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: 07/26/2017 | |
| Poster: Linda Tardiff | Company: S&R Corporation |
|
Question:
Type your questions here. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/20/2017 | Date Answered: 07/26/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Tardiff | Company: S&R Corporation |
|
Question:
We would like to request the Structure Monitoring bid item C-2 be changed to an allowance. We are unable to identify structures which require monitoring and there is insufficient information in the plans to bid accurately. |
|
|
Answer:
The Structure Monitoring bid item C-2 will remain as lump sum. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/19/2017 | Date Answered: 07/26/2017 |
| Poster: Jim caroselli | Company: cdr/maguire engineering |
|
Question:
The traffic control plan contained in the RFP depicts temporary striping that extend Northbound 1000 feet south of the bridge and 650 feet north of the bride; and Southbound 450 feet south of the bridge and 450 feet north of the bridge. There is currently a RIDOT contract that is underway that will be placing friction course with in these zones. When temporary striping is utilized to set up the various temporary traffic patterns in the limits described above it will be applied to the fresh friction course. After every traffic pattern these temporary stripes will have to be ground out and replaced with the temporary pavement markings to create the new traffic patterns. Because of the friction material makeup deep gouges will need to be utilized to eradicate the stripes. Can the Department extend the paving limits in this contract on Rte. 95 so that at the completion of the Oxford Street project the final surface has a smooth surface with clean traffic delineation? |
|
|
Answer:
The Department has decided not to extend the paving limits at this time. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/19/2017 | Date Answered: 07/20/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
The existing structure has light fixtures on the abutment walls that light Oxford Street. The electrical notes on the drawings only spell out lighting work up on I-95. Are the light fixtures, conduit, boxes, wire, etc under the superstructure to be replaced? Please clarify. |
|
|
Answer:
The proposed luminaires for I-95 are shown on Sheet 7 General Plan. The contractor shall maintain and protect in place the existing under bridge lighting for Oxford Street. If the lighting system is damaged, the design build team is to propose new lighting in coordination with RIDOT. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/19/2017 | Date Answered: 07/20/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
A recent Addendum issued on the I-295 D/B Project changed the Technical Proposal DBE submission requirements to a Schedule of Participation and Letters of Intent. Will the same language and requirements be issued by addendum for this project? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, the same language and requirements will be issued as part of Addendum No. 5 for this project. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2017 | Date Answered: 07/20/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Tardiff | Company: S&R Corporation |
|
Question:
Please confirm that RIDOT intends to handle all the necessary ROW for the Oxford Rd project in-house. This would include all the title search, appraisals, offers and cost for the actual easements for each effected parcel. Are there any responsibilities of the DB team in regard to ROW? |
|
|
Answer:
As listed below in RFP Part 1, Instruction to Responders, Section 2.0 Project Description and Scope of Work, Item j, the design-build team is required to acquire all ROW services: “(j) Right-of-Way Plans and Right-of-Way (ROW) acquisition services (if required, due to the selected D/B Team’s approved design). |
|
| Date Asked: 07/14/2017 | Date Answered: 07/18/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
Please see Sheet 9, Rev. 1 of Volume 1 of 2 of the project plans. Is the dashed line shown approximately 15' East and parallel to the existing northeast wingwall the I-95 property line ? Also, on this same page there are two areas adjacent to this and in Inset A that is bounded by a line labelled "Easement Line". Please advise whether or not these areas are permanent easements owned by the state. |
|
|
Answer:
Based on the available information, the easement lines identified cannot be classified as permanent easements. The selected design-build team may do further investigation to confirm the status of these easements as needed for their construction operations. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/12/2017 | Date Answered: 07/20/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
Except for a couple of exceptions, no questions have been answered by RIDOT for more than 2 weeks, and as of 7/12 there are more than a dozen significant questions unanswered that will effect the content of the DB Proposal that will take time to produce. In addition, past answers have referenced forthcoming addenda that have not been issued as of this date. The website RIDOT uses to issue addenda has been down since at least Monday. Can RIDOT please provide the prospective DB teams a prospective timeline of when the remaining answers and addenda will be issued? |
|
|
Answer:
Remaining responses to questions/comments and final addenda are expected to be completed & issued by RIDOT by 7/24/17. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/11/2017 | Date Answered: 07/18/2017 |
| Poster: William Tyrrell | Company: Northern Construction Service, LLC |
|
Question:
Thank you for responding to our previous question regarding the test level recommending us to refer to TAC-0296 for information regarding temporary barrier on bridges. However, per the TAC, the Designer shall specify the test level for bridges and their approach. In Addendum 2, the Designer specified the TL-4 test level for the bridge and its approach. The Volume I plans depict Barrier Guard 800 MDS on the approaches which according to the manufacturer's and to the sole northeast distributor's, website is only TL-3 tested and approved. Please confirm that the bridge approach barrier need only conform to TL-3 requirements and not TL-4 as is depicted on the Conceptual Plans. Alternatively, please confirm that the D/B Team will become the designer and can choose the appropriate test level in accordance with the referenced TAC? |
|
|
Answer:
The selected D/B team will be the designer of record and is required to choose the appropriate test level for the bridge approach safety barrier in accordance with the TAC-0296. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2017 | Date Answered: 07/18/2017 |
| Poster: William Tyrrell | Company: Northern Construction Service, LLC |
|
Question:
RIDOT has issued a To All Consultants memo (TAC-0298) dated June 25, 2017 which increases the HL-93 load for spans between 0 and 175'. TAC 0298 states that it is "effective immediately." Does this memo apply to the design criteria for this project? 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:
All projects that will be issued for design/construction after the memo date of June 25, 2017 shall comply with the requirements set forth in the memo. Therefore this Project is required to comply with TAC 0298. The proposal submission deadline of July 28, 2017 will remain the same, as referenced in Addendum No. 4. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/05/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
In the Existing Bridge drawings RIDOT made available on Disk, Volume IIIA Index of Drawings for BRO-1954(063) Improvements to Interstate Route 195, indicate that pile details are located on sheet V3092 for Wall A and V3095-V3197 for Wall B. These sheets were not included on the disk. Will the Department makes these sheets available? Were the pile foundations installed to accommodate TL-5 barrier loading? |
|
|
Answer:
The requested Sheets will be made available on a CD in the next Addendum. The design data for Wall A and Wall B are shown on these plans. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/05/2017 | Date Answered: 07/18/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
Please confirm that for the purposes of this RFP submission, the D/B Team consists of the General Contractor and the Lead Designer only. |
|
|
Answer:
Please refer to RFP Part 1, Instructions to Respondents, Section 4.6 - Qualifications and Work Experience of the Key personnel in the Respondent Team. The list depicts RIDOT’s project team requirement. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/27/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
In reference to section 2.6 Deviation from the RFP Documents, and in light of the Department’s recent answers to the traffic related questions on additional lane closures beyond what is allowed in Subsection 937.05.2 and closure of the Thurbers/Allens Avenue on ramp: In regard to technical inadequacies in the 30% plans that pose a risk to the traveling public, would the Department reconsider its position that no deviation from the RFP’s lane closure schedule be allowed? In other words, there appears to be no mechanism based on the Department’s answers above to address concerns that point to constraints that elevate risk to the traveling public. By way of example: The existing ramp taper from the Thurbers/Allens Ave. on-ramp to I-95 NB is approximately 300 feet in length and is substandard to AASHTO current minimum requirements of 600 feet. During the staging proposed in the 30% plans the 300 foot taper is reduced to approximately 212 feet, 185 feet and in one stage 82 feet where stop control may be required where the on-ramp meets the mainline traffic. These reduced taper lengths will affect both capacity and safety concerns since a large volume of traffic, 1920 vehicles in the PM peak, would be expected from this on-ramp and have to merge with I-95 traffic traveling at normal operating speeds. Can ramp traffic be diverted to an optional alternate routing during peak periods where capacity analysis would indicate a capacity and possible safety problem? |
|
|
Answer:
The closure of Thurbers/Allens Ave on ramp is not a viable option for this location. The traffic control plans shown are a conceptual 30% design and may be modified utilizing strategies such as reduced speeds on the mainline and a stop control on the ramp to meet construction zone standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2017 | Date Answered: 07/18/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
Section 2.8 requires the Design-Builder to perform pavement cores and analysis to determine the existing pavement depth and makeup within the Project limits. The 30% highway plans (general plan and typical sections) provided with the RFP indicate mainly micro-milling and paving with limited areas of full depth pavement reconstruction primarily limited to the median area. Please clarify the intent of existing pavement cores and analysis. |
|
|
Answer:
The intent is to investigate, using cores the existing pavement depth and base material depth, gravel or rigid, in the areas where full depth construction is required. The material makeup should be noted and the gravel tested per the specifications. The pavement cores should be taken on I-95 in the area of full depth construction at the bridge joints and at the median barrier. The Design Builder should use this information to prepare a pavement design to submit to RIDOT Materials Section for review and approval. The Oxford Street pavement is just a mill and overlay and does not need cores. The Design Builder should prepare a pavement design to submit to RIDOT Materials Section for review and approval. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2017 | Date Answered: 07/18/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
It is unusual that a project of this scope (superstructure replacement) would require an extensive instrumentation & monitoring program for existing structures and utilities. For example, monitoring of groundwater levels and development of a weekly construction instrumentation and monitoring report appear to be excessive. Is there a specific site condition that has prompted this level of instrumentation & monitoring (i.e. existing bridge settlement issues, suspect subsurface conditions, historic buildings, vulnerable utilities, etc…)? Please advise to the specific structures and utilities that require instrumentation and monitoring. |
|
|
Answer:
The referenced RFP section states that “it is critical that the construction of this Project causes no damage nor any effects whatsoever on nearby structures”. The selected design-build team shall coordinate with RIDOT on the selection of structures to be monitored and on the required level of instrumentation and monitoring. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2017 | Date Answered: 07/20/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
2. There is significant language in the RFP regarding Geotechnical & Subsurface Investigation and Analysis (Part 2; Section 2.4.2; Items 2 & 3) which is unusual for a superstructure replacement project. Additionally, the RFP notes that a Geotechnical Design Report (Part 2; Section 2.4.2; Item 4) is required. The only significant geotechnical effort appears to be related to temporary structures. Please clarify the intent of the geotechnical and subsurface investigation programs. |
|
|
Answer:
Please see response provided for the question dated 05/05/2017 regarding the Geotechnical Engineer. The selected D/B Team will be responsible for verifying that the existing foundation is adequate for their proposed superstructure design loads and traffic barrier design loads. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
The General Bridge Notes provide foundation design data for the existing piles, but no foundation design data has been provided for the existing spread footings supporting the East Wall. Please clarify. |
|
|
Answer:
The selected D/B Team will be required to develop the Foundation Design Data for the existing spread footings supporting the East Wall as needed for the D/B Team’s design of the TL-5 barrier on the wall. The design data may be developed from the borings shown on the existing 1961 plans. See the 1961 plans, WALL NO. 3 SHEET 1 (Drawing No. 219 of 256) and on the OXFORD STREET BRIDGE LOCATION PLAN Drawing No. 167 of 256. The boring logs are provided on Drawing Nos. 183 and 231 of 256. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2017 | Date Answered: 07/27/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
Please see the chart in Section 4.1.2 on Page 16 of 37 of the Instructions for Respondents. The chart shows that the DBE and OJT written signed statements are included in the 20 page limit of the Qualifications/Technical Proposal. Typically, items like these statements would be included in the appendices. Please confirm whether or not these statements must be included in the 20 pages or put in the appendices. |
|
|
Answer:
The letter of intent and Schedule of participation along with the current RI DBE certification for ALL DBE subcontractors are what should be completed. These items would be considered appendices and not be included in the 20 page limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Matthew Weidele | Company: Steere Engineering Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum 3, sheet 4 of 25, note 5A indicates that the geotechnical axial resistance factor is 0.75. What is the basis for this resistance factor? |
|
|
Answer:
For the factored geotechnical pile resistance in compression developed by a static load test, without dynamic pile testing (dynamic pile testing was not available in the early 1960’s), a resistance factor of 0.75 is appropriate. See AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 – Resistance Factors for Driven Piles. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2017 | Date Answered: 07/14/2017 |
| Poster: Matthew Weidele | Company: Steere Engineering Inc. |
|
Question:
Sheet 174 of 256 from the 1962 plans shows locations of conventional and sonic test piles. Are these results available? |
|
|
Answer:
Results of the pile tests are not available. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2017 | Date Answered: 07/18/2017 |
| Poster: Matthew Weidele | Company: Steere Engineering Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide details for the Texas Type HT Railing (Modified T5) shown on the plans, including reinforcing details. Please confirm whether the single bar tube rail is required on the median barriers. Is the RIDOT Standard TL-5 Railing an acceptable substitution? |
|
|
Answer:
The geometry details are as provided on the plans. The reinforcing details and crash test information are provided in a document titled “Concrete Safety Shape with Metal Rail on Top to Redirect 80,000 Lb Trucks” (by. Hirsch, T.J, Fairbanks, W.L., and Buth, C.E.). This document will be provided to bidders on a cd. The single bar tube rail is not required on the median barriers. Railing substitution is not acceptable. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/14/2017 | Date Answered: 07/13/2017 |
| Poster: Carlos A Duart | Company: CDR Maguire Inc. |
|
Question:
Type your questions here. There is a conflict on Bridge Open Date on page 5 and 9 (November 5th 2018) and on page 24, (December 30, 2018) for scoring purposes. Will November 5th be used for Scoring the Project Controls Section? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, the November 5th 2018 Bridge Open Date will be used for Scoring the Project Controls Section. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2017 | Date Answered: 07/10/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
The 30% Preliminary Bridge Design Plans provided indicate reuse of the existing abutments with no indication of rehabilitation or reconstruction of the existing bridge seats. With little ability to visually inspect this surface prior to demolition of the existing superstructure, there is significant risk associated with rehabilitation of the existing bridge seat. Does RIDOT have information related to the structural condition of the existing bridge seats? |
|
|
Answer:
The selected D/B Team shall also inspect and evaluate the existing bridge seats and backwalls for repairs. For bidding purposes, a percentage of the total bridge seat and backwall areas requiring repair will be provided by addendum. The Engineer will be present during demolition of the superstructure to assess the areas and approve repairs. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/26/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
There is significant reference to seismic criteria in the RFP including reference that the bridge has been classified as ‘critical’. As noted in the RFP Section 2.4.2 and per RIDOT’s Bridge Design Manual (Article 3.6.10.1), no detailed seismic analysis is required for single span bridges except for horizontal restraint and minimum beam seat requirements. Additionally, Article 11.3.5.1 indicates that no specific seismic design considerations are needed for abutments for single span bridges. Please clarify the requirements of Article 11.3.5.2 for retaining walls supporting critical facilities. |
|
|
Answer:
The retaining walls for this project are considered to be critical. However, the seismic evaluation of the existing retaining walls have not been defined to be a part of the project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2017 | Date Answered: 07/10/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
TL-5 The RFP requires that the existing east barrier be replaced with TL-5 barrier. Additionally, it is noted that the design build team is responsible for evaluating the TL-5 barrier loading on the existing walls and making any required modifications to the structure. AASHTO LRFD provides no guidance on the evaluation and/or design of retaining walls for a vehicular collision associated with a railing/barrier impact. Select DOT’s have developed various guidance for this evaluation. This guidance varies in terms of load magnitude, factors, distribution to the footing and applicable limit states amongst other parameters. Does RIDOT have specific guidance on the distribution of vehicle collisions to this retaining structure? |
|
|
Answer:
No. The selected D/B Team shall submit a recommended design procedure that shall include (but shall not be limited to) the listed parameters for approval by the Engineer. Procedures developed by other DOT’s will be considered. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2017 | Date Answered: 07/10/2017 |
| Poster: William Tyrrell | Company: Northern Construction Service, LLC |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the BarrierGuard 800 MDS is TL-4 approved for the NHS, and provide the dynamic deflection criteria for the TL-4 requirements. |
|
|
Answer:
See RIDOT TAC-0296 for information regarding temporary barriers on bridges. The allowable deflection limit for temporary barriers on the bridge for the 30% Conceptual Design Plans shall be the lateral offset to hazard distance minus 1 foot. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/26/2017 |
| Poster: Matthew Weidele | Company: Steere Engineering Inc. |
|
Question:
Please clarify the following RIDOT goal for the project from page 5 of 37: "To design and build a quality bridge that will have a minimum 75 YEAR design life." Is the intent to design the superstructure replacement for a 75 year design life or is this intended to mean the entire structure including the existing substructure? |
|
|
Answer:
As indicated in the Technical Requirements Part 2, Section 2.4.2.1.a, it is the intent to design the superstructure replacement for a 75 year service life. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/26/2017 |
| Poster: Matthew Weidele | Company: Steere Engineering Inc. |
|
Question:
The base technical concept shows that the existing substructures are to be reused. Will RIDOT allow a design exception if it is shown that the abutments and/or their supporting cast-in-place concrete piles do not meet the capacity or detailing requirements of LRFD for all the required Strength, Service, and Extreme Limit States? |
|
|
Answer:
In general, yes. However, it would depend on the degree of severity that any element does not meet a particular aspect of the LRFD requirements. For bidding purposes, all respondents should assume that design waivers for the existing substructures will be granted. RIDOT will determine if further construction retrofit efforts are required based on the structural and geotechnical analysis of the selected D/B Team. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/26/2017 |
| Poster: Matthew Weidele | Company: Steere Engineering Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide the factored lateral pile resistances corresponding the factored axial resistances provided on the revised General Notes sheet in Addendum 3. |
|
|
Answer:
The intent of the Foundation Design Data section is to provide only the axial resistances. Lateral resistances are not intended to be included in the tables. The lateral design resistances are to be determined by the design consultant of the selected D/B Team. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/26/2017 |
| Poster: Matthew Weidele | Company: Steere Engineering Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum 3 provides the maximum factored axial design load per pile for the Strength I load combination and provides factored axial resistances for Strength and Extreme Limit states. Please provide the maximum factored axial Extreme I design load per pile to allow for comparison with the provided resistances. |
|
|
Answer:
For this singled spanned bridge, the Extreme I design load is not required for the abutment piles. For the east retaining wall foundations, the selected D/B Team is responsible for determining the factored loads at the extreme event limit state. For bidding purposes, all respondents should assume that design waivers for the existing substructures will be granted. RIDOT will determine if further construction retrofit efforts are required based on the structural and geotechnical analysis of the selected D/B Team. |
|
| 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: 06/20/2017 |
| Poster: Jim caroselli | Company: cdr/maguire engineering |
|
Question:
Are the utility poles on Oxford Street being relocated for construction purposes or for Utility company and or State needs? |
|
|
Answer:
The utility poles shown are being relocated for the needs of the construction of the 30% Conceptual Design. This may or may not be compatible with the D/B Teams proposed design and construction for the project. The D/B Team must identify which utilities are to be relocated for its design, construction means and methods, and staging. Furthermore, the D/B Team must identify its “Zone of No Utility Poles and Overhead Wires” to identify the areas where the utility companies (and RIDOT) should not relocate the utilities so that they do not interfere with the D/B Teams work. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/19/2017 |
| Poster: Jim caroselli | Company: cdr/maguire engineering |
|
Question:
In the hours of work limitations matrix it states that one lane of travel can be closed starting at 7:00 pm/ 8:00 pm Saturday night and must be reopened by Sunday morning at noon. all lanes stay closed on Sunday until 6:00 pm and then one lane again can be closed until 7:00 am Monday morning. Will the Department consider allowing the one lane closure through the entire day on Sunday as to improve productivity? |
|
|
Answer:
No lane closures outside of those described in the RFP will be allowed. Traffic volumes are still very high on Sundays and extensive queueing is expected to occur if lanes are closed outside the prescriptive hours. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/19/2017 |
| Poster: Jim caroselli | Company: cdr/maguire engineering |
|
Question:
What are the time restraints for closing the on ramp to Rt. 95 NB from Thurbers Ave./ Allens Ave. |
|
|
Answer:
The on-ramp to I-95 NB from Thurber Ave/Allens Ave is to remain open at all times. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/20/2017 |
| Poster: Jim caroselli | Company: cdr/maguire engineering |
|
Question:
This project will require multiple lane shifts and placement and removal of pavement markings. Will the Department consider extending the paving limits on Rte 95 so when completed there will be a smooth un-gauged paved approach to the bridge both north bound and south bound |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT is not planning to extend paving limits at this time. The current I-95 Bridge 653 paving limits are 50’ from each bridge abutment. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/02/2017 | Date Answered: 07/18/2017 |
| Poster: Dan Kelley | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
The technical specifications state that the proprietary waterproofing system "Eliminator" (or an approved equal) must be used to waterproof the superstructure. Will the RIDOT approved waterproofing system Dek-Shield be considered an equal? |
|
|
Answer:
The selected design-build team may submit the waterproofing product to RIDOT for review and request approval through RIDOT’s Product Evaluation link. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/02/2017 | Date Answered: 06/20/2017 |
| Poster: Dan Kelley | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
|
Question:
Project Technical Requirements, page 2 of 39, states that if a steel superstructure is used, the steel must be metalized and painted. The Structural Steel notes 13 and 16 on bridge sheet 6 of 25 indicate the steel is to be prepared and painted in accordance with RIDOT standard specification section 825 which is a 3-coat paint system. Please clarify the painting requirements for the structural steel. |
|
|
Answer:
On page 2 of 39, Part 2, Project Technical, 1.0 Design-Builder’s Scope of Work requirements: Please omit the last sentence of the first paragraph that specifies metalized and painted steel. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/02/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
Please see the Utility question asked on 5/26 and answered on 6/1; and Part 2 Section 2.14 of the RFP. The answer to the question states “The location of the relocated utility poles and overhead wires will be determined by the respective utility companies and RIDOT” and Section 2.14 states: ”the RIDOT will pay the utility directly, and will withhold an equivalent amount from the Design-Builder or from retainage to reimburse the RIDOT. If the above interpretation of the documents is correct, this cost is the responsibility of the successful DB Team, and there is no way for the DB Team to quantify or estimate the cost and duration of utility relocations determined and executed by other parties. Will the cost and time associated with this work be addressed in a contract change order or allowance item once the scope is determined? |
|
|
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: 06/01/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
Section 4.1.2 Proposal Format and Organization asks for Summary Resumes for key personnel and includes this information within the 20 page limit of the proposal. Please define a "summary resume" and how long do they need to be? |
|
|
Answer:
It would include a summary of the work experience pertaining to the role they are being considered for. It can be one or two pages. Resumes are considered supporting documents and DO NOT count towards the 20 page limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/31/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| 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: 05/30/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| 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: 05/26/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Due to the large amount of changes presented in addendum #2, the importance of the remaining open questions on this forum and the complexity of this project, we request that the submission deadline be postponed another two weeks. |
|
|
Answer:
The current Proposal Submission date of June 30 will not be extended at this time. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/26/2017 | Date Answered: 06/01/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
Please see Figure 1, in the Attachments to the Highway Plans . Are the parcels of land shown as potential temporary easement areas under RIDOT Control and available to the successful DB team at no cost to stage the work of this project? |
|
|
Answer:
These parcels are NOT areas under RIDOT control. Under Addendum No. 3 the statement, “The R.O.W will be certified prior to award of the Contract” will be deleted from RFP Part 1 Section 2.2. The parcels of land shown for temporary easements are potential areas to facilitate the ABC staging approach proposed in the 30% Conceptual Design Plans. If the Design-Build Team elects to follow RIDOT’s 30% Conceptual Design Plan then these recommended parcels may be beneficial to carry out the construction work and therefore are identified as potential temporary easements. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/26/2017 | Date Answered: 06/01/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
There are 4 existing utility poles and overhead wires on Oxford Street at approximately 10+30, 10+80, 13+00, and 13+40, Right that are identified on Sheet 10 - Drainage and Utility plan as being relocated by others. They are also within the Zone of no utility poles and overhead wires shown on Figure 3 of Appendix 2 in the Highway plans. Please confirm that these poles and wires are being relocated outside the scope of this contract and will be completed prior to the work of this contract proceeding. |
|
|
Answer:
Under addendum No. 3, the Statement, “Advance Utility Work shall apply to this project” will be deleted from RFP Part 2, Section 2.14 Utilities. The present location of the utility poles in question impact the implementation of the construction stages required for the 30% Conceptual Design plans. The relocated utility poles shall not be placed within the Zone of No Utility Poles and Overhead Wires for the 30% Conceptual Design. The location of the relocated utility poles and overhead wires will be determined by the respective utility companies and RIDOT. Based on the Design-Build team’s means and methods, it will be the responsibility of the team to identify impacted utilities and coordinate with the respective utility companies as well as with RIDOT to carry out all activities related to utility work from inception to completion as detailed in section 2.14 of RFP Part 2. The design build team may define a different Zone of No Utility Poles and Overhead Wires based on their means and methods. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/23/2017 | Date Answered: 06/05/2017 |
| Poster: Marty Pierce | Company: Steere Engineering |
|
Question:
The response to a previous question asked on 05/05/2017 indicates “A preliminary Geotechnical Letter Report (GLR) was developed for the 30% Conceptual Design. The summary of the geotechnical evaluation was included in the Attachments of PART 2 Project Technical Requirements for information only and is not part of the Contract documents. The purpose of making the GLR available to bidding Contractors is to clarify geotechnical aspects of the project and to provide a uniform basis for bidding. The selected D/B Team will be responsible for verifying that the existing foundation is adequate for their proposed superstructure design loads.” The bridge plans issued with the RFP contain no existing substructure information relating to specific dimensions, pile locations/spacing details or existing boring log information. In addition, it is noted a boring program is to be conducted following notice to proceed. As such, the D/B teams do not have sufficient information to be able to verify the existing foundations are adequate for the proposed superstructure loads prior to the submission deadline resulting in the inability of the D/B teams to be able to accurately price the work associated with the reuse of the existing substructures or the extent of the geotechnical program. It is noted in the RFP for the Design Build for the Superstructure Replacement of Four (4) Bridges in Cumberland which is bidding simultaneously it states “The subsurface information available on the 1963 Record Plans was used to develop the Geotechnical Reports provided. These reports document the existing subsurface conditions and that the geotechnical capacity is sufficient such that the existing abutments and pier foundations can be reused to support the proposed loading depicted in the BTC. The Geotechnical Reports provided identify the existing subsurface conditions at the locations of the borings taken. Any further interpretations of subsurface conditions beyond or in addition to that information are the D/B Team's sole responsibility. As part of the D/B Team's design calculations, the total dead load and live load reactions on the abutments and piers shall be determined. If the computed total reactions for the AASHTO LRFD Strength I Load Combination exceed the reactions depicted in the Geotechnical Reports by 10% or more, then the D/B Team shall perform analysis to verify the adequacy of the geotechnical capacity at the abutments and piers.” Can the Oxford Street RFP be restructured to provide these similar parameters? |
|
|
Answer:
Please note that the record plans for Bridge No. 653 were made available on the same CD that RIDOT provided for the 30% Conceptual Design CADD files. The substructure and boring log information are provided in the record plans and were used to develop the preliminary Geotechnical Letter Report. The computed maximum factored axial design load for the 30% Conceptual Design will also be provided by Addendum on General Bridge Notes Sheet of the Volume 2 Plans. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/18/2017 | Date Answered: 05/23/2017 |
| Poster: Jim caroselli | Company: cdr/maguire engineering |
|
Question:
On sheet 5 of the highway plans - Job specific legend & notes there is a Job Specific legend dedicated to lighting items of work. These call outs are not shown on the general plans. What is the intent for the lighting work associated with this contract? |
|
|
Answer:
The intent of the lighting work is to provide two light poles and luminaires. The existing condition at sta. 290+40 is a median foundation, light pole and luminaire. The existing condition at sta. 292+50 is a wall foundation, without a light pole. Clarification for lighting is provided in Addendum No. 2. The light poles have been added to the general plans within the project area. The location of a single davit light is sta. 292+50 right and the location of the double davit light is sta. 290+40. Further clarification for lighting will be provided in a future addendum, on sheet five of the Highway plans. Many of the items on the Job Specific Legend for lighting will be removed. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/18/2017 | Date Answered: 06/05/2017 |
| 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: 05/16/2017 | Date Answered: 05/18/2017 |
| Poster: Richelle McGuire | Company: HRV Conformance Verification Associates, Inc. |
|
Question:
HRV Conformance Verification is a DBE firms with experience providing QA materials inspection for RIDOT. Will RIDOT post a plan holders list? We are interested in offering our services to various design/build firms. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT is unable to provide a planholders list for all interested parties who DOWNLOAD the RFP due to it being an online bid. RIDOT will be provide a planholders list of all parties who PICK-UP the CAD file disc which will be available at the RIDOT Contracts office beginning Friday 5/19/17 at 1:30PM. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/16/2017 | Date Answered: 05/25/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Part 2 of the 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:
The 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: 05/18/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
The questions raised that require addenda for clarification have significant impact on the development of DB proposals. We respectfully request a 1 month postponement of the proposal submission deadline. |
|
|
Answer:
The Proposal Submission deadline has been postponed. The new Proposal Submission date is June 30, 2017 @ 11:30am. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2017 | Date Answered: 05/18/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
Section 5.0 Evaluation Process for Proposals lists the Selection criteria as Technical 50 %, Price 50% written in words, but Technical 70%, Price 30% written in figures. Please resolve the conflict. |
|
|
Answer:
The word "fifty" under Section 5.0 is an error. The Qualifications/Technical Proposal will have a weighing of seventy percent (70%) and thirty percent (30%) as shown in the informational table for selection criteria in Section 5.1. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2017 | Date Answered: 05/15/2017 |
| Poster: Jim caroselli | Company: cdr/maguire engineering |
|
Question:
If the bridge deck is cast on top of the new supporting steel either adjacent to the bridge or off site will this be considered a precast operation and follow the guidelines of section 809 of the blue book. |
|
|
Answer:
The described operation for either adjacent to the bridge or off site would be considered a cast-in-place operation that must principally conform to the applicable requirements of Sections 808 and 814 of the RI Standard Specifications including all applicable compilations of approved specifications. Off-site locations must be approved by RIDOT. If the bridge deck is cast on top of the supporting steel at a precast concrete plant, or if the proposed superstructure involves concrete members that require pre-tensioning, it shall be at a precast concrete plant listed on the latest RIDOT Approved Plant List that must be qualified to fabricate such members and must principally conform to the applicable requirements of Sections 809 and 814 of the RI Standard Specifications including all applicable compilations of approved specifications. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2017 | Date Answered: 05/15/2017 |
| Poster: Jim caroselli | Company: cdr/maguire engineering |
|
Question:
Materials Testing - on page 8 of the RFP - section 2.1 it states that the acceptance and independent assurance testing will be performed by RIDOT. On sheet 37 of the RFP section 2.15.2 it states that the design build team will be responsible for QC testing of all materials. Is this duplication of effort necessary or is all testing going to be performed by RIDOT |
|
|
Answer:
This duplication of effort is necessary. Quality control testing which is always performed by the Contractor is the system used by the Contractor to monitor, assess and adjust his production processes to ensure that the final product will meet the specified materials and inspection requirements. Acceptance testing is performed by the Agency (RIDOT) for the purpose of evaluating the degree of compliance with contract requirements and determine payment factors. Independent testing performed by the Agency (RIDOT) is an evaluation of all sampling and testing procedures to verify they are being performed correctly. All three testing activities have a different purpose and are all required by FHWA regulations. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2017 | Date Answered: 05/12/2017 |
| 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:
The cost associated with police for traffic control will be billed directly to the State and compensated by RIDOT. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2017 | Date Answered: 05/23/2017 |
| Poster: Jim caroselli | Company: cdr/maguire engineering |
|
Question:
The traffic control plans so traffic set ups on both north bound I-195 and south bound I-195. In the bridge plan set, demo plans - note # 5 states that NB and SB work shall not occur concurrently. Can you clarify? |
|
|
Answer:
The NB and SB work that require lane closures in both directions shall be conducted separately (in different nights) to minimize traffic flow impacts on I-95 and local roads. The NB and SB work that does not require lane closures in both directions may be conducted during the same time period. Therefore, Stages 1A and 1B and Stages 2A and 2B are revised to allow work to occur during the same time period (see Addendum #2), as there are no lane closures in either direction during these stages. Stages 3D and 3E will also be revised to allow work to occur during the same period in a future Addendum. While no detours are marked, it is anticipated that some travelers will still utilize local roads during mainline lane closures. By limiting this local traffic to a single direction, it will reduce congestion at signals resulting from opposing directional demands. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 2.11.1.2, Lane Closure Limitations, from the Technical Requirements identifies that 1 lane of I-95 north and south bound can be closed at 8:00PM and 7:00PM respectively on Saturday with additional lane closures being allowed (up to a maximum of 3) throughout various periods of the night with no lane closures being allowed past 7:00AM. Please clarify if the 8:00PM and 7:00PM single lane closure start times occur on Friday night and the opening of all lanes at 7:00AM is on Saturday morning. |
|
|
Answer:
In accordance with Article 2.11.1.2, Table 1: Lane Closure by Time of Day, Friday is considered a weekday in the analysis. Therefore 1 Lane closures may begin at 8 PM on a Friday evening for both the NB and SB directions. On Saturday morning all lanes shall be open by 11 AM in both directions. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 2.4.2, Scope of Work and Guidelines, paragraph “h” page 8 of 39 from the Technical Requirements states “Before any bridge may be opened for public use, the Design-Builder shall notify the RIDOT that the bridge is complete and ready for RIDOT inspection. As part of such inspection notice, the Design-Builder must submit As-built Plans and Specifications for the bridge to be inspected.” Is this statement intended to mean EACH stage must be inspected prior to be opened for public use? If this is applicable to each stage being opened to traffic, what is the RIDOT time frame for completing the inspection once the inspection notice has been received? |
|
|
Answer:
The following revisions to Article 2.4.2, Scope of Work and Guidelines, paragraph “j” page 9 of 39 will be provided in Addendum #2: The Design-Builder shall notify the Engineer at least 7 days in advance for any unit or portion of the work that will be installed utilizing Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) methods with the intent of immediately opening for public use. The Engineer must be present on site during the ABC installation to immediately inspect the bridge upon completion of the portion of the work and to provide partial acceptance for the portion of the work prior to opening the bridge for public use. As-Constructed plans and As-Constructed Design Builder Specifications shall be submitted within 60 days after final acceptance of the bridge by the Engineer. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 4.6.2, Technical Criteria, under DESIGN CONCEPT item number 5 states “Describe Respondents approach to managing river flow through the project area throughout construction.” Is this statement pertinent to the project? If the statement is pertinent to the project, please clarify what river flow is being alluded to. |
|
|
Answer:
Item 5 will be deleted in its entirety in Addendum #2. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 4.6.2, Technical Criteria, under DESIGN CONCEPT item number 3 states “Provide a description of the Respondents approach to integrate the new spillway walls with the stone facades and reconstructed splash pad. Describe construction staging for ABC technique and traffic management with least impact to traffic and nearby businesses.” We cannot identify any spillway walls nor stone facades from the RFP documents and BTC drawings. Please clarify where and how these features are related to the scope of work. |
|
|
Answer:
Under Section 4.6.2 Technical Criteria, the first sentence of Item 3 will be deleted in Addendum #2. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/12/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
“Relevant Work Experience”, page 21 of 37 of the RFP, states “Identify and describe all projects with a construction value of a minimum of $2 MIL or more completed by EACH company in the past TEN (10) YEARS.” The page count limitation of 20 pages is not sufficient to identify and describe this many projects. We currently would have to list close to 500 projects in addition those pertaining to our design firm teaming partner. Will RIDOT consider revising this requirement to something more reasonable such as 10 projects in excess of $10 MIL? |
|
|
Answer:
The LEAD CONTRACTOR and LEAD DESIGNER shall each identify and describe UP TO 3 PROJECTS with a construction value of a minimum of $5 MIL or more completed by the Primary D-B Team Members within the past TEN (10) YEARS. Addendum to follow. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/16/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 4.6.1, 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 organizational chart and one page functional relationship narrative apply towards the maximum 20 page count or are they considered appendices? |
|
|
Answer:
The organizational chart and one page narrative do not apply towards the maximum 20 page count. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Article 2.5, RFP Documents, of the RFP states “The BTC was developed to represent RIDOT preferences and to establish the minimum baseline requirements that must be equaled or exceeded by the DB Entity.” Is the RIDOT interested in receiving Alternative Technical Concepts? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will consider alternative technical concepts, if submitted to RIDOT for review. 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: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/18/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT provide the CAD files for the drawings provided with the RFP? |
|
|
Answer:
The CAD files will be available via disc and can be picked up through the RIDOT Contracts office starting Friday 5/19/17 at 1:30PM. . |
|
| Date Asked: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
2. Article 2.1 page 8 of 37, Project Description and Scope of Work, of the RFP states “Various superstructure types may be considered, however it appears that a steel stringer/concrete deck may be the most feasible given the number of utility supports that are anticipated”. No utilities other than under bridge lighting are currently located beneath the superstructure. What utilities is the RIDOT anticipating needing supports? Are these utility supports included in the RFP? Are the utilities to be supported included in the RFP? Does there need to be any design considerations given to stresses that will be induced on the structure by the utilities? |
|
|
Answer:
The third paragraph on page 8 of 37 of Article 2.1 Project Description and Scope of Work will be deleted in its entirety in Addendum #2. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/10/2017 | Date Answered: 06/05/2017 |
| Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
|
Question:
1. Article 2.1, Project Description and Scope of Work, of the RFP states “The Project scope for the Respondent includes, among other things: K) design support to the RIDOT Environmental Agency for the adjacent Toll Gantry Project.” Please clarify in detail the extent of design support that the Respondent will be required to provide and what liability is to be associated with the design support. |
|
|
Answer:
REVISED/UPDATED RESPONSE: The NEPA process is no longer tied to the tolling project. Clarification will follow via addendum. Previous Response: The Oxford Street Bridge 653 project is part of a larger project that RIDOT is undertaking, which includes installation of 14 toll gantries and work at other bridge locations. Bridge 653 is associated with toll gantry location #4. RIDOT is coordinating with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the toll gantry project, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The status and direction of the NEPA process for the toll gantries is currently under review. Once that is clarified, RIDOT will respond to this question in a future Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2017 | Date Answered: 05/12/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The requirement for the Construction Quality Control Manager to be both a P.E. and on site for 100% of the project seems excessive for this scope of work. Please advise if these requirements can be modified to better fit the scope of the work. |
|
|
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: 05/08/2017 | Date Answered: 05/12/2017 |
| Poster: Michael McCullough | Company: J.F. White Contracting Co. |
|
Question:
Section 2.5 of the RFP states that Respondents shall base their Proposals on the terms and conditions of the Design-Build Contract included in the latest issued Addendum. No DB Contract with terms appears to be included in the documents. How soon will a DB Contract be provided by RIDOT for review? |
|
|
Answer:
The 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: 05/05/2017 | Date Answered: 05/18/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Page 9 of Part 1 of the RFP lists a proposal submission deadline of June 16, 2017. The RFP cover sheet file 7551623.pdf shows a submission deadline of June 15, 2017. Which is the correct submission date? |
|
|
Answer:
The Proposal Submission deadline has been postponed. The new Proposal Submission date is June 30, 2017 @ 11:30am. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/05/2017 | Date Answered: 05/15/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Some of the requirements in this RFP appear to be irrelevant to this project. It appears that a previous RFP was used as a template to build this one and some information was transferred that does not belong with the job. The RFP requires a Geotechnical Engineer in the key personnel listing. The Environmental Manager responsibilities include coordination with RIDOT NRU and CRU, which does not appear to be necessary. Also, under section 4.6.2 Technical Criteria, the Design Concept paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 7 appear irrelevant. Please advise. |
|
|
Answer:
A preliminary Geotechnical Letter Report (GLR) was developed for the 30% Conceptual Design. The summary of the geotechnical evaluation was included in the Attachments of PART 2 Project Technical Requirements for information only and is not part of the Contract documents. The purpose of making the GLR available to bidding Contractors is to clarify geotechnical aspects of the project and to provide a uniform basis for bidding. The selected D/B Team will be responsible for verifying that the existing foundation is adequate for their proposed superstructure design loads. Coordination with RIDOT’s Natural Resources Unit (NRU) and Cultural Resource Unit (CRU) is a necessary part of the project and respondents will be expected to address both natural and cultural resource issues in their proposals. The Environmental Manager role is necessary for this project, which will be subject to requirements for management of stormwater, erosion control, and other pollution prevention measures. The D/B Team responsibilities will include environmental compliance monitoring and reporting to RIDOT, as well as compliance with RI Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Environmental Justice (EJ) policy and notification requirements (because the project is located within an EJ area). In addition, the Oxford Street Bridge 653 project is part of a larger project that RIDOT is undertaking, which includes installation of 14 toll gantries and work at other bridge locations. RIDOT is coordinating with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the toll gantry project, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). RIDOT expects that the Bridge 653 work will qualify for a Categorical Exclusion (CE). RIDOT is undertaking a Section 106 review for historical and cultural resource impacts as part of the NEPA process. The D/B Team will be expected to coordinate with the RIDOT CRU and NRU to ensure that, as the Bridge 653 project progresses to final design and implementation, there will not be any changes that conflict with the Section 106 assessment or CE approval. RIDOT has undertaken an environmental assessment and analysis of permit requirements for the 30% Conceptual Design (see RFP Part 2, Section 2.6). The Respondent should note that additional assessment and permitting requirements may be applicable depending on the staging areas and haul routes selected by the D/B Team. Other environmental requirements may also apply if the D/B Team changes the parameters of the project as proposed in this RFP. Such additional assessment and permitting requirements, as well associated schedule implications, would be the responsibility of the D/B Team. Respondents are referred to the RFP Part 2, Section 2.6 for additional information on environmental and cultural resources, permitting, agency coordination and other environmental management aspects of the project. Under Section 4.6.2 Technical Criteria, the first sentence of Item 3 will be deleted in Addendum #2; Item 5 will be deleted in its entirety in Addendum #2; Items 4 and 7 are required. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/02/2017 | Date Answered: 05/12/2017 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Is the Department going to include stipends for the project? |
|
|
Answer:
The Department does not intend to include stipends for this project. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/02/2017 | Date Answered: 05/04/2017 |
| Poster: sacardi@cardi.com | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
I understand that we are required to obtain any easements required in order to perform the work. How do we do that without the State's use of eminent domain? |
|
|
Answer:
According to our design consultant that we engaged to bring the project to current level of design, we do not anticipate the need for easements or takings in order to construct the project as proposed. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/02/2017 | Date Answered: 05/03/2017 |
| Poster: sacardi@cardi.com | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
The RFP cover sheet indicates that no Surety or Bonds are required. Is that correct? |
|
|
Answer:
No. They are both required. Please see Addendum #1 posted May 3, 2017 for updated requirements. |
|