplish the intended drainage concept. |
|
|
Answer:
Response: Yes, coring thru the existing diaphragms will be allowed. The DB-Contractor should take precautions to minimize the amount of diaphragm reinforcement that is cut during the coring operations. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2017 | Date Answered: 07/25/2017 |
| Poster: Mark Soares | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Please provide the appropriate Base Prices for Liquid Asphalt Cement pursuant to the implementation of Subsection 938.03.1 of the RIDOT Standard Specifications. Please provide the appropriate Base Prices for Diesel Fuel pursuant to the implementation of Subsection 938.03.2 of the RIDOT Standard Specifications. |
|
|
Answer:
•Liquid Asphalt: $410.00 per ton •Diesel Fuel: $1,5657 per gallon Prices effective July 3, 2017 For updated prices, please review http://www.dot.ri.gov/business/contractorsandconsultants.php Go to Project Bidding Liquid Asphalt and Fuel Price Adjustments. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/14/2017 | Date Answered: 07/18/2017 |
| Poster: Jennifer Allen | Company: VHB, Inc. |
|
Question:
For Appendix G, would it be acceptable to submit an acknowledgement form indicating that the RFP and all Addenda have been received, in place of printing copies? Or, could one copy of the 1200+ pages be included in the original and an acknowledgement form in the five copies? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, you may submit one copy of the RFP and all addendums and then an acknowledgement in the additional five copies. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/13/2017 | Date Answered: 07/18/2017 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
The RFP states that the price proposal form shall be comprised of three (3) separate sheets. Sheet 1 - summary of Project Costs (provided in Volume 3). Sheet 2 - Schedule of values of each Lump Sum Item (to be be provided by the Repondent). Sheet 3 - Labor rates (to be provided by the by the Respondent). Please clarify which labor rates are required? |
|
|
Answer:
Prevailing wage rates and Davis- Bacon Wage determination reference materials are available online at www.purchasing.ri.gov. It is advisable to print only the pages applicable to this bid: the rates active on the Rhode Island Vendor Information Programs bid solicitation date for this project are applicable for the duration of the contract resulting from this bid. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/11/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
3. Because the proposed profile is being lowered, shouldn’t the full-depth paving begin at the point where the profile no longer matches the existing grade? Otherwise, the final paving depth would be less than the existing pavement depth in the 50-foot pavement milling and overlay area. If so, the “Typical Sections Pavement Notes callout A” would remain the same and the “Typical Sections Pavement Notes callout B” would only show the 2-inch friction course without the Class 12.5 HMA. |
|
|
Answer:
Correct, the full-depth paving should occur up to the point where the proposed profile matches the existing grade and the 50’ length of milling and overlay should continue from that point. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/11/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
2. Please verify whether the proposed pavements shown on the Highway “Miscellaneous Details Full Depth to Overlay Transition Detail” and “Typical Sections (Sheet 2 of 2) Pavement Notes callout B” are shown correctly. Both imply that the proposed pavement being raised, which conflicts with the proposed profile, which is being lowered. |
|
|
Answer:
: The intent of the “Full Depth to Overlay Transition Detail” was to show how to transition the pavement structure from full depth reconstruction to meet the existing pavement. The ‘existing ground’ lines on this detail and on the typical sections are shown incorrectly and should have been shown above the final elevation of the 2” dense friction course, indicating that the profile is being lowered. The intent is to lower the profile of I-95. The composition(s) of the proposed roadway pavements, as shown on BTC plan 8 are correct. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/10/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The BTC General Plan sheets show the "Approximate Limits of Roadway Work". The temporary striping extends beyond these limits. Are the cold plane and pave limits within the approximate limits of roadway work length only or does it extend to the limits of temporary striping? |
|
|
Answer:
As indicated, all limits shown in the BTC plans are approximate and will require confirmation by the DB Contractor based upon the DB Contractors chosen rehabilitation design. The BTC plans show one workable option for the rehabilitation of the structure however the DB Contractor has the option to modify the design as they see fit. For the BTC, the limits of full depth pavement construction and the limits of pavement milling and overlay are shown on BTC plans 11 thru 13. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Mark Greenleaf | Company: Commonwealth Engineers & Consultants, Inc. |
|
Question:
Based on our interpretation of prior seismic question responses, the D/B team will design the BTC-specified elastomeric bearings, their substructure connections, and support lengths to resist the model forces and per the current standards, and the D/B team is directed to ignore any substructure consequences that may result from the transfer of these forces through the bearing connections. Specifically, the response "Retrofit, strengthening, and seismic analysis of the substructure units is not part of the scope of work for this Project." directs the D/B team to not analyze the substructures for seismic conditions even though a multi-modal spectral model must include the substructures. Therefore, it is our understanding that the RFP-mandated Professional Engineer Seal will only apply to the superstructure and bearings, and not to the substructure units – please confirm. |
|
|
Answer:
The above question accurately summarizes the project intent with regard to seismic analysis and design. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Mark Greenleaf | Company: Commonwealth Engineers & Consultants, Inc. |
|
Question:
In a prior seismic question this was asked: “Please provide the relevant soil properties (spring constants) to support the Site Classification that the DB-Contractor is required to assume (now C), or provide clarification that a subsurface investigation is required.” The response describes the Department’s intent, and that we should use a multi-mode spectral analysis and ignore any consequences to the substructure units, all of which leaves the question unanswered. As previously stated in this Q/A, the RFP (and the responses) implies that by RIDOT solely providing the Site Classification, the DB-Contractor will be able to perform the multi-mode seismic analysis required by the RFP. Since we cannot perform a multi-mode analysis without the substructures and supporting soils being included in the model, please provide the relevant soil properties (spring constants) to support the (revised) Site Classification that the DB-Contractor is required to assume, or provide clarification that a subsurface investigation is required. |
|
|
Answer:
The Department will not be providing soil properties (spring constants) for the project. If the DB-Contractor is unable to determine the needed properties from the available existing plan data then the RFP documents allow the DB-Contractor the option to perform a subsurface investigation and analysis as they deem necessary. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2017 | Date Answered: 07/12/2017 |
| Poster: David Giardino | Company: Turino Group |
|
Question:
When binding the proposal for submission, can the Appendices be double sided? The RFP Appendix G requires that we included the RFP and All Addenda. The RFP and Addenda are over 1200 pages, this would be quite thick. Also can it be separated, a three ring binder, or does it have to be bound as one submission. |
|
|
Answer:
Two sided is fine and binders is fine. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2017 | Date Answered: 07/12/2017 |
| Poster: David Giardino | Company: Turino Group |
|
Question:
Addendum #8 states the new deadline is July 12th, is this correct? |
|
|
Answer:
Addendum 9 corrected Submission Deadline to July 21,2017. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2017 | Date Answered: 07/05/2017 |
| Poster: Tracy Dusablon | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
The job specific legend calls out for a “Material Transfer Vehicle” for the 2” depth dense friction course pavement areas type A and type B. There is no mention of the MTV for the underlying pavement courses of mod. Class 12.5 HMA for 3” depth, or variable leveling for cross section/profile changes. Is the intent to only require the MTV for the final dense friction course surface? |
|
|
Answer:
Per the compilation of approved specifications, Subsection 401.03.2(a) requires that a Material Transfer Vehicle (MTV) be used to construct all pavement layers on limited access highways. The required use of a MTV will not apply for any temporary pavement areas of I-95 used during construction staging activities. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2017 | Date Answered: 07/05/2017 |
| Poster: Tracy Dusablon | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
Regarding the FRP work, the BTC clearly indicates that the beams do not meet the required rating in shear and the beams need to be FRP strengthened to correct this deficiency. However, based on the Michael Baker reports included in the appendix, it appears the beams do not rate in moment/bending. Please confirm that the beams have to be FRP strengthened to also fix this deficiency? |
|
|
Answer:
In accordance with BTC Sheet 30, Note 4; preliminary FRP limits are shown. FRP limits are to be confirmed by the DB contractor. The DB Contractor is to analyze the existing beams for the proposed conditions and strengthen the beams as required to meet the governing design loads. These limits are to be determined by the DB Contractor and may vary from that shown in the BTC and the results may be different then the referenced rating reports. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/16/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Mark Soares | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Plan Sheet 34, showing the details for bearing replacements at piers and abutments, prescribes the existing sole plates to be "repaired, cleaned and painted". This call-out appears to be in direct conflict with the statement made in Volume 2, Section 2.4.3.d as follows: "the existing sole plates are anchored into the concrete Tee-Beams and are to be removed by cutting the anchors." Also in relation to this, the existing fixed rocker bearings at Pier# 2 have an upper radial component, which will not accept the application of an elastomeric bearing pad. Please clarify and provide the intended treatment of the existing sole plates (or upper components of the existing bearings) |
|
|
Answer:
The note on Plan sheet 34 will be revised by addendum. The treatment of the existing sole plates and upper radial plates at pier #2 shall follow the direction given in Volume 2, Section 2.4.3.d. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/14/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Tracy Dusablon | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
To provide a level playing field, could RIDOT please reconsider providing concrete repair quantities assumed for all teams to bid similarly on rather than having each team take a guess from the 2015 inspection report? |
|
|
Answer:
Response: RIDOT will not provide Quantities for concrete repairs. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/12/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The questions and answers for contract 2017-DB-018 indicate that signed DBE subcontracts must be submitted with the proposals. A follow up question has been posted to that project and states… 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. Please also clarify the requirements for DBE subcontracts for this project’s proposals. |
|
|
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: 06/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The rating report provided as part of the RFP documents does not include the rating factors for flexure, and the rating’s resulting shear forces and moments along the beams. Please provide these items. |
|
|
Answer:
The rating factors are included in the rating report .Any other information about dead load moments, shears, etc. will have to be determined by the Contractor/designer. All what DOT has on file is in the load rating report |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Tracy Dusablon | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
Also on page 24 of 39 of the RFP, reference is made to the “RIVIP Bidder Certification Form (3 pages)” and the “RIVIP Certification Cover Sheet.” Please advise if these are one in the same, and that the RIVIP should be included elsewhere and not with the other forms, as stated before the bulleted list of forms. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes they are the same form. The RIVIP Bidder Certification pages (3) Must be the first pages listed in the Technical Proposal. They must be included in all copies of the submitted proposals. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Tracy Dusablon | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
On page 24 of 39 of the RFP, section 6.3.9.1 Appendix A – Forms and Evidence it is stated that “Besides a RIVIP Bidder Certification Form…..RIDOT also requires that the following FORMS be completed be EACH D-B Team Participant… RIVIP, DEBARMENT FORM, LOBBYING FORM, CONFLICTS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, ANTI-COLLUSION CERTIFICATE.” Based on the previous answer on 5/30/17 that the RIVIP only applies to the Lead Contractor and Lead Designer, does the same hold true for these FORMS? |
|
|
Answer:
No. The forms must be submitted by all members of the proposed DBE team. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
RFP Section 2.4.2-1-d. “Seismic Loading” states “In general, seismic retrofit work is limited to bearing design, superstructure to substructure connections, providing adequate longitudinal and lateral restraint for seismic forces at bearings and correcting deficiencies in support length. The intent is to not retrofit pier columns, pier foundations, and abutment foundations for seismic forces.” Has RIDOT confirmed that an analysis will show that this intent will be realized? Will RIDOT allow a design exception if it is shown that the piers and abutments do not meet the seismic capacity requirements? |
|
|
Answer:
Response: The site classification of “D” was conservatively chosen based on Section 3.6.8 in the Rhode Island LRFD Bridge Design Manual: “When the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail, Site Class D may be used.” Based upon further review by our geotechnical engineers Site Class C may be used based on the pier spread footings being founded on rock as shown on original plans 10-12 of 18. The RFP documents will be modified by addendum. The intent of the seismic loading requirements for this project is as stated in the RFP documents; to ensure that the new bearings, new superstructure to substructure connection (thru the bearings), and bearing support lengths meet current design standards. The multi-mode spectral analysis shall be used to determine the forces for design and detailing of the previously mentioned items. Retrofit, strengthening, and seismic analysis of the substructure units is not part of the scope of work for this Project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
RFP Section 2.4.2-1-d. “Seismic Loading” states the "Site Classification shall be assumed as "D"…”, however the existing plans (3 of 18, and 10 through 12 of 18) indicate that the pier foundations are on or cut into rock. What is the basis for the assumed Site Classification? |
|
|
Answer:
Response: The site classification of “D” was conservatively chosen based on Section 3.6.8 in the Rhode Island LRFD Bridge Design Manual: “When the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail, Site Class D may be used.” Based upon further review by our geotechnical engineers Site Class C may be used based on the pier spread footings being founded on rock as shown on original plans 10-12 of 18. The RFP documents will be modified by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Please confirm which of the following criteria controls: Section 2.9.4.2-3-b. “Geotechnical Recommendations”: "Design-Builder shall use the findings and recommendations in the FGIR to develop the foundation design for the Structures." Section 2.4.2-1-d. “Seismic Loading”: "The intent is to not retrofit pier columns, pier foundations, and abutment foundations for seismic forces." |
|
|
Answer:
Response: The governing section is Section 2.4.2-1-d. “Seismic Loading”: "The intent is to not retrofit pier columns, pier foundations, and abutment foundations for seismic forces." Section 2.9.4.2-3-b will be modified by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
RFP Section 2.9.4.2 “Geotechnical Investigation” states "The DB-Contractor shall perform a geotechnical investigation for the proposed BMP location(s) to determine the suitability of the underlying soils for infiltration." The following subsections including 2. “Subsurface Investigation and Data Analysis” and 3. “Geotechnical Design Report” have requirements that appear excessive for the development of BMP related design. Subsection 3b “Geotechnical Recommendations” specifically requires the Design-Builder to "use the findings and recommendations in the FGIR to develop the foundation design for the Structures." Is the intent of this section to define the requirements of the geotechnical investigation for all aspects of the project including structural design and analysis of the bridge as well as for BMP location(s)? |
|
|
Answer:
Response: The intent of Section 2.9.4.2 “Geotechnical Investigation” is to define the requirements of the geotechnical investigation for the design and development of the Stormwater BMP’s. The section will be modified by addendum to clarify. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
RFP Section 2.4.2-1-d. “Seismic Loading” states "Site Classification shall be assumed as "D" however the DB-Contractor can perform a subsurface investigation and analysis to confirm an alternative Site Classification if desired." This statement implies that by RIDOT solely providing the Site Classification, the DB-Contractor will be able to perform the multi-mode seismic analysis required by the RFP. However, incomplete information is available in the RFP for the DB-Contractor to be able to develop the soil parameters for this Site Classification, as required by the RIDOT LRFD Bridge Manual, Section 10.2.5.5, specifically spring coefficients. Please provide the relevant soil properties to support the Site Classification that the DB-Contractor is required to assume, or provide clarification that a subsurface investigation is required. |
|
|
Answer:
Response: The intent of the seismic loading requirements for this project is as stated in the RFP documents; to ensure that the new bearings, new superstructure to substructure connection (thru the bearings), and bearing support lengths meet current design standards. The multi-mode spectral analysis shall be used to design and detailing of the previously mentioned items. Retrofit, strengthening, and seismic analysis of the substructure units is not part of the scope of work for this Project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/05/2017 | Date Answered: 06/08/2017 |
| Poster: David Giardino | Company: Turino Group |
|
Question:
Volume 1, Section 4.2: Substantial Completion is October 31, 2019; however there is no description as to what is required to be completed for Substantial Completion? Due to temperature/weather constraints, is it RIDOT's intention to have the final paving completed in the spring of 2020? |
|
|
Answer:
Substantial Completion will be on October 31, 2019 and shall be defined by Job Specific Specification 101.71 – Substantial Completion. The Job Specific Specification will be issued by Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/05/2017 | Date Answered: 06/08/2017 |
| Poster: David Giardino | Company: Turino Group |
|
Question:
3. The RFP does not identify the Liquidated Damages for the completion date(s). Will these be defined or should the Liquidated Damages table for the Standard Specifications be used? If using the Standard Specifications is the contract value the total proposal price or proposal’s construction total only? |
|
|
Answer:
Liquidated Damages shall be based on the Schedule of Liquidated Damages in Standard Specification section 108.08. The Contract Value for use in determining the daily charge shall be the Total Lump Sum bid as indicated on the “Summary of PROJECT Costs” sheet found in Volume 3 – Price Proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/05/2017 | Date Answered: 06/08/2017 |
| Poster: David Giardino | Company: Turino Group |
|
Question:
1. Volume 2: Section 2.1.2 notes the DB-Contractor is to submit 25%, 90%, and IFC (Issued for Construction) design packages. Section 2.4.4 notes the same design submissions as required for the bridge submittals; however within the same section (2.4.4) the detailed description of the design submissions, the 90% is omitted and PS&E listed. Can the required design submissions be clarified along with the respective design submission requirements? |
|
|
Answer:
The detailed description section, bullet ‘b.’ should read: “Ninety percent (90%) Submission: DB-Contractor shall submit Ninety percent (90%) plans and specifications in accordance with RIDOT Design Policy Memo (DPM) 450.02.” Bullet ‘c.’ should be modified to read “…Upon approval by RIDOT of the 90% Submission(s)…” The 25% and 90% design submission requirements can be found in RIDOT DPM 450.02. The requirements for the IFC (Issued for Construction) submission(s) shall be the same as requirements for the PS&E Submission outlined in DPM 450.02 except that the submission(s) will not need to include the ‘Proposal Estimate and Federal Estimate’ if the design is in accordance with the BTC. Acceptance of the IFC Submission(s) will be in the form of a designation of “Release for Construction”. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/02/2017 | Date Answered: 06/06/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
What is the criteria for repairing cracks? Is there a minimum width? |
|
|
Answer:
Cracks less than .01” do nothing or surface seal with MMA, cracks between .01” and less than .02” surface seal with MMA or epoxy inject depending on the orientation. Cracks greater than .02” epoxy inject all vertical and overhead cracks and gravity feed horizontal cracks with either an MMA or an epoxy. |
|
| 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 issued changing the Professional Liability insurance to 1 Million as well as valuable papers to $150,000. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/31/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Follow up to a question asked on 5/10/17 and answered by RIDOT regarding the Quality Control Manager. The response to the questions states that “The Construction Quality Control Manager does NOT need to be a PE…However the Quality Control Manager must be a licensed PE…” Please clarify this response, as the RFP key personnel listing does not have a requirement for a position titled “Construction Quality Control Manager”, only one for “Quality Control Manager”. Is the position listed in the RFP titled the Quality Control Manager a QC for the Design, for Construction, or for both? If it’s for construction, is a P.E. still required? As the people filling these key positions need to be identified in our proposals, we need to be clear of the role of this position. Should the RFP be revised to clarify another position that may have been left out of this listing? |
|
|
Answer:
The quality control manager mentioned in the RFP is for the Construction phase of the project. For this project the Quality Control Manager does NOT need to be a PE. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/31/2017 | Date Answered: 06/06/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Has RIDOT confirmed that the 5” concrete deck topping, combined with a reasonable amount of DB Team designed reinforcing, will satisfactorily address the bending moment rating issues and the RFP specified deflection criteria of L/1100 for the bridge? |
|
|
Answer:
It is the responsibility of the DB-Contractor to come up with a fully designed and detailed solution to the issues presented in the RFP documents. A number of elements are incorporated into the BTC design, all of which work together to form a “basic workable solution” to the issues. It should be noted that the BTC has only been taken to a modified 10% level of design and changes/modifications to any or all of the elements of the BTC may be required during the final design process. As for the L/1100 deflection criteria, this will be removed by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/31/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The rating report provided as part of the RFP documents includes only the critical rating factor summaries for the beams. Please provide the dead load forces, live load forces and rating factors for shear and flexure for the beams. |
|
|
Answer:
The dead load calculations are included within the Appendix of the Report. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/31/2017 | Date Answered: 06/01/2017 |
| Poster: Jim caroselli | Company: cdr/maguire engineering |
|
Question:
Police for traffic control - Will the cost associated with the officers be billed directly to the State and compensated by the Department? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, Police Billing will be handled By RIDOT Resident Engineer and compensated by the department. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/30/2017 | Date Answered: 06/01/2017 |
| Poster: Jennifer Allen | Company: VHB, Inc. |
|
Question:
Page 24 of the RFP indicates that the RIVIP cover sheet is required from each D-B Team member. Could you please clarify if the RIVIP form is required from all team members or would it be acceptable from the Lead Contractor and Lead Designer? |
|
|
Answer:
The RIVIP cover page is required from the Lead Contractor and designer only. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/30/2017 | Date Answered: 06/01/2017 |
| 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: 05/27/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Addendum #3 provided a new plan sheet #34. The plan sheet provided shows a change "see note 7". The provided plan sheet appears cut off and there is no visible note 7 on this sheet or the original plan sheet. Please provide the full plan sheet showing the added note. |
|
|
Answer:
Plan sheet will be uploaded again. |
|
| 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: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Addendum #2 states "The D-B Contractor shall maintain the natural flow characteristics of the Wood River...Temporary river crossings will not be allowed." Is the second sentence referring to river crossing which impede the natural flow of the river? Are river crossings that do not change the natural flow of the river allowed? |
|
|
Answer:
The NEPA process is no longer tied to the tolling project, so as stated in the RFI “The DB-Contractor shall be responsible for all river and/or wetland mitigation required to fulfill the permitting requirements” |
|
| 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:
Since 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: 06/01/2017 |
| 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: 05/23/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Volume 2 Project Technical Requirements, Paragraph 2.16 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 final Project acceptance? |
|
|
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: 05/15/2017 | Date Answered: 05/23/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Correcting previous question. It should read - Paragraph m on page 14 of 55 of Volume 2, Project Technical Requirements, states that the DB contractor is responsible for adjustment of all drainage structures within the limits of work. If during the construction it is discovered that these structures require reconstruction of walls or corbels due to deterioration, will this be considered as extra work outside the scope of the D-B contract and paid for as an addition to the contract lump sum bid price. |
|
|
Answer:
For the purpose of developing the lump sum price for Item No C-5: Roadway & Drainage Work. The DB-Contractor shall assume forty percent (40%) of the existing catch basins will need reconstruction or replacement. Addendum will be issued |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2017 | Date Answered: 05/23/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Paragraph m on page 14 of 55 of the ### states that the DB contractor is responsible for adjustment of all drainage structures within the limits of work. If during the construction it is discovered that these structures require reconstruction of walls or corbels due to deterioration, will this be considered as extra work outside the scope of the D-B contract and paid for as an addition to the contract lump sum bid price. |
|
|
Answer:
See next question. Addendum will be issued |
|
| Date Asked: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/16/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
We would like to request that the CAD files for the BTC plans be released for D-B teams use in preparing the 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: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/16/2017 |
| 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 Quality Control Manager. These personnel requirements seems excessive for the 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 Quality Control Manager to be a P.E. seems excessive for this scope. Please confirm the RFP requirement for time on project and qualifications for these personnel. |
|
|
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 Manager 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. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Section 6.3.6 Section 4 - Approach and Understanding requires that respondents provide assumed quantities for concrete repairs for each element. As these assumed quantities will be not much more than guesses at this point in the design phase (especially for the deck repair), the lump sum prices supplied in the proposals are likely to be significantly inflated. This is especially true for the deck repairs, as the asphalt surface would need to be stripped in order to determine the magnitude of the repairs needed. Would it be possible to assign a bid quantity to these items for the purpose of the proposals and apply the corresponding unit price to quantity in excess of the bid quantity? |
|
|
Answer:
The Estimated/Assumed quantities for concrete repairs should be based on the latest biennial inspection report which can be found in Volume 4, Appendix A, Section 2. The bidder is fully responsible for any increase in concrete repair quantities that may be required for the substructure due to ongoing deterioration of the structure since the date of the Biennial and should account for this potential increase in the price bid for Item C.7 Substructure Rehabilitation. Similarly, The bidder is fully responsible for any increase in concrete repair quantities that may be required for the superstructure due to ongoing deterioration of the structure since the date of the Biennial and should account for this potential increase in the price bid for Item C.8 Superstructure Rehabilitation. However, for the potential top of deck repair quantities, the bidder should refer to Volume 2 Project Technical Requirements; Section 2.4.2 Scope of Work and Guidelines; Paragraph 4 which reads in part: “…For the top of existing reinforced concrete deck, where no inspection information is available, the DB-Contractor shall assume two percent (2%) of the deck area will require repair… |
|
| Date Asked: 05/01/2017 | Date Answered: 05/03/2017 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Is there a pre-bid meeting for this project? |
|
|
Answer:
No, there is not. |
|