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: 08/08/2018 | Date Answered: 08/08/2018 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
You indicate in your answers to questions that another bid addendum is forthcoming. When do you anticipate to issue this addendum and answer all remaining questions? Also, do you anticipate extending the bid due date based upon the forthcoming addendum and answers to remaining questions and the time required to incorporated this information into our proposals? |
|
|
Answer:
No, at this time we do not plan on moving the proposal due date. We anticipate issuing the final addendum and answering all remaining questions by the end of this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/08/2018 | Date Answered: 08/09/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Part A – Instruction to Proposers, Paragraph 2.1 - Project Description and Scope of Work, states that the Project must be substantially completed and opened by 12/31/21 for the Train Station, and that final acceptance of the Bus Hub and Transit Corridor must be by 12/31/20 (12 months before the Train Station is Substantially Complete). It also states Final Acceptance for the Train Station is 7/1/22. This paragraph makes no mention of a Substantial Completion date for the Bus Hub and Transit Corridor work. Part A – Instruction to Proposers, Paragraph 2.4 - Project Milestone Schedule, indicates a Substantial Completion (Station) date of 12/31/21 and Project Completion date of 7/1/22. This paragraph makes no mention of Substantial Completion or Final Acceptance Milestones for the Bus Hub and Transit Corridor work. Part B – Technical Requirements, Section 8.1 – Project Schedule states Substantial Completion (Station) is 12/31/21, Start of Revenue Service for the Bus Hub is 12/31/20, Start of Revenue Service for the Station 7/1/22, and Final Acceptance of the Project is 7/1/22. Please note that due to the close proximity of the Bus Hub to the Train Station, it will be impossible to construct the Bus Hub to a point where it could be ready for final acceptance (per Part A, Paragraph 2.1) by the Owner, a full year before the Train Station is Substantially complete. Additionally, the area that is to become the Bus Hub will need to utilized as laydown and access for the construction of the Train Station. Would RIDOT consider moving the Final Acceptance date of the Bus Hub to the Substantial Completion date of the Train Station which is 12/31/21? (The Transit Corridor milestone could remain as 12/31/20 if necessary for RIDOT/RIPTA.) |
|
|
Answer:
The dates referenced in the question will not be changed at this time. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/08/2018 | Date Answered: 08/09/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RFP documents require that the station comply with MBTA Design Standards Manual. Volume II, page 58 of this 1996 manual establishes requirements for shelters which shall accommodate 60% of the passengers boarding at times of peak ridership, using an equation of 7 square feet per passenger. Furthermore, the commonly-cited Massachusetts 521CMR, the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) regulations, section 18.51 “Transportation Terminals” states; “platforms shall provide overhead shelter from rain and snow along a total of at least 150 feet (150' = 46m) of their length and at all access ramps.” (As a Rhode Island project, these regulations would not apply). Although the platform area located under the accessible ramps in the BTC could be construed as ‘shelter’, there is no specific requirement for canopies in the RFP Station Design Criteria. Please confirm whether the MBTA/Massachusetts requirements apply to this project. |
|
|
Answer:
MBTA Design Standards do apply, but the contractor is not required to conform with the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) regulations. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/08/2018 | Date Answered: 08/08/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
As the “Pawtucket/Central Falls Bus Hub & Commuter Rail Station with Transit Emphasis Corridor” is a Design-Build Project, and the Design work has yet to be completed, it is impossible at this phase of the Project to provide exact scopes of work capable of being priced by DBE Construction Subcontractors and committed to by the DB Entity. Would RIDOT reconsider the requirements of the RFP for the Technical and Price Proposals to identify the Construction DBE firms, Construction DBE scopes of work, and Construction DBE subcontract values? Alternatively, the DB Entity could certify that it will meet the 8% DBE Construction goal and provide the related information once the Design Work is completed. |
|
|
Answer:
At the point of submission you are to submit the DBE schedule of participation form for proposed DBE firms, along with a copy of the letter of intent, and the DBE's current RI certification letter with the Technical proposal. You do not need to submit full scopes of work for the DBE, nor do you need to submit executed DBE subcontracts for submission. You will need to provide a percentage for each proposed DBE on the DBE Utilization form that is to be included in the Price proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/08/2018 | Date Answered: 08/09/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Addendum 8 deleted Section 10 Insurance in its entirety and replaced it. Builders Risk insurance was previously required, but there is no mention of Builders’ Risk insurance in Addendum 8. Has RIDOT eliminated the requirement to carry Builders Risk? |
|
|
Answer:
Builders Risk insurance is required and will be added via a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/08/2018 | Date Answered: 08/08/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
RFP Section 3.2 Insurance/Bonding states: “Proposal must include evidence that the LEAD ENTITY holds Professional Liability Insurance (Minimum $1 MIL) and Valuable Papers Insurance (Minimum $200,000.00)…” General Contractors carry project specific Professional Liability Insurance and Valuable Papers Insurance for Design-Build projects. Insurers will not bind a policy and provide evidence of coverage until payment is made on the policy. Please change this paragraph to state: Proposal must include evidence that the LEAD ENTITY can provide Professional Liability Insurance and Valuable Papers Insurance. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, please submit in the technical proposal evidence that the LEAD ENTITY will be able to obtain the insurance requirements at the levels requested. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/08/2018 | Date Answered: 08/08/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RFP indicates that DBE Participation Goals are 8% for Construction and 8% for Design. The RIDOT DBE Utilization Plan Required Form which is to be submitted with the Price Proposal per Part A – Instructions to Proposers, requests information associated with the DBE Firms the DB Entity intends to use on the project. It appears this form is intended to be utilized for conventional Design-Bid-Build projects, and not Design-Build projects such as the Pawtucket/Central Falls Bus Hub and Commuter Rail Station. The form does not provide any way to separate the 8% DBE Participation percentage for Design/Construction from each other, where the Design costs need to be subtracted from the Total Bid Price so that the 8% DBE numbers can be calculated separately. Please confirm it is acceptable to provide two separate forms (1 for Design, and 1 for Construction) so that the DBE Design costs can be separated from the DBE Construction Costs. Additionally, please confirm it is acceptable to submit two separate “Schedule of Participation by DBE” forms (1 for Design, and 1 for Construction) so that the DBE Design firms can be separated from the DBE Construction firms. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes please submit two DBE Utilization forms, one for construction and one for design. Same goes for the DBE Schedule of participation forms. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/07/2018 | Date Answered: 08/09/2018 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
At the pre-bid meeting, RIDOT stated that Amtrak would hire and pay someone directly to perform all railroad design work. Note #5 on the "Amtrak and D/B Team Area of Work Responsibility Chart at RFP" dated May 11, 2018 issued in Addendum 002 states "The D/B Team shall be responsible for completing all design regardless of who is procuring materials or performing construction and the track infrastructure design work shall be completed by an Amtrak approved consultant under contract to the D/B Team." Is Note #5 applicable to this project? Is Amtrak/MBTA/RIDOT providing or performing any railroad related design? Please provide clear direction as to who is responsible to perform each piece of railroad related design. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, Note 5 in the referenced chart applies to the project. All Amtrak-related project design is the responsibility of the D/B Team. The pre-bid meeting advised to RIDOT hiring (see RFP Part B – Section 2.6), through Amtrak, a local general engineering services consultant which includes that company in part: assisting in the development and coordination of Amtrak design packages that the D/B Team designed; and providing assistance in reviewing the submissions to Amtrak Engineering in Philadelphia to facilitate their review and approval. This regional company is under contract and currently assisting with procurement. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/03/2018 | Date Answered: 08/03/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Could you please review the answer posted to a previous question. Date Asked: 05/25/2018 Date Answered: 08/03/2018 Poster: Linda Sanson Company: Barletta Heavy Division Question: The “AMTRAK and D/B TEAM AREA OF WORK RESPONSIBILITY CHART at RFP” states under the area of work for “Freight Rail and Ties, Fine Grade Ballast” indicates that the “RESPONSIBLE PARTY” for material and labor is Amtrak. For “REMARKS/LONG LEAD ITEM” it states that “Fine grade to set tie and rail, ballast, wood ties, rails, plates, spikes, surfacing etc.” and under “SCHEDULE COMMENTS” it states that “D/B Team to provide accurate duration. Rail material to meet Buy America where procurement may impact schedule.” Could you please clarify if all of the labor and material for this item of work will be done by Amtrak and if so please provide the duration's for the procurement for the materials and installation work. If not please clarify the DB Teams scope of work. Answer: I suggest that Stanley make a written request for a Reconsideration in accordance with the instructions on page 23 of DBE Manual. If they have documentation to support the Good Faith Efforts they can include it. |
|
|
Answer:
This answer was posted in error. The correct answer is now posted. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/01/2018 | Date Answered: 08/07/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
What is the scope of work for the Environmental Manager relative to RIDOT’s Cultural Resource Unit? The Design Build Team requests additional information in order to establish a budget for this scope. |
|
|
Answer:
The scope for the Environmental Manager, and how it relates to the RIDOT Cultural Resource Unit is found in the RFP Part A, page 27 of 49. This individual must possess the qualities listed to address the listed responsibilities. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/31/2018 | Date Answered: 08/03/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The RIDOT specs require a Railroad Protective Liability policy with RIDOT, the Rhode Island Public Rail Corporation and Amtrak as insureds. The MBTA specs require a Railroad Protective Liability policy with MBTA, Amtrak and others as insureds. The Amtrak Temporary Permit To Enter Upon Property requires a Railroad Protective Liability policy with Amtrak as insured. Are we being required to obtain one Railroad Protective Liability policy or three? |
|
|
Answer:
One policy with all applicable parties named. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/18/2018 | Date Answered: 08/03/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The BTC Wall C Retaining Wall detailed on Drawings S-36 through S-39 will be placed within the Amtrak ROW and approximately 20’ inside the ROW fence/property line. Please provide the design construction surcharge load and the design adjacent building surcharge load imposed on BTC Wall C Retaining Wall. |
|
|
Answer:
The BTC assumed a 2500 psf building surcharge where within the influence of the existing building and a 400 psf construction surcharge load outside those limits. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/17/2018 | Date Answered: 08/07/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The response to Pre-Proposal Question #7 included in Addendum No. 1 confirms that the Design Build team is responsible for determining the approval process for the Bus Hub and Transit Emphasis Corridor. Please confirm what agencies are required to approve these project elements. |
|
|
Answer:
As stated, the D/B Team is responsible to determine the required stakeholders, governmental agencies, environmental approvals, etc. needed to approve their designs. Some stakeholder examples, but not inclusive, are: RIPTA, RIDOT, RIDEM, City of Pawtucket, Governors Commission on Disabilities, Narragansett Bay Commission, RI Building Code Commission, State Fire Marshal, State Historical Preservation Office, etc. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/17/2018 | Date Answered: 08/03/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The response to Pre-Proposal Question #7 included in Addendum No. 1 confirms that the BTC has been approved by a number of agencies. How will variation from any BTC elements be addressed? |
|
|
Answer:
The Station BTC was developed to a preliminary design level to represent the minimum baseline design intent that must be equaled or exceeded by the D/B Team. The D/B Team shall independently develop their final design to provide the necessary design intent and design details required for the final design. If design development results in changes to the Technical Proposal or BTC requirements, the D/B Team shall submit to RIDOT their proposed changes for concurrence prior to incorporating into a design submission. Any proposed changes to the BTC that are not demonstrated to be equal or better than the BTC will be rejected by RIDOT. The D/B Team acknowledges by receipt of the BTC plans that they explicitly understand that while these plans have been developed to a preliminary design level, the D/B Team is required to provide a final, complete project design that is stamped by its own engineer of record for review and approval by RIDOT and stakeholders. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/17/2018 | Date Answered: 08/07/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Please advise of timelines expected for RIDOT reviews at each of the design submittals required by RIDOT. Will RIDOT conduct concurrent design and submittal reviews with respective stakeholders? Determining the length of review periods is crucial for the DB contractor to implement a project design schedule and subsequent procurement and construction schedules. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT Standard protocol for design and shop drawing review is 45 calendar days. Amtrak standard review time is 30 working days, minimum. It is the responsibility of the D/B Teams to research and determine each of the stakeholder review time frames. RIDOT has hired, through Amtrak, a locally-based general engineering services contractor to facilitate the design progress and approval process. Concurrent design review is possible and encouraged but dependent upon the D/B Team design approval program. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/17/2018 | Date Answered: 07/23/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The City Of Pawtucket recently issued RFQ #18-040 for implementation of traffic control improvements at Goff and Pine Street. Please advise if this will result in any design changes to the RIPTA Bus Hub and Transit Emphasis Corridor scope of work. Will the Goff and Pine Street intersection improvements be removed from the Bus Hub and Transit Emphasis Corridor scope of work? |
|
|
Answer:
The City of Pawtucket RFQ is an independent contract for planning assistance. Work generated by that RFQ will not affect the scope of work for the station, bus hub or transit emphasis corridor. Proposals shall reflect the BTC design including the addenda for all project components. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/16/2018 | Date Answered: 07/23/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
It appears that the existing signal hut will need to be temporarily relocated to allow for the construction of Wall C as well as the Track 7 The removal of the existing signal hut at Station 712+00 (Track 7) is critical to the relocation of track 7 in-order to construct the middle platform. Has the owner considered temporary relocation of the existing hut in-order to fully allow the contractor to construct retaining wall "C" as proposed in the BTC in order not to effect project schedule. |
|
|
Answer:
The owner has not detailed the how or when the signal house should be installed at its final location based upon the design level of the BTC plans. It is the responsibility of the D/B Team to determine if temporary relocation measures are needed based on their design, schedule, means and methods of construction, experience with Amtrak, etc. and the subsequent effects on the project. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/16/2018 | Date Answered: 08/03/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
In RIDOT’s previous RFP for the Pawtucket Station, the Q+A’s stated (question dated 5/08/2017) that Track 7 would take “…approx. 3 weeks to demolish, approx.. 2 months to install once track material delivered…” are we to assume these duration have not changed for this proposal? |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak expects 4-6 months to build the new track, including procurement of track elements and demolition of existing Track 7. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/16/2018 | Date Answered: 08/03/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Per Addendum #4, Part B, Project Technical Requirement final, P22 of 78 "The selected D/B Team is required to read, understand, and implement all components of the Consent Decree that apply to the project as determined by RIDOT and RIDEM. Which includes but is not limited to cleaning and flushing pipe, and a goal of 50% storm water treatment to the maximum extent practicable." In-order to properly estimate this work additional information is required. Please indicate exactly the cleaning requirements limits. (i.e. Pine Street, some portion of Barton Street, limits as they relate to the Transit Emphasis Corridor or anywhere else). |
|
|
Answer:
The Consent Decree requirements are for State owned roads. Within the project limits, Pine Street and Barton Street/Weeden Street are city-owned and not subjected to the Consent Decree. The Transit Emphasis Corridor is constructed on a State-owned road with limits from Pine Street to Roosevelt Avenue and subject to the Consent Decree requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/16/2018 | Date Answered: 07/23/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Per Addendum #2, 2c. Drainage plan set was issued. Plan sheet T-25 "Rehabilitation Of Track 7 Atwells To Boston Switch Plan and Profile" indicates rock above the proposed drain lines. Please provide the boring information associated with these plan sheets. |
|
|
Answer:
The plans for the Project “Rehabilitation of Track 7 ‘Atwells’ to ‘Boston Switch’" do not include geotechnical information. The contractor shall base their bids on the geotechnical report prepared and distributed previously for the Pawtucket/Central Falls Station Project. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/13/2018 | Date Answered: 07/23/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
There have been a number of questions posted that have related to the drainage design for the Project and the potential impacts to the NBC system. In summary: • The Amtrak ROW needs to be designed for a 100-year storm event. • The Amtrak ROW needs to have 18” underdrains installed within the limit of the Project. • Any developments that have existing storm water or ground water connections are strongly encouraged to eliminate these flow contributions. (Elimination of the existing Amtrak underdrain) • NBC does not have a design storm that is allowed for acceptance into the sewerage system. This system is the only point of discharge in the project area. • Since these requirements are in conflict with each other the DB Teams will need direction from RIDOT as to the intent of the drainage in order to properly design and assess the cost and risk associated with this work. |
|
|
Answer:
The efforts toward stormwater treatment, in the BTC plan, have not been approved by NBC or Amtrak and RIDOT has been informed that more effort to disconnect and/or justify the existing system, will be required for approval. It is the Contractor's responsibility to reconcile the criteria. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/12/2018 | Date Answered: 07/13/2018 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide the required forms listed in Part A of the RFP under sections 4.1 and again listed under section 4.2. Speciffically the Debarment Form, Lobbying Form, Conflicts Disclosure Statement, Anti-Collusion Certificate, Certification for Title VI Assurance, Buy America Certification, DBE Special Provision, DBE Utilization Form. |
|
|
Answer:
All the forms mentioned were already provided. If you look under the associated files, Required forms, under the original solicitation you will find all the required forms. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/12/2018 | Date Answered: 08/07/2018 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section 1.2.9 “Signage” on page 16 of the Design Criteria / Special Provisions provided in Addendum 4 states, “Wayfinding signage to be designed and provided to the contractor by the MBTA. Contractor shall coordinate with MBTA on sizing, location, and number of wayfinding signs needed.” Please provide more information on size, location, quantity, and installation requirements so that the contractor can effectively price installation of signage and wayfinding. |
|
|
Answer:
MBTA Specification Sections 10420 Porcelain Enamel Signage and 10424 Specialty Signage specifications were issued previously. Specification Sections 10400 Fixed Signage, 10401 Metal Sign Frames, and 10426 Tactile Braille Signage will be provided in a forthcoming addendum. The types, locations, and quantities required will be designed and developed with the MBTA Wayfinding unit throughout the balance of the design process as completed by the D/B Team. The D/B Team station construction experience should govern this question, however, the contractor may assume 6' x 8' signs for system maps at approximately 100' O. C. along both platforms and coordinate the location of 1' x 5.5' banner signs in the pedestrian bridge, on the ramps, and at the entrances. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/12/2018 | Date Answered: 07/23/2018 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Following up on the question asked by Barletta Heavy Division on 6/20/18, please provide the actual occupancy number which should be utilized in the design of the commuter rail station as well as to develop the necessary code compliance calculations. |
|
|
Answer:
The code analysis has been provided in Addendum No. 6. The analysis was completed based on a previous BTC design, however the calculations should still apply to the current design. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/05/2018 | Date Answered: 07/23/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
RIDOT’s response to our earlier question on the contractor’s responsibility/scope for public coordination states “The DB Team will be expected to provide, as needed, information that helps RIDOT keep the public informed of the project. RIDOT will lead all public outreach and public coordination”. Can RIDOT please provide a more detailed specification of the DB Team’s scope relating to public outreach so we can accurately price these services? Specifically, should the DB Team carry cost for a dedicated point of contact with expertise in public relations to support RIDOT’s efforts? What does RIDOT foresee as expected information to be provided by the DB Team, and what is the frequency of this expected information? Is the information provided by the DB team expected to be raw content that RIDOT staff will format into presentations, newsletters, web content, etc. or will the DB Team be responsible for providing materials formatted for public consumption? |
|
|
Answer:
The contractor shall only be responsible for providing RIDOT with updated information and raw content regarding the progress of the project construction on a monthly basis. RIDOT will be responsible for all coordination, organization, and distribution of public outreach activities. A dedicated public relations firm provided by the D/B Team is not required. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/03/2018 | Date Answered: 07/23/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
In review of the BTC documents egress calculations based on NFPA 130 and NFPA 101 were done (both a requirement in the state of RI). Two flaws were discovered that will require additional egress via accessible ramps down to an area of safe disbursal at each end of the south bound platform. The first flaw is in relation to not achieving the 6 minute egress from the station for all occupants’ calculation within NFPA 130 without adding additional egress off of both the North and South sides of the South Bound platform via accessible ramps. The second flaw is regarding the second means of egress from the south bound platform in the BTC documents converges within the pedestrian bridge without a fire separation that would be required by NFPA 101; for this reason adding a 2nd means of egress off the southbound platform will be necessary. Please confirm that without adding additional egress off the southbound platform, it will not be possible to achieve the egress from the station within the code requirements. |
|
|
Answer:
NFPA 130 egress calculations has been provided in Addendum No. 6. RIDOT does not agree with the statements that there are flaws in the analysis. Although the egress analysis was completed based on an older version of the BTC, the changes for the current BTC would only reduce the time needed to exit the station due to the reduced cross section. Based on the egress analysis the BTC conforms to the requirements of NFPA 130. The second flaw denoted in the comment regarding NFPA 101 would be applicable for building construction only. RIDOT does not believe the pedestrian bridge would be categorized as a building, thus not requiring the NFPA 101 regulations for fire separation to be enforced. Also see letter from the RI Building Code Commission issued in Addendum No. 3. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/29/2018 | Date Answered: 07/11/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Please clarify Amtrak_5 comment in Addendum 5 regarding track alignment. Track 7, which is operated by GWRR, is the only track affected with alignment. Does RIDOT’s comment suggest that Amtrak specifications will take precedence over GWRR specifications, freight track? Please advise. |
|
|
Answer:
Track 7 shall be designed to conform to Amtrak standards from Spec 63. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/29/2018 | Date Answered: 08/03/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Amtrak_23 comment and the last Amtrak comment in Addendum 5 both pertain to the Train Approach Message System. Who is developing the software/update for the Pawtucket Station? |
|
|
Answer:
The TAMS system track circuit design and foundations will be designed by the D/B team and approved by Amtrak. The software and equipment to run the TAMS will be provided Amtrak. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/29/2018 | Date Answered: 07/25/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Regarding Amtrak_2 comment in Addendum 5, what Class classification is Track 7? |
|
|
Answer:
Design and construct Track 7 per Amtrak track standards Spec 63. Track 7 will be Class 5 for the final condition within project limits. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/29/2018 | Date Answered: 08/03/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum 5 provided a list of Amtrak comments. Embedded within the reviewer comments were specification and policy callouts with many of the callouts stated as attached documents. Can you please issue the referenced specifications and policies? a) Amtrak Track Monitoring Specification (refer to Amtrak_2 comment). b) Amtrak Specification 63 (refer to Amtrak_5 comment). c) Amtrak Engineering Practice EP 3016- Storm water Drainage and Discharge from Adjacent Property onto Amtrak ROW. Specification 150- Storm-water Management Policy (Amtrak_7 comment). d) Amtrak Standard Plan 70050.002.08 (Amtrak_29). e) Amtrak Standard Plan 70050.001.08 (Amtrak_31 and Amtrak_33 comments) f) Amtrak EP3014 requirements (Amtrak_41 comment) g) Drawing SP8011 (Amtrak_44 comment) h) Standard Drawing ET-1446-D and SP3002 (Amtrak_45 comment) i) Amtrak Engineering Practice EP3005 Section 02081A (Amtrak_46 comment) j) Amtrak EP3014 (Amtrak_47 comment) k) Drawing ET-1447-D (Amtrak_53 comment) |
|
|
Answer:
The following documents have been issued as part of an addendum. The remainder have been issued either on the informational CD issued along with the RFP or as part of the Design Criteria and Special Provisions issued in Addendum 4. a.) Amtrak Track Monitoring Spec - Not issued previously, included in an addendum. f.) & j.) Amtrak EP3014 Requirements - Specs 01141, 01142, 01520, and 02261 all issued on the CD issued with the RFP. Supporting summary document EP3014, which lists all of these specs was issued in an addendum. h.) Standard Drawing ET-1446-D - Not issued previously, included in an addendum. The following documents were not issued and were also not included as attachments to comments from Amtrak, as stated in the comment list issued with Addendum 5. g.) Standard Drawing SP8011 - Not included in attachments from Amtrak but issued in an addendum. i.) Amtrak Engineering Practice EP3005 Section 2081A - Not included in attachments from Amtrak but issued in an addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2018 | Date Answered: 07/16/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Based on the information provided and a field review of the existing conditions along the transit corridor it appears that there will be the need to relocate utility poles and associated cables/wires that cannot be done by the DB Entity. This work will need to be done by the respective private utility owner. While the RFP indicates that the cost for all utility impact is the responsibility of the DB Teams, until the design is completed, reviewed, and meetings are held with each affected utility the cost for their work will be an unknown. Based on previous RIDOT Design-Bid-Build and Design Build Projects we would like to request that any work required on private utilities be included as an allowance to the DB Teams. |
|
|
Answer:
Based on the BTC design, one utility pole (at Pine Street/Goff Avenue, NE corner) and one street light (on the southeast traffic island adjacent to municipal lot on Exchange Street at Broad Street) may need to be relocated. RIDOT will relocate the two conflicts with the private utility companies once the design is finalized by the successful D/B Team. No utility allowances are necessary. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2018 | Date Answered: 07/02/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please indicate whether or not there will be any additional information provided to clarify exactly what is required to be designed and constructed for the transit corridor beyond what has been provided in the original RFP and Addendum's 1 through 5. |
|
|
Answer:
The scope of improvements to the Transit Emphasis Corridor are shown on the plan set dated April 18, 2018, included in the original bid documents, and described in more detail in the “Chapter 3 Design Framework & Guidelines of the Design Study Report”, included in Addendum No. 2. In general, the Transit Emphasis Corridor includes bus-only lanes, bus/bike-only lanes, bike lanes, and bus stop curb extensions/floating bus stops to better serve all users and improve corridor safety and access. Specific improvements and requirements of the design-build contractor include: 1. Roadway Markings – The design-build contractor shall provide roadway markings, including bus and bike lanes, parking restriping, cross-walks, stop bars, lane dividers, bike boxes, stencils/symbols, words; etc. 2. Stations and Shelters - a. The design-build contractor shall construct the curb extensions and floating bus stops at the station locations as shown on the plans. b. The four proposed shelters along the Transit Emphasis Corridor will be advertising shelters. These will be provided by an outside vendor at no cost to the design-build contractor. c. The design-build contractor shall plan to coordinate with the outside vendor and plan to construct shelter foundations as part of the station bus stop work. In addition to foundations, the design-build contractor shall provide electrical and data rough-in connections for shelter lighting, illuminated advertising panels, real-time bus information displays, and ticket vending machines. d. At the station areas adjacent to shelters, the design-build contractor shall provide and install a detectable warning strip (cast iron, safety yellow) along the curb for the length of the station, meeting the latest ADA guidelines. The strip shall be 2 feet deep, sit directly behind the curb on the sidewalk side, and should be wet set in cement concrete sidewalk. e. The design-build contractor shall move R-Line totems located at existing bus stops in the corridor to the new bus stops. Additional totems will be provided by RIPTA if needed and RIPTA will provide the foundation details, if required, for the totems. f. The design-build contractor shall remove, reset and/or relocate R-Line and RIPTA standard bus stop signs. If signs are faded or damaged or do not meet current design standards, the contractor will need to coordinate with RIPTA to obtain replacement signs, at no charge to the contractor. More detail on the Broad Street and Exchange/Goff Avenue intersection improvements will be provided at a later date. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/22/2018 | Date Answered: 07/16/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the transit plaza shown in the sketch plan, between the transit hub and the station, may be graded as deemed by the Contractor as necessary to accommodate site drainage and to meet existing/planned grades, presuming that the Contractor accommodates accessible pedestrian site connections between the transit hub and the station as is required for code compliance. |
|
|
Answer:
The ‘Updated Pine Street Access Road’ plan dated 5/22/18 and the latest Bus Hub Plan Set - sheet numbers 4 through 6 do not indicate a future phase that may include a building. Building amenities such as a building pad, site preparation, grading, and/or utility connections are not required for this project. However, hard-scape and landscape features should not preclude the future development in the plaza area where a building of similar size could be located in a future phase of the bus hub project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/22/2018 | Date Answered: 07/16/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the design/construction of the hardscape schematically shown in the sketch plan of the transit hub ‘plaza’ is not required as part of this project, presuming that the Contractor accommodates accessible pedestrian site connections between the transit hub and the station as is required for code compliance. |
|
|
Answer:
Plaza design is open for interpretation by the D/B teams. Plaza plan is conceptual where the D/B team has latitude to present their plan, as long as the pedestrian and vehicular circulation meets all required codes. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/22/2018 | Date Answered: 07/16/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The sketch plan of the transit hub ‘plaza’ indicates the future placement of a building on the site between the station and the transit hub. Please confirm that there is no site preparation, grading, utility connections or any other design/construction activities required for this building as part of this project. |
|
|
Answer:
The ‘Updated Pine Street Access Road’ plan dated 5/22/18 and the latest Bus Hub Plan Set - sheet numbers 4 through 6 do not indicate a future phase that may include a building. Building amenities such as a building pad, site preparation, grading, and/or utility connections are not required for this project. However, hard-scape and landscape features should not preclude the future development in the plaza area where a building of similar size could be located in a future phase of the bus hub project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/22/2018 | Date Answered: 07/16/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The General Project Description scope bullets on page 4 of the RFP indicated the need for “pavement markings and associated paving”. The “Design Framework and Guidelines” on pg 7 of 9 discuss the implementation of final markings being placed on the final bituminous pavement. The Transit Corridor plans identify the pavement marking concept but don’t indicate anything regarding limits of required paving. What are the required limits and scope of paving required? |
|
|
Answer:
The Transit Emphasis Corridor (TEC) scope of work does not include large scale paving. Paving may be limited to replacing or modifying existing pavement after the construction of the TEC improvements once the design is finalized by the D/B team. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/22/2018 | Date Answered: 07/16/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RFP and the associated “Design Framework and Guidelines” provided in Addendum 2 do not appear to address the existing signals along the transit corridor. What are the expected improvements to the transit corridor traffic signals particularly as it relates to the current MUTCD standard and ADA compliance? |
|
|
Answer:
The Transit Emphasis Corridor may benefit from traffic signal upgrades. However, due to budget constraints, the project does not entail any traffic signal improvements. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/22/2018 | Date Answered: 07/16/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Is the Bus Hub layout shown in the BTC plans fixed in its location based on the “future development” and “future building” components shown in the Addendum 2 “A2_Pedestrian Plaza Concept LDS Plan”? |
|
|
Answer:
The general placement of the bus hub within the project site is a requirement due to transit operational requirements. However, the specific placement, orientation, and layout of the bus loop may be refined in order to provide the greatest benefit for bus operations, pedestrian access and safety, and potential for future development on the balance of the site. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/22/2018 | Date Answered: 07/11/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the excavation and removal of existing debris and rail infrastructure within the existing rail freight maintenance yard will be required only to the limit of disturbance necessary to construct the proposed Bus Hub and associated station platform. If not please provide a plan that delineates the limits of the work required including the final surface treatment(s). |
|
|
Answer:
Yes the excavation and removal of existing debris and rail infrastructure within the existing rail freight maintenance yard will be required only to the limit of disturbance necessary to construct the proposed Bus Hub and associated station platform. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/20/2018 | Date Answered: 07/03/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm whether there are any requirements for a FM 200 fire suppression system within platform communication cabinets? |
|
|
Answer:
Fire suppression systems are not required within platform communication cabinets. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/20/2018 | Date Answered: 07/11/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Is there a requirement to provide "wall hydrants" for station/platform maintenance wash down? If so please provide their locations. |
|
|
Answer:
Locations should be determined through coordination with local authorities in final design. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/20/2018 | Date Answered: 07/11/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that sprinkler systems will not be required anywhere at the station. |
|
|
Answer:
Sprinkler system requirements have been provided in design criteria and special provisions. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/20/2018 | Date Answered: 07/03/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that there will not be any closets/storage areas required for maintenance equipment or salt/sand. |
|
|
Answer:
The BTC does not require closets/ storage areas for maintenance equipment or sand/salt. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/20/2018 | Date Answered: 07/23/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Addendum #5 included a letter from DHK Architects affirming that the station BTC's design meets the egress requirements set by the applicable codes, however no information has been provided regarding the occupancy data utilized to develop the code compliance calculations. Could you please provide this information for our use. Furthermore, Addendum #4 documents include review comments from MBTA architectural which directs the DB Teams to design the station for year 2040 capacity. The associated comment response from the BTC design team implies that 2030 ridership numbers were employed. Please confirm the design intent and provide the actual occupancy number which should be utilized. |
|
|
Answer:
NFPA 130 calculations and egress analysis based on 2030 capacity were provided in Addendum No. 6. The D/B team shall be responsible for performing the analysis based on 2040 occupancy projections. The 2040 ridership projections will be released to the D/B Team upon award of the contract. The design was originally intended to comply with 2030 capacity numbers, which were based on a conservative ridership estimation and the 2040 ridership projections are not expected to change the results of the occupancy analysis. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2018 | Date Answered: 07/16/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The RFP states that RIPTA will own the bus hub. The City of Pawtucket’s assessor’s database currently shows that the parcel that would contain the bus hub is privately owned (Assessors Plat 44, Lot 559). What is the anticipated time frame for RIPTA to obtain ownership of this parcel? |
|
|
Answer:
RIPTA expects to acquire the required parcel by the time it is to issue the Notice To Proceed (NTP). |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2018 | Date Answered: 06/14/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Have there been any provisions made to acquire the portion of property (located on Assessors Plat 44, Lot 589) affected by the proposed curb revisions at the corner of Pine Street and Goff Street, shown on WSP’s Sheet 7? |
|
|
Answer:
This portion of the property is no longer required. A forthcoming addendum will show the revised intent for this corner. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/12/2018 | Date Answered: 07/02/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Is there any further Transit Emphasis Corridor roadway scope outside of roadway pavement markings and roadway curbs? |
|
|
Answer:
The scope of improvements to the Transit Emphasis Corridor are shown on the plan set dated April 18, 2018, included in the original bid documents, and described in more detail in the “Chapter 3 Design Framework & Guidelines of the Design Study Report”, included in Addendum No. 2. In general, the Transit Emphasis Corridor includes bus-only lanes, bus/bike-only lanes, bike lanes, and bus stop curb extensions/floating bus stops to better serve all users and improve corridor safety and access. Specific improvements and requirements of the design-build contractor include: 1. Roadway Markings – The design-build contractor shall provide roadway markings, including bus and bike lanes, parking restriping, cross-walks, stop bars, lane dividers, bike boxes, stencils/symbols, words; etc. 2. Stations and Shelters - a. The design-build contractor shall construct the curb extensions and floating bus stops at the station locations as shown on the plans. b. The four proposed shelters along the Transit Emphasis Corridor will be advertising shelters. These will be provided by an outside vendor at no cost to the design-build contractor. c. The design-build contractor shall plan to coordinate with the outside vendor and plan to construct shelter foundations as part of the station bus stop work. In addition to foundations, the design-build contractor shall provide electrical and data rough-in connections for shelter lighting, illuminated advertising panels, real-time bus information displays, and ticket vending machines. d. At the station areas adjacent to shelters, the design-build contractor shall provide and install a detectable warning strip (cast iron, safety yellow) along the curb for the length of the station, meeting the latest ADA guidelines. The strip shall be 2 feet deep, sit directly behind the curb on the sidewalk side, and should be wet set in cement concrete sidewalk. e. The design-build contractor shall move R-Line totems located at existing bus stops in the corridor to the new bus stops. Additional totems will be provided by RIPTA if needed and RIPTA will provide the foundation details, if required, for the totems. f. The design-build contractor shall remove, reset and/or relocate R-Line and RIPTA standard bus stop signs. If signs are faded or damaged or do not meet current design standards, the contractor will need to coordinate with RIPTA to obtain replacement signs, at no charge to the contractor. More detail on the Broad Street and Exchange/Goff Avenue intersection improvements will be provided at a later date. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/12/2018 | Date Answered: 06/14/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Please advise that in addition to the BTC and Addendums 2 and 4, there will be a future addendum that will address the entire Pine Street scope? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, there will be additional addenda to address the scope of Pine Street. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/12/2018 | Date Answered: 06/14/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
What will be the contractor’s responsibility/scope for public coordination? Will this involve providing updates to RIDOT and RIPTA to place on their websites? |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Team will be expected to provide, as needed, information that helps RIDOT keep the public informed of the project. RIDOT will lead all public outreach and public coordination. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/12/2018 | Date Answered: 06/14/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Will the contractor need to pull independent permits for each owner (RIDOT, Amtrak, G&W, RIPTA), or will ownership/control of the entire scope of work be transitioned over to the contractor for the duration of the project? |
|
|
Answer:
Please clarify the permits to which you are referring. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/12/2018 | Date Answered: 06/14/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT, Amtrak, and RIPTA require separate utility services, respectively for the Commuter Rail and Bus Hub? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, Amtrak facilities, Commuter Rail Station and the Bus Hub all require separate utility services. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/11/2018 | Date Answered: 07/11/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RFP indicates that “The storm water from this site discharges to the NBC Combined Sewerage System. NBC’s storm water treatment goal per regulation is zero gallons of storm or ground water into the combine sewerage system. The efforts toward storm water treatment, in the BTC plan, have not been approved by NBC and RIDOT has been informed that more effort to disconnect and/or justify the existing system, will be required for permit approval.” In addition “Amtrak storm water Manual Policy requires design/analysis to accommodate a storm with a 100-year recurrence interval. “ The BTC plans also shows the addition of a track underdrain system that connects to the NBC system at Dexter Street. Could you please clarify the storm water design requirements for the project since there appears to be a conflict between the RFP/BTC need to provide a 100 year design, a track underdrain system and the NBC requirement of zero gallons of storm or groundwater into the NBC system. In addition if ‘zero gallons’ does in fact refer to a zero gallon increase to the existing system, a substantial drainage networks will be needed beyond the project site ultimately discharging to a point yet to be determined. Is that the intention? |
|
|
Answer:
The stormwater system shall be designed per Amtrak's requirements for 100-year storm. Additionally, the NBC guidelines are that NO storm water or ground water is to have an active connection to the sewerage system. Any developments that have existing storm water or ground water connections are strongly encouraged to eliminate these flow contributions. If the D/B team cannot eliminate ALL of these flows, they must show what efforts they took to reduce existing flows and what obstacles are blocking them from the complete elimination of these unwanted flows. NBC does not have a design storm that is allowed for acceptance into the sewerage system. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/01/2018 | Date Answered: 07/17/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Would it be acceptable that the Design Manager be an “Individual that is a registered, licensed Architect in the State of Rhode Island?” |
|
|
Answer:
It will NOT be acceptable to have the Design Manager be a licensed architect. The RFP states that the Design Manager needs to be a licensed P.E. in the State of RI. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/30/2018 | Date Answered: 06/04/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Is the design intent of the bridge to be “directly open to the atmosphere” and not allow accumulation of smoke or heat per NFPA 130? If so, can the design team make revisions to the BTC design as required by the AHJ to remain an open to atmosphere structure?” |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, the design intent of the bridge it to be “directly open to the atmosphere”. Yes, the design team can make revisions to the BTC design that meets all governing requirements and standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/25/2018 | Date Answered: 08/03/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The “AMTRAK and D/B TEAM AREA OF WORK RESPONSIBILITY CHART at RFP” states under the area of work for “Freight Rail and Ties, Fine Grade Ballast” indicates that the “RESPONSIBLE PARTY” for material and labor is Amtrak. For “REMARKS/LONG LEAD ITEM” it states that “Fine grade to set tie and rail, ballast, wood ties, rails, plates, spikes, surfacing etc.” and under “SCHEDULE COMMENTS” it states that “D/B Team to provide accurate duration. Rail material to meet Buy America where procurement may impact schedule.” Could you please clarify if all of the labor and material for this item of work will be done by Amtrak and if so please provide the duration's for the procurement for the materials and installation work. If not please clarify the DB Teams scope of work. |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak shall be responsible for all track work above 2" below the bottom of tie, which includes ballast, ties, tie plates, rails, spikes, and final surface and aligning. Amtrak expects 4-6 months to build the new track, including procurement of track elements and demolition of existing Track 7. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/25/2018 | Date Answered: 08/09/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The response to a previous question about the existing fiber optic line that is located west of track 7 was that “If directed by Amtrak, the utility company that owns the Fiber Optic line will be responsible for relocation if needed. D/B Teams shall be responsible for protecting utilities and coordinating with all utility companies to determine the timeframe for relocation”. Based on the record information provided the line is located under the proposed southbound platform and it will need to be relocated to allow for the construction of the platform. Since Amtrak will be responsible for directing the utility company to move the line could the duration of their work and any other design information for the relocation be provided? |
|
|
Answer:
The existing fiber optic line is located under the proposed southbound platform, however, dependent upon construction methods, it is possible that it is protected from damage and allowed to remain in place. If the D/B Team determines that the fiber optic line requires relocation, Amtrak will direct MCI to relocate it at no cost to the D/B Team. MCI states a request shall be made after the platform design is 100% complete. Based upon Amtrak’s experience with MCI, the coordination to relocate the line may take 6 months and the line relocation should take 2 months. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/24/2018 | Date Answered: 06/01/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT provide a copy of the Force Account Agreement with Amtrak, if such an agreement is in place? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT is currently working with Amtrak under a previously executed Preliminary Engineering Agreement. The Master Agreement with Amtrak for this project is in draft form. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/21/2018 | Date Answered: 05/22/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT provide the CADD files of the BTC drawings released to date? |
|
|
Answer:
All applicable CADD files will be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/21/2018 | Date Answered: 08/07/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference Section 2, 2.1 General Description, major project elements, 6th bullet point: An automated real-time bus arrival timing system is required. a. Is there an existing system that we are to interface with? Where would the interface point be? b. Do the amenities include CCTV coverage of the bus hub? If so, what is the desired coverage? |
|
|
Answer:
Real-time system: Yes, there is an existing system. Interface provisions included in recent addenda. CCTV system: Yes, CCTV coverage is required with approximately 8-10 cameras anticipated but locations are dependent upon final design elements. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/17/2018 | Date Answered: 05/23/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Since the relocation of the AMTRAK signal hut and associated signal infrastructure work is critical to the relocation of Track 7, please provide the AMTRAK schedule for the anticipated engineering, procurement and the anticipated construction duration. |
|
|
Answer:
The Procurement should take 4-6 months, Fabrication will take approximately 2 months and Installation approximately 3 months. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/16/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Part A Section 4.1 requests a series of forms from the "Lead Entity." There is no definition of lead entity so we assume this to mean the entity that will sign the design-build contract. Do any of the forms listed need to also be provided by the Lead Designer? |
|
|
Answer:
The Lead Entity is defined as the one who will undertake the Financial Responsibility of the project. This is the only party that we will need the federal required forms submitted from. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/16/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Part A Section 4.6.a KEY PERSONNEL requests "a narrative describing the functional relationships among participants listed on the organizational chart (LIMITED TO ONE (1) PAGE)." Is this narrative intended to go in the appendix with the organization chart and be excluded from the 35-page limit? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, please include it in Appendix C. It does not count towards the page limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/16/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Part A Section 5.2 lists the evaluation criteria, under item A (2) Resumes and Availability of Key Personnel, four positions are listed. These positions do not match the 12 Key Personnel positions listed earlier in Section 4.6.a Key Personnel. Please clarify which positions are being considered key in relation to the selection committee's evaluation. |
|
|
Answer:
The Key Personnel identified in Section 4.6a shall govern; resumes for all key personnel shall be included in the proposal and all key personnel will be evaluated in the selection. Resumes can be included in an appendix and do not count toward the proposal page limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/16/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Part A Section 4.6 A on page 28 lists a number of legal and financial disclosures that must be made for each D/B Team Member, please confirm the responses to these requirements can be included in an appendix outside of the 35-page limit. |
|
|
Answer:
These disclosures can be included in Appendix C, as Supplemental Contractor Qualification materials. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/16/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The proposal organization outline in RFP Part A Section 4.2 does not indicate where the following materials should be included: insurance certificates requested under Section 3.2, Title VI Certification requested under Section 4.1, DBE Special Provision requested under Section 4.2. If these materials are to be included in Appendix A, can you please add them to the proposal organization outline on page 24? |
|
|
Answer:
Please include them in Appendix A along with the other required forms. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Part A Section 5.2 lists the evaluation criteria, under item A (2) Resumes and Availability of Key Personnel, four positions are listed. These positions do not match the Key Personnel positions listed earlier in Section 4.6.a Key Personnel. Please clarify which positions are being considered key in relation to the selection committee's evaluation. |
|
|
Answer:
The Key Personnel identified in Section 4.6a shall govern; resumes for all key personnel shall be included in the proposal and all key personnel will be evaluated in the selection. Resumes can be included in an appendix and do not count toward the proposal page limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2018 | Date Answered: 05/14/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Part A Section 4.6 A on Page 28 lists a number of legal and financial disclosures that must be made for each D/B Team Member, please confirm the responses to these requirements can be included in an appendix outside of the 35-page narrative. |
|
|
Answer:
These disclosures can be included in Appendix C, as Supplemental Contractor Qualification materials. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2018 | Date Answered: 05/14/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The proposal organization outline in RFP Part A Section 4.2 does not indicate where Title VI and DBE Special Provisions forms should be included with the proposal. Can you please add these to the list of documents submitted in Appendix A? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, these forms should be included in Appendix A along with the other required forms listed. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2018 | Date Answered: 05/14/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The proposal organization outline in RFP Part A Section 4.2 does not indicate where the insurance certificates requested under Section 3.2 should go. Please clarify if those should be submitted in Appendix A along with the Errors and Omissions insurance. |
|
|
Answer:
These can be included in Appendix A, along with the other required forms. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Section 12.1 Police and Roadway Flaggers states that “The cost for all local, State, and Amtrak Police shall be incidental to the Project cost and will not be paid for separately. The cost for Roadway Flaggers shall also be incidental to the Project cost and will not be paid for separately.” Since the project will involve significant work around Amtrak and the City streets the DB Teams will not be able to quantify the amount of police and flaggers that will be needed. Please consider adding an allowance to cover the cost of this work. |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak flaggers and police will be accounted for in the Amtrak force account agreement. D/B Teams will not be responsible for Amtrak flagger costs. The State will directly pay for all State and local police based on the submitted invoices, however, such reimbursement is subject to the scheduling and cancellation responsibilities of the D/B Team. The cost for Roadway Flaggers shall remain incidental to the Project cost, will not be paid for separately, and remains the responsibility of the D/B Team. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
There is a note on Drawing T-08 as follows: “R & R existing C & S cable,” Please clarify exactly what work the DB Teams are responsible for and what work Amtrak will be. |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak C & S cables will be relocated by Amtrak. Please see Amtrak and D/B Team Area of Work Responsibility chart issued in a previous addendum and coordinating the work with Amtrak. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
There is a note on Drawing T-08 as follows: “Remove existing signal house, install new signal house on concrete pad adjacent to Track 7 at Sta 712+00,” Please clarify exactly what work the DB Teams are responsible for and what work Amtrak will be. |
|
|
Answer:
Concrete foundations and pads for the signal house shall be installed by the D/B Team. Amtrak will be responsible for installing all signal house and communications equipment. Please see Amtrak and D/B Team Area of Work Responsibility chart issued in a previous addendum and coordinating the work with Amtrak. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2018 | Date Answered: 05/14/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Section 2.8-Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management ("RIDEM") and Narragansett Bay Commission ("NBC") states that the “Contractor acknowledges that the Project will involve work that requires the design of stormwater management. No stormwater from this project site is allowed to flow into NBC’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO). “Could you please clarify the intent of this statement since the BTC plans provided shows 2 new 18” SCPP connections to the NBC’s CSO at Dexter Street. |
|
|
Answer:
Please see Addendum No. 2 for further clarification. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The Draft Contract Section 17.2 has extended warranties on certain items as defined as follows: “17.2 Warranty Period.....provided that the warranty period for the following elements be extended to FIVE (5) YEARS in accordance with the following requirements: a) Precast concrete materials, sealants, traffic topping and sealers provided that RIDOT and/or its operator shall comply with recommended maintenance procedures on a semi-annual schedule and certify to the precast manufacturer that the regular maintenance is being performed in accordance with said schedule; b) Electrical pipe, conduit, wire, breakers and switchgear; c) Standby generator, life safety system, lamps, bulbs and ballasts, provided that RIDOT and/or its operator purchases a service contract from the vendors of such systems; d) Manhole structures, pipe and precast or granite curb, except as caused by settlement of soils or damage from traffic or plows; e) Signage and graphics from fading and discoloration; and f) Finish on aluminum storefront and metal roof systems from fade or discoloration.” The following is from our Surety Agent “Extended Warranty on Specified Items — Please be aware that the 5-year warranty applicable to certain subtrades and materials, per Draft Contract Section 17.2, will significantly increase the cost of the Design/Build Contractor’s bond. While a 5-year period is generally the surety industry’s maximum limit for bonding extended warranties, if the owner agrees to specifically accept a 5-year warranty directly from the applicable subs and suppliers (i.e., not pass through the Design/Build Contractors contract) then no additional bond cost would apply.” Please consider reducing the warranty duration and accepting warranties for the specified items directly from the applicable subs and/or supplier. Please also review the items requiring extended warranties for consistency with the requirements of the RFP. i.e there doesn’t appear to be a requirement for a standby generator. |
|
|
Answer:
The RFP Section was included in error. We will issue a revised Section 17.2 in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RFP has the following statements pertaining to utilities: “Contractor shall be primarily responsible for the completion of all Utility Work. Costs for the Utility Work shall be considered part of the Price.” “Contractor is hereby notified of the existing fiber optic line within Amtrak ROW. Amtrak will relocate if required by the Design.” In order to determine if the existing fiber optic line needs to be relocated as currently shown on the BTC plans (R & R exist fiber conduit), could you please provide the record drawings and any other information that is available for the line? In addition, we would like to obtain copies of all plans for all utilities in the project area that were used to generate the base mapping. Please include all Amtrak signal and communication facilities and any other underground facilitates that they or P&W might have in the Project area. Could you also clarify if the fiber does need to be moved will it be part of the Amtrak force account and is there a time frame for this work? |
|
|
Answer:
All record plans on file will be issued to the D/B Teams in a forthcoming addendum. If directed by Amtrak, the utility company that owns the Fiber Optic line will be responsible for relocation if needed. D/B Teams shall be responsible for protecting utilities and coordinating with all utility companies to determine the timeframe for relocation. D/B Teams are not responsible for the cost of relocating the Fiber Optic cable. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2018 | Date Answered: 05/18/2018 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
• Page 5 of 49 of Part A-Instructions for respondents indicates that “RIDOT and RIPTA Consultants (WSP, Inc. and Vanasse Hangen & Brustlin, Inc.) have developed a Base Technical Concept (BTC) for the Project for use as reference documents only. Respondent D/B Teams may deviate from the BTC, however, the Train Station BTC has received conceptual approvals from Amtrak, RIDOT, State Historical Preservation Commission, and municipal entities, etc. Therefore, D/B Teams shall be responsible to submit any deviations to all governing Agencies and address such schedule implications in their Technical Proposal.” Could you please clarify what has been approved so that we can determine what deviations might need to be obtained prior to construction? Any Memorandums of Understating or similar documentation would be helpful. |
|
|
Answer:
All deviations from the BTC shall require stakeholder approval. The train station BTC has received approvals for the conceptual design from various State agencies and letters stating such approvals and each of the stakeholder’s relevant comments will be issued in a forthcoming addendum. The bus hub and transit emphasis corridor has not been submitted to these agencies and is the responsibility of the D/B Team to determine. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2018 | Date Answered: 08/01/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Section 10.1.8 Pollution Liability Insurance requires the D/B Team and all Sub-contractors to purchase and maintain limits of $5,000,000 per occurrence and $10,000,000 in the aggregate. Is it acceptable for this coverage to be required of the D/B Team and subcontractors performing remediation work, as opposed to all subcontractors? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will revise and reissue the insurance specification to follow the Standard RIDOT Bluebook with job specific provisions to address professional liability insurance, rail road protection insurance, Amtrak insurance requirements, etc. in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2018 | Date Answered: 08/01/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Section 10.1.7 D/B Team’s Equipment Insurance states "D/B Team and all Sub-contractors shall purchase and maintain D/B Teams’ Equipment Coverage on an "all-risk" basis, at full replacement cost of such equipment." Are the D/B Team and subcontractors able to decide to insure or self-insure their own equipment? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will revise and reissue the insurance specification to follow the Standard RIDOT Bluebook with job specific provisions to address professional liability insurance, rail road protection insurance, Amtrak insurance requirements, etc. in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2018 | Date Answered: 08/01/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
In Section 10.1.9 Professional Liability Insurance, the third sentence states “The policy shall include as insureds RIDOT, D/B Team (including all Participants) and any Subcontractors (including design sub-consultants).” Typically, only the Lead Designer is insured on a Professional Liability policy. Does “Subcontractors” refer to design subcontractors or construction subcontractors? Is RIDOT requiring a Project Specific Professional Liability policy? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will revise and reissue the insurance specification to follow the Standard RIDOT Bluebook with job specific provisions to address professional liability insurance, rail road protection insurance, Amtrak insurance requirements, etc. in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2018 | Date Answered: 05/14/2018 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Section 2.7 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 final contract will consist of the RFP including all addenda and submitted proposal. There will be no separate contract document issued. The requirements and terms for this contract are provided within those documents cited above. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/03/2018 | Date Answered: 05/04/2018 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
No Track cross sections are provided with the BTC drawings. Please provide Track cross sections. |
|
|
Answer:
Track cross sections are not part of the BTC as the station and bus hub plan sets are based on a 10% level of design. These station track cross sections are the responsibility of the successful D/B Team to determine and submit in the 30% level of design package. |
|