define('RSS_READER_CACHE_ON', false); define('RSS_READER_CACHE_DIR', '/tmp/rsscache'); define('RSS_READER_CACHE_AGE', '3600'); define('CURL_PATH', '/usr/local/bin/curl'); ?>
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: 02/12/2018 | Date Answered: 02/12/2018 |
Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
Question:
WHAT IS THE PRICE ADJUSTMENT (938.1000) FOR LIQUID ASPHALT CEMENT FOR THIS PROJECT? |
|
Answer:
The base price of Liquid Asphalt Cement as required to implement Subsection 938.03.1 of the Standard Specifications is $427.50 per ton (as of 2/1/2018). A specification for Price Adjustments will be added by Addendum. |
Date Asked: 02/08/2018 | Date Answered: 02/12/2018 |
Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
Question:
The technical proposal evaluation is 70% technical and 30% cost proposal. Please clarify that this is correct since all other design builds were 60% technical and 40% cost proposal. |
|
Answer:
For this project, the 70% technical and 30% cost proposal is correct. We note that while most other design build RFP's had an evaluation breakdown of 60% technical and 40% cost proposal, NOT ALL had that breakdown as stated in the question. |
Date Asked: 02/07/2018 | Date Answered: 02/12/2018 |
Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
Question:
Article 4.3, Price Proposal, of Part A - Instructions to Bidders requires the respondent to provide the required information set forth in the RIDOT Adjustments to Asphalt, Fuel and Steel prices. Please provide detail as to what required information RIDOT is requesting. |
|
Answer:
This is stating that the DB-Teams are required to utilize the most current RIDOT price adjustments within the price proposals. |
Date Asked: 02/07/2018 | Date Answered: 02/12/2018 |
Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
Question:
PLEASE CLARIFY IF THIS CONTRACT WILL REQUIRE CONCRETE SURFACE TREATMENT ON THE ABUTMENT SEATS, BACKWALL FACES AND FACES OF PARAPETS ON BRIDGE. |
|
Answer:
The entire exposed surfaces of the abutments, beam seats, return walls, parapets, barriers, and endposts, as well as the vertical faces of the backwalls, shall be provided with a film-forming sealer (M12.03.1) concrete surface treatment-protective coating in accordance with Section 820 of the RI Standard Specifications. Section 2.4.1c of the RFP Part B and Sheet 23 of the BTC Plans will be changed by Addendum. |
Date Asked: 02/02/2018 | Date Answered: 02/06/2018 |
Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
Question:
What are the liquidated damages for this project? |
|
Answer:
This will be addressed within an Addendum. |
Date Asked: 02/02/2018 | Date Answered: 02/12/2018 |
Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
Question:
The BTC calls for repairing the abutment and wingwall faces. How much quantity should be carried in the proposal? |
|
Answer:
Bidders shall be responsible to determine the extent of required repairs and their associated costs, based on their review of the project site and available information. |
Date Asked: 01/30/2018 | Date Answered: 02/06/2018 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
BTC plan sheet 26 shows new 54" deep girders. Sheet 29 shows new 45" deep girders. Please advise which is correct. |
|
Answer:
The 54” deep girder on Sheet 26 is correct. Sheet 29 will be revised by Addendum. Respondents shall note that the 54” deep girder depicted in the BTC Plans is a preliminary concept and that the DB-Team shall be responsible for the final design of the replacement bridge, in accordance with all applicable requirements. |
Date Asked: 01/30/2018 | Date Answered: 01/31/2018 |
Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
Question:
Page 13 of 31 of Part A Instructions For Respondents requires that Appendix E of the Technical Proposal consist of a copy of the RFP and all addendum or acknowledge of receipt. Does acknowledgment of receipt pertain to just addendum's or the RFP also? Additionally, please clarify what constitutes a copy of the RFP. Does this mean including copies of Part A, Part B, Part C, and Part D? |
|
Answer:
A copy of the RFP (Part A only) and addenda are not required as the respondent can instead submit a statement acknowledging the receipt of the RFP and all addenda, such as the following example: “Firm A has received and reviewed the RFP for 2018-DB-006 as well as Addendum #1 dated 1/10/18, Addendum #2 dated 1/15/18, Addendum #3 dated 1/20/18…” |
Date Asked: 01/29/2018 | Date Answered: 02/01/2018 |
Poster: Dan Kelley | Company: Aetna Bridge Company |
Question:
RIDOT confirmed in a previous answer that the new bridge parapet shall conform to a crash tested TL-5 solid concrete parapet detail. Since RIDOT does not have a standard TL-5 solid concrete barrier please confirm if the contractor should use the MassDOT standard TL-5 barrier (CF-PL3) or another type of TL-5 solid barrier that is FTA approved. |
|
Answer:
RIDOT will accept any F Type TL-5 concrete barrier that has been successfully crash tested in accordance with the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). |
Date Asked: 01/29/2018 | Date Answered: 02/06/2018 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
BTC plan sheet 19 shows 40.5.0 barrier for the right lane closures for bridge work. Sheet 20 shows 40.5.0M as the required barrier. 40.5.0M does not show up in the standard or job specific legend. Please explain what 40.5.0M refers to and why there is a difference on each plan sheet. Additionally, sheet 24 states "temporary barrier to be utilized in bridges and their approaches during construction shall meet test level TL-4". Does RI Standard 40.5.0 meet TL-4? |
|
Answer:
Sheets 19 and 20 of the BTC Plans will be revised by Addendum to show the 40.5.0 barrier along the approach roadways, and temporary traffic barrier along the bridge. The temporary traffic barrier along the bridge and its approaches (20’ minimum from the centerline of bearings) shall meet test level TL-4. The Contractor will be responsible for developing details for transitioning its chosen temporary TL-4 barrier system to the 40.5.0 barrier along the approach roadways. |
Date Asked: 01/26/2018 | Date Answered: 02/06/2018 |
Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
Question:
“The RFP indicates that temporary traffic control plans should be designed for a design speed of 55 miles per hour. However, the BTC temporary traffic control plans (except for the crash attenuator barrel array) appear to be designed for a 50 mph design speed, perhaps due to the proximity of the nearly onramp. For purposes of lane merges and shifts, is a 50 mph design speed acceptable?” |
|
Answer:
The temporary traffic control plans are to be designed for a design speed of 55mph. The merging taper and shifting taper distances on Sheets 19 and 20 of the BTC Plans will be changed by Addendum. |
Date Asked: 01/26/2018 | Date Answered: 01/31/2018 |
Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
Question:
Please confirm that the cleaning and repairing of the existing box culvert shown at approximate station 466+60 is not included within the scope of work |
|
Answer:
Please clarify your question. The structure shown crossing the roadway at approximately Station 466+60 on the BTC Plans is an overhead sign structure. |
Date Asked: 01/23/2018 | Date Answered: 02/12/2018 |
Poster: Susan Cullen | Company: J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc. |
Question:
The advertising CD contains a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report for the project site. However, no reference is made to this report or accommodations for potentially contaminated soil in the RFP. Based on the industrial history of the area, conditions identified in the ESA, and the potential for contaminants to have migrated into soils to be excavated or disturbed, there is a reasonable expectation that contaminated materials will need to be removed and disposed of during construction. Presently, the nature of the contamination is uncertain. How will payment for identification, removal, disposal, regulatory compliance with RIDEM and OSHA, and other necessary accommodations for contaminated materials be handled? Will RIDOT be making notifications and regulatory filings directly with RIDEM? |
|
Answer:
The DB-Team shall include in their proposal the costs associated with soil characterization testing, based on their proposed limits of soil disturbance. Should the results of the soil characterization testing identify contaminated soils to be removed and disposed, all other required work activities associated with the removal and disposal of contaminated soils, in accordance with the requirements of the RIDEM Rules and Regulations for the Investigation and Remediation of Hazardous Materials Releases, shall be paid by force account. |
Date Asked: 01/22/2018 | Date Answered: 02/06/2018 |
Poster: Susan Cullen | Company: J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc. |
Question:
Part B, §2.6.2 states “The BTC illustrates a concept to provide water quality infiltration swales along the US Route 6 approaches.” The BTC Plans do not illustrate this concept. Please provide plans showing the referenced concept for BMPs. |
|
Answer:
A Stormwater Management Memorandum will be included in an Addendum. Section 2.6.2 of the RFP Part B will be changed by Addendum. |
Date Asked: 01/22/2018 | Date Answered: 01/31/2018 |
Poster: Susan Cullen | Company: J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc. |
Question:
Please provide the approved Categorical Exclusion referenced in RFP Part B, §2.6.1. The document does not appear in Appendix D on the CD. |
|
Answer:
The Categorical Exclusion will be in included in an Addendum. |
Date Asked: 01/19/2018 | Date Answered: 02/06/2018 |
Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
Question:
Part A 2.1 states that that the superstructure width will match the existing width of 114'-0" +/- out-to-out. The existing plans and BTC show the existing and design width at 112'-0" +/- out-to-out. Please clarify. |
|
Answer:
Per the 2002-CH-022 Construction Plans, the existing typical transverse section width is 112’-0” +/- out-to-out. The DB-Team shall be responsible to verify the existing geometry in order to maintain the existing cross-section. Section 2.1 of the RFP Part A will be changed by Addendum. |
Date Asked: 01/19/2018 | Date Answered: 01/31/2018 |
Poster: Phil Bongiovanni | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
Question:
Please reissue the minimum travel lane restrictions found in section 2.11.1 for clarity. For example, what are the travel restrictions on Monday from 6a to 9a? |
|
Answer:
A minimum of two travel lanes shall be maintained in each direction from 6:00 AM – 9:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Section 2.11.1 will be revised in an Addendum. |
Date Asked: 01/18/2018 | Date Answered: 01/31/2018 |
Poster: Chuck Mercier | Company: Manafort Brothers Incorporated |
Question:
Are both parts I and II of SF330 required for inclusion in Appendix A? |
|
Answer:
Yes, both parts I and II of SF330 are to be included in Appendix A. |
Date Asked: 01/12/2018 | Date Answered: 01/17/2018 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
Addendum #1 cover page shows a submission deadline of 2/7/18. Addendum 1 page 1 of 1 states submission deadline is 2/21. Division of Purchases solicitation page shows a submission deadline of 2/7/18. Please correct the inconsistencies and confirm submission deadline is 2/21/18 as was previously answered. |
|
Answer:
Proposal due date is 02/21/2018. This was clarified in Addendum No. 2. |
Date Asked: 12/20/2017 | Date Answered: 01/05/2018 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
Please confirm that the concrete parapet shown for the new bridge is the correct parapet to meet the TL-5 design standard. |
|
Answer:
The new bridge parapet shall conform to a crash tested TL-5 solid concrete parapet detail. |
Date Asked: 12/20/2017 | Date Answered: 01/12/2018 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
The existing bridge transverse section shows one conduit under each overhang and only one is labeled (hwy lighting). What utility is contained in the other conduit? |
|
Answer:
Both conduits is for highway lighting. |
Date Asked: 12/20/2017 | Date Answered: 01/05/2018 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
Plan sheet 26 shows one conduit hanging under each overhang. Plan sheet 29, Phase 2 transverse section shows one conduit under one new overhang and 4 conduits under the other. Which plan sheet is correct? |
|
Answer:
Sheet 26 is correct, showing one conduit under each overhang. Sheet 29 will be changed by Addendum. |
Date Asked: 12/20/2017 | Date Answered: 01/05/2018 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
Is AISC certification required for the erector? |
|
Answer:
In accordance with the RIDOT Bridge Design Standard Details, the Steel Erector/Contractor shall be certified for “Advanced Certified Steel Erector (ASCE)” in accordance with the AISC Quality Certification Program. The Steel Erector/Contractor shall be required to submit proof of current certification as specified. |
Date Asked: 12/20/2017 | Date Answered: 01/05/2018 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
Please confirm that 2" deep cold planing and 2" of friction course is the correct depth. This is typically 1.5". |
|
Answer:
The 2” depth for bituminous pavement removed by micro milling and 2” depth for friction course are correct. |
Date Asked: 12/14/2017 | Date Answered: 12/15/2017 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
The RFP Bid cover sheet states that surety is required and bond is required. The bid bond assures and guarantees that should the bidder be successful, the bidder will execute the contract and provide the required surety bonds. Please clarify is there is anything required to be provided from the bonding company beyond the bid bond. |
|
Answer:
Please refer to the RFP Part A. Bid Bond - In accordance with the State's Amended Procurement Rules & General Conditions of Purchase, effective December 2011, cited under Section 12.102.06 "Proposal Guaranty" 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. Bid bonds must be provided by surety companies licensed and authorized to conduct business in the State of Rhode Island. All surety companies must be listed with the Department of Treasury, Fiscal Services, Circular 570 (Latest revision published by the Federal Register). |
Date Asked: 12/14/2017 | Date Answered: 12/14/2017 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
Please disregard previous question for SIP form in utility bays. Posted to wrong project. |
|
Answer:
Question has been disregarded. |
Date Asked: 12/14/2017 | Date Answered: 12/14/2017 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
Considering recent BTC changes to other D-B projects, would the Department consider allowing SIP forms for all deck construction for this project, rather than just for utility bays?. |
|
Answer:
As requested the question has been disregarded. |
Date Asked: 12/14/2017 | Date Answered: 12/29/2017 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
Considering recent BTC changes to other D-B projects, would the Department consider allowing SIP forms for deck construction for this project. |
|
Answer:
Stay-in-place (SIP) deck forms WILL be allowed. Section 2.4.3 of the RFP Part B will be changed by addendum. |
Date Asked: 12/07/2017 | Date Answered: 12/08/2017 |
Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
Question:
Please confirm that independent QC at the structural steel fabrication plant is not required by the D-B Team and that the internal QC performed by the fabricator as required per their AISC certification is the limit of what is required by the D-B Team. |
|
Answer:
RIDOT will have independent QC at the plant in addition to the plant's own QC program. |
Date Asked: 12/01/2017 | Date Answered: 12/07/2017 |
Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
Question:
The RIDOT website lists the proposal due date as 2/7/18, however in the RFP documents, Part A. section 2.3 the date is shown to be 2/21/18. Please confirm the 2/21 date is the correct date. |
|
Answer:
Proposal due date is 02/21/2018. This will be clarified in Addendum No. 1. |