Questions and Answers For:

Design-Build Louisquisset Pike Bridges 2018-DB-009

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 222-2492 X-4100 with any new questions.

Date Asked: 09/10/2018 Date Answered: 09/11/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Are the survey baseplans CAD files and survey field books for this location available, which would have been used for the preparation of the BTC/RFP? If so, could you please provide these to the bidders.
Answer:
the available existing survey base plan is included in the CAD files provided in RFP Part D."
Date Asked: 09/10/2018 Date Answered: 09/11/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
What is the current schedule for the tolling project at this location? It appears that there is some conflict with the temporary roadway and some redundant work shown on both the general plans and the tolling plans.
Answer:
The current schedule for installation is March 8, 2019 to July 15, 2019
Date Asked: 09/06/2018 Date Answered: 09/10/2018
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
Existing drainage structures in the Route 146 median are located under the existing guardrail. Based on the RIDOT direction to installation precast median barrier in place of the existing guardrail, does RIDOT intend to replace the existing drainage structures under the guardrail with new catch basins on each side of the barrier?
Answer:
Yes
Date Asked: 09/04/2018 Date Answered: 09/07/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Please clarify the response to the Aetna Bridge question from 8/30 and answered 9/4. The response provided does not appear to answer the question regarding the bridge barrier.
Answer:
This is a Design Build. This question would be worked out with the contractor design consultant.
Date Asked: 08/30/2018 Date Answered: 09/04/2018
Poster: Dan Kelley Company: Aetna Bridge Company
Question:
The BTC plans currently show a TL-5 traffic railing to be used within the median on the Route 146 NB and SB structures. With the new direction to install a MASH approved precast barrier within the limits of the thrie beam replacement along Route 146, would the RIDOT prefer to install a MASH TL-5 “F” shape barrier on the bridge within the median that would transition down to the existing jersey barrier at the northern project limit and install the MASH TL-5 “F” shape barrier to the southern project limits which would then connect to the existing thrie beam.
Answer:
RIDOT Office of Safety recommends that in place of thrie beam, a MASH approved precast barrier be proposed to match in with the southern and northern ends of the cast in place barrier on the bridge. The precast barrier should match into the existing thrie beam at the southern limit of the project and match into the existing precast barrier at the northern project limit approaching the I-295 interchange. RIDOT will look to replace thrie beam with MASH approved precast Barr outside of the existing project limits under a future project. MASH approved precast barrier is recommended as the percentage of heavy truck traffic in this area is high.
Date Asked: 08/29/2018 Date Answered: 08/30/2018
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:
We suggest the following response: “The BTC drawings show a workable design concept, and are not intended to depict final design details. Details such post tensioning details, deck thickness, methods of construction, etc. are the responsibility of the DB team.”
Date Asked: 08/29/2018 Date Answered: 08/30/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The BTC TTC Plans depict a left shoulder width of 3’ for the Route 146 NB temporary roadway, at the north end of the existing bridge over Route 116. In order to provide a horizontal curve large enough to eliminate the need for superelevation and thereby allow for the cross slopes on the off-ramp to be maintained and match in with the temporary roadway, this shoulder width may need to be reduced to a little as 1’. Will a final design that provides a 1’ left shoulder along the temporary Route 146 NB roadway in the vicinity of the existing bridge over Route 116 be accepted by the Department?
Answer:
“The proposed shoulder widths should be maintained rather than increase the radius to meeting final design criteria for superelevation. Considering the temporary roadway as a low-speed (<45 mph) roadway during construction, there is sufficient room to provide a minimum radius with low or no superelevation along the temporary alignment while maintaining the shoulder widths depicted in the BTC plans.” It is our preference to maintain the proposed shoulder widths rather than increase the radius to meeting final design criteria for superelevation.”
Date Asked: 08/24/2018 Date Answered: 08/27/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
With the significant changes to this RFP, could the Department please consider a 2 week postponement of the bid date?
Answer:
Not at this time
Date Asked: 08/20/2018 Date Answered: 08/27/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Are the Compilation of Approved Specifications 18 & 19 being incorporated into the specifications for this project? If so, please provide the base prices for structural steel and reinforcing steel.
Answer:
This will be added in a Addendum
Date Asked: 08/06/2018 Date Answered: 08/20/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Can a quantity for reuse vs. replacement of granite curb be provided? Since this is a lump sum bid, and the Engineer is to determine in the field what curb is suitable for reuse (as noted on a question answered on 8/2), it is impossible to determine how much money to carry for this work.
Answer:
A reasonable, rough estimate would be 50% replacement and 50% reuse.
Date Asked: 08/06/2018 Date Answered: 09/07/2018
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Regarding a question asked on 5/24 and answered on 8/3. The answer provided did not answer the question asked. In addendum 3, the date for NTP has changed, but it is still listed as estimated. Will an NTP date beyond this estimated date be acceptable grounds for a time extension?
Answer:
No. The NTP will remain 11/30/2018
Date Asked: 07/05/2018 Date Answered: 08/02/2018
Poster: Kevin Hubbard Company: MIG Corporation
Question:
The Typical Highway Sections show new curb for all of Rt. 146 and a note that says "See plan for limits" for Rt. 116. The general Plans show RHH in some of the same areas. Is it the intent of the BTC that all of the curb within the limits of work gets replaced with new granite curb?
Answer:
The intent is not to replace existing curbing with all new granite curbing. There are no proposed vertical or horizontal geometry changes to Rt 116; the intent is to preserve and reuse the existing granite curb that is in good condition and replace anything that is not usable (as determined by the Engineer).”
Date Asked: 06/27/2018 Date Answered: 08/23/2018
Poster: Kevin Hubbard Company: MIG Corporation
Question:
The General Plans call for replacing the existing Steel Thrie Beam Guardrail Double Face with RI Standard 34.2.2 Steel Beam Guardrail Double Faced Assembly. Please confirm.
Answer:
RIDOT Office of Safety recommends that in place of thrie beam, a MASH approved precast barrier be proposed to match in with the southern and northern ends of the cast in place barrier on the bridge. The precast barrier should match into the existing thrie beam at the southern limit of the project and match into the existing precast barrier at the northern project limit approaching the I-295 interchange. RIDOT will look to replace thrie beam with MASH approved precast Barr outside of the existing project limits under a future project. MASH approved precast barrier is recommended as the percentage of heavy truck traffic in this area is high.
Date Asked: 06/07/2018 Date Answered: 08/02/2018
Poster: Kevin Hubbard Company: MIG Corporation
Question:
Sheet 10 of the BTC Plans details a minimum vertical clearance of 16’-2” at the new sidewalk. Page 10 of Part B of the RFP states that the minimum vertical clearance shall be no less than 15’-10” to match the vertical clearance of the adjacent ramp bridge. Sheet B6 of the plans for the adjacent ramp bridge indicates that bridge was designed for a minimum vertical clearance of 15’-0” at its sidewalk. Currently the posted clearance is 14-6”. Please clarify what the minimum vertical clearance requirement is to be at the new sidewalk.
Answer:
The minimum required vertical clearance shall be 15’-5” at the sidewalk, matching the existing Ramp NE bridge vertical clearance as reported in the 6/9/2017 inspection report for bridge 027621
Date Asked: 06/05/2018 Date Answered: 08/03/2018
Poster: Patricia Teeter Company: Pare Corporation
Question:
Since the due date was extended per addendum #1, will the question deadline be extended? Or will it remain June 6 @ Noon?
Answer:
Our dates have been extended.
Date Asked: 06/04/2018 Date Answered: 08/03/2018
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: 08/03/2018
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 has been revised. See Addendum No. 3.
Date Asked: 05/24/2018 Date Answered: 08/23/2018
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:
“Section 2.3 of Part A has been revised. See Addendum No. 3.”
Date Asked: 05/21/2018 Date Answered: 08/02/2018
Poster: Anthony Mesiti Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
Since the project was put on hold, will the project be postponed?
Answer:
The Project has been released.
Date Asked: 04/09/2018 Date Answered: 04/16/2018
Poster: Robert Nies Company: J.F. White Contracting Company
Question:
Part B: Project Technical Requirements, Section 2.11.1 specifies that the design speed for the TTP Plans shall be a minimum of 55 mph for Route 146, however, the TTC Plans show the taper design speeds of 40 mph and 45 mph. Please clarify the design speed for the TTC Plans.
Answer:
The required speed will be 55MPH unless noted on the BTC drawings.
Date Asked: 04/09/2018 Date Answered: 04/18/2018
Poster: Robert Nies Company: J.F. White Contracting Company
Question:
Sign & Pavement Marking Plan No. 2, Station 311+00+/- RT shows the callout “SSR” for two OH Signs, however, it appears that one location is in the vicinity of the proposed Gantry pole. Please confirm if this is an OH sign or Gantry. Also, please clarify if the gantry system conflicts with the temporary Route 146 NB roadway alignment.
Answer:
The OH sign marked SSR within the hatching of the proposed tolling gantry location(approx. station 311+00) is incorrect. The other OH sign at approx. station 310+40 is correct. Sign near gantry will be removed.
Date Asked: 03/29/2018 Date Answered: 04/02/2018
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 an independent QC at the plant in addition to the plant's own QC program.