Questions and Answers For:

Design-Build Replacement of Farnum Pike Bridges Nos. 044101 & 044121 2018-DB-008

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 401-222-2495 with any new questions.

Date Asked: 09/05/2018 Date Answered: 09/06/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part A Section 4.3 Price Proposal states “Respondent shall include within the separately sealed Price Proposal package, a Public Copy of the Price Proposal in accordance with State of Rhode Island Purchasing Regulations.” Please clarify what is to be submitted to meet this requirement. The purchasing regulations make reference to a “Quest lite compatible electronic copy,” since quest lite is not being used for this procurement please confirm a PDF copy on CD-ROM is acceptable.
Answer:
Respondent's need to submit in a separate sealed envelope a duplicate copy of the Price proposal. This second copy should be marked "PUBLIC COPY". A CD-ROM should be included on the inside cover of both the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal.
Date Asked: 09/05/2018 Date Answered: 09/06/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part A Section 4.3 Price Proposal states “Respondent shall provide the required information set forth in the RIDOT Adjustments to Asphalt, Fuel and Steel Prices.” Please clarify what is to be provided with the price proposal. Is a price adjustment (938.1000) going to be provided for this project?
Answer:
Price adjustments will be provided in Addendum 5.
Date Asked: 08/31/2018 Date Answered: 09/06/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please confirm the placement of the Friction course is limited to between June 1st and August 31st for as indicated in the RIDOT Standard Blue Book.
Answer:
Placement of Friction Course shall be restricted to the dates provided in the RIDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and Supplemental Specifications as provided by the Compilation of Approved Specifications.
Date Asked: 08/31/2018 Date Answered: 09/06/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please confirm the winter shutdown period described in Part A Instructions for Respondents Section 2.3 Project Milestones is between December 15th and April 15th.
Answer:
The winter shutdown period shall be in accordance with the RFP.
Date Asked: 08/30/2018 Date Answered: 09/06/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Traffic count information was not found in the furnished BTC traffic data at the following locations. Please provide automatic tube traffic counts at the following locations:” • On Smithfield Road (Rte 104) • On Eddie Dowling Highway (Rte 146A)
Answer:
Traffic counts beyond what is included in the BTC drawings are not available. Any additional traffic counts the DB Team feels are necessary for their design shall be the responsibility of the DB Team.
Date Asked: 08/30/2018 Date Answered: 09/06/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Two additional existing traffic signals were identified along the proposed detour route that were not noted in the BTC existing information furnished traffic data section. Please provide traffic turning movement counts at the following signalized intersections to supplement the BTC traffic data: • Eddie Dowling Hwy (Rte 146A) at Dowling Village Blvd & Raymond Street. • Eddie Dowling Hwy (Rte 146A) at Dowling Village Blvd
Answer:
Traffic counts are not available at these intersections. Any additional traffic counts the DB Team feels are necessary for their design shall be the responsibility of the DB Team.
Date Asked: 08/29/2018 Date Answered: 09/05/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The BTC shows a post tensioning flat anchorage assembly located at mid depth of a 7-1/2” precast concrete deck panel. The flat anchorage assemblies that will accommodate four 0.6” strands available from most suppliers measure 4” in the vertical dimension, and require block outs measuring up to 4-7/8” at their maximum. As depicted in the BTC, the flat plate anchorage assembly will have less than 2” of cover measured to the top of precast and the General Zone reinforcement will have 1” of cover or less measured to the top of the precast panel. Do the precast panel need to be thicker than 7-1/2 ?
Answer:
The BTC drawings show a workable design concept, and are not intended to depict final design details. Details such as post tensioning details, deck thickness, methods of construction, etc. are the responsibility of the DB team.
Date Asked: 08/29/2018 Date Answered: 09/05/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Regarding a questions answered on 7/27 stating that it's acceptable to use MassDOT TL-3 temporary barrier on the project. Is it allowable to use RIDOT standard 40.5.0 barrier with an angle mounted as shown in the MassDOT standard details E 403.8.0 and E 403.9.0, or would the angle need to be mounted on a MassDOT standard temporary barrier?
Answer:
As indicated previously, with RIDOT temporary barrier not being MASH tested, contractors could utilize MassDOT TL-3 temporary barrier or equivalent. As such, the MassDOT or equivalent barrier should follow their own standards and/or installation methods.
Date Asked: 08/29/2018 Date Answered: 09/05/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Temporary Traffic Control plans for Phase 1 show work zone protected with drums. This work will include full depth crossover construction and paving. The existing median Cable Guardrail System will be removed leaving no physical separation between northbound and southbound traffic flows and between vehicles and construction crews and equipment within the clear zone. Please confirm if precast concrete barrier is, or is not, required for the Phase 1 work.
Answer:
For Phase I, the work zone shall be protected with barriers instead of drums.
Date Asked: 08/20/2018 Date Answered: 08/30/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
What are the base prices required to implement section 938.03.3 of Supplement 19 to the Blue Book Specs for structrual steel and reinforcing steel.
Answer:
These will be provided by addendum.
Date Asked: 08/16/2018 Date Answered: 08/20/2018
Poster: Joe Colapietro Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
Are the Compilation of Approved Specifications 18 & 19 being incorporated into the specifications for this project?
Answer:
Yes, they will be added by addendum.
Date Asked: 07/31/2018 Date Answered: 08/20/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP Part A Section 3.1 states that trainee hours are 2000 hours for reimbursement. Will wages associated with these hours be reimbursed?
Answer:
The 2,000 construction trainee hours will be reimbursed at the most recent approved hourly wage rate.
Date Asked: 07/31/2018 Date Answered: 08/22/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
If the NTP is pushed beyond the estimated NTP date in RFP part A, will the required substantial completion date be extended an equal amount?
Answer:
The substantial completion date of October 1, 2021 will remain.
Date Asked: 07/31/2018 Date Answered: 08/20/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
A question answered on 3/23/18 regarding structural steel price adjustments required follow up. Will the department consider steel price adjustments?
Answer:
Compilation of Approved Specifications Supplement No. 19 provides an adjustment for structural, reinforcing and stainless steel. This compilation will be provided by addendum.
Date Asked: 07/31/2018 Date Answered: 08/20/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP Part A, section 2.3 states that "Liquidated damages shall be based on the Schedule of Liquidated Damages in the Standard Specification Section 108.08. The rate of liquidated damages shall be $3,700 per Calendar Day." Which of these two sentence sgoverns, as no rates in the schedule correlate to $3700 per calendar day.
Answer:
The rate of liquidated damages in RFP Part A Section 2.3 of $3700 per calendar day governs.
Date Asked: 07/05/2018 Date Answered: 07/27/2018
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
Per the project requirements, all temporary barrier must meet MASH standards. Since the RIDOT standard temporary barrier is not MASH tested, does RIDOT require a specific barrier and/or test level be used for temporary barrier?
Answer:
As RIDOT standard temporary barrier is not MASH tested, contractors could utilize MassDOT TL-3 temporary barrier or equivalent.
Date Asked: 07/05/2018 Date Answered: 07/27/2018
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
On General Plan 1, on the southbound right shoulder, the roadside design guide recommends avoiding gaps between separate guardrail runs of 300 feet or less. Should the limits of the w-beam guardrail be extended to connect the two runs?
Answer:
The two separate w-beam guardrail runs should be connected.
Date Asked: 07/05/2018 Date Answered: 07/27/2018
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
Given the existing slopes, would energy-absorbing end terminals be more appropriate than the non-energy absorbing end terminals shown on the BTC plans? Additionally, there appears to be a CGS end terminal missing at Station 534+70.
Answer:
The appropriate terminal shall be decided by the DB team based on site conditions. The missing CGS terminal at STA 534-70 will be added by addendum.
Date Asked: 07/05/2018 Date Answered: 07/27/2018
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
The proposed CGS system on the BTC plans is shown between 1’ offset and 8’ offset from the CL swale. Manufacturer recommends the CGS to be either less than 1’ or greater than 8’ of the CL of the swale. Additionally, connecting the CGS to w-beam (as shown at Station 540+50) is not permitted by RIDOT, which requires a CGS end terminal. Is CGS appropriate for this site given the manufacturer’s recommendations for installation and the deflection of this system? Given the deflection of the CGS, would thrie beam be more appropriate?
Answer:
Based on a review of the location and CGS that meets MASH 2016, it is likely that CGS would deflect into the opposing lane of travel. Therefore, thrie beam (TL-4) is recommended within the median of Rt 146.
Date Asked: 07/05/2018 Date Answered: 07/27/2018
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
Will RIDOT require CGS to meet MASH 2016 or NCHRP-350?
Answer:
MASH 2016 is required for this project.
Date Asked: 07/05/2018 Date Answered: 07/27/2018
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
The manufacturer does not recommend additional turnbuckles when not absolutely required. Will the limits of the new CGS extend to the existing turnbuckle beyond the limits shown on the BTC plans?
Answer:
The limits of the new CGS shall extend to the closest existing turnbuckle to not add additional turnbuckle or splices.
Date Asked: 07/05/2018 Date Answered: 07/27/2018
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
Will RIDOT require TL-3 or TL-4 for median and roadside guardrail on the bridge and approaches?
Answer:
TL-4 will be required for the median, and TL-3 will be required for the exterior shoulders.
Date Asked: 07/03/2018 Date Answered: 07/10/2018
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
Will there be a postponement to the current RFP due date of 7/16/18?
Answer:
Yes. Watch for next Addendum, and web pages.
Date Asked: 06/21/2018 Date Answered: 07/27/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part B, Section 2.13 states “All areas adjacent to the bridge and roadways disturbed by any activities necessitated by the Project shall be completely restored to pre-construction conditions, and shall be re-seeded for grass”. For areas where existing trees or shrubs are removed is reseeding for grass sufficient restoration?
Answer:
Should the DB team determine that existing trees or shrubs need to be removed, the restoration should be determined through the environmental permitting process.
Date Asked: 06/21/2018 Date Answered: 07/27/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP part B, Section 2.3.1, seventh bullet states the project includes “Removal and replacement of sections of fencing that surround the bridge abutments at each bridge end.” What type of fencing is required for the new fence to be installed?
Answer:
There is no existing fencing; the language will be removed by addendum.
Date Asked: 06/04/2018 Date Answered: 07/17/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Part B, section 2.4.1 requires that concrete protective sealer be provided on the entire exposed surface area of the completed abutments, piers and wingwalls. Is this correct, or should this be changed to the limits in note 12, drawing A3 of the RIDOT Bridge Design Standards?
Answer:
The concrete sealer shall be provided as defined in RFP Part B, Section 2.4.1
Date Asked: 05/24/2018 Date Answered: 07/17/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP Part A section 2.3 Project Milestone Schedule lists several dates, four of which are shown as estimated dates. Please confirm that the D-B proposals should be submitted considering the dates listed in the RFP and if the NTP is delayed, then, if necessary, a time extension will be granted for the substantial and project completion dates. Keep in mind that, per section 2.3, early completion dates identified in the proposals are to be deemed by RIDOT as the contractual completion dates.
Answer:
Section 2.3 of Part A will be revised in an upcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 05/21/2018 Date Answered: 07/17/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please confirm minimum spatial requirements for Engineer's field office is 240 SF per standard specification section 929.02.2.
Answer:
Section 929 was replaced in the Compilation of Approved Specifications dated 4/22/16, and requires a minimum of 550 square feet.
Date Asked: 05/21/2018 Date Answered: 07/17/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Section 2.11.1 of the RFP Part B specifies the design speed of 55 mph to be used for TTC Plans on Route 146. According to the BTC plans provided with the RFP, the existing horizontal curve on Route 146 between stations 539+74.66 and 570+98.40 (on the north approach to the bridge over Route 104) has a radius of 5,855 feet with the superelevation rate varying between 0% and 1.7% with an average rate of 1.3% (this superelevation was determined from the survey data provided with the RFP). Using Figure 3-10 from the AASHTO Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, this combination of horizontal radius and superelevation results a design speed between 40 mph and 45 mph. Please confirm that TTC Plans for Route 146 should be designed for 55 mph, including provision of proper superelevation. As a follow up to the above question, the BTC plans show the crossover during construction phases 2 and 3 being implemented with angle points and shifting tapers using formulas contained in the MUTCD Figure 6H-39 (Typical Application 39), without taking into consideration superelevation. However, the notes for Figure 6H-39 in MUTCD state that “when the crossover follows a curved alignment, the design criteria contained in the AASHTO Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets should be used”. Using the AASHTO criteria (Figure 3-10) for the crossover design speed of 55 mph would require a curve radius of 8,000 feet assuming the same superelevation rate as existing, which would extend the project limits significantly beyond those shown in the BTC. Is the crossover design as shown in the BTC using angle points with shifting tapers and no revisions to the existing superelevation acceptable, or do the crossovers need to be designed in accordance with the AASHTO criteria for 55 mph?
Answer:
During Phase 1, the speed limit of 55mph should be maintained. During the crossovers in Phases 2 and 3, the existing geometry prevents this and the speed may need to be reduced accordingly. The reduced speeds need to be accounted for in the DB teams final design.
Date Asked: 05/21/2018 Date Answered: 07/18/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the project covers the bridge and a 200 foot radius from the bridge centerline. As shown on the BTC General Plans, approximate 3,500 feet of stormwater water quality swales are proposed in between the northbound and southbound sides of Route-146 and are not included in the Phase I Environment Site Assessment. Will a Corridor Landuse Evaluation (CLUE) Report be required for the swales?
Answer:
The DB team should anticipate providing a CLUE for any work proposed outside of the 200 foot radius.
Date Asked: 05/21/2018 Date Answered: 07/18/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Section 2.6 of RFP Part A states that "Respondents may provide in their Proposals, any betterments and/or exceptions to any aspect of the RFP Documents, including, but not limited to the technical requirements of the RFP Documents. Such exceptions to the RFP Documents are intended to include: (a) issues associated with the proposed Design-Build Contract; and (b) variations with the design requirements in the RFP Documents." Please provide the proposed Design-Build Contract for our review, so that we can confirm we are able to meet all requirements.
Answer:
The Design-Build contract is available on the Division of Purchases website.
Date Asked: 05/21/2018 Date Answered: 07/17/2018
Poster: Robert Nies Company: J.F. White Contracting Company
Question:
The Temporary Traffic Control Plan - Phase 3 (Sheet no. 42) appears to show the Route 146 Northbound off-ramp to Farnum Pike open without a deceleration lane. Please confirm that this ramp remains open during this phase without a deceleration lane or if this ramp is to be closed.
Answer:
Rt 146 northbound off-ramp to Farnum pike will remain open without a deceleration lane during Phase 3.
Date Asked: 05/21/2018 Date Answered: 07/17/2018
Poster: Robert Nies Company: J.F. White Contracting Company
Question:
Based on the required temporary 33 ft shift for the NB RIGHT Right Lane Line, it appears that 250 LF additional length on both ends of the project beyond that shown on the BTC Plans will be required. Similarly, the NB LEFT Left Lane line will alter the respective ends of the abutting “360’ SB SHIFTING TAPERS”. Are both of these conditions presumed anticipated and to be included in the DB Team design and construction costs?
Answer:
The DB team's proposal shall include all costs necessary to successfully complete the project, even if not specifically addressed in the BTC plans.
Date Asked: 05/21/2018 Date Answered: 07/17/2018
Poster: Robert Nies Company: J.F. White Contracting Company
Question:
The BTC plans indicate a Normal Crown for both the mill and overlay portions and across the proposed Bridges. However, Curve 2 (R5855) on the northerly end appears to be super-elevated, although to what extent is not determinable from the BTC Plans and documents; the 1961 Plans indicated a 1% (1/8”/ft) super-elevation with a 100 ft transition ending at STA 539+50, which is up-station from the existing and proposed Bridges. Please confirm that (a) the 1.5” Mill & Overlay, to ‘match existing’ will apply and prevail, and that (b) the super-elevation transition does not and will not extend onto the Bridge Structures.
Answer:
The existing superelevation and cross slope on the roadway within the mill and overlay limits should not impact the bridge. The bridge cross slopes are shown on the BTC drawings and appropriate transitions provided in the approach roadways.
Date Asked: 05/18/2018 Date Answered: 07/17/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
New addendum 1 proposal submission date is not reflected in the dates in section 2.3 of Part A of the RFP. Please update the milestone schedule accordingly.
Answer:
The milestone schedule in Section 2.3 of Part A of the RFP will be revised in an upcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 04/24/2018 Date Answered: 04/26/2018
Poster: Robert Nies Company: J.F. White Contracting Company
Question:
Please confirm that the requirement and intent of Part B 2.8 - Design of Pavement Structure pertains only to the required full-depth pavement replacement/extension areas as depicted or required (utilities trenching etc) on the BTC Plans; more specifically that this does not apply to the otherwise extended areas of 1.5” Mill & Overlay.
Answer:
The intent is for the pavement design criteria to apply only to areas where new/temporary full depth pavement is to be constructed, and does not apply to the 1.5" mill and overlay areas over existing pavement.
Date Asked: 04/20/2018 Date Answered: 04/23/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Will the Department accept non-prestressed full depth precast concrete panels for construction of the bridge deck on this project?
Answer:
The Department will not accept non-prestressed full depth precast concrete deck panels.
Date Asked: 04/18/2018 Date Answered: 06/21/2018
Poster: Robert Nies Company: J.F. White Contracting Company
Question:
Is the CGS (Cable Guardrail System) allowed to be used or replaced in-kind, for over 2900 lf in the median, as indicated on the BTC Gen. Plans (1,3 and 4 beginning on Sheet 27 and TYP HWY Section (Sheet 26)? Or would this need to be FHWA approved crash-tested Steel Beam Guardrail? The CGS is further shown as a single run of guardrail, on the BTC Gen. Plans, and for approximately 2200 lf on the TYP HWY Section, in concert with the Proposed Water Quality Swale in the median, which also has an 8" HT Stone Check Dam (Sheet34). This 2200 lf appears to also warrant a double run of Steel Beam Guardrail (34.1.0) as similarly indicated on one of the TYP HWY Sections for a separate amount of approximately 900lf. Please confirm that such a double run would be required or that a single run as shown will be acceptable at this location.
Answer:
The cable guardrail system (CGS), as shown in the median on the BTC drawings, shall be replaced by an FHWA approved CGS that meets or exceeds the design criteria of the roadway. Steel beam guardrail is not required in locations delineated with a cable guardrail system. A double run of CGS is not required along the length of roadway in question. Steel beam guardrail is shown and delineated in areas where required.
Date Asked: 04/17/2018 Date Answered: 04/24/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
The Contract and Contract Documents are referenced throughout the RFP. Please provide a Contract or Draft Contract for review.
Answer:
Please provide some specific references in the RFP documents where Contract and Contract Documents are referenced.
Date Asked: 04/17/2018 Date Answered: 04/20/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part B, Section 2.4.2.1.f. Vertical Clearance, states "The minimum vertical clearance under the new superstructures shall be no less than 14’-3”." BTC Plan Sheet 33 shows a minimum vertical clearance of 16’-0”. Which vertical clearance value is the minimum allowed?
Answer:
The minimum vertical clearance under the new superstructures shall be no less than 14'-3". The minimum vertical clearance of 16'-0" is not the minimum allowed, but is the resulting clearance from the BTC as presented; The D-B Team’s proposed bridge shall meet the 14'-3" minimum vertical clearance.
Date Asked: 04/17/2018 Date Answered: 04/24/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part A. Will RIDOT consider increasing the page limit to 30 pages? With all the Technical Criteria requested it will be difficult to fit adequate past project information for each DB Team Member within the 20 pages.
Answer:
The 20 page limit will not be increased.
Date Asked: 04/17/2018 Date Answered: 04/24/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part A Section 3.0 states that for Foreign Corporations "A COPY OF RESPONDENT’S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY MUST BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO CONTRACT AWARD." However on page 13 the certificate of authority is listed as part of the proposal submission. Please confirm the certificate of authority must accompany the respondent's proposal.
Answer:
The Certificate of Authority must be included in Appendix A.
Date Asked: 04/17/2018 Date Answered: 04/24/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part A Section 4.9a under Schedule and Cost Control item 2 requests a proposal schedule as well as a narrative description of the proposed schedule. The list of contents on page 13 includes "Appendix C - Detailed Project Schedule." Please confirm the full P6 Schedule should go in Appendix C (outside of the 20-page limit) and the accompanying narrative should go in Section 4 as part of the 20 page limit.
Answer:
The full P6 should go in Appendix C – Detailed Project Schedule, while a Narrative will go in Section 4, which is part of the 20 page limit.
Date Asked: 04/17/2018 Date Answered: 04/24/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part A Section 4.9a Key Personnel asks for an organization chart and a narrative describing functional relationships. Later in the same section text is repeated asking for an organization chart and narrative but stating they will not count to the 20-page limit. Please confirm the organization chart and one-page narrative are to be submitted in Appendix B separate from the 20-page narrative response.
Answer:
Appendix B (outside 20 page limit) is the Supplemental Contractor Qualification Materials (Resumes, Org. Chart), while Section 3 (part of the 20 page limit) is for Key Staff and Team Organization).
Date Asked: 04/17/2018 Date Answered: 04/24/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part A Section 4.2 is the only part of the RFP that mentions a SF330 for the lead designer. Since resumes, project experience and forms for the lead designer are already included in the proposal much of the SF330 would be redundant. Can you please remove the SF330 mention from the organization list on page 13?
Answer:
The SF330 must be included in Appendix A for Lead Designer.
Date Asked: 04/17/2018 Date Answered: 04/24/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part A Section 4.1 asks that the electronic copies be submitted on CD ROMs. Can the requirement be revised to allow electronic copies be submitted on either CD ROM or USB flash drive?
Answer:
Flash drives will not be accepted.
Date Asked: 04/17/2018 Date Answered: 04/20/2018
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Type your questions here.The BTC plans show a right shoulder width of approximately 2-ft or less from Sta. 535+50 to 540+50 (Route 146 NB) and Sta. 536+00 to 544+00 (Route 146 SB) which does not comply with the RIDOT Highway Design Manual, Section 450.02 requirements for freeways. Will a design exception be granted for these conditions?
Answer:
As stated in Section 2.3 (Roadway Improvements) of the Project Technical Requirements, the D/B Team shall prepare all documentation required to apply for and obtain any necessary design exceptions for elements that do not satisfy current design standard criteria. This is including, but not limited to, the high-speed shoulder width on each bridge, as well as the low speed shoulders within the limits in question.
Date Asked: 04/17/2018 Date Answered: 04/20/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The BTC plans show a right shoulder width of approximately 2-ft or less from Sta. 535+50 to 540+50 (Route 146 NB) and Sta. 536+00 to 544+00 (Route 146 SB) which does not comply with the RIDOT Highway Design Manual, Section 450.02 requirements for freeways. Will a design exception be granted for these conditions?
Answer:
As stated in Section 2.3 (Roadway Improvements) of the Project Technical Requirements, the D/B Team shall prepare all documentation required to apply for and obtain any necessary design exceptions for elements that do not satisfy current design standard criteria. This is including, but not limited to, the high-speed shoulder width on each bridge, as well as the low speed shoulders within the limits in question.
Date Asked: 04/05/2018 Date Answered: 04/11/2018
Poster: Robert Nies Company: J.F. White Contracting Company
Question:
Please provide the pavement structure for the temporary median roadway.
Answer:
RFP Part B section 2.8 states: "The D/B Team shall prepare a pavement design for the required temporary roadways required as part of the staged construction at each location. The design will be subject to the review and approval of the RIDOT Materials Section." It is up to the D/B team to design the temporary pavement structure as required by their design.
Date Asked: 03/28/2018 Date Answered: 04/04/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The layout for the toll gantry shown on the Draft General Plan (Location 12) provided in Appendix C does not provide detailed information on the location of the gantry and associated facilities. Detailed plans of the toll gantry, including the location of all supports, foundations, cabinets and clearances to the edge of roadway are needed to determine if this equipment will be outside the deflection zone of the proposed guardrail. Please provide this information.
Answer:
The draft BTC plan for Location 12 (Farnum Pike) will be revised through an addendum. At this time, the aforementioned plan remains as a draft and is not considered final.
Date Asked: 03/28/2018 Date Answered: 03/30/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The BTC layout appears to put the temporary bridge truss within the Zone of Intrusion (ZOI) for the adjacent travel lanes, using the ZOI guidelines in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide and TL-4 barrier criteria. What criteria is the BTC design based on to satisfy ZOI concerns?
Answer:
The BTC shows the temporary bridge as indicative only; the actual temporary bridge shall be designed by the D/B team. The ZOI guidelines in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide need not be adhered to between the temporary bridge and the permanent bridge barriers; However, the D/B team is encouraged to respect these ZOI guidelines to the maximum extent practicable, but shall provide no less than 12 inches from any obstruction to the back face of bridge barrier.
Date Asked: 03/21/2018 Date Answered: 03/23/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Sheet No. 35 of 46 of the BTC entitled “Utility Relocation Plan” shows a toll gantry spanning Route 146 with what appears to be three supports including a center support in the median. The plan provided in Appendix C entitled “General Plan Location 12” and stamped “DRAFT” appears to show a gantry spanning Route 146 without a center support. Can RIDOT provide detailed plans of the Toll Gantry, including the location all supports, foundations, and clearances to the edge of roadway? A center support would affect the BTC proposed temporary crossover roadway.
Answer:
The Tolling gantry information shown on the utility relocation plan in the BTC drawings is indicative only, showing the proposed location of the gantry with respect to the utility relocation works. Anticipated location and details of the tolling gantry are shown in Part D Appendix C. The tolling gantry is not anticipated to have a center support in the median of Rt. 146.
Date Asked: 03/20/2018 Date Answered: 03/22/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Part B -Section 2.3 of the RFP indicates several design exceptions are anticipated, however, only one is listed (High-speed shoulder width on each bridge). Has RIDOT determined there are other known design exceptions and can they identify what these are?
Answer:
All anticipated design exceptions are listed in Section 2.3 of RFP Part B associated with the BTC. If required by the D/B team’s proposed design, the D/B team shall be responsible for obtaining any and all design exceptions.
Date Asked: 03/19/2018 Date Answered: 03/23/2018
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
Given the recent spike in mill prices on steel products will RIDOT consider adding a steel price adjustment specification for the applicable items in this contract such as reinforcing steel, structural steel and TL-5 bridge railing?
Answer:
The Department is aware of the issue and is in the process of evaluating your request.
Date Asked: 03/16/2018 Date Answered: 03/22/2018
Poster: Jennifer Allen Company: VHB, Inc.
Question:
Section 2.11.1 in RFP Part B says "All Route 146 on/off ramps and acceleration lanes shall be maintained except for short term closures during off peak periods, and except as noted in the BTC plans." The BTC plans do not show accommodations for keeping the ramps open to and from Route 104. Is RIDOT's intent to keep these ramps open or closed for the duration of the project?
Answer:
Ramp closures are permitted during the phases depicted in the BTC drawings. The ramps shall not be closed during the entire project duration. BTC drawing nos. 40-43 depict the existing ramps being alternately closed during Phase 2 and 3 construction, and drawing sheet 46 depicts detour routes for each ramp closure.
Date Asked: 03/16/2018 Date Answered: 03/28/2018
Poster: Jennifer Allen Company: VHB, Inc.
Question:
The water quality swale detail shown in the BTC plans does not adhere to the requirements of the RISDISM. Is this swale approved by RIDEM for use on this project?
Answer:
The BTC is intended to provide the Maximum Extent Practicable stormwater treatment, and not to be fully compliant with the RI Stormwater Design Manual. Should the D/B Team’s final permanent design require a RIDEM permit, the stormwater design elements will need to comply with the RI Stormwater Design Manual.
Date Asked: 03/05/2018 Date Answered: 03/08/2018
Poster: Derek Hug Company: Stantec
Question:
The traffic count information provided does not include traffic volumes for Route 146 in the project vicinity. Could that information be provided?
Answer:
In Part D, Appendix B, there is a folder called “3-Traffic Data”. In that folder, there is a PDF called “259991_146_104_Hourly_Jan_Oct_2016.pdf”, which is the hourly traffic count data for counting station 259991 from January to October 2016. The RIGIS database places this station just north of the bridge on Route 146, encompassing all of the on and off ramps.
Date Asked: 02/21/2018 Date Answered: 03/08/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Part B, Page 13 states that all existing aerial utilities currently passing over or under the existing bridge must be relocated underground. Page 32 of part B states that the D/B Team shall make all reasonable efforts to design the Project to avoid conflicts with utilities and minimize impacts where conflicts cannot be avoided. Is the requirement to put all utilities underground or to avoid conflicts with utilities and minimize impacts. These sections appear to be contradictory. Is it allowable to leave utilities in place if the design/construction methods do not impact them, or is it required to put them underground?
Answer:
The BTC concept was based on relocating the utilities in question underground in order to facilitate the bridge replacement. The DB team may submit an alternative method. Note that any proposed alternate method must be approved by RIDOT and the affected utility.
Date Asked: 02/21/2018 Date Answered: 03/08/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Part A section 2.1, QC Services - please confirm who is responsible for off-site structural steel fabrication inspection.
Answer:
RIDOT will have independent QC at the plant in addition to the plant's own QC program.
Date Asked: 02/21/2018 Date Answered: 03/08/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Part A Section 2.2 states that the selected D-B Team shall be responsible for "Payment, negotiations, agreements and scope of work between the D-B Team and the respective utilities." Part B states that the utilities are paid on force account by RIDOT. Please confirm who pays for third party utility work.
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. It is the responsibility of the Design Build Team to coordinate this work while completing the final design.