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: 12/29/2021 | Date Answered: 01/04/2022 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Is snow fence required on the new bridges? If so, please provide guidance on preferred type and limits. |
|
|
Answer:
No, permanent snow fence is not required on any of the new bridges. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2021 | Date Answered: 12/23/2021 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Pages 8-17 of Addendum 6 (Volume 3 sheets 4-6, and volume 10 sheets 3, 16, 21, 24-27) were on 8.5x11 inch paper. Can the plan pages please be issued on 36x24? |
|
|
Answer:
The 36x24 Sheets are provided as part of Addendum 7 that will be posted next week. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2021 | Date Answered: 12/23/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Temporary Barrier: RFP Part 2, Section 3.11.2.4, Temporary Roadside Elements, calls for MASH TL-5 barriers on I-295, Route 37 and on all ramps leading to and from I-295 and Route 37. And that all other barriers shall be MASH TL-4. Section 3.11.2.6, Temporary Barrier, calls for MASH TL-3 barrier. RIDOT TAC – 0385, Temporary Barrier for Traffic Control, was issued December 3, 2021 and indicates TL-3 unless otherwise directed by RIDOT. Please clarify what TL is required for I-295, for Route 37 and all ramps for temporary barrier. Please also indicate if a different TL is required on the bridges. |
|
|
Answer:
In accordance with RIDOT TAC – 0385, Temporary Barrier for Traffic Control, issued December 3, 2021 temporary barrier which meets a MASH TL-3 minimum test level for all project locations shall be utilized. Section 3.11.2.4 has been revised as part of Addendum 7 that will be posted next week. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2021 | Date Answered: 12/23/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
I-295NB Traffic Control: The BTC Volume 10 TTCP Typicals (Sheets 60 thru 62) indicate that traffic control devices on Route 37 and I-295NB will consist of either cones or drums. During pavement box widening, there will be a significant excavation and drop-off along long stretches of I-295NB at both shoulders. Will RIDOT require that temporary traffic barrier be installed along with temp striping and milling and paving of rumble strips? |
|
|
Answer:
The details shown on pages 60 – 62 depict some of the typical traffic control setups that will potentially be utilized throughout the project length. If the D/B contractor’s operations result in drop-offs adjacent to the roadway, then the appropriate traffic control measures to address those drop-offs, in accordance with RIDOT policies and procedures will be necessary. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2021 | Date Answered: 12/23/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Permanent Barrier: Do the requirements of TAC – 0386 (Revised), dated December 14, 2021 apply to the Bridge Group 51B, Route 37 C-3 Project? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, please note the language in TAC 386 is similar to the language included in RFP Part 2 Section 3.11.3 |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2021 | Date Answered: 12/23/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Qualifications: RFP Part 1, Section 8.6, Selection Criteria, indicates that Qualifications (Firm experience and Staff qualifications) will be scored. Section 6.1, Technical Proposal Contents, is prescriptive in the major sections to be provided and does not indicate where qualification information is to be included. Would RIDOT like the Qualification material included as part of an Appendix or as a major section of the main proposal document? Is there a desired page limit for this material? |
|
|
Answer:
Section 8.6 will be revised to remove the qualifications scoring criteria. Qualification material does not need to be included with the Technical Proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/13/2021 | Date Answered: 12/17/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
RFP Part 1, Section 6.5 (Technical Approach) and Section 6.7 (Management Overview) indicate that proposers should provide a “Description of the planned coordination of Project work with the overall Project construction staging and other Project constraints including coordination with other projects in the area.”. This information is currently requested as part of each subsection within Section 6.5 and is also required in Section 6.7. In consideration of the page limit and to avoid repetitious material, would RIDOT consider eliminating this as part of Section 6.5 and allow proposers to address this item entirely in Section 6.7? |
|
|
Answer:
This is acceptable. RFP Section 6.5 has been revised as part of Addendum 6 to remove the repeated information. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/10/2021 | Date Answered: 12/23/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Existing retaining walls topped with traffic railing run along the north and south sides of Route 37 between Oaklawn Avenue bridge and Cranston Street bridge, along Ramp W-N (proposed Ramp C), and along Rt 37 between the I-295 NB & SB. Are bidders to assume full removal and disposal of these retaining walls and if so, please clarify the limits? |
|
|
Answer:
The limits on the north side of Route 37 extend to the beginning of the wingwall at the Oaklawn Ave bridge crossing. On the south side of Route 37 the limits coincide with the limits of the Cranston St bridge reconstruction as shown. At the other locations, new barrier shall be used. The D/B Entity shall assume full removal and replacement of these wall section unless the D/B Entity can show that partial removal and reconstruction with new barrier will satisfy all AASHTO and MASH criteria. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/09/2021 | Date Answered: 12/17/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Regarding RFP Part 1, Section 6.2; Is it acceptable if the text in charts, graphics and tables is presented using a font size smaller than 11-point? |
|
|
Answer:
Smaller size text as indicated would be acceptable. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/08/2021 | Date Answered: 12/17/2021 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Based on the existing roadway width along I-295 NB adjacent to Ralph's Pond (Station 132+00 to Station 146+50), will the Department be revising the parameters (shoulder widths) utilized in the I-295 NB Design Criteria to allow for the proposed 3 lane striping to fit within the existing 39’ (including the existing asphalt berm) paved width? |
|
|
Answer:
The approach through this area (milling and overlay) was to match the existing edge of road using a reduced shoulder width as necessary. Please refer to the Typical Roadway Section for the varying shoulder widths and Appendix B.10 Design Criteria for tables noting the required design exceptions to be obtained by the DB Entity. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/07/2021 | Date Answered: 12/17/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Signing and striping plan No. 25 in BTC Volume 10 indicates that an existing cantilever sign structure is to be used to mount proposed signs numbered OH-8 and OH-9. Please confirm that the existing cantilever sign structure is adequate to support the proposed sign panels. |
|
|
Answer:
The intent is to replace all sign supports that will carry new signs. The existing supports may be reused if the DB Entity can demonstrate they can support the proposed signs. Callouts in Volume 10 will be revised in Addendum 6. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/06/2021 | Date Answered: 12/17/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Page 36 of the final categorical exclusion (CE) document makes reference to a corridor land use evaluation (CLUE) that was completed for the project. Attachment “M” of the CE indicates that this is a separately bound document. Can RIDOT provide the corridor land use evaluation (CLUE)? |
|
|
Answer:
The CLUE was included in the initial RFP CD as part of Appendix B.05 Permitting. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/05/2021 | Date Answered: 12/17/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Drawing notes for Bridge 062001 indicate that the abutment repair areas are based on the 2018 bridge inspection report. It is reasonable to expect that these repair areas may have increased over the last 3 years. What percentage increase in repair areas should the DB Teams assume? Is pay item 1.12.2 intended to provide reimbursement for any increase in substructure repair quantities from that shown in the BTC? |
|
|
Answer:
The 2020 inspection report has been provided in the initial RFP release. There was no noticeable change in substructure condition notes between the 2018 and 2020 inspections. The BTC Plan note has been revised and is included in Addendum 6. D/B Entity shall use the 2020 Inspection Report to determine areas of repair and increase this quantity by 25% for bidding purposes. Pay item 1.12.2 is not intended to pay for additional substructure repairs. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/02/2021 | Date Answered: 12/17/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
RFP Part 2, Section 3.19.5 indicates that an archaeological study is currently underway and final determination will be updated by a future Addendum. While additional information was provided with Addendum 4, we have not found the archaeological study report. Has the study been completed and is it currently available for review? |
|
|
Answer:
RFP Part 2, Section 3.19.5 has been updated to include pertinent information and is included in Addendum 6. The archeological study will not be provided. |
|
| Date Asked: 11/12/2021 | Date Answered: 11/29/2021 |
| Poster: Keil Correena | Company: Walsh Constrcution |
|
Question:
RFQ Part 1 Section 2.7 required all team members to identify and disclose potential conflicts of interest or competitive advantages related to the procurement of this Project by August 30, 2021. Further, section 2.7.5.1 states that firms and individuals may not material participate in the preparation of a proposal in more than one Proposal response. Does the State consider a scheduling consultant engaged to prepare the preliminary schedule for the proposal a “material participant” and would said scheduling consultant be permitted to participate on multiple design build teams responding to the RFQ for this Project? |
|
|
Answer:
Scheduling consultants are considered to be a "material participant" and would not be permitted on multiple design build teams. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/29/2021 | Date Answered: 11/02/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
As per Addendum 2, the last date to submit questions has been adjusted to January 4, 2022 which is 9 days prior to the technical and price proposal deadline. To allow RIDOT time to respond to any questions and for the responses to be incorporated into the proposal documents, we request that RIDOT adjust the last day to submit questions to December 22nd, 2021. |
|
|
Answer:
The last day for questions will remain as January 4, 2022. This date is a fixed time period prior to the Technical Proposal due date. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/01/2021 | Date Answered: 10/26/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Similar to the previously posted question, there were also no CAD files of the traffic design (TTCP, Signs and Details, Detours, and Closures). Will additional CAD files of the traffic plan production sheets be provided in a future addendum? |
|
|
Answer:
CAD files will be provided with supplemental CD in Addendum No. 3. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/01/2021 | Date Answered: 10/26/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Thank you for the AutoCAD files that were provided with the Addendum 2 CD. While the CD included AutoCAD drawing files for the roadway and structural designs, no CAD files were provided of the plan sheets. In the past, RIDOT has provided the plan sheets to the DB Proposers. Will additional CAD files of the plan production sheets be provided in a future addendum? |
|
|
Answer:
CAD files will be provided with supplemental CD in Addendum No. 3. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/29/2021 | Date Answered: 09/30/2021 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
As part of the RFP, RIDOT provided a Draft Categorical Exclusion that noted Attachment J was the Historical & Archaeological Reports and would be added when completed. The Historical & Archaeological Reports were not included in Addendum No. 2. Please provide these reports when they are complete. |
|
|
Answer:
As previously answered, these documents will be provided by a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/15/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Please provide all 149 drawings for the original (1967) contract set (Contract No. 6756). |
|
|
Answer:
Additional plans have been provided by supplemental CD as part of Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/15/2021 | Date Answered: 11/02/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Please provide the original lighting drawings for the project area and all recent safety improvement and tolling gantry contract drawings. |
|
|
Answer:
The recent safety improvement project and tolling gantry project plans are included in Addendum 4. Lighting plans can be obtained from the RIDOT Plan Room. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/15/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
RFP Part 2, Section 3.11.3 refers to 2016 AASHTO MASH requirements. However, the BTC roadway drawings indicate RIDOT standard concrete barrier (40.1.0, 40.2.0, etc,) which do not meet MASH requirements. Will all new traffic barrier need to meet the requirements of 2016 MASH? |
|
|
Answer:
All new traffic barrier should meet 2016 MASH requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/15/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Should the Initial ATCs be submitted electronically or with hard copies and if so, how many? |
|
|
Answer:
Please submit nine (9) hard copies of the initial ATC submission and one (1) digital copy on a CD. The digital version shall be exactly the same as the hard copy version. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/10/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Can RIDOT provide the GIR’s for Bridges 062201, 83101, 130050? |
|
|
Answer:
Files will be provided by supplemental CD as part of Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/10/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Can RIDOT provide the gINT files for the recent borings in the GDR’s? |
|
|
Answer:
Files will be provided by supplemental CD as part of Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/10/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
RFP Part 2, Section 3.13.9.f indicates seismic design to be in accordance with AASTHO LRFD and RI LRFD BDM. Since the 9th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Manual has many updates to seismic design criteria in comparison to the RIDOT LRFD BDM, will RIDOT allow the 9th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge manual to govern for seismic design? |
|
|
Answer:
AASHTO criteria will govern seismic design. Part (f) has been revised as part of Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/03/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Keil Correena | Company: Walsh Constrcution |
|
Question:
Please provide Existing Borings for Structures 072801 and 072821 (Rt. 37 over I-295) – Existing Borings B-165 through B-170 for the West span, as-built drawings or additional borings for the East span. These are missing from Part 2 |
|
|
Answer:
Additional plans have been provided by supplemental CD as part of Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/01/2021 | Date Answered: 09/23/2021 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
In the RFP Part 2 Technical Provisions, the Route 37 DRAFT Categorical Exclusion indicates Supporting Documentation is included in Attachment J; Historical & Archeological Reports (To Be Added when completed). We respectfully request a copy of information relating to the historical and archeological sites within the project area. |
|
|
Answer:
This information will be provided in the approved CE to be issued by future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/01/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
In the RFP Part 2 Technical Provisions, the Route 37 DRAFT Categorical Exclusion indicates Supporting Documentation is included in Attachments A through P. We respectfully request a copy of this supporting documentation. |
|
|
Answer:
Attachments A through P to be provided by supplemental CD as part of Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/26/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Keil Correena | Company: Walsh Constrcution |
|
Question:
Walsh respectfully requests the Traffic Data and the Traffic Capacity Analysis that were noted to be included in Attachment B of the BTC Transportation Management Plan (TMP). |
|
|
Answer:
Files will be provided by supplemental CD as part of Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/25/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm it is acceptable to RIDOT for proposers to communicate and coordinate with Public Utilities regarding the Bridge Group 51B: Route 37 C-3 DB Project. Also, if is acceptable to communicate with the Public Utilities, please provide contact info for any specific individuals RIDOT would prefer we contact. |
|
|
Answer:
Correct, DB Teams may communicate directly with utilities during the proposal phase. A list of utility contacts based on the BTC and preliminary utility coordination performed by the State is provided in RFP Part 2, Section 5.3.1. Please note that contacts for National Grid Electric and COX have recently changed. National Grid Electric contacts will be updated to Sean McGovern, Email: Sean.McGovern@Nationalgrid.com, Phone: 401-255-2498 and Patrick Sullivan, Email: Patrick.sullivan4@nationalgrid.com, Phone: 781-493-5339. The COX contact will be updated to Shawn Murphy, Cox Communications/Northeast Region, Email: Shawn.Murphy@cox.com, Phone: 401-430-5599. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/20/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Will traffic Vissim model file be made available? |
|
|
Answer:
Files will be provided by supplemental CD as part of Addendum 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/20/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Will rating reports for the existing bridges be made available? |
|
|
Answer:
Latest Load Rating Reports will be provided by supplemental CD as part of Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/20/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Richard Prior | Company: AECOM |
|
Question:
Will AutoCAD files for the BTC drawings be made available? |
|
|
Answer:
CAD files will be provided by supplemental CD with Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/20/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Keil Correena | Company: Walsh Constrcution |
|
Question:
We respectfully request all electronic engineering data as it pertains to the Base Technical Concept, such as AutoCAD, Civil 3D, DTM’s, alignment data, and Survey Files. |
|
|
Answer:
CAD files will be provided by supplemental CD with Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/18/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Keil Correena | Company: Walsh Constrcution |
|
Question:
Spec Section 202.9901 Management and Disposal of Regulated Soils, states that an estimated amount of $1,000,000 is under item No 1.13.1 of Cost Proposal Form N. This item can not be found on Form N. Please Advise. |
|
|
Answer:
This cost is included under item 1.12.1 of Form N. Spec Section 202.9901 has been revised and included in Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/18/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Keil Correena | Company: Walsh Constrcution |
|
Question:
Please verify and confirm that RIDOT is the sole generator of all Unregulated, Regulated, and Hazardous soils/waste Materials generated under this contract. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT is the sole generator of all unregulated, regulated, and hazardous soils/waste/materials generated under this contract unless the soil/waste/materials generated are a result of a release from the contractor’s equipment due to overfilling or line failure. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/18/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Keil Correena | Company: Walsh Constrcution |
|
Question:
Mandatory Specification 100.99901, Document Control Specialist (Minimum Bid) states that the m.s.v is $375,000. Cost Proposal Form N does not appear to have an item for this Spec Section. Please Advise. |
|
|
Answer:
RFP Part 2 and Form N have been revised and are included in Addendum No. 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/13/2021 | Date Answered: 08/13/2021 |
| Poster: angel garces | Company: RIDOT |
|
Question:
Part 2 of the RFP indicates there is an Appendix B with supplemental files that are not included in the zip file to download. Are these files available to pick up on a CD? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, due to file size Part 2 Appendix B is not included in the zip file. CD’s are available for pickup by shortlisted firms only from the RIDOT Contracts Office located in room 112. |
|