Questions and Answers For:

Design/Build for the Superstructure Replacement of Baker Pines Bridge No. 593 2017-DB-023

Please Note: If this is the first time accessing our system on our new web site, you will be required to reset your password.

The ask question function is now disabled;
please call 401-222-2492 x4100 with any new questions.

Date Asked: 08/17/2017 Date Answered: 08/21/2017
Poster: Linda Tardiff Company: S&R Corporation
Question:
Addendum #4 states the Bid Bond should be included in the technical proposal but the language within the original RFP itself has not been changed to reflect this. Should the Bid Bond be included in the price proposal or technical proposal?
Answer:
Yes, the Bid Bond shall be included in the technical proposal as stated in Addendum No. 4. This is also stated in the original RFP per Part A, §3.2 which states “the separately submitted technical proposal will not be accepted or considered unless accompanied by a guaranty in the form of an original FIVE PERCENT (5%) BID BOND made payable to the State of Rhode Island”.
Date Asked: 08/17/2017 Date Answered: 08/21/2017
Poster: Linda Tardiff Company: S&R Corporation
Question:
Appendix C calls for Subconsultant proposals to be submitted for other firms performing design or construction work. Please clarify if these are for major participants, DBE’s only or ALL subs.
Answer:
Please follow the requirements within Part A, §4.5 "Letter of Transmittal". We will be removing Part A, §4.10.3 "Appendix C - Subconsultant Proposals" by addendum.
Date Asked: 08/17/2017 Date Answered: 08/22/2017
Poster: Linda Tardiff Company: S&R Corporation
Question:
A question asked/answered on 7/19/17 indicated the DBE Letter of Intent and Schedule of Participation forms should be placed in the Technical Proposal. Whereas these forms including pricing, we feel they should be placed in the sealed price proposal. Please confirm the location of the DBE forms should be in the price proposal.
Answer:
These forms shall be placed in the Technical Proposal as stated in Part A, §3.1, Addendum No. 3. You only need to write the percentage on the form. No pricing information is needed within the Technical Proposal.
Date Asked: 08/17/2017 Date Answered: 08/18/2017
Poster: Linda Tardiff Company: S&R Corporation
Question:
Please clarify the minimum value for the relevant project experience. Page 16 of the RFP indicates a $2 million dollar minimum and page 20 indicates a $5 million minimum.
Answer:
This will be addressed by addendum to indicate relevant projects with a construction value of a minimum of $5 million or more.
Date Asked: 08/10/2017 Date Answered: 08/17/2017
Poster: Corey Richard Company: AECOM
Question:
Will RIDOT please clarify Addendum #3 Section 2.4.2.1.m Adjustment, Cleaning, and Repair of Drainage Pipes and Structures? A portion of this section reads "...and reconstruct (as needed)..." while another portion reads "...assume that 40% of the drainage structures will require reconstruction." Can RIDOT please confirm that the DB Contractor will only be responsible for rebuilding up to 40% of the drainage structures and any beyond that limit would be paid for on force account?
Answer:
The DB-Team will be responsible for rebuilding up to 40% of the drainage structures. If there are more than 40% of drainage structures that need to be reconstructed, then this will be paid for on a force account basis.
Date Asked: 08/10/2017 Date Answered: 08/11/2017
Poster: Corey Richard Company: AECOM
Question:
Section 2.4.2.2 Geotechnical Investigation Plan requires "...a Design Professional with a minimum of ten (10) years of geotechnical engineering experience in the State of Rhode Island." Will RIDOT consider revising the requirement to the use of a Geotechnical Engineer registered in the State of Rhode Island and having a minimum 10 years design experience in any state, not limiting it just to Rhode Island?
Answer:
For this project, we will allow 10 years of total geotechnical engineering experience with 5 years of RI experience. Wording will be modified in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 08/10/2017 Date Answered: 08/16/2017
Poster: Corey Richard Company: AECOM
Question:
Section 2.4.2.4-Geotechnical Design Report calls for the submission of a GDR and GIR. Considering the relatively straightforward nature of this project related to geotechnical work, would RIDOT be acceptable to the submission of one Geotechnical Findings and Recommendations Report in lieu of a GDR and GIR? The "Guidelines for Geotechnical Site Investigations in Rhode Island (2005)" state that a single Geotechnical Findings and Recommendations Report is required for summarizing geotechnical information and recommendations related to the project. The Guidelines go on to state that: “Occasionally, project size, complexity or other factors might require that both a geotechnical data report and a subsequent interpretive and recommendations geotechnical report are to be submitted”.
Answer:
For this project, it is acceptable to submit one (1) Geotechnical Findings and Recommendation Report.
Date Asked: 08/10/2017 Date Answered: 08/17/2017
Poster: Corey Richard Company: AECOM
Question:
Will RIDOT consider heat-applied pre-fabricated membranes as a value engineering alternative to the cold spray applied waterproofing membrane called for in the RFP documents?
Answer:
Heat-applied pre-fabricated membranes will not be permitted.
Date Asked: 08/09/2017 Date Answered: 08/11/2017
Poster: Corey Richard Company: AECOM
Question:
Can RIDOT please clarify if the Executive Summary counts towards the 20 page limit?
Answer:
The Executive Summary DOES count towards the page limit. You may include resumes and supplemental information in the appendices section which does not count towards the page limit.
Date Asked: 08/09/2017 Date Answered: 08/17/2017
Poster: Corey Richard Company: AECOM
Question:
Will RIDOT accept alternatives to the TL-5 two-bar steel and concrete combination rail shown on the BTC plans so long as the proposed rail meets TL-5 requirements?
Answer:
The traffic rail shall be the RIDOT Standard TL-5 rail as shown on the BTC Plans.
Date Asked: 08/09/2017 Date Answered: 08/11/2017
Poster: Corey Richard Company: AECOM
Question:
As has been required in the past, will RIDOT require AISC Advance Structural Steel Erector certification for the erection of the superstructure?
Answer:
The AISC Advance Structural Steel Erector certification is required.
Date Asked: 08/09/2017 Date Answered: 08/21/2017
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
Project Technical Requirements, pages 1 and 8 of 35, state that if a steel superstructure is used, the steel must be metalized and painted. The Structural Steel notes on BTC Plan Sheet 21 of 26 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:
We are waiving the metalizing for this bridge and going with a three coat paint system. This shall still be in accordance with Standard Specification 825. Addendum No. 5 will address this.
Date Asked: 08/08/2017 Date Answered: 08/10/2017
Poster: Tracy Dusablon Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
Please clarify if the forms required (debarment, collusion, etc.) are only required at this time of the Lead Designer and Lead Contractor, as was indicated in the Q&A for previous D-B projects.
Answer:
Yes. Just the Lead Designer and Lead Contractor need to submit these required forms. We will clarify this within the next addendum.
Date Asked: 08/04/2017 Date Answered: 08/08/2017
Poster: Joseph Godino Company: John Rocchio Corporation
Question:
Is it permissible to submit lump sum breakdowns without unit prices in the technical proposal in order to provide a full scope of what is being proposed?
Answer:
Respondents are free to present their scope in any way they wish within the 20-page Proposal limit, including in this manner, provided they address the requirements listed in the RFP.
Date Asked: 08/03/2017 Date Answered: 08/23/2017
Poster: Joseph Godino Company: John Rocchio Corporation
Question:
Was there a reason the 65 mph design speed was listed as a "shall" requirement in the RFP? Is there any added value to designing the traffic control to meet the 85th percentile speed rather than the posted speed?
Answer:
The design speed shall be 65 mph. There will be no additional credit for proposing a higher design speed.
Date Asked: 08/03/2017 Date Answered: 08/23/2017
Poster: Joseph Godino Company: John Rocchio Corporation
Question:
The RFP states that "No lane closures shall be permitted on I-95 during the winter shutdown period." Does this mean that northbound shall be returned to 3 lanes during this time period?
Answer:
The northbound climbing lane may be closed during the winter shutdown period. This will be addressed in Addendum No. 5.
Date Asked: 08/03/2017 Date Answered: 08/23/2017
Poster: Joseph Godino Company: John Rocchio Corporation
Question:
The TTC plans included in the BTC do not conform to paragraph 5 of the notes for 'Figure 6H-36 - Typical Application 36; Lane Shift on a Freeway' of the MUTCD. Specifically the lane shift taper should end before the barrier taper begins. The RFP states that the DB-Team shall design the TTC Plans in accordance with RIDOT, the MUTCD, and AASHTO design standards and in accordance with the guidelines specified in this RFP and as shown on the BTC Plans. If the Department is going to require the TTC plans to conform to the requirements of the MUTCD as stated above then the limits of barrier removal and pavement overlay will likely be extended from those shown in the BTC Plans. Please clarify which standard should be used.
Answer:
The DB Team shall design and develop TTCP’s meeting all the standards outlined in the RFP. The preliminary TTCP’s have been revised and will be issued in Addendum No. 5. Temporary barrier ends are shown outside the shifting taper as per MUTCD. The limits of work have been revised accordingly.
Date Asked: 08/03/2017 Date Answered: 08/04/2017
Poster: Joseph Godino Company: John Rocchio Corporation
Question:
The Rhode Island LRFD Bridge Design Manual indicates that the vehicular deflection limiting criteria of 1/1100 of the span may be waived subject to the approval of the Managing Bridge Engineer. Whereas this bridge will not carry pedestrian traffic, will the Department consider waiving this deflection limiting criteria in favor of less stringent criteria of 1/800 of the span as noted in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications?
Answer:
Since the bridge does not carry any pedestrian traffic, the L/1100 deflection criteria is hereby waived, and the current AASHTO deflection criteria for bridges carrying vehicular traffic will be acceptable.
Date Asked: 07/28/2017 Date Answered: 07/28/2017
Poster: Samantha Via Company: SPS New England, Inc.
Question:
In Section 3.2 Insurance/Bonding, it states that the technical proposal will not be accepted or considered unless accompanied by a guaranty in the form of an original five percent bid bond. In section 4.3 Price Proposal, a Price Proposal Deposit in the amount of 5% of the Total Proposal Price in the form of a bid bond must accompany the price proposal. Do we need to obtain two original bid bonds for this project?
Answer:
Proposers are instructed to provide a bid bond payable to the State of Rhode Island, in the amount of 5% (five percent) of the total or gross sum of the bid, and must be submitted with the TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. The State reserves the right to retain the surety of all proposers until issuance of a purchase order or until cancellation of the solicitation, at which time the sureties of the unsuccessful proposers shall be returned by the State. A performance bond of one hundred (100%) percent of the full contract price with a satisfactory surety company will be required of the successful proposer. All surety companies must be listed with the Department of Treasury, Fiscal Services, Circular 570 (latest version)
Date Asked: 07/26/2017 Date Answered: 08/01/2017
Poster: Joseph Godino Company: John Rocchio Corporation
Question:
Can you clarify if conformance to the RFP traffic restrictions and Base Technical Concept preliminary design and phase plan is the most desirable approach for consideration in the Technical Proposal Evaluation? It would seem that if these are not fixed requirements in the evaluation, and if a lower cost solution exists, a Proposer may benefit from both the cost and the technical evaluations yet have a construction plan that minimally conforms to the RFP and BTC plans.
Answer:
The approach to traffic control and phasing in the BTC will not be considered inherently more desirable than other approaches that may be proposed by Respondents. Per Part A, §4.9b under DESIGN CONCEPT, Respondents “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: 07/26/2017 Date Answered: 08/03/2017
Poster: Kathy McCarthy Company: TranSystems
Question:
Pages 17 and 18 of the RFP indicate that certain key design staff (Design Manager, Structural Lead, Civil/Highway Lead, Traffic Lead) must be registered, licensed, Professional Engineers in the State of Rhode Island. Would it be acceptable to include key design staff who are licensed in an adjacent state(s) and who have a Rhode Island PE application by comity in process?
Answer:
The individuals identified in the Qualifications/Technical Proposal can be replaced following award, but any replacement, at the time they are assigned to the role, shall meet all of the qualifications of Part A §4.9a of the RFP, including the requirement that they be a Rhode Island registered PE.
Date Asked: 07/22/2017 Date Answered: 08/09/2017
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
BTC plan sheet 7 shows a suggested staging area which appears to suggest that Baker Pines Road gravel trail can be blocked to access. Is this shown correctly? Is it allowable to block the entirety of the trail?
Answer:
The end of Baker Pines Road at Route 3 may be closed during construction. It is noted that this end of Baker Pines Road lies within the State Highway ROW, but that further away from Route 3, it is under the jurisdiction of RIDEM up to its intersection with K G Ranch Road. RIDEM has stated that they have no objections to a closure at the Route 3 end. If used, the staging area shall be limited to that portion within the State Highway ROW. A requirement will be added by addendum that the DB-Team notify RIDEM in advance of any closure.
Date Asked: 07/22/2017 Date Answered: 08/01/2017
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Section 2.3.3 of Part B describes the minimum limits of work on I-95 to be 100’ each side of the bridge. The BTC plan sheet #7 shows a much longer distance for required mill and pave, which appears to be the anticipated distance using the BTC concept for bridge replacement. It also shows several hundred feet of barrier replacement and guardrail replacement. If the contractor selects a method that allows for only 100’ of work on each side of the bridge, will the other work shown on the BTC plan (such as median barrier replacement, guardrail replacement, etc.) be required? Please clarify by describing the actual minimum required work on I-95. Also please clarify if any of the other work shown is work that is desirable to the Department and if it would provide added value to the contractor’s technical score to provide this work, regardless if it’s necessary to remove it to construct the bridge.
Answer:
Should Respondents elect to propose an alternate concept for traffic control and phasing to that in the BTC, the required milling and paving work and barrier replacement will be as required by Part B, §2.3.3. The approach guardrail work will be required regardless of the proposed traffic control and phasing alternative. A future addendum will include a revision for this clarification. RIDOT will not add value to a Respondent’s technical score for additional milling and paving, barrier replacement, or other related work beyond that required by that Respondent’s proposed traffic control and phasing method.
Date Asked: 07/18/2017 Date Answered: 07/19/2017
Poster: Joseph Godino Company: John Rocchio Corporation
Question:
Several questions and answers have dealt with the subject of executed contracts with DBE subcontractors or sub-consultants being required as part of the Technical Proposal submittal. However, the RFP does not state that requirement. The last paragraph of Part A, Section 3.1 calls only for a Letter of Intent. Section II of the DBE Special Provision calls for contract submittals within 10 days of the opening of bids. Can a clarification be provided? We note that the requirement for the submittal of contracts with the Technical Proposal may result in some subcontractors or sub-consultants executing more than one contract with more than one prime contractor.
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: 08/03/2017
Poster: Joseph Godino Company: John Rocchio Corporation
Question:
Part A, Section 3.2 presents insurance requirements for the Lead Designer. In other recent design-build projects, RIDOT modified the Lead Designer insurance requirements for Professional Liability to $1 million and for Valuable Papers to $150,000. Will those revised limits apply to this contract 2017-DB-023 as well?
Answer:
Those revised limits will apply. A future addendum will clarify this.
Date Asked: 07/10/2017 Date Answered: 07/19/2017
Poster: Joseph Godino Company: John Rocchio Corporation
Question:
Is there any additional remediation required at the outfalls of the existing drainage on the North approach that are not shown on the BTC plans?
Answer:
No improvements beyond those shown on the BTC Plans are required.
Date Asked: 07/10/2017 Date Answered: 08/17/2017
Poster: Joseph Godino Company: John Rocchio Corporation
Question:
Is there any additional detail available for the existing drainage structures and pipe located within and under the south approach barrier?
Answer:
Existing plans of the drainage structures and pipe locations for the south approach barrier will be provided in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 07/09/2017 Date Answered: 07/19/2017
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Part II, page 15 of 35, Staged Construction, states that two 11’ wide travel lanes are required with 1’ minimum shoulders. The BTC plan sheet for phased construction shows Phase IIA and IIB with 11’ travel lanes and no shoulders. Which is the correct requirement for lane width and shoulders?
Answer:
Addendum #3 will address this.
Date Asked: 07/09/2017 Date Answered: 07/19/2017
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Section 2.11.1 discusses potentially allowing more extensive lane restrictions in combination with alternate ABC methods that occur over a shorter duration. It also states that RIDOT approval will be required. Section 2.4.2 paragraph 1h states that the DB-Team has the option of using ABC methods such as SPMT’s. The use of SPMT’s would require short duration closures of I-95. Will RIDOT allow short term closures of I-95 for ABC?
Answer:
Short-term closures of I-95 will be considered in the evaluation of submitted Technical Proposals. See Addendum #3 being posted this week.
Date Asked: 06/21/2017 Date Answered: 07/19/2017
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The project plans specify HP concrete for bridge decks. RIDOT requires HP bridge decks to be wet cured for 2 weeks prior to loading. Can an alternate mix or reduced wet curing of HP bridge decks be specified to support accelerated bridge construction?
Answer:
The reason we have a 14 day wet cure spec is for the purpose of developing the concrete tensile strength properties necessary to minimize cracking from loading. However, being that these closure pours are limited in size, tensile stresses do not appear to be an issue. As such RIDOT will revise the specification to 7 days wet curing in Addendum #3.
Date Asked: 06/20/2017 Date Answered: 07/19/2017
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Part B, paragraph 2.4.3b on page 16 of 35 details the procedure for concrete repair for unsound concrete uncovered during construction. Will this additional repair work be paid be paid on a time and material basis?
Answer:
Additional repairs will be paid on a Force Account basis in in accordance with Section 109.04a of the Standard Specifications. See Addendum #3 being posted this week.
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 5% DBE goal on BOTH construction and design on this project.
Date Asked: 06/05/2017 Date Answered: 06/07/2017
Poster: Daniel Bessette Company: Manafort Brothers Inc
Question:
What is the correct submission deadline? July 26th or July 28th? At the top of the RFP it states the submission deadline is July 28th.
Answer:
An addendum will be posted to change the Proposal due date to July 28, 2017.
Date Asked: 06/01/2017 Date Answered: 06/01/2017
Poster: Anthony Mesiti Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
There are no 10% plans attached to the RFP.
Answer:
Part D, which includes the plans are available on disc which can be picked up at the RIDOT contracts office room 112 , Monday thru Friday 8:30am to 4pm.