Questions and Answers For:

Rt 5 - Lambert Lind Hwy C-1 (Mayfield Ave - I-95) 2020-CH-019

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 401-563-4100 with any new questions.

Date Asked: 05/21/2020 Date Answered: 05/27/2020
Poster: Lee Taylor Company: D'Ambra Const. Co., Inc.
Question:
Item #126 and #127 are still missing from the bid sheet after the addendum #2 update.
Answer:
Addendum 2 has deleted Items 126 & 127. These items are now classified as Items deleted. A further clarification to all Bidders using the Quest Lite software: If you have imported Addendum 1 you must delete this file from your Quest Lite software and import the Addendum 2 file only. If you do not delete the Addendum 1 bid file you will not see the changes that have been made in Addendum 2. When Addendum 3 is issued you should delete Addendum 2 from your Quest Lite software and import Addendum 3 only.
Date Asked: 05/21/2020 Date Answered: 05/27/2020
Poster: Raymond Giordano Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
The following items are included in the bid file per addendum 2: item 147 L06.9924 WEIGELA - 'WINE AND ROSE' 2-2.5 INCH CALIPER 6 each item 147 L06.9921 WEIGELA - 'WINE AND ROSE' 2-2.5 INCH CALIPER 6 each item 148 L06.9925 LILAC TREE - 'ANTHONY WATERER' 2-2.5 INCH CALIPER 14 each item 148 L06.9922 LILAC TREE - 'ANTHONY WATERER' 2-2.5 INCH CALIPER 14 each item 149 L06.9923 DAYLILY - 'HAPPY RETURNS' 2-2.5 INCH CALIPER 61 each item 149 L06.9926 DAYLILY - 'HAPPY RETURNS' 2-2.5 INCH CALIPER 61 each
Answer:
Addendum 2 removed the duplication of items. A further clarification to all Bidders using the Quest Lite software: If you have imported Addendum 1 you must delete this file from your Quest Lite software and import the Addendum 2 file only. If you do not delete the Addendum 1 bid file you will not see the changes that have been made in Addendum 2. When Addendum 3 is issued you should delete Addendum 2 from your Quest Lite software and import Addendum 3 only.
Date Asked: 05/21/2020 Date Answered: 05/27/2020
Poster: Raymond Giordano Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
There are no minimum prices specified (flaggers, flagger overtime, water for dust control, calcium chloride, trainee manhours, maintenance and movement traffic protection). Please review.
Answer:
These will be provided in addendum 3.
Date Asked: 05/21/2020 Date Answered: 05/27/2020
Poster: WAYNE CLARKE Company: cardi corp
Question:
As an alternate to the PBU's, will a cast-in-place option with stay-in-place forms be an option. This option will reduce the installation cost of the utilities crossing the bridge.
Answer:
RIDOT will consider value engineering proposals for a conventional cast-in-place concrete deck.
Date Asked: 05/20/2020 Date Answered: 05/21/2020
Poster: Joe Colapietro Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
Does stormwater treatment system 3 have an impermeable liner?
Answer:
WQ Basin 3 does not have an impermeable liner.
Date Asked: 05/19/2020 Date Answered: 05/21/2020
Poster: Raymond Giordano Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
The new specifications for codes 206 thru 212 included in addendum 2 all state that cleaning and maintenance is incidental to the respective items. Item code 212.1200 MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING OF EROSION AND POLLUTION CONTROLS is included as a bid item in the Quest Lite bid file. Please review.
Answer:
The updated RI Standard 206 thru 212 Specifications (TAC 0351) have been reviewed and determined that cleaning and maintenance activities are now incidental to the respective items. Item Code 212.1200 Maintenance and Cleaning of Erosion and Pollution Controls will be deleted from the Contract and the revision will be included in Addendum #3.
Date Asked: 05/19/2020 Date Answered: 05/21/2020
Poster: Raymond Giordano Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
Please see the earlier question regarding items 147 - 149. These items are still duplicated in the Quest Lite bid file.
Answer:
Upon review of the latest Quest Lite Bid file issued with Addendum #2, there is no duplication of items.
Date Asked: 05/19/2020 Date Answered: 05/21/2020
Poster: Raymond Giordano Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
Regarding your response concerning the quantity of gravel borrow, the RIDOT Standard Specifies state this item is measured in place, i.e. after compaction, therefore "swell" is not added for payment. Please review.
Answer:
The quantity has been reviewed and reduced by this amount and will be revised to 3,300 CY as part of Addendum #3.
Date Asked: 05/15/2020 Date Answered: 05/18/2020
Poster: Lee Taylor Company: D'Ambra Const. Co., Inc.
Question:
Items #126 / #127 disappeared in Addendum #1. Shouldn't the items remain as "Item Deleted"?
Answer:
An updated Item List for clarification will be provided as part of Addendum No. 2.
Date Asked: 05/15/2020 Date Answered: 05/18/2020
Poster: Lee Taylor Company: D'Ambra Const. Co., Inc.
Question:
Regarding paragraph E on page CS-12 - is there an anticipated time when the state will obtain occupancy rights to the properties and the tenants to vacate?
Answer:
The properties have been acquired by the state, but occupancy cannot be obtained until a tenant has been relocated to suitable housing which is anticipated later this year. The contractor should no expect to have access to these parcels until Spring of 2021.
Date Asked: 05/14/2020 Date Answered: 05/18/2020
Poster: Raymond Giordano Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
General plan 8 shows micromilling on Knight Street between stas. 504+00 and 505+54. Site prep plan 8 shows R&D flex pavement in the same location.
Answer:
General Plan 8 pavement work (Micromill) call out on Knight Street between Sta. 504+00 and Sta. 505+54 is correct and shall supersede Site Preparation Plan 8 which will be revised and issued with Addendum 2.
Date Asked: 05/14/2020 Date Answered: 05/18/2020
Poster: Raymond Giordano Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
Site Preparation Plan No.1 & 2 show micormilling between sta. 17+67 and 22+60 but the general plans show full depth paving in this area. Also Site Preparation Pla No. 2 show micro milling on Greenwich Ave. but full depth paving and loam & seeding in this area. Please review.
Answer:
General Plans 1 and 2 pavement work (Full Depth Pavement) call out between Sta. 17+67 and Sta. 22+60 is correct and shall supersede Site Preparation Plans 1 and 2. In addition, General Plan 2 pavement work (Full Depth Pavement) call out on Greenwich Ave. is correct and shall supersede Site Preparation Plan 2. These revised plans will be issued with Addendum 2.
Date Asked: 05/13/2020 Date Answered: 05/18/2020
Poster: Raymond Giordano Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
The notes on construction details 2 were changed in addendum 1 to include new gravel borrow subbase for sidewalks and wheelchair ramps in item 906.9901. Therefore, why there is still 652 cy listed in the DOQ for cem. conc. sidewalks in item 302.0100? Also, why is there a quantity designated as "swell" since according to the RIDOT Standard Specification gravel borrow subbase is an in place measurement?
Answer:
Distribution of Quantities have been updated and included in Addendum No. 2. The “Swell” quantity takes into account compaction.
Date Asked: 05/11/2020 Date Answered: 05/18/2020
Poster: Joe Colapietro Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
Please review drainage pipe quantities. Every pipe item seems to have atleast 1 section of pipe that is carried under the wrong item, or the plans are wrong.
Answer:
Drainage pipe quantities have been updated and included in Addendum No. 2.
Date Asked: 05/11/2020 Date Answered: 05/18/2020
Poster: Raymond Giordano Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
Please review the landscape item changes in addendum 1. Items 147-149 are listed twice with different item codes but the same descriptions and quantities.
Answer:
Items 147-149 were revised with different descriptions and quantities. A revised Item List with the current item numbers has been included in Addendum No. 2.
Date Asked: 05/01/2020 Date Answered: 05/05/2020
Poster: Lee Taylor Company: D'Ambra Const. Co., Inc.
Question:
Page CS-8, 5th paragraph down states contractor to coordinate with Cities of Cranston/Warwick and all utility companies to ensure all scheduled utility work is "Completed" prior to contractor "Commencing" his work within this contract. At this time is RIDOT aware of any such projects that are scheduled? The way the paragraph is written work can not commence within the project even if some small incidental work by the cities/utility companies are being performed. This could have an impact on the project schedule.
Answer:
The utility coordination requirements are covered under Section 3 on CS Page 3 and therefore the paragraph in question will be deleted and will be revised in Addendum No. 1.
Date Asked: 04/29/2020 Date Answered: 05/04/2020
Poster: Lee Taylor Company: D'Ambra Const. Co., Inc.
Question:
Please indicate which plan view shows access to the abutment areas for the work
Answer:
Access to the abutment areas are at the Contractor’s discretion.
Date Asked: 04/29/2020 Date Answered: 05/04/2020
Poster: Peter Calcagni Company: Manafort Brothers Inc
Question:
Does Cox Communication go in the same conduits duct bank as Verizon for the phase 2 switch or is the Cox remaining overhead for phase 2?
Answer:
Cox Communications is presently and in the future will remain overhead on existing poles as shown on the plans. As referenced in previous question, Verizon will consolidate existing underground service across the bridge and relocate to overhead in advance of the Phase 1 bridge work and will remain overhead. Communication duct banks to be installed for future use.
Date Asked: 04/29/2020 Date Answered: 05/04/2020
Poster: Peter Calcagni Company: Manafort Brothers Inc
Question:
Can you provide an estimated duration of Verizon to install the duct bank on the bridge broken out per phase?
Answer:
Verizon will be relocating underground utilities overhead prior to the contractor starting Phase 1 of the bridge work. The intent is for this initial work to be complete prior to the 2021 construction season. Verizon will not be relocating their service back underground, the new duct bank is being installed for future use. Once Verizon relocates to overhead prior to Phase 1 bridge work, they will remain overhead and in place for phase 2.
Date Asked: 04/29/2020 Date Answered: 05/05/2020
Poster: Peter Calcagni Company: Manafort Brothers Inc
Question:
Can you provide a estimated duration for National Grid Electric to perform the switch over from overhead to underground power between phase 1&2 including the demo of the overhead lines?
Answer:
National Grid is estimating approximately 4-5 weeks for their work associated with the bridge.
Date Asked: 04/28/2020 Date Answered: 05/04/2020
Poster: Peter Calcagni Company: Manafort Brothers Inc
Question:
Is there any existing plans available for the bridge?
Answer:
Existing plans for the bridge are available from the Plan Room at the RIDOT. Original contract #6048.
Date Asked: 04/28/2020 Date Answered: 05/04/2020
Poster: Raymond Giordano Company: Cardi Corporation
Question:
The typical section for Mayfield Avenue shows 43.1.0M sidewalk detail on both sides. On General plan 1 the sidewalk on the right side is labeled 43.1.0M and 43.1.0. Which is correct?
Answer:
The Typical Section is correct and the General Plan will be revised in Addendum No. 1.
Date Asked: 04/28/2020 Date Answered: 05/04/2020
Poster: nicholas tanionos Company: specialty diving services, inc.
Question:
- Soil Borings: o Please provide any available soil borings in vicinity of the pier structure to facilitate design of the cofferdam.
Answer:
Borings are included as part of Addendum 1 and can be found in Appendix H of the CS Pages. Borings include those from the original construction drawings taken circa 1960, and borings taken by GEO LOGIC, INC. in 2001.
Date Asked: 04/27/2020 Date Answered: 04/30/2020
Poster: Lee Taylor Company: D'Ambra Const. Co., Inc.
Question:
Sheet #34 - Construction Details #2 shows slope faced concrete curbing in the island areas with exposed aggregate sidewalks (item #92). Please indicate the bid item this curbing will be paid for.
Answer:
A bid item for slope face curbing will be added in Addendum 1.
Date Asked: 04/23/2020 Date Answered: 04/30/2020
Poster: WAYNE CLARKE Company: cardi corp
Question:
In Volume 2, the 'Mud Line' elevations shown on Sheet 10 of 36 appear very different from the elevations noted on Sheet 17 of 36. Please clarify which bottom elevation represents the actual field conditions.
Answer:
Approximate mud line elevations on Sheet 10 and 18 have been edited per the 2017 RIDOT Underwater Inspection Report and will be included as part of Addendum 1.
Date Asked: 04/23/2020 Date Answered: 04/30/2020
Poster: WAYNE CLARKE Company: cardi corp
Question:
The plans are noting the bottom of the river as 'Mudline'. Is there a layer of mud or is the term 'Mudline' just noting the 'River Bottom'? if there is mud, how thick is the layer?
Answer:
The term “mudline” is noting the river bottom. Previous borings indicate the river bottom to be fine to course SAND.
Date Asked: 04/23/2020 Date Answered: 04/30/2020
Poster: WAYNE CLARKE Company: cardi corp
Question:
Were any boring taken in the river by the pier and/or abutments? if so, please provide.
Answer:
Borings will be included as part of Addendum 1 and can be found in Appendix H of the CS Pages. Borings include those from the original construction drawings taken circa 1960, and borings taken by GEO LOGIC, INC. in 2001.
Date Asked: 04/23/2020 Date Answered: 04/30/2020
Poster: WAYNE CLARKE Company: cardi corp
Question:
Please provide the Normal Water Level (NWL) and Low Water Level (LWL).
Answer:
We are not in possession of the Normal Water Level (NWL) and Low Water Level (LW) elevations.
Date Asked: 04/23/2020 Date Answered: 04/30/2020
Poster: WAYNE CLARKE Company: cardi corp
Question:
In Volume 2, the 'Mud Line' elevations shown on Sheet 10 of 36 appear very different from the elevations noted on Sheet 18 of 36. Please clarify which bottom elevation represents the actual field conditions.
Answer:
Approximate mud line elevations on Sheet 10 have been edited to match Sheet 17. Sheet 10 Rev1 will be included in Addendum 1.
Date Asked: 04/20/2020 Date Answered: 04/23/2020
Poster: Peter Calcagni Company: Manafort Brothers Inc
Question:
The Environmental Permit only allows in water work with soil disturbance from July 1st-Oct 31st during low flow period. Does this mean that the cofferdam can only be installed between these dates?
Answer:
Any work that may disturb existing soil conditions, including installation of the cofferdam, can only be performed July 1st thru October 31st. The installed cofferdam may be left-in-place between Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction.
Date Asked: 04/20/2020 Date Answered: 04/23/2020
Poster: Peter Calcagni Company: Manafort Brothers Inc
Question:
If the contractor feels that they can meet the contract schedule building the bridge with a conventional cast in place deck using stay in place forms will this be allowed?
Answer:
RIDOT will consider value engineering proposals for a conventional cast-in-place concrete deck using removable forms.
Date Asked: 04/15/2020 Date Answered: 04/23/2020
Poster: Lee Taylor Company: D'Ambra Const. Co., Inc.
Question:
At the pier work it may be necessary to use a concrete tremi-pour seal between the existing footing and the temp cofferdam to enable dewatering for pier refacing. This would require removal of the river bottom material below the existing mud line. Will this be allowed, and will the tremi concrete be allowed to remain in place after the completion of the work?
Answer:
This will not be allowed. Earthwork done inside the cofferdam must be a temporary disturbance. Removal of river bottom material is not allowed under the permit.
Date Asked: 04/13/2020 Date Answered: 04/14/2020
Poster: WAYNE CLARKE Company: cardi corp
Question:
Please disregard the question pertaining to the cofferdam at the center pier. I see the notes stating to perform the work in phases. Thank you.
Answer:
Noted. Thank you.
Date Asked: 04/13/2020 Date Answered: 04/14/2020
Poster: WAYNE CLARKE Company: cardi corp
Question:
The Bridge plans show a steel closed cofferdam around the center pier with sheeting extending down to bedrock (not done in phases). The length of sheets from the 10 Year Flood Elevation to the bedrock is ~28 feet long. The M.H.W. Elevation to the mud line is ~18 feet. How are the ~28 steel sheets supposed to be installed with the limited headroom as shown?
Answer:
No response required.