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: 02/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/27/2017 |
| Poster: Michael Azurin | Company: Raytheon |
|
Question:
Regarding Addendum 9, please clarify the intent of the note with respect to NEPA. What is intended by NTP 2 Issued? What is the anticipated date that the final designs can commence? |
|
|
Answer:
NTP 2 relates to the Contractor’s Notice to Proceed to final design. It is anticipated that the NTP for final designs will be staggered as the NEPA approvals are completed for each Toll Location. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/27/2017 |
| Poster: Michael Azurin | Company: Raytheon |
|
Question:
Given the NEPA schedule for Phase I (Toll Points 1 and 2), when is it anticipated that the contractor will be allowed to proceed with final design under the NEPA schedule provided? Specifically the NEPA schedule dates of 10/27/17 for Toll Points 1 and 2 do not support a six month implementation/delivery timeline based on an “Anticipated NTP” of 5/1/17. |
|
|
Answer:
Upon review RIDOT has updated the anticipated NEPA completion date for Locations 1 and 2 to 10/1/2017 and has revised the date to commence revenue collection to 12/31/2017 for Locations 1 and 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/27/2017 |
| Poster: Michael Azurin | Company: Raytheon |
|
Question:
Addendum 9 included a NEPA approval completion date for a Location 5, is the intent to add a toll point Location 5 to the Project? |
|
|
Answer:
NO. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/27/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
As per Addendum No. 9, NEPA complete for locations 1 and 2 is anticipated by October 27, 2017. Addendum No. 9 also states the following: “Contractor shall not commence final design or any construction activities at any Toll Point prior to RIDOT obtaining the necessary environmental approvals as per FHWA Order 6640.1A FHWA Policy on Permissible Project-Related Design Activities During the NEPA Process”. Please clarify what works, if any, could be advance prior to obtaining NEPA Process. Specifically, please clarify how RIDOT envisions achieving start revenue collection on locations 1 and 2 no later than 6 months after NTP (approximately November 2017 if the Anticipated Notice to Proceed is by May, 2017), i.e. what portion of the design and of the construction work can be done prior to finishing NEPA and what must wait. |
|
|
Answer:
Upon review RIDOT has updated the anticipated NEPA completion date for Locations 1 and 2 to 10/1/2017 and has revised the date to commence revenue collection to 12/31/2017 for Locations 1 and 2. The definitions of Preliminary Design and Final Design are clearly explained in FHWA Order 6640.1A, including Appendixes A and B. As per FHWA Oder 6640.1A RIDOT will coordinate with FHWA regarding permissible project-related activities that may be advanced prior to the conclusion of the NEPA process. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/24/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
In reference to “Form E, Certification of Dumping Facilities”, this form has fillable fields for dollar amounts for various dumping facility use costs. Please confirm that bidders may include dollar amounts in this Form E, which is required in the technical proposal. |
|
|
Answer:
Confirmed. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/23/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please confirm the $3,250 price provided for "IAG 3 Lane Kit" within the Attachment D Rev 2/10/17 includes the antenna and Installation Kit LMR-400. |
|
|
Answer:
The MP Lane Kit IAG-3 (contains 1 each: MP RF Module, adaptor cable, IAG-3 antenna, Circulator). It is not clear what the reference to LMR-400 cable is for. Any cabling required between the reader and antenna is not included in the lane kit and the responsibility of the Contractor. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/21/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
On 24 January, RIDOT provided a clarification that the Proposer is to include any Technical/ Terms and Conditions assumption in the narrative of the Technical Proposal. It remains unclear if these assumptions, exceptions are to also be captured in the 2 page list available for use to the Offeror in the COST Volume. Is it RIDOTs intent to capture all assumptions, clarifications, exceptions regardless of technical, cost, and/or terms related, in the 2 page COST volume. |
|
|
Answer:
The 2 page cost proposal narrative should be used to address any assumptions, clarification, exceptions or other related items to cost. Other technical assumptions, clarifications, exceptions shall still be included in the technical proposal as indicated. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/21/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Please confirm if a new date has been set for the Oral/Interviews? If so, what is the date? |
|
|
Answer:
We anticipate scheduling the interviews for the week starting March 26th. We will try and contact proposers at least two weeks advance to schedule the exact interview date and time. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/21/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Please confirm if RIDOT will accept each attachment of the proposal as a separate electronic file to address size constraints of the proposal files. This structure will also provide a user friendly approach for review if the information by the evaluator(s). |
|
|
Answer:
Yes this will be acceptable. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/21/2017 | Date Answered: 02/22/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT please confirm that if a proposer proposes less TMA trucks for the TM&P (MOT) for a FREEWAY EXPRESSWAY FULL CLOSURE OF TOLL GANTRY SIGN TRUSS INSTALLATION OR REMOVAL described in the BTC plans page 52 of 53 (Plan 7) that RIDOT will reject such proposals. The BTC plan provided by RIDOT on page 52 of 53 requires 3 TMA trucks, please confirm less TMA trucks if proposed will be rejected. |
|
|
Answer:
The TMP plans in the BTC are for general guidance. The PROPOSER is permitted to deviate from the BTC TMP plans. The proposal will not be rejected, provided that all temporary traffic control work shall conform to the latest edition of the" Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" (MUTCD), the RIDOT Traffic Design Manual and latest edition of the "RIDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction" with all revisions. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/21/2017 | Date Answered: 02/22/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Have any agencies already been contacted, such as: RI Natural Heritage, SHPO, THPO, or USFWS? If so can documentation of this correspondence be provided? |
|
|
Answer:
Coordination with these agencies are ongoing. RIDOT is not able to provide documentation at this time. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/21/2017 | Date Answered: 02/22/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Has the delineation shown on the BTC plans already been approved by RIDEM? If so, can documentation be provided? |
|
|
Answer:
Coordination with RIDEM is ongoing. RIDOT is not able to provide documentation at this time. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/21/2017 | Date Answered: 02/22/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Have all toll locations had wetlands delineated for the entire extent of the work area including additional work areas? |
|
|
Answer:
The BTC plans include wetland delineation for work to be performed at the toll locations. Additional work areas related to the bridge construction are not included and are not available at this time. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/21/2017 | Date Answered: 02/22/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Are the flags depicted on the BTC plans field delineated or GIS? If field delineated when were they delineated and can field completion reports to document what was encountered be provided? |
|
|
Answer:
Flagging depicted on the BTC plans with JEG-XX-XX nomenclature were field delineated during Fall 2016. Field documentations are currently in review with RIDEM, and RIDOT is not able to provide documentation at this time. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/21/2017 | Date Answered: 02/22/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A, Contract Terms - As revised, Contract Sec. 19.1.2: RIDOT has indicated in its answer dated February 20, 2017 that “once the "Readiness" deadline is achieved, Liquidated Damages shall be assessed for failure to achieve "Revenue Collection" within 5 days of written notice.” Could RIDOT please provide additional language on these Liquidated Damages, including the dollar amount that will be assessed? |
|
|
Answer:
This was previously stated incorrectly. To clarify, LD’s for delay shall be assessed based on failure to achieve “Readiness for Revenue Collection”. Once “Readiness for Revenue Collection” has been achieved for each Toll Point it shall be considered to be operational and subject to the performance requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/20/2017 | Date Answered: 02/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A – Sec. 1.1: Please confirm that, notwithstanding the definition of “Contract Documents” in Sec. 1.1 of the Contract, the provisions of the RFP and the answers to the Proposers’ questions will be legally binding on RIDOT and enforceable for the benefit of the Contractor. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. However they will be considered enforceable regardless of who it may benefit. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/20/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A – Sec. 15.10.1: The first sentence of Section 15.10 excludes Change Orders for differing Site conditions, directly contradicting both the second sentence of Section 15.10 and Blue Book Section 109.4, both of which expressly require RIDOT to issue such Change Orders. Will RIDOT agree to delete the first sentence of Section 15.10 in its entirety? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. This information is included in Addendum 9. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/20/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A – Sec. 15.14: The second paragraph of Section 15.4 could be read to apply to extensions of time pursuant to a Change Order, so that delay Damages could be deducted from amounts due to Contractor despite the existence of a Change Order approving such delay. Please confirm that Section 15.4 applies only to extensions of time that are not covered by Change Orders. |
|
|
Answer:
To clarify the inquiry the section references are to Section 15.14 and not 15.4? If so then yes this is correct. It would be expected that any Change Orders issued would address any impacts or changes to delay damages as may be appropriate. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/20/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
In reference to RFP I-8.1 , RIDOT previously responded to a clarification request that it would provide clarification on the marking requirements for the proposal in an upcoming Addendum. Please confirm if RIDOT still intends to provide the requested information in a forthcoming Addendum. If not, please confirm it is acceptable for an Offeror to mark all proposal documents as "Proprietary" with restrictions on the rights to release information. |
|
|
Answer:
This information is included in Addendum 9. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/20/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Attachment D - Sheet 5 includes duplicate position titles in rows 10 through 12. Is it acceptable for the Proposer to delete the duplicative positions or will RIDOT update the sheet in a new addendum? |
|
|
Answer:
Attachment D has been updated in Addendum 9. Additionally, as indicated additional categories may be added as well. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/20/2017 | Date Answered: 02/21/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
The FORM K released in Addendum 8 includes a line "NAME OF PROPOSER" on Page 1, followed by a reference to "Name of Contractor". Please confirm that RIDOT expects the Prime Contractor's name under "Proposer" and that the name of either the Prime Contractor or its Subcontractor to which the DBE is contracting with should be identified in the "Name of Contractor". |
|
|
Answer:
CONFIRMED. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/20/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
The revision made to Section 6, Environmental Approvals in Attachment A under Addendum 8 is silent of any requirements related to wetland permits. Under the previous version of this clause RIDOT had the responsibility to obtain the wetland permits. Please clarify if it is still intended that RIDOT is responsible for obtaining any required wetland permits. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT is still responsible for obtaining any required wetlands permits based on the limit of disturbance indicated in the BTC Plans. If the PROPOSER deviates from the limits of disturbance on the BTC Plans then the PROPOSER is responsible for completing a modification to any wetland permit. RIDOT will assist the PROPOSER in coordinating with RIDEM. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/20/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RIDOT provided responses to multiple clarification requests that it would provide details related to NEPA in an upcoming Addendum. Please confirm if RIDOT still intends to provide an expected NEPA approval schedule and the details for each toll site NEPA evaluation in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. The NEPA schedule will be included in Addendum 9. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/20/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
The revision made to Section 6, Environmental Approvals in Attachment A under Addendum 8 removed all language related to RIDOT's responsibility for NEPA approval. Please provide your concurrence that all NEPA approvals required for the Project are RIDOT's responsibility. Please provide any instances during performance if and when NEPA approvals would become the responsibility of the Contractor. |
|
|
Answer:
This is correct. RIDOT will continue to be responsible for obtaining NEPA approvals. The original language and section specific to RIDOT responsibility to obtain NEPA approvals was inadvertently omitted. It will be re-instated in Addendum 9. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/17/2017 | Date Answered: 02/22/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A, Contract Terms - As revised, Contract Sec. 19.1.2 states that Phase II Liquidated Damages will be assessed “for failure to achieve Readiness for Revenue Collection.” Addendum 8 Sec. B.3(b), however, identifies Commencement of Revenue Collection as a Milestone Completion Deadline, and Contract Sec. 19.1.1 states that Liquidated Damages will be assessed “with respect to any failure to achieve any Milestone Completion Deadline.” Please confirm that Contractor will be liable for Liquidated Damages for Phase II only if it fails to achieve Readiness for Revenue Collection for all Toll Points beyond the Milestone Completion Deadline for Phase II, and will not be assessed if Contractor misses a Commencement of Revenue Collection deadline. |
|
|
Answer:
This was previously stated incorrectly. To clarify, LD’s for delay shall be assessed based on failure to achieve “Readiness for Revenue Collection”. Once “Readiness for Revenue Collection” has been achieved for each Toll Point it shall be considered to be operational and subject to the performance requirements |
|
| Date Asked: 02/17/2017 | Date Answered: 02/20/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum 8 Sec. B.3(b) - Please explain what conditions must be met for a Toll Point to be considered “specifically associated with corresponding bridge construction projects." |
|
|
Answer:
This is only meant as an explanation as to why RIDOT will issue a separate notice to Commence of Revenue Collection. Each Toll Point has been established to collect revenue for specific bridge assets (ie. bridge structures within the vicinity of the Toll Point). |
|
| Date Asked: 02/16/2017 | Date Answered: 02/20/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
In reference to Attachment A - Contract Terms, Section 13. Responsibility for Loss or Damage: Please advise if RIDOT would consider adding a reasonable aggregate cap to Contractor's liability, equal to 100% of the Deployment Price during the implementation phase, then an annual aggregate limit of 100% of the Operations and Maintenance Price during Phase III? |
|
|
Answer:
No. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/16/2017 | Date Answered: 02/20/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Please identify TL4 temporary barriers acceptable for the project. |
|
|
Answer:
Temporary barriers that conform to the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide are acceptable for use in this project. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/16/2017 | Date Answered: 02/21/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
RIDOT encourages the use of the Sakonnet Bridge Gantries at no cost to the contractor. If the Sakonnet River Bridge Gantries cannot be site adapted or be structurally signed and sealed for installation by a Rhode Island Registered Professional Engineer will RIDOT consider reimbursing the contractor for replacement gantries. Additional question; will RIDOT accept the professional engineering and structural engineering responsibility for the Sakonnet River gantries. |
|
|
Answer:
The Shop Drawings, for the gantries, stamped by a RI Registered Professional Structural Engineer will be provided by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/16/2017 | Date Answered: 02/20/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP Section II.1.1.1 as revised by Addendum 6 "“As Toll Points 1 and 2 will not require the full application of complex business rules or prorating of toll fares it is not expected that a system host or host application will be required. Rather each Toll Point (i.e. TZC) will initially interface directly with RITBA’s Back Office System.” Since the host and/or host applications are not required as part of this phase, can the RITBA confirm if it is correct that the zone controllers at tolling points 1 & 2 would need to only process TVL files from the RITBA CSC and return image and AVI transaction files, but that the Return and Reconciliation files identified in RITBA CSC ICD are not required as part of phase 1? |
|
|
Answer:
That is correct. It is expected however that during Phase I there will be a mechanism or ability to report on transaction details from the roadside (i.e. TZC) for the purposes of system testing and performance validation. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/15/2017 | Date Answered: 02/17/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please confirm that all questions and answers posted here on this site will be published as an official part of the RFP. |
|
|
Answer:
CONFIRMED. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/15/2017 | Date Answered: 02/21/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
Regarding the existing gantries from the Sakonnet River Bridge: Could you please provide copies of the approved shop drawings for these structures, so that we can better evaluate how/where we will be able to utilize them? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, the shop drawings will be provided by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/14/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: daniel waugh | Company: RIDOT |
|
Question:
Section II-4.5.8 states that the existing gantry structure previously used for tolling on the Sakonnet River Bridge is available for use in this project. Are the gantries available at no cost to the Contractor? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, the gantries will be provided by RIDOT at no cost to the Contractor. RIDOT encourages the use of these existing gantries. This may be particularly advantageous during Phase I, due to the early Milestone Completion Deadline. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/10/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
Reference: Attachment A – Contract Terms, Section 20. – Labor and Employment Requirements, Subsection 20.2 – Labor Harmony and Prevailing Wages. “Contractor shall require prevailing wages to be paid for labor performed on the Project in accordance with the requirement of the Davis Bacon Act, and R.I.G.L. 37-13.” Are prevailing wage rates to be paid during Phase III - Operations and Maintenance of the Project? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/10/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Please clarify if RIDOT will be setting up a force account to pay for the coordination and review by the various utility companies to verify their existing facilities and identify any potential conflicts with the proposed tolling infrastructure. The costs associated with this coordination and review from all the different public and private utility providers cannot be estimated by the DB teams and can be substantial. If a standard RIDOT force account will not be set up, please provide direction on how this should be priced in the cost proposals. |
|
|
Answer:
The intent of the “Utility Bank ROC Allowance” is to assist in compensating the Contractor for any physical work required to be performed by the utility companies up to a maximum of $250,000. A separate allowance item to assist in compensating the Contractor for coordination and preliminary engineering work by the utility companies up to a maximum of $50,000 will be added by Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/10/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP, Section II-5.2.3.3 states that the Contractor shall also be responsible for damages associated with the loss of data and/or revenue for failure of RIDOT's system. Please clarify this is intended to mean that the Contractor is only responsible for lost revenue associated with its negligence to design, operate and maintain the system per the requirements of the Contract. Please confirm that the Contractor will not be responsible for loss of revenue resulting from actions beyond the Contractor's control. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, this is correct. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/10/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
The definition of Force Majeure specifically excludes any damage or delays attributable to natural elements, including lightning, explosion, drought, rain, flood, snow, or storm, except as specified in (a) which refers to natural disaster. Should the Offeror interpret this to mean that in the event of a storm, eg. snow storm, the right to adjustment in cost and schedule is only applicable if that storm resulted in a natural disaster. If so please define "natural disaster" and who has the authority to make the determination. If this is the correct interpretation please consider modifying this clause. The construction activity related to the Work will require access to the highway and adjacent areas. In the event of a storm or flood which limits accessibility to these areas it may be outside the contractor's control to perform the Work regardless of whether the elements caused a natural disaster. |
|
|
Answer:
A Natural Disaster shall be defined as that by executive order of the President of the United States or the Governor of the State. Any other work which the Contractor feels is subject to claim or change order shall do so in accordance with the Contract Terms. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/10/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
The Contract is silent regarding if consequential and indirect damages are excluded. Liquidated damages are included for all phases of the program. Please clarify if RIDOT is willing to include the following statement or something substantially similar in the Contract: "In no event shall the Contractor be liable for indirect or consequential damages arising out of or related to its performance under the Contract." |
|
|
Answer:
No. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/08/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Joseph Bambara | Company: CDM Smith |
|
Question:
It appears the answers from RIDOT on the questions about using TL-4 permanent barrier and TL-3 temporary barrier are reversed. TL-4 guardrail would be used for permanent installation on highways while TL-3 is for temporary concrete barrier in construction zones. Please advise |
|
|
Answer:
The previous answers to the barrier-related questions were correct. Please note, all barrier applications shall conform with the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/08/2017 | Date Answered: 02/15/2017 |
| Poster: Anthony Cardinale | Company: Arden Engineering |
|
Question:
Type your questions here.In a previous Q & A regarding the utility Allowance and Location No. 1 cost, RIDOT’s response stated “The contractor shall provide utility costs for Location 1 as this work is included in the revised BTC plans”. However, according to National Grid (Thomas Capobianco), the proposed overhead wire between pole 24 and 27 must be installed by National Grid. In addition, he stated this work may require an overhead transformer and possibly replacing/upgrading the utility poles. National Grid cannot provide this cost without a Service Request Number and further engineering/investigation, which would not be available for the bid. Since all utility make ready-work charges may not be available for the bid, please advise if all Utility Company make ready-work Charges (Verizon, Cox, National Grid, etc) can be part of the Allowance whether they are shown on the latest BTC drawings or not. |
|
|
Answer:
The intent of the “Utility Bank ROC Allowance” is to assist in compensating the Contractor for any physical work required to be performed by the utility companies up to a maximum of $250,000. A separate allowance item to assist in compensating the Contractor for coordination and preliminary engineering work by the utility companies up to a maximum of $50,000 will be added by Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/08/2017 | Date Answered: 02/15/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please confirm whether striping medians (e.g. the one at location 6a separating I-95 NB lane from the on ramp lane) should be considered as shoulders for the purpose of equipping them as per the following answer provided on 01/17/2017: “Shoulder coverage shall accommodate at a minimum AVI (E-ZPass), Image Capture (front and overview) and DVAS coverage”. |
|
|
Answer:
Correct. To confirm ‘striping medians’ shall be considered shoulders. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/08/2017 | Date Answered: 02/15/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
For TZ14a, please provide the bridge plans to the Broadway Overpass, including plans for the S.W. Wing Wall. They appear to be part of the same contract plan set as Wall A and B: Rhode Island Contract No. 7815, Sheets B-48 thru B-65. |
|
|
Answer:
Existing plans will be issued by future Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/06/2017 | Date Answered: 02/15/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
Reference: Attachment A – Contract Terms, Section 24 – Documents and Records, Subsection 24.1 – Escrowed Proposal Documents (“EPDs”). Does RIDOT have a preferred escrow provider? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT Does not have a preferred escrow provider. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/06/2017 | Date Answered: 02/18/2017 |
| Poster: Marcela Betancur | Company: American Civil Liberties Union of RI |
|
Question:
Once the image based tolls are put in place is there (or will there be) a specific policy regarding the storage, use, and deleting of data and images captured by the tolls? More specifically regarding the motor vehicles that will not be subject to the tolls. Will the data and images captured by the Image based tolls be shared with any other governmental, non-governmental, or private organizations aside from the RI Turnpike and Bridge Authority? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, there will there be a specific policy in place regarding the storage, use, and deleting of data and images captured by the tolls prior to toll commencement. The policy will include (yet to be developed) image and data information sharing restrictions. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/06/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
Reference Addendum 5, revised Attachment D - Cost Proposal Form: Item 19 was aded to the form with the definition "* An allowance of $250,000 shall be included in the total AET Deployment Cost. This allowance shall only be utilized for unforeseen make ready-work performed by utility providers as determined by RIDOT. " Please define what is meant by "unforeseen make ready-work". For example, at Location 1, does this allowance cover the costs for the Power Company to run the new overhead cable from Pole 24 to Pole 27? |
|
|
Answer:
The allowance is intended to cover unexpected cost associated of utility work not indicated on the Revised BTC Plans included as part of Addendum 5. The Contractor shall provide utility costs for Location 1 as this work in included in the Revised BTC Plans included as part of Addendum 5. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/06/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
In the attached pricing tables provided by RIDOT with Addendum-5 there is pricing for a tolling point/location 14C which does not exist on the plans |
|
|
Answer:
Attachment D – Cost Proposal Form will be changed by Addendum to remove Location 14C. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/06/2017 | Date Answered: 02/10/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
“Section II-3.15 of the RFP states that all structures “shall be designed in accordance with the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 5th Edition, with 2010 and 2011 Interim Revisions.” The RIDOT Standard Specifications states that all designs shall be to the “latest edition” of this AASHTO document. The latest edition is the 6th edition with 2015 addenda. Please advise |
|
|
Answer:
All structures shall be designed in accordance with the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 6th Edition, with 2015 Interim Revisions. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/05/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
RFP Sections II-2.6.2 DVAS Cameras states “shall provide images of sufficient resolution and clarity in all weather and lighting conditions”. Will RIDOT clarify the requirements for toll zone and transition lighting at the tolling points, and who is responsible for providing this lighting? |
|
|
Answer:
The Contractor is responsible for providing any supplemental lighting (if required) in order to achieve sufficient resolution and clarity of DVAS images. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/03/2017 | Date Answered: 02/18/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Without the NEPA approval status as discussed by RIDOT in previous responses, the Proposer assumes that the NEPA approvals are related to civil design of the construction of each toll zone. Please clarify if the NEPA approval is required to enter final design review for the A&E civil design only, or if RIDOT intends to delay the final design review of the AET system architecture until such approvals are provided. |
|
|
Answer:
Final design of the AET system architecture, including RIDOT reviews, can begin prior to the completion of the NEPA Process. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/03/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Three conduits are shown on many of the BTC cross sections. There does not appear to be any requirement for spare conduits in the RFP. Please clarify how many power and communication conduits are required between the service points and the tolling cabinets. |
|
|
Answer:
The conduit on the BTC’s are for conceptual representation. The actual design shall be per the Proposer/Contractor’s design. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/03/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
It is assumed that RIDOT will accept RI PE stamped structural and foundation shop drawing submittals for the gantry designs and calculations. Please confirm |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/02/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Is TL-4 permanent barrier (guardrail or concrete barrier) required to protect all roadside gantries. |
|
|
Answer:
All new permanent guardrail installation shall meet the minimum requirements of a TL-3 rating. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/02/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Is any TL-3 temporary concrete barrier acceptable to use for temporary lane closures |
|
|
Answer:
Temporary concrete barrier shall be a minimum of TL-4 for temporary lane closures. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/02/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Jeffrey A. Bostock | Company: Aetna Bridge Co. |
|
Question:
It is assumed that if the proposer does not intend to disturb the existing pavement, the proposer will not be required to upgrade the pavement at each toll point. |
|
|
Answer:
Correct. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/02/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
RFP Volume II, paragraph II-3.14.4 - Temp. Variable Message Signs: Please clarify how many locations RIDOT would expect the Contractor to place these VMS units. |
|
|
Answer:
Temporary Variable Message (VMS) Signs shall be required as part of the traffic control setups in advance of work zones involving the closure of shoulders and/or lanes on limited access highways. The Proposer shall determine the number of VMS signs and the length of time required based on the proposed schedule and phasing of construction activities. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Given that there are nearly 50 questions remaining to be answered on the RIDOT bid site and the question deadline essentially ends in two business days, can RIDOT please extend the questions deadline and the response due date at least two weeks respectively? This will allow Proposers time to analyze RIDOT responses, sufficient time to ask follow up/clarification questions to posted answers, and enable Proposers to provide RIDOT with a quality, comprehensive and compliant response. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will take this comment into consideration and if an extension to the submission due date is given, it will be issued by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
RFP, Table II - 4: Project Milestone Completion Deadlines, indicates a Phase II - Final System Implementation "Final Commencement of Revenue Collection (All Toll Points Complete)" has a completion deadline of 18 Months from NTP. Is the Notice to Proceed referenced in this section the main Notice to Proceed for the overall project (issued upon Contract Award)? Or is the Revenue Collection Milestone 18 Months from each Toll Point Notice to Proceed as indicated / issued under RFP II-4.5.4, p. 69 - Notice To Proceed for Toll Location Final Design? |
|
|
Answer:
18 Months from the original NTP issued upon Contract Award. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/18/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
RFP II-4.5.4, p. 69 - Notice To Proceed for Toll Location Final Design, states "As RIDOT completes each NEPA process for each Toll Point a separate Notice to Proceed will be issued, in writing, allowing the Contractor to proceed with the remaining final design. Prior to completion of NEPA the Contractor may complete preliminary design except they cannot proceed with any activity that is classified as final design." Does RIDOT anticipate completing the NEPA process and issuing Notice to Proceed for each Toll Point under Phase II all at once, or will Notice to Proceeds for each Toll Points be staggered? If staggered, what are the anticipated Toll Point Notice to Proceed dates? |
|
|
Answer:
The NEPA process for the individual toll locations will NOT be completed all at once. We will provide the anticipated NEPA completion dates for each of the toll locations in the next addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/20/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
Attachment A, Exhibit A - Contract Terms, Definitions p. 91 - Contractor Assurance Testing (CAT) is defined as "testing performed by Contractor as the material is being placed into its final position or after it has been placed in its final position and is ready for final acceptance by RIDOT. The frequency of CAT is normally specified for each type of work in the Contract Documents and in applicable standards." However, CAT testing is not mentioned in any of the other proposal documents. Has the CAT test been replaced/renamed or is it required in addition to the other tests defined in the main RFP? |
|
|
Answer:
CAT testing is in reference to civil/construction related efforts for the gantry construction. It is not intended to replace any other requirement in the RFP documents. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/18/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
Addendum 4 - What is the anticipated start and finish date of the I-295 and SR 5 Proposed Interchange Project? Should Proposer anticipate site access delays due to construction under this project in the location 8 gantry areas? |
|
|
Answer:
The anticipated construction start date of the I-295 and SR-5 (Greenville Avenue)Interchange is approximately in late summer/early fall of 2018. The proposers should not assume site access delays at the location 8 gantry areas. However, proposers should assume their work will need to be performed in a coordinated manner with the bridge reconstruction work in these areas. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment C - Functional Capability Matrix: The definitions of “Existing” and “Modify” in the Note to Attachment C - FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY MATRIX refer to “a current feature of the Contractor’s proposed system”. Could RIDOT please indicate how bidders should complete Attachment C for items of the matrix which are not features of the Contractor’s proposed “system” strictly speaking? For instance can bidders state that hardware that will be bought or teams that will be put together especially for the Project are Existing features, as the bidder has all the required experience and capability to procure the equipment and mobilize the teams that will comply with the Project’s requirements? We trust “Develop” should be reserved for items that bidders have never approached in their activity but please confirm. |
|
|
Answer:
Completion of the Functional Capability Matrix shall be at the discretion of the Proposer. The intention is for the Proposer to indicate which elements of their system may require modification to existing functionality or which is new and will require development efforts. Use of the comment column is encouraged to explain any such item. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-Exhibit A Definitions: Would RIDOT consider including acts of vandalism in point (c) of the definition of Force Majeure? This is commonly considered a shared risk between Authorities and Contractors. |
|
|
Answer:
Please refer to Section 104.14 of the Rhode Island Standards and Specifications. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.1.6 Cabinets or Enclosures: Please confirm that providing equipment enclosures constructed to NEMA 4X standards and IP 66 standard specifications satisfy the water proof and moisture stated requirements. If this is not the case, please provide more details and applicable standards. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, this is correct. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/21/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Please clarify if the Proposer will have an opportunity to discuss and negotiate any exceptions provided in the respondent's bid during the approximate 30 day time period between Notice of Tentative Award and Contract Award as described in RFP, Section I-3.2.1. |
|
|
Answer:
The Proposers will have the opportunity to discuss any exceptions in the interview prior to the final technical evaluation. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/21/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
The Attachment A-Contract Terms, Section 12 requires the Contractor to name RIDOT as Additional Insurance to the Contractor's Workers Compensation, Professional Liability, and Valuable Papers insurance policies. In some cases the industry standard for these type of policies do not allow additional insured status, particularly Workers Compensation. Please clarify if RIDOT is willing to accept being named as Additional Insured to a company’s General Liability and Automobile as a substitute of the policies previously referenced. |
|
|
Answer:
The RIDOT expects that it will be named as an additionally insured, as required by the contract documents, unless the winning respondent can provide documentation verifying that it is not allowed in this industry. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Is the schedule for tolling points to be installed to during PHASE 2 based on 18 months from the original NTP in Phase I (May 1, 2017) as stipulated in RFP Section II.4.2 Table II – 4: Project Milestone Completion deadlines, or from the NTP to compete the final toll design as stipulated in RFP Section II-4.5.4? |
|
|
Answer:
Phase II is to be completed 18 months from the original NTP. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/01/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-4.9 AET Gantry Construction & Equipment Installation: Following the answer received on 01/25/2017 about overhead walkway gantry design, please confirm that “Lane closures required beneath the gantry during maintenance operations” are the ones defined in Exhibit 2 - Base Technical Concepts (page 46 to 53) including the vehicles/trucks pictured on such Traffic Maintenance and Protection Plan. |
|
|
Answer:
For lane closures not requiring workers to be within the roadway (ie. working above the travel lanes on a gantry walkway), crash attenuation trucks are not required. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/31/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
7551188A2 - Attachment A - Contract Terms states on clause 14.3 ( b ) that the payment for operations will be “the total annual Lump Sum for the corresponding year of Operations services divided by 12 plus any additional increase in image processing in accordance with the unit costs for such increases as indicated in the cost proposal”. Please indicate where we need to include such “unit cost” within our cost proposal, we do not see a field for this purpose in 7551188A5 - Attachment D - Cost Proposal Form 01-26-17.xlsx provided in addendum 5. |
|
|
Answer:
This language will be modified in a future Addendum. There will not be an additional increase by unit cost for image processing. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/31/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
In Attachment A – Contract Terms, Section 22. Indemnification and Releases, 22.1 (a) “The breach or alleged breach of any of the Contract Documents by and contractor-related entity”. Please provide RIDOT’s definition of “contractor-related entity”? |
|
|
Answer:
This is intended to mean any representative of the Contractor or Subcontractor. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/31/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Section II-2.6.1 states "The DVAS shall provide transaction and corresponding video image storage and recall that will support near real time retrieval for up to 60 days and archiving of video greater than 60 days for up to one year." Storing the transaction and corresponding video image storage from all of the system's cameras for 10 months (1-year minus 60 days) requires an expensive video storage solution. Would RIDOT consider reducing the number of days of archival storage to 60 or 90 days?" |
|
|
Answer:
The archival period shall be at a minimum of 120 days. This will be changed through Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/31/2017 | Date Answered: 01/31/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
RFP Volume I, Paragraph I-3.3.1 Acknowledgement of Addenda, the second paragraph states: "The Contract provides that the PROJECT shall be subject to RIGL 37-13 and the Davis-Bacon Act. Approximately 30 DAYS prior to the RFP DUE DATE, RIDOT will issue an Addendum containing wage rates that shall apply to all labor to be applied to the PROJECT." As of this date we have not received this information. Please issue this information immediateley. |
|
|
Answer:
Proposers are to access the Davis-Bacon Wage Determination Reference Materials on-line at http://www.purchasing.ri.gov/bidinfo/geninfo/geninfo.aspx for prevailing wage rates for laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on the Project. Please search by “prevailing wage rates” to access most current rates posted. This reference will be formalized in an upcoming ADDENDUM. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-9.7: Supervision and construction Procedures indicate that the Contractor shall provide appropriate security for the Site and shall be responsible for damage or loss to all property at the Site owned by Contractor, RIDOT or any other Person that results from Work or is directly related to Contractor's actions. Please provide the security guidelines in addition to those set out in RFP Section II-2.1.7 that should be followed to make sure the Proposer meets the minimum requirements applicable and we provide suitable security measures, in particular as regards the AET Roadside equipment (gantries, cabinets…) during both the construction and the Operations and Maintenance phases? |
|
|
Answer:
There are no additional security guidelines to be provided. The Contractor shall use reasonable security for the Project. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-22.1(h): What is the meaning of the phrases, "other contractor or contractor", "contractor or contractor" and "other contractor or contractor"? |
|
|
Answer:
The language in Attachment A-22.1(h) will be clarified through Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-14.9: Please confirm no deduction will be made in case of "threatened" claims. Those should be actual or confirmed before any deduction is made. It would be unfair if RIDOT deducted from the release of the retainer damages for non-existing but merely threatened claims. |
|
|
Answer:
No changes will be made to the language in Section 14.9 - Retainage. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A - Exhibit A Definitions: Items (g) and (h) in this definition are customarily considered events of force majeure because they are inherently beyond the control of the Contractor. Will RIDOT agree to add them to the list of events of Force Majeure? |
|
|
Answer:
No. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-23.1.8: Will RIDOT agree that, if RIDOT fails to issue its determination within the 5-day period prescribed in the last paragraph of this subsection, then the Demand will be deemed denied and Contractor will be entitled to proceed with a request for reconsideration under Sec. 23.1.9? |
|
|
Answer:
No, the Demand will not be deemed denied if RIDOT fails to issue a Determination within the 5-day period. RIDOT will make its best effort to meet this 5-day period, however in rare instances more time may be needed. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-22.1(a): The term "Contractor-related entity" is not defined. Please confirm that our understanding that this term covers the following is correct: Contractor's directors and officers, employees, agents and contractors, shareholders, subsidiaries, sub-contractors. |
|
|
Answer:
This is intended to mean any legally authorized representative of the Contractor. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/23/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-22.1: Please confirm that Contractor shall not be required to indemnify the Indemnified Parties unless and until such Indemnified Parties shall have incurred a legal obligation to pay the sums that are subject to indemnification; that is, Contractor shall not have to indemnify the Indemnified Parties simply because losses have been "asserted or incurred by . . . any third party." |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT cannot provide legal interpretations to bidders. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-20.4: It is not reasonable to require Contractor to deliver "all other contracts or documents" that do not relate to the Subcontracts under discussion in this Section. Please confirm that only such contracts and other documents that are "regarding Subcontracts" shall be required. |
|
|
Answer:
Section 20.4 only relates to Contracts and Documents as they relate to this Project. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-20.2: Please confirm that, notwithstanding the language of this section, no Liquidated Damages will be assessed for any delay after the effective date of termination of the Contract. |
|
|
Answer:
Per Section 20.2, Liquidate Damages will be assessed for project delays resulting from failure to maintain Labor Harmony. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Section I-6.3.3.1 COST PROPOSAL FORM, states that that cost for the Maintenance and Operations period will be evaluated based on the RIDOT directed Net Present Value calculation in Attached D, Sheet 4. Please confirm that pricing for the Maintenance & Operation period that reflects this Net Present Value adjustment in Attachment D, Sheet 4 is for evaluation purposes only, and that the Proposers "Total Maintenance and Operations Cost" in Attachment D, Sheet 4 will be the awarded price. |
|
|
Answer:
The Net Present Value will be used for evaluation purposes only. The awarded price will be the actual total of each individual yearly O&M bid price for the 10 year period. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/08/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
Reference Form K: We believe that Page 1 of 2 is the overall Schedule for Participation signed by the Proposer, showing all DBE's to be used to satisfy the project percentage goals, and Page 2 is actually the first page of a particular DBE's Letter of Intent, and that what should be page 2 is actually missing from the porposal documents. Typically this page would list the scope of work (activities) and prices being performed by that DBE. Please revisit and issue the proper pages. |
|
|
Answer:
Respondents are advised that FORM K will be revised and replaced in its entirety and formally issued in an upcoming Addendum. This 2-PAGE FORM K shall be included as an “exhibit” to the TECHNICAL Proposal Submission and shall be completed as follows: PAGE 1 of 2 shall define the NAME/ CONTACT INFO of each DBE along with Work Activity proposed and the percentage (%) of each DBE’s participation attributed to the assigned DBE Activity column. PAGE 2 of 2 is the supporting signed Letter of Intent between the Proposer and each DBE to fulfill the DBE obligation as presented. There shall be no reference to DBE pricing submitted as part of FORM K. Proposers may utilize as many FORMS needed to document their DBE Participation. The selected Proposer will undergo a Post-Qualification review which will include the submission of DBE subcontracts and documented DBE costs for RIDOT to review and validate the assigned DBE financial participation prior to contract award. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/30/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Will “Placement of Millings Beneath Guardrail” (RI Std Item 213.0100) be required for all guardrail locations? |
|
|
Answer:
No, millings will not be required. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/27/2017 | Date Answered: 02/06/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
With reference to the 1/9/2017 Question answered regarding road shoulder instrumentation. Please provide a definition of a shoulder that will require the cited instrumentation; e.g. all shoulders over 8' wide |
|
|
Answer:
Shoulder coverage shall apply to any shoulder width over 6’. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/27/2017 | Date Answered: 02/06/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Based on our analysis, it appears that many of the tolling locations would benefit under construction, operation and maintenance of traffic flow activities from minor relocations of equipment and utility service connections within the same highway segment meeting the similar intent of the tolled bridges. Will the Area of Potential Effect defined and assessed under the NEPA Environmental Assessment allow sufficient flexibility to allow for such relocations within the context of the NEPA approvals authorized by FHWA? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, there is flexibility to make adjustments outside of the Area of Potential Effect without affecting the NEPA process. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/27/2017 | Date Answered: 02/07/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Under section I-6.3.3.2 the Proposer shall provide a evidence that it is able to achieve the 10% goal for DBE participation in Operations and Maintenance. Please confirm that definition of Qualifying work also applies to the O&M category. |
|
|
Answer:
Confirmed. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/27/2017 | Date Answered: 02/06/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Will intermediate incremental payments be allowed at each tolling site for various work tasks completed? For example, partial payment could be issued once the foundations are completed and another once the gantry is erected. This will help cash flow to the various lower tiered subcontractors and suppliers, including our DBE subcontractors. |
|
|
Answer:
Please refer to Section 109.06 (Partial Payments) of the RIDOT Standard Specifications. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/27/2017 | Date Answered: 02/06/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Will payment of stockpiled materials be allowed per RIDOT Standard Specification? |
|
|
Answer:
Please refer to Section 109.06 (Partial Payments) of the RIDOT Standard Specifications. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/27/2017 | Date Answered: 02/06/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Section II-2.1.6 requires the stainless steel cabinets to be “powder-coated” with no additional detail. Would RIDOT consider deleting this requirement from the RFP and allowing the natural finish on the stainless steel cabinets? |
|
|
Answer:
Stainless steel cabinets shall not require coating. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/26/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Given there are still several questions pending and RIDOT still has to provide an addendum providing very important information that may generate more questions, please extend the questions deadline giving the potential proposers two more weeks for questions. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will take this comment into consideration and if an extension to the submission due date is given, it will be issued by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-18.2.1(f): "Event of Default" is not defined in Section 18, nor in Exhibit A - Definitions. Please include a definition of this term. |
|
|
Answer:
Section 18.1.1 specifically lists what constitutes an “Event of Default”. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/21/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-17.3(b)(2): It is not reasonable that the price paid for work performed before the termination date should be changed simply because RIDOT has decided to terminate the Contract. Please confirm that Contractor shall be paid the full Contract price for all acceptable Work delivered before the effective date of termination. |
|
|
Answer:
The State will follow termination procedures as specified in the contract documents. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/21/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-17.2(h) Termination Procedures: It is not reasonable for Contractor to be left with the cost of such materials if RIDOT terminates the contract for convenience. Please confirm that if the Parties are unable to agree on an alternative disposition of such materials RIDOT shall be required to purchase them. |
|
|
Answer:
Provision A-17.2 (h) is an option. In the event that RIDOT does not purchase the equipment and it cannot be disposed as mutually agreed, damages will be addressed in other provisions of Section 17.2 and 17.3. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/21/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-17.1(g) Reasons for Termination: Please confirm that RIDOT shall not have the unilateral right to terminate the Contractor's rights to (a) receive compensation for work performed in accordance with the Contract Documents or (b) to seek its legal remedies for any breaches of the Contract by RIDOT. |
|
|
Answer:
We cannot provide a legal response to proposers. We recommend consulting your legal counsel. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A-14.3 Payment for Operations & Maintenance: Please confirm the performance requirements are those listed in Table II-5 of the RFP (p. 64). |
|
|
Answer:
This is a general reference inclusive of all performance requirements indicated in the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A - 9.13(h): Could RIDOT please indicate the content of "software license information"? |
|
|
Answer:
This is intended to mean any 3rd party software licenses. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A - 9.2 Plant Inspection: Please confirm that the Contractor will not be deemed in breach of contract if suppliers that Contractor does not control refuse to permit entry into their plants. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT agrees in concept as it relates specifically to suppliers. Any subcontractor identified as a key team member shall be subject to the same requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A - 8.1 Project Schedule: "Substantial Completion" is not defined in the Contract Terms. Please consider including a definition of this term. |
|
|
Answer:
Please refer to Rhode Island Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction for definition. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-5.2.3.3 RESPONSE AND REPAIR TIMES, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: Would RIDOT agree to an aggregate monthly cap on liquidated damages? |
|
|
Answer:
No. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-5.2.3.3 RESPONSE AND REPAIR TIMES, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: Could RIDOT please confirm that the Contractor will not be liable if RIDOT directs the Contractor to perform work in a manner that causes the loss of revenue. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT agrees with this in concept. However in the event any RIDOT directed maintenance effort may present loss of revenue the Contractor shall clearly inform RIDOT of such event prior to execution of the effort. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-4.8.5 Extended Operations Test: Please confirm that failure of individual items of equipment will not be deemed “critical failures, systemic problems or major issues” requiring the EOT to be restarted unless such failures materially impact the functioning of the system as a whole. |
|
|
Answer:
It is RIDOT’s intention to evaluate any such failures when/if they occur and determine at such time whether a restart is required. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A - Payment Milestones: Given the project's Payment Schedule, a 30-day limit between Payment Milestones is not realistic. Could you please amend this definition? |
|
|
Answer:
There is no restriction on the frequency of invoicing. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A - 26.4: As presently drafted, this clause allows RIDOT to transfer the Contract to a competitor of the Contractor, which could lead to material issues in terms of protection of trade secrets and commercial confidential information. We respectfully request that Contractor's prior approval must be sought by RIDOT before it assigns its obligations under the Contract to a private entity. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will take this under consideration and if a change is made, it will be done through Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A - 24.1: Would RIDOT consider replacing the escrow obligation with an obligation for Contractor to retain all proposal documentation during the term of the Contract and make it available to RIDOT in case of a claim on the Contract price? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will take this under consideration and if a change is made, it will be done through Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A - 19.1.2: Alternatively, would RIDOT agree to an aggregate cap on liquidated damages or include liquidated damages in a general cap of Contractor's liability? |
|
|
Answer:
No. However, Section 19.1.2 of the Contract Terms will be revised through Addendum to incorporate changes as described in the previous answer. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A - 19.1.2: The daily amounts assessed for liquidated damages are substantially higher than is usual for a project of this size and may materially affect the Proposers' analysis of the risk inherent in the Project. Please confirm that these amounts will be open for negotiation between the successful Proposer and RIDOT prior to execution of the Contract. |
|
|
Answer:
Section 19.1.2 (b) of the Contract Terms will be changed through addendum. This amount shall NOT be assessed per EACH individual Toll Point which fails to begin commencement of revenue collection beyond the Milestone Completion Deadline date for Phase II, as currently written. The Phase II Section (b) language will be changed to mirror the Phase I language in section (a). The $7,600 liquidated damages will apply to Phase II as a whole. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment A - 15.12 (c): Please confirm that the "contractors" referred to here are Contractor's subcontractors: it is unreasonable for Contractor to be held responsible for third parties who are under contract to RIDOT and over whom Contractor has no control. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes this is reference to the Contractor’s subcontractors. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT agree to allow change orders, including price increases and schedule modifications as appropriate, for improvement of design efficiency, reduction of material or personnel costs, or the like? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, RIDOT will consider such "value engineering" changes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Would RIDOT consider adding a reasonable aggregate cap to Contractor's liability, equal to 100% of the Deployment Price during the implementation phase, then an annual aggregate limit of 100% of the Operations and Maintenance Price during Phase III? |
|
|
Answer:
Can you please clarify the question by referencing the relevant Section? |
|
| Date Asked: 01/25/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Unless we are mistaken, "Force Majeure Event" is not defined in the Blue Book. Could RIDOT please confirm the applicable definition of a Force Majeure Event is the definition included in Exhibit A - Definitions? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP Section II – 2.3.2. Will RIDOT please specify all cases where manual image review is required for class mismatches? |
|
|
Answer:
As stated in the RFP all transaction in which a class mismatch flag has been set or identified. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP Section II – 2.3.2. Can Rhode Island please provide the expected volume for class mismatches? If the expected volume is not known, would Rhode Island require this amount be considered as pass through expense? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT does not have a expected volume for class mismatches. No, this will not be considered as a pass through expense. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP Section II – 2.3. Will Rhode Island please clarify all instances where manual image review is required, example: If a correct transponder read took place and AVC was correct is manual image review required? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT feels the RFP adequately addresses the requirements for image review. Specific to the example stated – If the transponder read indicated a class mismatch then per the RFP a review would be required. Also per the RFP if the OCR/ALPR was below the set threshold a review would be required. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP Section II – 5.6.1. Can you please clarify the Performance Requirement for Video Transactions? Currently it states that they must be completed within forty-eight hours of previous calendar day…… a. If a transaction is completed at 11:30 pm on Monday when is the transaction expected to be sent to RITBA? b. If a transaction is completed on Saturday, when is the transaction expected to be sent to RITBA? |
|
|
Answer:
It is the expectation that transmittal to RITBA will occur within the specified timeframes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP Section II – 2.1.4. Does the overview image need to be included in the transaction submission to RITBA or is the front image the only one required to be submitted? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes the overview image shall also be included. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference Attachment C - Functional Capability Matrix. Can Proposers modify and add rows to the Functional Capability Matrix so that in some instances we can add individual requirements under the main heading section? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. However any ‘addition’ of individual requirements shall only be those stated in the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/24/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Given the volume and scope of changes published to date and anticipated release of forthcoming addenda to include new price sheets, respectfully request at least a two week extension to the proposal response due date. This will benefit RIDOT by enabling Proposers to provide RIDOT with a quality, comprehensive and compliant response. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will take this comment into consideration and if an extension to the submission due date is given, it will be issued by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/23/2017 | Date Answered: 01/25/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-4.9 AET Gantry Construction & Equipment Installation: Please confirm that assuming walkways are fabricated in accordance with OSHA standards (Part 1910) (as per previous RIDOT answer to question about overhead walkway gantry design) will RIDOT allow maintenance operations to take place from the walkways (i.e. no disturbance to traffic/road users and No MOT required) or will RIDOT require lanes (under maintenance operations) to be closed beneath the gantry during maintenance operations (i.e. disturbance to traffic/road users and MOT required)? |
|
|
Answer:
Lane closures are required beneath the gantry during maintenance operations. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/23/2017 | Date Answered: 01/25/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-3.14.1 Conformance to Established Standards and RFP section II-4.9 AET Gantry Construction & Equipment Installation: Please confirm that the Contractor is required to provide MOT during Phase I and II (only). And during Phase III, MOT will be provided by other(s). |
|
|
Answer:
MOT will be the responsibility of the Contractor throughout all phases of the project. However costs for RI State Police detail will be paid for by RIDOT. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/23/2017 | Date Answered: 01/25/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.1.2 AVDC: Please confirm the sentence should be understood/restated/rewritten as follows: The AVDC subsystem shall classify all vehicles in accordance with the three tiers as defined below: • Tier 1 - All FHWA class 1 through 3 vehicles* that pass through the toll zone. • Tier 2 - All FHWA class 4 through 7 vehicles* that pass through the toll zone. • Tier 3 - All FHWA class 8 through 13 vehicles* that pass through the toll zone. * As defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Monitoring Guide, Appendix C – Vehicle Types (Provided as Exhibit 4 – FHWA Traffic Monitoring Guide, Appendix C – Vehicle Types) and as further mandated by "The Rhode Island Bridge Replacement, Reconstruction and Maintenance Fund Act of 2016". |
|
|
Answer:
Correct. The AVDC requirements are further defined in Table II-1 AET Performance Requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/23/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
Reference General Plan Location 8 (Sheet 2 of 4): Please identify where the field-verified connection point for communications is located. |
|
|
Answer:
The updated Base Technical Concept plans in Addendum 5 include this information. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/23/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
Reference General Plan Location 13: Please verify that proposed communication and electric conduits are to connect to the existing UP/Light pole along the Bike Path. |
|
|
Answer:
The updated Base Technical Concept plans in Addendum 5 include this information. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/23/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
Reference General Plan Location 10 (Sheets 1 and 2 of 2): The notes indicate that we are to “connect via underground conduits to existing power and communication source.” Please clarify/identify the specific field-verified connection points (i.e. specific manholes and/ or utility poles) |
|
|
Answer:
The updated Base Technical Concept plans in Addendum 5 include this information. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/23/2017 | Date Answered: 01/25/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Page 75. After the first 2 sites are accepted and in revenue service, will the subsequent sites be added to revenue service as they pass UAT or will all the subsequent sites be transitioned into revenue service at the same time, once the final site passes UAT? |
|
|
Answer:
As each Toll Point successfully achieves Commissioning Testing (Ref. RFP II-4.8.4) it shall enter into revenue collection. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/23/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
With regards to I-3.14.4 “Temporary Variable Message Signs” please clarify how many message boards will be required and for how long. |
|
|
Answer:
Temporary Variable Message (VMS) Signs shall be required as part of the traffic control setups in advance of work zones involving the closure of shoulders and/or lanes on limited access highways. The Proposer shall determine the number of VMS signs and the length of time required based on the proposed schedule and phasing of construction activities. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/23/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
If it is required that the proposer is expected to pave these Toll point areas, will RIDoT provide new pavement cores and recommend pavement designs for use by the Proposer in paving the toll point areas? |
|
|
Answer:
It shall be the Contractors responsibility to resurface the roadway if the proposed system requires new pavement. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/23/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Christina Gandolfo | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Should the Proposer assume that the pavement in the new Toll Point areas will be paved prior to system installation. If not, is it assumed that the proposer will be required to upgrade this pavement? |
|
|
Answer:
It shall be the Contractors responsibility to resurface the roadway if the proposed system requires new pavement. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/19/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
Please provide the existing as-built pavement sections (depth, materials, and location/presence of reinforcing if there is concrete pavement) for all tolling locations (including adjacent shoulders). |
|
|
Answer:
The pavement conditions at all tolling locations are rated either "good" or "excellent." Also, pavement cross sections consist of bituminous asphalt in the following thickness ranges. Base course - Not less than 2 1/4 inches and no greater than 4 1/2 inches. Binder - Not less than 2 1/4 inches and no greater than 4 1/2 inches. Surface course - Not less than 1 1/2 inches and no greater than 3 inches |
|
| Date Asked: 01/19/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Understanding that the system shall generate a transaction for every vehicle, independently of its class, please clarify if the system has to capture images and send them to the back office for all types of transactions, or just for FHWA class 8 through 13. |
|
|
Answer:
The back office only needs to receive transactions for FHWA class 8 through 13 or Large Commercial Vehicles (LCV’s) as described in the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/19/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide the traffic forecasts per tier or FHWA class. |
|
|
Answer:
A Draft Traffic Count Technical Memorandum will be released with an upcoming Addendum scheduled for this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/19/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
Refer to Section II-3.1, second paragraph beginning with "The Toll Zones shall include." At the end of the seventh bullet, please elaborate on what is meant by "and this RFP" |
|
|
Answer:
This is a general reference to be inclusive of all RFP documents. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.1.3 RFID E-ZPass: Will the AET Roadside System require any field testing by the E-ZPass Group? |
|
|
Answer:
Field testing specifically by the E-ZPass Group is not expected to be required. However it is expected that testing of away agency (non-RI) transponders will be performed and as part of the full end to end testing with RITBA’s E-ZPass Back Office. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-4.8.5 Extended Operations Test (EOT): Does the ninety (90) day EOT take place during the Project Phase called Final System Acceptance as defined in Table II - 4: Project Milestone Completion Deadlines? |
|
|
Answer:
For clarification, the project phase in which Final System Acceptance occurs is called “Phase II – Final System Implementation”. Final System Acceptance is a milestone within this phase and is subject to completion of EOT as per the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 02/01/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Section I-6.3.2.6 states conceptual designs may deviate from the BTC, but under PDR requirements in 1-6.3.2.6 RIDOT includes a restriction on deviations related to location of Gantries outside the LODs. It is assumed that this restriction is related to RIDOT’s current NEPA approval activity. Please clarify if this assumption is correct and confirm whether or not additional restrictions for deviations from the BTC, either in location and/or design documents, should be considered in a Proposer’s technical concept. |
|
|
Answer:
The Proposer may propose an alternate location of the gantry structure outside of the indicated LOD. However, the Proposer shall be responsible for any additional permitting required as a result of any proposed work outside the LODs as indicated on the revised BTC Plans attached as part of Addendum No. 5 dated 1/26/17. This restriction is not expected to be dependent upon NEPA activities. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 02/06/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP Attachment A, Section 12.1.2 “Professional Liability Insurance”; the requirement states “The coverage shall be maintained during the term of the Contract, and for at least ten (10) years following completion thereof”. This 10 year tail coverage is not a common insurance industry requirement. Because the contractor will be providing 10 years of O&M coverage with the options for 2 five year terms, would RIDOT be willing to reduce the tail coverage to 2 – 5 years which is more in line with industry practice? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, RIDOT agrees to reduce this requirement from 10 years to 3 years to be consistent with the industry practice. This will be reflected in an upcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 02/14/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
2. The definition of “Environmental Law” in Appendix A excludes “Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 651 et seq.” If OHM regulated under the Remediation Regulations is encountered, the Contractors involved with excavation and management of impacted media (soil, groundwater, waste, etc.) will be required to have training and medical monitoring consistent with the requirements of the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HazWoper) requirements of OSHA, 29 CFR 1910.120. What is RIDOT’s purpose in excluding OSHA 29 CFR from the definition of “Environmental Law” and from the Contract Terms in general? |
|
|
Answer:
The definition of Environmental Law in the Contract Terms was not meant to include an exhaustive list of environmental laws. The Contractor is responsible for all governing laws, including worker safety. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 02/10/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Section 6.2.2.3 Schedule for Submittal of Workplan and OHMMP states that the Contractor will submit a schedule for completing the Workplan and the OHMMP. The Workplan does not require approval from RIDEM, however, if reportable contamination is identified during implementation of the Workplan then RIDEM notification, approvals, and public notices will be required in accordance with the Remediation Regulations as described in the previous question. Does RIDOT want Respondents to provide a schedule for an assumed set of circumstances that may be encountered? |
|
|
Answer:
Attachment A – Contract Terms, Section 6 ENVIRONMENTAL, will be replaced in its entirety in an upcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 02/10/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Section 6.2.2. Oil and Hazardous Material (OHM) Management Plan (OHMMP) states that the Contractor shall prepare an OHMMP that provides a methodology for the management of OHM identified during implementation of the workplan prepared in accordance with Section 6.2.2.1. The OHMMP is required to be in compliance with the requirements of the Remediation Regulations and RIGL c23-19.1 and must incorporate goals and objectives to properly manage, reuse or dispose of impacted material, eliminate risk, and control costs. Section 6.2.2.2 (c) specifically states that the compliance approach shall “strive to eliminate the Condition of Significant Risk, achieve a Permanent Solution, and include the completion of a Response Action Outcome.” The phrases “Permanent Solution” and “Response Action Outcome” presented in are not regulatory determinations/actions used in the Remediation Regulations but are associated with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) MGL c21E. Massachusetts is a privatized system allowing independent licensed site professionals (LSPs) to conduct most investigation and remediation activities without approval by the state. The term Response Action Outcome has been eliminated from the MCP altogether. Therefore, the approach and requirements in Section 6.2.2.2 appears to be in conflict with the requirements of the RIDEM Remediation Regulations. The Remediation Regulations requires notification to the RIDEM upon the identification of contamination above reportable concentrations, and then the performance of site investigation activities and development of remedial actions. These investigations and reports are subject to review and approval by the RIDEM in addition to public notification and comment periods. As such the timing and type of approvals from the RIDEM are unknown, and difficult to estimate. Does RIDOT want the Respondents to provide assumptions regarding the type, amount, and location of OHM to be encountered during the project, in addition to assumptions regarding the timing of receiving RIDEM approvals to allow for an “apples to apples” comparison of the scope and fees received? |
|
|
Answer:
Attachment A – Contract Terms, Section 6 ENVIRONMENTAL, will be replaced in its entirety in an upcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 02/10/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Section 6.2.2 Management of Contaminated Media states that soils on the project “will” be regulated by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Office of Waste Management (OWM) in accordance with the Rules and Regulations for the Investigation and Remediation of Hazardous Material Releases (the Remediation Regulations). Are there environmental reports, or analytical data that identifies OHM above reportable concentrations that would indicate that project soils “will” be subject to the Remediation Regulations? |
|
|
Answer:
Attachment A – Contract Terms, Section 6 ENVIRONMENTAL, will be replaced in its entirety in an upcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Attachment D, Exhibit, Sheet 3 In accordance with RIDOT prior response and addendum to modify Attachment D would be provided to revise the line for Toll Points 7A-C to 7A-D. Please provide the anticipated release date for the revised Attachment D? Attachment D – Cost Proposal released in Addendum #1 does not include a defined line item for Toll Point 7D cost input. |
|
|
Answer:
The cost proposal form will be updated and included in an Addendum scheduled for this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please confirm that Section II-4.1.6 "Dedicated Project Field Office" refers to the Contractor's office only, and that RIDOT will be responsible for any facilities needed for their project staff. If the Contractor is responsible for providing RIDOT with such facilities, please provide the specific project requirements. |
|
|
Answer:
The Contractor will not be required to provide specific field office facilities for RIDOT staff. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
On Form K, page 2 of 2, Item 5, the sentence ends with "on the following page." We are not able to locate any other pages. Please provide. |
|
|
Answer:
It should state on the "Previous page" as opposed to the "following page". The form is only two pages and is complete as presented. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-4.5.4 NTP for Toll Location Final Design: Does the formal written Notice to Proceed (NTP) apply to Phase I (Toll Points 1 and 2)? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-4.2 Project Milestones and Completion Deadlines: Please confirm that Phase II is 21 months in duration; 18 months to Final Commencement + 90 days for Final System Acceptance. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.7.3 Network Infrastructure Requirements: Please confirm that the term "dedicated network" in this requirement refers to the network between the infrastructure demarcation point and Tolling Point? |
|
|
Answer:
Dedicated network is intended to mean the communications network which the Contractor provides for the toll collection system. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/18/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-1.1.1 Phase I Concept: Please confirm that the interface with RITBA's E-ZPass Back Office System in Phase I will require using the RITBA Interface Control Document (ICD) as provided in Exhibit 5 and described in RFP section II-2.2.6.3. Also, please confirm that in Phase I only LCV transactions will be transmitted to RITBA's E-ZPass Back Office. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, the RITBA Interface Control Document (ICD) is required for Phase I. Yes, only LCV transactions will be transmitted to RITBA's E-ZPass Back Office under Phase I. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/17/2017 | Date Answered: 02/02/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please confirm RIDOT's Certificate of Exemption number issued by the Division of Taxation to be used in form M. |
|
|
Answer:
The tax exempt number would be the number requested by the Vendor and assigned directly to the Vendor through the RI Division of Taxation; the other option on the FORM is for the VENDOR to cite the name of the State agency for which they will providing the services, i.e. RI Department of Transportation. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/17/2017 | Date Answered: 01/19/2017 |
| Poster: Robert Berry | Company: J F White Contracting |
|
Question:
1. We are unable to locate in the RFP documents a detailed definition or description of the following terms: a. “Construction Qualifying Work” b. “Design Qualifying Work” Please note that we feel that the answer to question # 5 in Addendum No. 4 failed to address this issue properly. |
|
|
Answer:
Each RI Certified MBE is qualified under specified types of services, indicated by their assigned North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and cited in the State MBE Directory and documented in their certification letters. These would be the qualifying services which would be counted toward the type of work assignment they would be performing under the Project. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/17/2017 | Date Answered: 01/18/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC's) be allowed and if so how will RIDOT address them? |
|
|
Answer:
No. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/17/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: paul grimaldi | Company: J. F. WHITE CONTRACTING CO. |
|
Question:
since the contractor is responsible for all utility coordination and costs-----please provide a list of all appropriate utility companies, for each toll point, and contact information |
|
|
Answer:
A list of utility companies will be released with an upcoming Addendum scheduled for this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/16/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Table II-2 lists the work restriction times which includes “No Shoulder Closures will be allowed between 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM or between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday” on freeways. It is anticipated that 5-7 day shoulder closures with temporary concrete barrier will be required for foundation construction and other civil works. Please confirm this will be acceptable.” |
|
|
Answer:
Shoulder and/or lane closures outside of the window of allowable closure times will be considered if there is no other feasible alternative. In this instance, temporary median barrier will be required for longer-term closures. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/14/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference Section I-6.3.3.1, where shall Proposers place Exceptions, Clarifications, or Assumptions associated with the Technical Proposal (i.e. exceptions to Terms & Conditions)? RIDOT Answer provided on 1/13/17 clarified that accompanying narrative documenting any COST assumptions, clarifications etc. shall be included with the COST PROPOSAL but shall be limited to a MAXIMUM 2 PAGES in length. Please clarify where narrative documenting any Technical/Terms & Conditions assumptions, clarifications, exceptions etc. shall be included. |
|
|
Answer:
It is expected that the Proposer will include any Technical/Terms & Conditions assumptions, clarifications, exceptions, etc. within the body of the Technical Proposal in Section III: Narrative Responses. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/13/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.2.4 Data Retention item 4, detailed transaction data, including images. Would RIDOT consider a 6 month retention period for non-LCV images, instead of three (3) years? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, a 6 month retention period for non-LCV images will be considered. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/13/2017 | Date Answered: 01/18/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.3: The System shall store all processed images in a fashion which is easy to recall by vehicle plate, vehicle state, vehicle type or any other references used by the System to track image based transactions. Please confirm that vehicle state and vehicle type refer to the plate information. |
|
|
Answer:
This is correct. ‘Type’ is intended to mean plate type. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/13/2017 | Date Answered: 01/18/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.8: Group C - Image Capture Capability - Overview Image, correctly capture and correlate at least one human readable overview image per vehicle for all classes that pass through the toll zone. Please provide a clear definition of what is a human readable overview image ? |
|
|
Answer:
This is intended to mean having an overview image quality which can be read by the human eye to determine such aspects as vehicle class. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/13/2017 | Date Answered: 01/18/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.1.4: Front and overview image capture are a requirement under this Scope of Work. Do you want 2 separated images coming from 2 different cameras or can it be the same image ? |
|
|
Answer:
Two separate images are required, however how each image is captured or derived shall be at the discretion of the Contractor, as long as it meets the requirements of the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/13/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Contract Drawing Sheet 37 calls for the existing Rt 6A West overhead sign to be removed and installed on proposed Gantry 14b. Please provide dimensions of the existing / proposed signage |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will provide any existing information it has available. Any available information will be documented in an upcoming ADDENDUM. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/12/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
II-4.5.2 The approval timeline for all deliverable documents is a critical element to the Project Schedule.The delay of RIDOT approval of the deliverable documents may have a negative impact on the Contractor’s ability to meet the Project Schedule, including Completion Milestone(s), or result in rework required by the Contractor. Please clarify that any schedule or price impact to the Contractor resulting from a delay in RIDOT’s approval of the document(s) will result in RIDOT issuing a Change Order to the Contractor for additional costs and/or for an extension of time for completion of the Work in accordance with Section 15.4.1 “Eligible Changes. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT delays over the Contract allowed review time will be considered a RIDOT-Caused Delay. Please refer to Contract Terms Section 15.4.1.1. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/12/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
II-4.5.2 The approval timeline for all deliverable documents is a critical element to the Project Schedule. As written, the approval cycle for documents is subject to interpretation. Given the significance of the approval process on the execution of the Work please clarify the following interpretation of the language; The review for each deliverable document is limited to one revision cycle. Upon initial review, RIDOT has a total of ten (10) days to review and provide approval or comments for revision back to the Contractor. If revision is required, the Contractor shall provide revised documents to RIDOT within ten (10) days of receiving RIDOT comments, and RIDOT has ten (10) days to review and provide approval. The delay of RIDOT approval of the deliverable documents may have a negative impact on the Contractor’s ability to meet the Project Schedule, including Completion Milestone(s), therefore presumed approval of the submittal documents after the ten (10) day review period is recommended if no comments have been received from RIDOT. |
|
|
Answer:
No. It should not be presumed that an approval is granted, indicated, or implied because RIDOT has not responded or provided review comments. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/12/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
I-1 In reference to NEPA Statement, as the Milestone Completion Deadlines contained in the Project Schedule are dependent upon receipt of such NEPA approvals, which are outside of the Contractor’s control, please clarify whether any schedule or price impact resulting from a delay in NEPA approvals will result in RIDOT issuing a Change Order to the Contractor for additional costs and/or for an extension of time for completion of the Work in accordance with Section 15.4.1 “Eligible Changes”. |
|
|
Answer:
A statement regarding the NEPA schedule will be released with an upcoming Addendum scheduled for this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/12/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
15.10.1 As written, a Contractor could interpret this clause to conclude the Contractor is not responsible for those cases when the Contractor is unable to mitigate differences in site condition within the current contract price and/or schedule and, therefore, RIDOT shall issue a Change Order to the Contractor for additional costs incurred and/or an extension of time for completion of the Work arising from the need to address subsurface conditions. However, given the apparent contradiction in the clause’s language, please provide clarification whether the additional costs of a differing site condition for subsurface obstructions will result in RIDOT issuing a Change order to the Contractor for additional costs incurred and/or an extension of time for completion of the Work. |
|
|
Answer:
Section 15.10.1 will be clarified through Addendum. The Contractor shall be responsible for any Differing Site Conditions related delays with the exception of differing Site conditions where there are no feasible/practical solutions. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/12/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Section II-2.1.6 requires the stainless steel cabinets to be “powder-coated”. Based on past experience we have found quality issues with this type of sealant. Please clarify if RIDOT would allow the use of an alternative coating. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. Alternative coatings will be considered. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/12/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.9: Could RIDOT please clarify the phrase "completion or termination of the Contract Term"? |
|
|
Answer:
The completion of the full contract term or termination prior to the full contract term. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/12/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.9: Please confirm that the following rights shall be included in the right of use of the AET System software solely upon expiration or termination of the Contract: adapt, improve upon and create derivative works. These rights shall be in addition to the following rights which are available to licensee at any time: display, operate, translate, reproduce, execute, and store, solely for the purpose of monitoring or auditing the Contractor’s performance with respect to the AET System software. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT, at its sole discretion, may consider proposed Software Licensing Agreement (SLA) language. Proposer’s may provide a sample or proposed SLA as an attachment under Section VII of the Proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/12/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.9: Please confirm that the access and use of the AET System software by RIDOT's agent(s) and/or other Contractors shall be subject to the execution of a non-disclosure agreement in form and substance acceptable to the Contractor and which specifically names the Contractor as a third party beneficiary entitled to enforce compliance in its own right. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT, at its sole discretion, may consider proposed Software Licensing Agreement (SLA) language. Proposer’s may provide a sample or proposed SLA as an attachment under Section VII of the Proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/12/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.9: Please confirm that the use of the AET System software shall be solely for the operation and maintenance of the RhodeWorks Statewide Toll Facilities and not for any other purpose. |
|
|
Answer:
It is the intention that the sole purpose of AET Software will be used for operations and maintenance of the system. It is not clear what “other purposes” are being questioned. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/12/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.9: This section states that the software license shall be subject to the terms of the Contract but Attachment A - Contract Terms does not contain any provision on software licensing or intellectual property in general. Could RIDOT please confirm that an updated version of Attachment A will be issued containing provisions on intellectual property rights. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT, at its sole discretion, may consider proposed Software Licensing Agreement (SLA) language. Proposer’s may provide a sample or proposed SLA as an attachment under Section VII of the Proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/12/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.9: Software Licensing, please confirm the first sentence of this section should read "The Contractor shall grant..." instead of "The AET System software license shall grant..." |
|
|
Answer:
RFP Section II-2.9 shall remain unchanged. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-1.1.2: Please clarify the meaning of the phrase “where all required design, development, testing and installation will be completed”: is all design, development, etc., to be completed in Phase I? |
|
|
Answer:
No. This is in reference to Phase II. Please see Section II-4.3 Phase I Initial System Implementation for specific details regarding the efforts required under Phase I. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-8.3: Please confirm that a team member becoming unavailable for reasons outside the reasonable control of the Proposer (such as the team member’s death, disability or quitting Proposer’s employment) will not result in the elimination of the Proposer from further consideration if the Proposer provides a similarly qualified substitute team member. |
|
|
Answer:
CONFIRMED. However RIDOT must be formally notified of personnel change and the individual's qualifications must be submitted for review and approval by RIDOT. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
I-6.3.3.3: Please confirm that (a) Bid Bonds will be returned immediately after RIDOT determines that the corresponding Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the RFP and (b) RIDOT will make such determination upon the opening of the Proposals. |
|
|
Answer:
BID BONDS shall be held by the RI Department of Administration/Division of Purchases until such time that an award has been determined. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
I-6.3.3.2: Will Proposers be deemed to have honored their DBE if they provide documentation that despite diligent efforts they were unable to meet one or more of the DBE participation targets? How are Respondents to obtain RIDOT approval of their OJT Program prior to award? |
|
|
Answer:
The selected PROPOSER is required to demonstrate a "good faith effort" throughout the contract term to meet the assigned DBE requirements. Upon completion of the Project and review of the DBE Goals attained, should a shortfall occur, RIDOT will review to ensure this effort was demonstrated and will make a determination at that time if a waiver is warranted. The selected PROPOSER will be required to undergo a post qualification review by RIDOT which will include review and approval of OJT Plan. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-6.3.2.8: The minimum number of projects required for Design Manager, Construction Manager, AET System Installation Manager and Maintenance Manager set out on page 21 is 2 while the last bullet "Key Staff Resumes", applicable to all Key Staff, mentions 3 projects. Could RIDOT please clarify the experience requirements for each Key Personnel position? |
|
|
Answer:
The experience requirements are as stated. The last bullet is in reference to what should be included on the resumes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-6.3.2.8, bullet 1: Please confirm that only changes to the Proposer’s organization that affect Key Staff will require issuance of new organizational charts, and new charts need not be provided each time a corporate officer or manager not connected with the Project is hired, fired, transferred, etc. |
|
|
Answer:
CONFIRMED. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-6.3.2.8: Clause 20.1.1 of the Contract Terms (Attachment A) sets out a list of nine Key Personnel position while section I-6.3.2.8 of the RFP mentions only five Key Personnel positions. Could RIDOT please confirm which list should be taken into account by Proposers? |
|
|
Answer:
RFP Section I-6.3.2.8 is specific to the minimum qualifications required of the five identified Key Personnel listed which must be addressed in the Proposal. The complete list of Key Personnel/Staff as indicated in Clause 20.1.1 and RFP II-4.1.7 define the roles of all Key Personnel/Staff required to perform on the project. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-6.3.2.8: Is our understanding correct that the terms "Key Staff" and "Key Personnel" used in the RFP, as well as "Key Personnel" used in the Contract Terms (Attachment A) are synonyms? |
|
|
Answer:
YES. These are synonymous terms. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-5.1.3 item 2a: Does this mean that all “narrative language and/or exceptions” must be included in the Technical Proposal? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT is revising this directive to INCLUDE AS PART OF THE COST PROPOSAL any additional narrative disclosure relative to your pricing proposed BUT will limit the narrative provided to no more than 2 PAGES in length. This change will be documented in an upcoming ADDENDUM. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-5.1.3 item 2c: Point c. ends with the word "and" but there is no point d. Could you please confirm this sub-section ends after c. or add the missing text for d. as the case may be? |
|
|
Answer:
This subsection ends after c. There is no other test or item d. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-5.1.2 item 4: Section 11.1.1 of the Contract contemplates separate Performance and Payment Bonds, each equal to 100% of the Deployment Price. Thus the Contractor is required to maintain bonding equal to 200% of the contract value, which is a significant financial burden. Will RIDOT accept a single Performance and Payment Bond equal to 100% of the Deployment Price? |
|
|
Answer:
Section 11.1.1 will be revised to clarify the bonding requirements through Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-5.1.1: Will proposals that include exceptions to particular provisions of the RFP Documents be considered “conditional” and therefore subject to rejection? |
|
|
Answer:
It is at RIDOT's discretion as to whether exceptions to provisions of the RFP are significant enough to warrant rejection. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-3, bullet 13: What is the difference between “Respondents” and “Proposers”? Which term shall prevail among the RFP documentation and could you also provide a definition? |
|
|
Answer:
Both terms are synonymous and shall refer to the PRIME ENTITY submitting a formal Proposal for consideration by RIDOT in response to the RFP solicited. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-3, bullet 11: Trade Secrets and Confidential Information are protected from disclosure because they are expressly excluded from the definition of "public records" under the Access to Public Records Act. This instruction suggests that they will nonetheless be deemed "public records" and therefore subject to disclosure under the Act. Please confirm that, notwithstanding the language of this instruction, only materials meeting the definition of “public records” will be released for inspection, so that trade secrets and confidential information clearly marked as such will not be disclosed. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, Trade secrets and commercial or financial information from a person, firm or corporation which is of a privileged or confidential nature will NOT be made public. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-3, bullet 9: Please clarify what is meant by "Agreement documentation" in this section? |
|
|
Answer:
The intent is to provide formal documentation which describes the corporate structure of the proposing entity. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP I-1: Could RIDOT please indicate the minimum period of time after submission of the Cost Proposal the proposals are expected to remain valid? |
|
|
Answer:
In line with State Purchasing Rules and Regulations under Section 12.103.02, Contract award shall be issued within 60 DAYS of the opening of bids. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Phase I delivery schedule is really compressed. The RFP states that intent of phase 1 is to establish a live test site and commencement of revenue collection to assess operational baselines for transaction processing, evaluation, and revision of business rules and operations policies to be ultimately deployed under Phase II. Would RIDOT be open to revisit Phase I strategy and completion obligations: o Requesting one single tolling location for phase I completion. One single location would allow to perform the validation activities intended for Phase I. o Amending the II -5: Phase I Initial Performance Recruitments: - For Group B Classification Accuracy only requesting tier 3 vehicle classification accuracy as the intent is to toll only those vehicles. -In general the accuracy level requested at phase I completion are almost the same that at phase II completion. o Adding another milestone X months after those initial 6 months, where the performance requirements are achieved. |
|
|
Answer:
The current requirements of the Phase 1 delivery schedule must be met. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
The contractor ability to manage local utility companies (for power and comms) is very limited (permits, third party works, schedules, etc.). Would be RIDOT open to share these risks with the Contractor: o Pay the Contractor the utilities fees on a pass through basis. o Third-party delays beyond Contractors control to be managed as unforeseeable conditions with entitlement to extensions of time (only). |
|
|
Answer:
The Contractor will be responsible for any utility related delays caused by utility companies with the exception of delays that meet the eligibility requirements of Contract Terms section 15.4.1. To the extent possible, RIDOT will provide assistance in coordinating with Utility Companies in order to expedite this work. Utility fees shall be the responsibility of the Contractor, however RIDOT will provide a method of reimbursement for utility work up to a predetermined amount. This change will be included in an upcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
The Payment schedule described in section 14 of the Contract terms, does not represent the financial effort to deliver the project. Milestones and %'s should be aligned with the project schedule and delivery works (structures, foundations, civil works, installations, procurements, etc.). Would RIDOT be open to discuss the milestones and payments to achieve a net cash flow schedule? |
|
|
Answer:
Payment milestones will not be changed at this time. However, RIDOT is open to negotiations during the award process. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
The RFP requests a specific reader, Kapsch Janus®. In order to balance the competition between all the proponents, would it be possible for RIDOT to directly procure and deliver the readers to the contractor? We have seen other authorities following a similar procurement strategy. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. Under separate ADDENDUM a revised Cost Form (Attachment D) will be provided where specific unit costs for RFID equipment will be specified to be used by each proposer. Proposers will still responsible for determining the quantities as part of their proposed solution. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
We understand that all the equipment (workstations, communications switches, etc.) at RIDOT facilities and EZ Pass Control Centre are not part of the Contractor scope of work. Please confirm. |
|
|
Answer:
Correct. Specific to the RITBA E-ZPass Back Office no additional equipment is required nor is part of this scope of work. The Proposer, however, is required to provide any needed hardware to support the RhodeWorks AET System. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/19/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
The limitation on the number pages does not allow to develop all the information requested as part of the technical proposal. Would it be possible to increase the number of pages to 100? |
|
|
Answer:
NO |
|
| Date Asked: 01/11/2017 | Date Answered: 01/25/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
The RFP establishes the following DBE goals: 12% for Construction Qualifying Work, 12% for Design Qualifying Work, and 10% for Operation and Maintenance. With respect to the first two items of qualifying work, please clarify which cost item(s) from Attachment D will be used for calculating the total amount out of which the proposer has to comply with the respective DBE goal. Or otherwise, please clarify how the percentage will be calculated to assess compliance of the corresponding DBE goal. |
|
|
Answer:
The Proposer is to calculate the percentage from the particular tasks assigned to meet the goals. RIDOT is not assigning particular tasks for the goal. Since this is a Design/Build without predetermined items, the proposer must include 12% DBE construction work and 12% for Design work. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/10/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
It appears that both toll zones at location 14 will be impacted by the construction of the 6/10 connector. Can RIDOT provide details on how this location will be impacted by the proposed 6/10 construction? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will provide any existing information it has available. Any available information will be documented in an upcoming ADDENDUM. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/10/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Section II-3.3 - Are there any requirements for the surface material of the maintenance access pull offs at each location |
|
|
Answer:
Any surface material used shall be a pervious material as not to increase the impervious areas of the Toll Locations. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/10/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Section II-4.1.8 Project Schedule (Pg 63) states the Project Schedule shall be created and maintained in Microsoft Project. Can Primavera P6 be considered as an alternate scheduling software? |
|
|
Answer:
No, alternative scheduling software is not allowed. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/10/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Will costs of State Police details be paid directly by the State of RI or is the Contractor expected to bear the costs? |
|
|
Answer:
Cost for State Police will be paid by RIDOT. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/10/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Contract Sheet No. 19 shows proposed cantilever structures at Locations 7c and 7d. Typical Section details reference "NOTE 1, THIS SHEET". No notes are provided on the Sheet. Please advise |
|
|
Answer:
Reference to “NOTE 1, THIS SHEET” will be deleted and updated plans will be documented in an upcoming ADDENDUM. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/10/2017 | Date Answered: 01/19/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Type your questions here. |
|
|
Answer:
N/A |
|
| Date Asked: 01/10/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-4.9 AET Gantry Construction. Are there any constraints, safety or otherwise, to an overhead walkway gantry design that allows maintenance workers access to equipment without closing lanes or disturbing traffic? |
|
|
Answer:
Walkways, if utilized, shall meet the requirements of OSHA “Standards for Walking – Working Surfaces” Part 1910. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Based on our site review of Location 1, we do not believe that electrical service comes to the utility pole noted on the plans as the location of the power source. It appears that the electrical service for this location terminates on a pole that is approximately ¼ mile to the north. If this is the case, it will require make-ready work by the utility company to extend their service to the proposed demarcation point. The utility service provider’s costs and schedule for this work cannot be accurately estimated by the Proposers. a. We request that RIDOT consider a fixed price allowance as part of the bid proposals for any necessary make-ready work to be performed by the utility providers at this, or other, locations. b. If make-ready work is required by utility providers, how will any associated schedule impacts be addressed by RIDOT? c. If site 1 or 2 schedule is impacted, can the proposer recommend another set of toll sites to utilize for Phase 1? |
|
|
Answer:
a & b) RIDOT is reviewing request and final decision will be documented in an upcoming ADDENDUM. c) No – Phase 1 must utilize Toll Location 1 & 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Is the Bike Path at Location 13 within the State ROW? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Right-of-Way limits are not shown on the BTC plans. Can Proposers assume that all of the proposed work shown on the plans falls within public ROW and, therefore, easements or acquisitions will not be required? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes all work shown can be assumed to be within State ROW. PROPOSERS will not be responsible for the acquisition of any easements. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Are there any other active or planned construction projects in proximity to the proposed tolling locations that will be on-going during Phase I and Phase II of this project? If so, what is the schedule and scope of work associated with these other projects? |
|
|
Answer:
This information will be provided in an upcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Are open cut trenches permissible across ramps? |
|
|
Answer:
Open cut trenches are permissible, however total ramp closures will not be allowed. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please confirm that a separate Geotechnical Report is not required. |
|
|
Answer:
Correct, a separate Geotechnical Report is not required. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Is RIDOT open to changing site priorities? |
|
|
Answer:
No. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-3.8, will there be any schedule relief for delays caused by utility company providing power and data to each site? |
|
|
Answer:
The Contractor will be responsible for any utility related delays caused by utility companies with the exception of delays that meet the eligibility requirements of Contract Terms section 15.4.1. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-3.8, can the data and power invoices be a pass through to the authority during the operation phase of the project? |
|
|
Answer:
No. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Does RIDOT have relationship with local utilities to help expedite power connectivity? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will assist to expedite power connectivity. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Rights of Way (ROW) for infrastructure builds to the gantry i.e. trenching to power and network source as required. Are these off road areas around new gantry site State turnpike ROW, RIDOT or private ROW? |
|
|
Answer:
All work shown on the BTC Plan set is within existing state ROW and/or utility easements. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section I-6.3.2.6, are there GPS coordinates or mile markers identifying each gantry location for survey purposes? |
|
|
Answer:
All gantry structures shown on the BTC Plan set have coordinates associated with them. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Can RIDOT provide the total number of travel lanes associated with the 13 toll points which need to be instrumented? |
|
|
Answer:
The total number of travel lanes shall be determined by the Proposer from using both the BTC’s and any proposed modification (if applicable). |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Are road shoulders expected to be fully/ partially or not instrumented? Can RIDOT provide clarity on its expectations? |
|
|
Answer:
Shoulder coverage shall accommodate at a minimum AVI (E-ZPass), Image Capture (front and overview) and DVAS coverage. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-4.1.6, will RIDOT provide the office space at the rest area or will the contractor be responsible for providing a temporary office trailer? |
|
|
Answer:
No office space will be provided by RIDOT. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-2.2.6.5.1, can RIDOT confirm this requirement is for summary reports only and not for complex report queries? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-2.2.6.2.1, can RIDOT confirm trip formation design logic and its implementation is a requirement of the system? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-2.1.5.1, our assumption is the portable generator will be provided by others. Can RIDOT confirm this assumption? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-2.1.4, our assumption is the overview camera provides a profile view of the vehicle, can RIDOT confirm this assumption? |
|
|
Answer:
The intent of the overview image is to provide sufficient information to accurately validate a vehicle’s classification. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-2.1.1.8, will RIDOT provide the time source for the AET host to synchronize with or will the time source be the responsibility of the contractor? |
|
|
Answer:
The time source will be the responsibility of the Contractor. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-2.1.1.1, our assumption is the contractor will be required to report only what the reader provides. Can RIDOT please confirm this assumption? |
|
|
Answer:
As this relates specifically to the reader capability, yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP Section I-1, how would potential delays in the NEPA approvals of the toll points be handled if they impacted the projects 18 month schedule? |
|
|
Answer:
A statement regarding the NEPA schedule will be released with an upcoming Addendum scheduled for this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-2.1.4, for the overview images, will a video image be acceptable? |
|
|
Answer:
No. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-2.1.3, to keep reader costing consistent, will RIDOT consider purchasing all reader equipment required or consider having the vendor order on behalf of RIDOT with pass through pricing? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. The Cost Proposal Form will be updated to reflect to appropriate unit cost to be used for IAG readers. The exact quantities will be dependent on the proposed solution. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-4.8.2, please indicate whether the FAT location is to be the Contractor’s test site, or is a RIDOT location? |
|
|
Answer:
FAT shall be performed at the Contractor’s location. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-4.8, can we assume there is no FAT for Phase I and will be done in Phase II? |
|
|
Answer:
Correct. However the Proposer shall indicate their proposed level of testing in the proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP section II-4.1.8 states, “Contractor shall prepare and submit for approval a project schedule.” In what format is this to be submitted with the proposal? PDF Format or an actual MS Project 2013 file? |
|
|
Answer:
As per the RFP, the Proposal may be submitted using PDF Format. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP Attachment D - Cost Proposal Form 11-21-16 v4, please provide an updated price cost proposal form that includes the necessary formulas to tie the various sheets to the Sheet 1 – Summary Sheet as well as any Sub-Totals cells. |
|
|
Answer:
All formulas, except as where specified, are the responsibility of the Proposer. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section I-6.3.2.9, if the purpose/content of a required form is not applicable to a Proposer, is it permissible to precede the blank form with a flysheet containing a “Not Applicable” note/comment and/or an annotation within the form itself that it is not applicable? For example, if a Proposer does not use Federal Funds for lobbying activities, how would a Proposer indicate no lobbying activities are applicable? |
|
|
Answer:
This FORM must still be submitted and authorized; if there are no activities to report then your response would be "N/A" in the proper sections on FORM. PROPOSERs are accountable to submit ALL FORMS requested. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please confirm the physical address of the E-ZPass Back Office? |
|
|
Answer:
1 East Shore Road, Jamestown, RI 02835 |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Does RIDOT (or the State) have any existing blanket agreement(s) with commercial data service provider(s)? |
|
|
Answer:
No. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-2.7.1, what existing communications infrastructure will be available at the E-ZPass Back office for the tie-ins of communication from the tolling locations? |
|
|
Answer:
The RITBA E-ZPass Back Office has fiber switch provided and maintained by Cox Communications. At the Contractor’s discretion they may coordinate with Cox Communications to establish the necessary communication link between the RhodeWorks System and the RITBA E-ZPass Back Office. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-2.1.6, would RIDOT consider the use of 0.125" 5052 H32 aluminum sheet commonly used to construct enclosures meant for roadside installation by many highway and municipal street authorities? |
|
|
Answer:
The cabinets, enclosures, and equipment housing must meet all requirements in Section II-2.1.6. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section I-6.3.1, would RIDOT consider increasing the page limit to 75 pages? |
|
|
Answer:
NO. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP sections II-4.1.2 and II-4.1.5, can you please clarify if RIDOT expects a 4 or 6 week look-ahead schedule? |
|
|
Answer:
As part of the monthly reporting a 4 week look-ahead will be sufficient. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Form B – Participant Industrial Safety Record requests information or explanation of data for years 2005 through 2009. Should these years be revised to a more current five year window (i.e. 2011 through 2015)? |
|
|
Answer:
FORM B is being REVISED and will be provided in an upcoming ADDENDUM. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section I-6.3.3.1 states “The PROPOSER shall not provide any narrative or other additional text (i.e. exceptions, clarifications, or assumptions, etc.) in the Cost Proposal.” Where shall Proposers place Exceptions, Clarifications, or Assumptions within the Technical Proposal? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT has reconsidered this statement and has determined that any accompanying narrative documenting any COST assumptions, clarifications etc. shall be included with the COST PROPOSAL but shall be limited to a MAXIMUM 2 PAGES in length. This change shall be formally documented in an upcoming ADDENDUM. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section Exhibit 2, for Location 9 on the General Plan it would appear that there are 3 Travel Lanes in each direction, however, when looking at the Typical Section for Location 9 only 2 travel lanes, with a span of 36 feet, are shown in each direction. How many Travel Lanes in each direction should there be for Location 9? |
|
|
Answer:
There are three travel lanes in each direction at this location. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP section II-2.1.4, is RIDOT expecting an overview image in addition to DVAS images? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. However if the DVAS is capable of providing the requisite overview image this may be permitted. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Reference RFP Section II-4.3, can you please clarify the testing that is required for Phase 1? Currently it only states per the approved Initial System Test Plan. |
|
|
Answer:
The level of testing for Phase I shall be proposed by the Contractor. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Rear Images are only mentioned in the AET Performance Requirements…what are the requirements surrounding Rear Image capture? |
|
|
Answer:
Rear images will not be required. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
What is the anticipated peak volume broken out by Toll Point? This is required for sizing purposes. |
|
|
Answer:
A Draft Traffic Count Technical Memorandum will be released with an upcoming Addendum scheduled for this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
What is the anticipated volume of LCVs broken out by Toll Point? This is required for sizing purposes. |
|
|
Answer:
A Draft Traffic Count Technical Memorandum will be released with an upcoming Addendum scheduled for this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/09/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
What is the anticipated volume of traffic broken out by Tolling Point? This is required for sizing purposes. |
|
|
Answer:
A Draft Traffic Count Technical Memorandum will be released with an upcoming Addendum scheduled for this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Assuming a subcontractor is licensed to practice engineering in the State of Rhode Island and this firm will be performing the design and engineering tasks of the project, will their license suffice to meet the requirements of the “PROPOSER” |
|
|
Answer:
The professional entity providing the civil design plans for the Project would be subject to this requirement. Evidence of the RI PE License for the individual and RI Certification for the Consultant Firm must be made part of the Technical Proposal. The License and Certification must be issued through the State Board for Professional Engineers. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Requirement II-2.1.4: a. Front and overview image capture are a requirement under this Scope of Work. e. ICS images shall not contain any portion of vehicle occupants. Kapsch believes these two requirements are generally not mutually exclusive, as it is likely impossible to capture a front / overview image without any of the vehicle occupants visible. Would RIDOT consider a revision to requirement "e.", as occupants are usually not clearly visible in vehicle images, due to illumination and lighting adjustment within the image? |
|
|
Answer:
Section II-2.1.4 reference to "ICS images shall not contain any portion of vehicle occupants" will be revised by Addendum. Addendum language will clarify that incidental occupant images will be allowed as long as the occupants are not clearly visible in these images. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Requirement II-2.1.4 c. The overview image capture shall be designed to capture images for ALL transactions in each lane. Is it RIDOT's intention to have front and rear overview cameras for each lane? |
|
|
Answer:
The number of overview cameras shall be proposed by the Contractor as long as the proposed system can meet the performance and operational requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Requirement II-2.6 k. The user interface shall allow for the user to zoom in on an image to determine the type of vehicle or transaction that occurred. Is it RIDOT's intention to use PTZ DVAS cameras? |
|
|
Answer:
No. The ‘zoom’ functionality is intended to be specific to the user interface whereby the user can increase the image view on the screen. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide the relative frequency of occurrence for each the license plate jurisdictions currently observed at the planned tolling locations. |
|
|
Answer:
A Draft Traffic Count Technical Memorandum will be released with an upcoming Addendum scheduled for this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Toll Facility FNL 120116 Reference: I-6.3.3.3 Bid Bond Per section I-6.3.3.3 a 5% Bid Bond is required. Question: What is the basis for the 5% calculation (what is the base amount)? Sheet-1 Total Price ? Sheets 2 + Sheet 3 D&B Price? or ? |
|
|
Answer:
Section I-6.3.3.3 Bid Bond will be changed by Addendum. The 5% Bid Bond shall be included in the Technical Proposal. However, the Bid Bond shall be based on a $40 Million project cost estimate. The 5% bid bond amount shall not be based on the actual Proposer's bid price. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
"In the event there is a classification mismatch between the AVDC system and the transponder class (IAG Class), as defined by the business rules and during the design phase, the system shall be capable of capturing front and overview images." Please confirm that it is the front ALPR camera image and the Overview camera image that RIDOT toll operators will use to resolve the classification mismatches, and not the DVAS camera video stream described in Section II-2.6 (DVAS). |
|
|
Answer:
That is correct. However the Contractor, at its discretion and as part of its system design may also use the DVAS to support the resolution of class mismatches. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Table II-2.8 indicates mandatory accuracy levels for placing vehicles at RIDOT tolling locations in classification categories Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3. However, the RFP pre-amble indicates that only Large Commercial Vehicles (LCV) will be tolled. Given that only Tier 3 vehicles will have a toll applied, why do Tier 1 vehicles have to be classified to Tier 1 with 99.95% accuracy and Tier 2 vehicles have to be classified to Tier 2 to 99.8% accuracy? Wouldn't it be sufficient ensure each vehicle is classified as being part of Tier 3 or not being part of Tier 3 to an accuracy of 99.5? |
|
|
Answer:
The required accuracy levels for Tiers 1 to 3 will not be changed. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment D - Cost Proposal Form (Pricing Tables) Reference Tab(s): All Question: Will RIDOT be providing an updated Attachment D with the formulas included (Sub-totals, totals, links to roll-up/summary sheets, etc.)? |
|
|
Answer:
No. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment D - Cost Proposal Form (Pricing Tables) Question: Where should the bidders include the costs for Interim Maintenance and Operations support in their cost/pricing? |
|
|
Answer:
The Cost Proposal Form will be updated under ADDENDUM to include costs for Interim Maintenance and Operations. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment D - Cost Proposal Form (Pricing Tables) Question: Where should the bidders include the costs for Interim Maintenance and Operations support in their cost/pricing? |
|
|
Answer:
The Cost Proposal Form will be updated under ADDENDUM to include costs for Interim Maintenance and Operations. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment D - Cost Proposal Form (Pricing Tables) Question: Where should the bidders include the costs for an initial set of spare parts/equipment in their cost/pricing? |
|
|
Answer:
The Cost Proposal Form will be updated under ADDENDUM to include spare parts. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Attachment D - Cost Proposal Form (Pricing Tables) Question: Is RIDOT Tax Exempt? And if Yes, should bidders Exclude All Taxes (State, Federal, Local, etc.) from their pricing? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, RIDOT is tax exempt therefore any purchases related to this project would be exempt from all state taxes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Toll Facility FNL 120116 Reference: II-6 Optional E-ZPass Back Office Processing Question: Can bidders assume that all tag costs will be paid directly by RIDOT (including: cost of tags, Tags kits, any inserts, postage, etc.)? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, that is correct. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT consider issuing Forms A through M in the MS Word format for ease of electronic completion? |
|
|
Answer:
No. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Table I - 2: Technical Proposal Organization lists Bidder Certification Form (Attachment B). Please note that this refers to the RIVIP BIDDER CERTIFICATION COVER FORM that is reissued with every Addendum. |
|
|
Answer:
YES. 3-PAGE RIVIP Form is to be downloaded off RIDOA/Purchases website (www.purchasing.ri.gov) and included upfront in Technical Submission for easy review by State Purchases. Only ONE (1) ORIGINAL completed/authorized FORM will accompany Original Technical Proposal; each Technical Proposal COPY must also include copy of RIVIP FORM. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Will the Department allow bidders to place Project Schedule into G. SECTION VII: ATTACHMENTS TO THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, and not count it towards the page limit? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
The RFP requires "an organizational chart on 11” x 17” paper." In order to preserve the flow of the document and not cause the loss of valuable page space (given the limit), will the Department allow bidders to place the actual 11” x 17” organizational chart as a separate Attachment in G. SECTION VII: ATTACHMENTS TO THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Is there a particular standard form Bidders must complete to indicate presence or absence of conflicts of interest, or should an assertion regarding the absence (or presence) of conflict be made in the narrative? If in the narrative, then which section? |
|
|
Answer:
There is a particular standard form that Bidders must complete, it was not included as part of the forms in the original solicitation. It is the Conflicts Disclosure Statement form and it will be included as part of the addendum to be issued this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Does the Prime contractor need to directly manage the On the Job Training (OJT) program or can the subcontractor team institute the OJT? |
|
|
Answer:
The OJT Hours are applicable to construction services only so the PRIME CONTRACTOR would be responsible for all OJT monitoring/reporting requirements for submission to the PROPOSER as the contract owner who would be responsible for all contractual issues. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Would RIDOT please define Construction Qualifying Work vs. Design Qualifying Work? How should vendors break down these two elements in our proposals to determine the DBE percentage? |
|
|
Answer:
Each RI Certified DBE is qualified under specified types of services as cited on the State MBE website and documented in their certification letters. These would be the qualifying services which would be counted toward the type of work assignment they would be performing under the Project. It would be up to the PROPOSER to define the workload and proper DBE assignments. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Assuming a subcontractor is licensed with the State of Rhode Island Contractors’ Registration and Licensing Board and this firm will be performing the contracting, construction, civil work and gantry fabrication & installation tasks of the project, will their license suffice to meet the requirements of the “PROPOSER” |
|
|
Answer:
To reconfirm: The professional entity providing the civil design plans for the project would be subject to this requirement. Evidence of the RI PE License for the INDIVIDUAL and the Consultant FIRM must be made part of the Technical Proposal. Both documents are issued through the State Board for Design Professionals. Contact information is provided in RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Type your questions here.Assuming a subcontractor is licensed to practice engineering in the State of Rhode Island and this firm will be performing the design and engineering tasks of the project? |
|
|
Answer:
To reconfirm: The professional entity providing the civil design plans for the project would be subject to this requirement. Evidence of the RI PE License for the INDIVIDUAL and the Consultant FIRM must be made part of the Technical Proposal. Both documents are issued through the State Board for Design Professionals. Contact information is provided in RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Does the DBE firm need to be subcontracted to the Prime subcontractor or can they be a sub to a sub to count towards the DBE goals? |
|
|
Answer:
A DBE "Sub to a Sub" would be acceptable as long as the working relationship is properly disclosed and evidence of proposed Firm's current RI DBE Certification is provided. DBEs must be certified AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION to ensure DBE compliance and availability. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT provide the electronic CADD files in *.dgn or *.dwg format so we can add our redlines. |
|
|
Answer:
CAD files will be provided to the selected Proposer at the time of award. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP states: "A copy of the current registration is required in SOQ." |
|
|
Answer:
"SOQ" incorrectly stated. All qualification materials requested shall be included as part of Technical Proposal Submission. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
The RFP requirement: "Clearly labeled CD ROM should be attached to the inside cover of each Technical Proposal submission." Question 1: Does this instruction direct that bidders submit 6 electronic copies, one with the Original and 5 more with the copies? Question 2: Will the Department accept electronic copies on thumb/flash drives, instead of CD-ROM? |
|
|
Answer:
Question 1: RIDOT requires a total of SIX (6) HARD COPIES ("Original" + 5) additionally each hard copy must have affixed to the inside cover a CD ROM of said TECHNICAL Proposal Submission. Sealed COST Proposal is submitted separate from Technical submission and is required in "Hard Copy (3) only". Question 2: YES. Accompanying thumb/flash drive is acceptable as long as each is securely clipped to each Proposal Copy. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Please confirm that double-sided printing is acceptable for the paper original and copies |
|
|
Answer:
YES. But narrative is still limited to a total of 5O Pages (or 25 double-sided). |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Will the Department allow for 10-point font for drawings, tables, graphics, schematics, and org charts? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/24/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Table I - 3: Cost Proposal Organization lists "Bid Bond" as one of the Cost Proposal submission requirements. Section I-6.3.3.3 BID BOND however states: "In accordance with the State’s Amended Procurement Rules & General Conditions of Purchase, effective December 2011, as cited under Section 12.102.06, “Proposal Guaranty” the separately sealed TECHNICAL Proposal will not be accepted or considered unless accompanied by a guaranty in the form of an original FIVE PERCENT (5%) BID BOND made payable to the State of Rhode Island." Question: Please clarify whether Bid Bond must be included with the separately sealed technical proposal, or the separately sealed cost proposal. |
|
|
Answer:
The previous answer to this question has been revised (previous answer in quotes below). The Section I-6.3.3.3 will remain unchanged. The separately sealed TECHNICAL Proposal will not be accepted or considered unless accompanied by a guaranty in the form of an original FIVE PERCENT (5%) BID BOND made payable to the State of Rhode Island. "Section I-6.3.3.3 Bid Bond will be changed by Addendum. The 5% Bid Bond shall be included in the Technical Proposal. However, the Bid Bond shall be based on a $40 Million project cost estimate. The 5% bid bond amount shall not be based on the actual Proposer's bid price." |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
"Transaction images associated with a FHWA AVDC classification of 7, excluded class 8 or 10 and lower are to be used for audit and system performance verification only and shall be automatically deleted 30 days after generation at both the host and roadside level if not previously deleted." Please clarify this sentence - what is excluded class 8 or 10? Does this mean all class 7 (and some class 8 or 10 exclusions) and lower class images can be deleted after 30 days?Section II-2.2.4 Data Retention states "4) Detailed transaction data, including images shall be retained online for a minimum of three (3) years on the AET Host and then archived to permanent long-term storage." |
|
|
Answer:
This is correct. Those images used for audit and leading subsequent re-classification reclassification to a valid ‘tolled’ transaction should be retained in accordance with Section II-2.2.4. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
7551188A2 – Attachment A – Contract Terms Reference: Section 7. Utilities Question: Will RIDOT be responsible for all recurring/on-going utilities costs (power, data, etc.) after each location is put into revenue service? |
|
|
Answer:
No. This will be the responsibility of the Contractor. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
7551188A2 – Attachment A – Contract Terms Reference: Section 14. Payment - Payment Schedule The way the payment milestones are structured in the RFP, a considerable portion of the payments occur in the later part of the contract, even though there are substantial costs incurred by the contractor in purchasing materials, equipment installation, civil work and other up-front expenses incurred. Question: Would RIDOT consider discussing the milestone payments during contract negotiations to achieve a payment schedule that more fairly compensates the contractor for purchased materials, civil work and other up-front expenses? |
|
|
Answer:
Payment milestones will not be changed at this time. However, RIDOT is open to negotiations during the award process. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
"The Contractor may provide the AET Host System in its own dedicated location, a hosted or co-located environment." This sentence implies RIDOT is not providing data center facilities and it is expected that the contractor will provide the data center facilities and all communication between systems. Is this True? |
|
|
Answer:
Correct. The Host location will be at the discretion of the Contractor. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Location 4 – the NB gantry foundation is adjacent to a retaining wall. Please provide as built drawings and calculations to evaluate impact of additional loads in this wall.ere. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will provide any existing information it has available. Any available information will be documented in an upcoming ADDENDUM. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Can RIDOT provide record plans for Toll Zone 14A (off ramp onto Rte 6 & Rte 6/10 SB)? In particular the existing bridge barrier wall. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will provide any existing information it has available. Any available information will be documented in an upcoming ADDENDUM. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/06/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Chris Body | Company: Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. |
|
Question:
Type your questions "Exhibit 3 - RhodeWorks Business Rules Guidelines.pdf” from Addendum 1 indicates that “tolls shall be collected on large commercial trucks only, and shall not be collected on any other vehicle,. . .” and “All other vehicles detected shall not be processed.” Please confirm that no data records or images for vehicles classified as Tier 1 or Tier 2 need to be provided by this system to the RITBA E-ZPass Back Office.here. |
|
|
Answer:
Correct. However the final design of the system shall ensure that any required data is retained for the purposes of audit and misclassification verification. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/05/2017 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Section I-3 states "Respondents must provide evidence that the PROPOSER is registered with the State of Rhode Island Contractors’ Registration and Licensing Board as required under RI Gen Laws 5-65-19." Must the PROPOSER (Prime) itself hold this registration and licensing requirement or can the requirement be met if one of the PROPOSER's subcontractors/partners can provide the evidence of registration and licensing? |
|
|
Answer:
The entity performing the actual construction of the Toll Gantries must be licensed by the State's Contractor and Licensing Board. A copy of the Firm's current registration must be included in the Technical Proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/05/2017 | Date Answered: 01/17/2017 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Section I-3 states "Respondents must provide evidence that the PROPOSER is registered with the State of Rhode Island Contractors’ Registration and Licensing Board as required under RI Gen Laws 5-65-19." Must the PROPOSER (Prime) itself hold this registration and licensing requirement or can the requirement be met if one of the PROPOSER's subcontractor/partners can provide the evidence of registration and licensing? |
|
|
Answer:
The entity performing the actual construction of the Toll Gantries must be licensed by the State's Contractor and Licensing Board. A copy of the Firm's current registration must be included in the Technical Proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/05/2017 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.1.4 The overview image capture shall be designed to capture images for ALL transactions in each lane. RFP II-2.2.1 The system shall be scalable to accommodate future growth in electronic transactions, image capture and the addition of new Toll Points. Will RIDOT provide current and projected future traffic volumes by class? |
|
|
Answer:
A Draft Traffic Count Technical Memorandum will be released with an upcoming Addendum scheduled for this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 01/05/2017 | Date Answered: 01/13/2017 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.8 Table II-1: AET Performance Requirements, Group B - Vehicle Classification Accuracy. Please confirm that the AVDC performance requirements relate to the three tier levels (1,2,3) and not to each FHWA classification within the tiers. |
|
|
Answer:
That is correct. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/29/2016 | Date Answered: 01/10/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
Form B Safety Record looks to be an old form, data for 2005-2009. Can RIDOT provide a more recent form, data for 2011-2015? |
|
|
Answer:
FORM B shall be revised an provided in upcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/28/2016 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
Attachment A – Contract Terms 12-15-16, p. 28, Section 11.1.2 Contract Payment Bond The contract states that “As a pre-condition of issuance of Final System Acceptance the Contractor shall provide a Payment Bond for Phase III Operations and Maintenance in the amount of 100% of the ten (10) year Operations and Maintenance price (Sheet 4 of the Cost Form)…” Will RIDOT consider accepting an annually renewable maintenance/operations payment bond based on the value of each year of service? Sureties are often unwilling to write bonds with such a long duration. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, please see the previously answered questions. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/28/2016 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
Attachment A – Contract Terms 12-15-16, p. 28, Section 11.1.2 Contract Payment Bond The contract states that “The Payment Bond for deployment will be released upon the later to occur of one year after Final Acceptance or satisfactory evidence that all persons performing the Work for Phases I and II have been fully paid.” Will RIDOT consent to release of both the performance & payment bond for the deployment phase at Final System Acceptance and upon evidence satisfactory to the DOT that all persons performing work have been fully paid rather than holding the payment bond for a full year past Final Acceptance? The Department will already have the benefit of the Operations and Maintenance bond. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, this change will be issued through Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/28/2016 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
Attachment A – Contract Terms 12-15-16, p. 28, Section 11.1.1 Contract Performance Bond (see also Question #4 below) The contract states that “As a pre-condition of issuance of Final System Acceptance the Contractor shall provide a Performance Bond for Phase III Operations and Maintenance in the amount of 100% of the ten (10) year Operations and Maintenance price (Sheet 4 of the Cost Form) …” Will RIDOT consider accepting an annually renewable maintenance/operations performance bond based on the value of each year of service? Sureties are often unwilling to write bonds with such a long duration. |
|
|
Answer:
The performance bond requirements under section 11.1.1 of the Contract Terms will be changed through Addendum. The Payment and Performance Bonds minimum amount will be changed from $70 Million to $40 Million. This initial implementation phase performance bond will be released upon Final System Acceptance of Phase 1 and Phase 2. A new maintenance bond for 100% of the annual O&M amount will be required on a yearly basis from that point forward. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/28/2016 | Date Answered: 01/05/2017 |
| Poster: Ronald Rahn | Company: TransCore |
|
Question:
Attachment A – Contract Terms 12-15-16, p. 27, Section 11.1 Bonds The contract states that “Contractor shall provide security for performance and payment in the form of the bond identified in Sections 11.11 and 11.2.2.” There are no forms provided, just a statement that they must be provided “in a form satisfactory to RIDOT in its sole discretion.” Does RIDOT have preferred performance and payment bond forms that they can share with interested proposers? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT does have a standard Performance and Payment Bond used on all Construction Contracts that will be shared with the Selected PROPOSER at the time of contract award. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/23/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.3.3 All systems including AVDC, RFID, ICS and DVAS systems shall have adequate redundancy whereby a failure of a single sensor does not degrade lane operations or the System’s capability to accurately create transactions and associate images to transactions. In this context, does "adequate redundancy" mean "full redundancy" ? In other words, do we need complete overlap between cameras so that a camera failure does not prevent the system from capturing plate images? |
|
|
Answer:
The intent of this requirement is not to require "full redundancy". The intent is to provide some level of degraded functionality which still enables creation of transactions. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/23/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.1.1.1 c) All non-IAG transponder reads shall be reported. Please specify the required protocols to be read. |
|
|
Answer:
This requirement shall be omitted. However, the requirement to support future multi-protocol as stated in RFP II-2.1.3 shall still be adhered to. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/22/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Paul Leghart | Company: emovis technologies US, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP II-2.1.4 Front and overview image capture are a requirement under this Scope of Work. RFP II-2.8 AET System Performance Requirements, ID #10 Rear Image Please clarify if rear image capture is a requirement under this Scope of Work. |
|
|
Answer:
Rear images are required. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/22/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP I-6.3.2.5, Will RIDOT consider making the Attachment C responses to Functional Capability Matrix part of the resulting contract? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, Attachment C responses to the Functional Capability Matrix shall be part of the resulting contract. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/22/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
With the change of the Pre-Proposal Meeting date from 12/15/16 to 1/4/17, could RIDOT please extend the proposal due date by an equivalent number of days, from 2/17/17 or 3/10/17? |
|
|
Answer:
No, the due date can not be changed. We have a 75 day advertising period. This 75 days is from the date of advertisement to the due date of the proposal. The pre-proposal meeting date change does not interfere with the current due date. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/21/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP I-1 - NEPA Statement. Please provide an update on status/schedule of the NEPA process and what impact will any delay on approvals have on this contact? Will the Contractor be provided cost and schedule relief?" |
|
|
Answer:
We will provide additional information regarding the NEPA status either by Addendum or through this Q&A portal. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/21/2016 | Date Answered: 12/23/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Previous reply to question indicated that "Name and contact information for POC shall be included in Transmittal Letter as part of PROPOSER's Technical Proposer." Are you referring to the Form A - Proposal Letter or are Proposers allowed an additional Transmittal Letter to precede the proposal responses? If so, are there page limitations associated with the Transmittal Letter? |
|
|
Answer:
You may include a transmittal letter in addition to Form A. This transmittal letter will include P.O.C. information and does NOT count toward 50 page limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section II-2.1.6 requests NEMA 4X cabinets. This can be problematic with ventilation. Would NEMA 3R be acceptable to RIDOT? |
|
|
Answer:
No, NEMA 4X cabinets are required. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Regarding Phase I of the project, please clarify the following: A) Will RIDOT start collecting revenue from day 1 after completion of phase I? B) Please clarify what RIDOT expects the toll system to send to the customer service system (e.g. all transactions irrespectively of the class, only LCV transactions…). C) Please clarify what Liquidated Damages and/or penalties are applicable to Phase I. Note that, not having a Host system, the Proposer would not have the information with the transactions detected at the road side level and therefore auditing accuracy would be challenging. |
|
|
Answer:
A) Yes, as stated in Table II-4. B) Only Large Commercial Vehicle (LCV) transactions shall be sent to the RITBA E-ZPass Customer Service Center. C) With regard to completion of Phase I, only Liquidated Damages for Delay shall be assessed. Please see Addendum # 3, Attachment A - Contract Terms for specific language regarding Liquidated Damages for Delay. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
As per the information provided in the BTC, Exhibit 2, RIDOT has indicated the proposed connection points for both power and communication. Has RIDOT coordinated with the corresponding utility companies in order to confirm that there is enough capacity and that the proposed connection points are suitable for the purpose of this RFP? |
|
|
Answer:
No. This shall be the responsibility of the contractor, as the power and communication needs shall be based on the proposed system. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT pay for any fee imposed by the communication service utility company for the connection as well as for the corresponding monthly fees? |
|
|
Answer:
The Contractor and not RIDOT shall pay any fee imposed by the communication service utility company for the connection as well as for the corresponding monthly fees. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
As per the RFP, the proposer will be responsible for the design and construction costs charged by the private utility companies for the electric services. Could you kindly confirm that the RIDOT would be responsible for the corresponding monthly fees? |
|
|
Answer:
The Contractor and not RIDOT shall be responsible for the design and construction costs charged by the private utility companies for the electric services. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Apart from the rules explained in Exhibit 3, please explain further if possible how the toll system would rate the transactions. Also, please clarify why RIDOT wants to download the toll rates to the toll points or if the Proposer can opt for managing them from the host. |
|
|
Answer:
There are no other details related to the rating of transactions. As stated in Section II-2.2.6.2, the business rules shall be "defined during the design phase" and thus the Contractor shall work with RIDOT in the design phase to determine more detailed business rules and transaction processing rules. Management of toll rates may be performed from the Host. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
In tolling contracts including operation like this one, usually the client pays the contractor based on the actual traffic. Either via a fee per transaction or with different prices depending on several ranges of volume. Can RIDOT clarify how many imaged-based transactions is the Proposer expected to treat? |
|
|
Answer:
A Draft Traffic Count Technical Memorandum will be released with an upcoming Addendum scheduled for this week. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section II-2.1.4 requires the Image Capture Subsystem to be able to transfer uncompressed images to the Host. For network throughput and storage purposes, can the proposer consider that the system will work with jpg compressed images? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, compressed images shall be allowed. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section II-2.6.2 requires DVAS the cameras to be capable of provide both color and black and white images. Section II-2.1.4 however does not specify if RIDOT is expecting color or black and white images for the Image Capture Subsystem, please clarify. |
|
|
Answer:
The type of image (black/white or color) captured by the Image Capture Subsystem shall be at the contractor's discretion. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Group C of performance requirements, in section II-2.8, includes a value for rear image capture. However, section II-2.1.4 describing the image capture subsystem only mentions front and overview images, not rear. Please clarify. |
|
|
Answer:
Rear images are required. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
We understand from the RFP the Proposer would be responsible for performing the image review of the transactions. Is there any constraint to where that operation can be done? |
|
|
Answer:
There is no constraint to where the image review can be done. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Regarding section II-2.2.1, is there any constraint to where the Host can be located? |
|
|
Answer:
There is no constraint to where the Host can be located. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/23/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Regarding section I-6.3.2.3, if the proposer uses a third party to provide the design work and the corresponding P.E. Seal, would it be possible to cover the requirement for the Professional Liability Insurance by providing the insurance of that subcontractor? |
|
|
Answer:
The PROPOSER is who the state would seek to carry liability insurance. Its up to the proposer to obtain whatever insurances they may require of their subcontractors. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 01/06/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide more information, if available, regarding the status of the different permits, environmental approvals, etc., that would be required for this project. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT is in the process of preparing a Request for Regulatory Applicability Form for each Tolling Location to RIDEM for confirmation that the Project does not require a permit under the Freshwater Wetlands Rules. It is anticipated that RIDOT will receive a favorable determination. No other Regulatory or Local Permits are anticipated to be required. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 01/23/2017 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Regarding section I-6.3.2.3, please clarify how the bonds for the O&M period would work. The common practice is to provide a maintenance bond for 100% of the annual O&M amount, and replacing it every year with the new annual amount. Or a bond on an annual basis with automatic renewals. Providing a non-cancelable bond that covers a period of 10 years would be problematic as sureties do not usually provide this kind of bond. |
|
|
Answer:
The performance bond requirements under section I-6.3.2.3 will be changed through an Addendum. The Payment and Performance Bonds minimum amount will be changed from $70 Million to $40 Million. This initial implementation phase performance bond will be released upon Final System Acceptance of Phase 1 and Phase 2. A new maintenance bond for 100% of the annual O&M amount will be required on a yearly basis from that point forward. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/21/2016 |
| Poster: Luis Carrera | Company: SICE, Inc. |
|
Question:
Regarding section I-6.3.2.3, is there a form for the bid, performance & payment and maintenance bonds? If so, please provide it. If not, please indicate if there is any mandatory text that needs to be used. |
|
|
Answer:
There is no particular form or wording to be used for the required bid bond to be included with submission. The form for performance and payment bond would be provided at the time of award. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP Exhibit 2. Please clarify the Limits of Disturbance (LOD) shown in the BTC drawings. Specifically, whether the median is assumed to be included within the LOD when limits are defined/shown along the outside of the roadway(s) in question. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, the median is included within the LOD where work is anticipated. Updated BTC drawings will be issued by Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP II-4.5.5. Please clarify the level of detail required structural engineering related to gantries and foundations required as part of the preliminary and final infrastructure designs. |
|
|
Answer:
The Contractor is responsible for the design, fabrication, and erection of the Gantry Substructures, including foundations. Supporting design criteria and calculations shall be submitted for review and approval per applicable Sections of RFP II-3. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP II-4.5.4. Please clarify the level of detail required for field survey and base plan preparation required as part of the preliminary and final infrastructure designs. |
|
|
Answer:
The design shall be in accordance with the RIDOT Highway Design Manual, Traffic Design Manual and all other applicable manuals listed on the Contractors & Consultants page on the RIDOT website. This page can be found at the following link: http://www.dot.ri.gov/business/contractorsandconsultants.php |
|
| Date Asked: 12/20/2016 | Date Answered: 12/28/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP II-3.3. Please clarify requirement specifications for maintenance drive, access area and off shoulder parking as this does not seem feasible at all locations (for example toll site location 4 and 14a/b). |
|
|
Answer:
This requirement can also be accomplished by accessing the Gantry Sites from local roads adjacent to the sites (for example Location 4 SB can be accessed from Mutual St.). If shoulder width is not adequate and other access points are not available, the Contractor shall provide necessary lane closure to provide maintenance access to the particular Gantry site. All lane closures shall require appropriate TMP approval from RIDOT prior to commencing lane closures. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Can you please clarify what Forms will need to be completed and signed by subcontractor/partners within proposer responses? |
|
|
Answer:
FORMS provided shall be completed and authorized by the PROPOSER unless otherwise directed on the FORM itself. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Section II-6 E-ZPass Back Office Processing (Optional) states “This item is only an option and is not mandatory. The Contractor is not required to provide a technical proposal or cost proposal. Further any optional material provided will not be included as part of the technical or cost evaluation and scoring.” This optional item is not listed within RFP Section I-6.3.1 Proposal Organization. If a proposer elects to provide this optional information, where should it be placed within the proposal response? |
|
|
Answer:
Any technical response to the Back Office Processing Option shall be submitted under SECTION VII of the Proposal response. Optional Pricing proposed shall be included with the Cost Proposal using the required forms provided. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please confirm that electronic copies for the Cost proposal is not required for submission. |
|
|
Answer:
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (”Original” plus FIVE (5) COPIES) and a separately sealed PRICE PROPOSAL (THREE (3) “HARD” COPIES) are to be submitted simultaneously. The RIDOT requests that the TECHNICAL PROPOSAL ONLY be submitted not only in hard copy form but also on CD-ROM. Clearly labeled CD ROM should be attached to the inside cover of each Technical Proposal submission. The RIDOT requires that the electronic version of Technical Proposal be submitted in Adobe PDF format. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section I-6.2 states “An 8-1/2” x 11” single, spaced, 12 point font format is required for typed submissions.” Several requested documents/samples do not comply with font restrictions and they are not available in a native MS Office format for font adjustments. Please confirm that it is permissible to submit those documents as is. |
|
|
Answer:
CONFIRMED. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section I-6.3.1, Table I-2 states that “organizational charts shall not be counted toward the page limit.” Section I-6.3.2.8 states “The chart will be supported by a narrative describing the PROPOSER’s teaming arrangements and its management structure” and “No additional pages for the narrative will be allowed.” Can you please clarify if the supporting narrative for the organizational chart is also excluded from the technical proposal page limitation? |
|
|
Answer:
The supporting narrative only will be counted toward the 50 PAGE limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section I-6.2 states “An 8-1/2” x 11” single, spaced, 12 point font format is required for typed submissions.” Can smaller font size be used within headers and footers, tables, exhibits/graphics, samples and etc.? |
|
|
Answer:
Referred items may be submitted at a minimum 8 PT FONT if necessary but narrative content must be 12 PT. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/23/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section I-6.3.1 states “Evidence of signature authority shall be provided for all individuals signing forms by all parties making up the PROPOSER.” What is acceptable evidence of signature authority and where should the evidence be placed within the proposal response? |
|
|
Answer:
A corporate resolution or notarized statement indicating authorized signatures to be included in technical proposal under separate tab labeled accordingly. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section I-3 states “Provide evidence that the PROPOSER is licensed to practice engineering in the State of Rhode Island in accordance with RI Gen Laws 5-8. A copy of the current Rhode Island Certificate of Authorization FOR THE FIRM and current Rhode Island registrations(s), FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) who would perform the specified engineering services is required.” Where should the evidence be placed within the proposal response? |
|
|
Answer:
All required licensing documentation requested shall be separately tabbed in Technical Proposal and labeled accordingly i.e.,. P.E and Contractor requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section I-3 states “Respondents must provide evidence that the PROPOSER is registered with the State of Rhode Island Contractors’ Registration and Licensing Board as required under RI Gen Laws 5-65-19. A copy of the current registration is required in SOQ. The Contractor shall comply with all Rhode Island Vendor Certification Requirements.” Where should the evidence be placed within the proposal response? |
|
|
Answer:
Separately tabbed and labeled- SEE ABOVE RESPONSE. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section I-3 states “All PROPOSERs must submit a W-9 to be completed and signed by authorized agent of your Firm.” Further, “Please note, for W-9 form only, one (1) unbound “Original” copy is required at time of submission.” Since the registration process included submitting a W-9, can you confirm that this is a required document within proposal submission, and if so, where should the W-9 Form be placed within the proposal response? |
|
|
Answer:
ONE (1) Hard Copy of the W-9 shall be submitted unbound and not incorporated as part of Technical Proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section I-6.3.3.2 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PARTICIPATION AND TRAINEES states “The Respondent must also provide a written statement signed by an authorized representative of the D/B TEAM that the D/B TEAM will develop and maintain a continuous on-the-job-training (OJT) program achieving the required Training hours.” The requirement to provide a written statement regarding Trainees/OJT is not listed within I-6.3.1, Table I-2: Technical Proposal Organization. Can you please verify that the written statement pertaining to Trainees should appear within the Technical Proposal response in same indexed tab section as the written statement for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Participation or as a separate section? |
|
|
Answer:
Each statement shall be submitted under separate tabs with each labeled accordingly. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Section I-6.3.1 states that “Proposals shall adhere to the outlines shown in Table I - 2: Technical Proposal Organization.” Table I-2 lists “Point of Contact” as a required element within the Technical Proposal response. I-6.3.2 provides instructions for all required components of the Technical Proposal. However, there are no corresponding instructions in RFP Section I-6.3.1 on method used to convey the information. Please provide instructions on how/where you want the Point of Contact information placed within the Technical Proposal response. |
|
|
Answer:
Name and contact information for POC shall be included in Transmittal Letter as part of PROPOSER's Technical Proposer. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/19/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Dereck Richman | Company: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum 2 published 12/19/16 indicates that Forms L & M have been amended and replaced. These documents were not included within the Addenda 2 zip file. Where can the amended Forms L & M be located? |
|
|
Answer:
Correction issued under Addendum 7551188A3. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/16/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP Exhibit 2. Can RIDOT please provide the native CAD files for the BTC, Exhibit 2? |
|
|
Answer:
CAD files will be provided to the selected Proposer at the time of award. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/16/2016 | Date Answered: 12/19/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP I-1. Please clarify what the term "qualifying" means related to DBE goals. |
|
|
Answer:
Proposed DBE Firms must be RI Certified DBE Firms in order to qualify toward the assigned Goals. A complete list of current RI certified DBE Firms is available through the State Office of Diversity, Equality and Opportunity website at www.mbe.ri.gov. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/16/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP I-8.1. How is the contractor to mark confidential information in the technical and cost proposals? |
|
|
Answer:
Proprietary information must be disclosed in writing by the Proposer as part of the Technical Proposal. Further clarification will be provided by Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/16/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Volume III, Attachment A. Is there an anticipated release date for Attachment A? |
|
|
Answer:
Attachment A is currently posted on the RIVIP website under Addendum 7551188A2. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/16/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP I-6.3.2.6. Narrative Responses states that "the intention is to receive conceptual designs as part of the Technical Proposal.". Please confirm that these conceptual designs will not be included in the technical proposal page count. In addition, should they be included as an attachment in Section vii? |
|
|
Answer:
Given the potential volume of the conceptual design plans, they may be included as an attachment to Section VII and will not count toward the 50 page limit. However, the content will be part of the Technical Analysis and scoring. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/16/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP I-6.3.2.6. Under the heading Project Implementation, Project Schedule and Commencement of Revenue Collection; bullet Project Schedule. "Provide a detailed Project Schedule for the project". Please clarify that the detailed schedule is not included in the 50 page limit for the Technical Volume. Should the Project schedule be included in this section of the proposer's response or as an attachment in Section vii? |
|
|
Answer:
Given the potential volume of the schedule, it may be included as an attachment to Section VII and will not count toward the 50 page limit. However, the content will be part of the Technical Analysis and scoring. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/16/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP I-6.2. The RFP states 11x17 format is permitted for drawings, graphics, schematics. Will an 11x17 page count as one page or two pages toward the page limit? |
|
|
Answer:
One page. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/16/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
Attachment D, Exhibit, Sheet 3. Designation of Toll Points do not match the exhibits and the Cost sheet. Sheet 3 shows Toll Point 5A, 5B and 14C which do not exist in the BTC. Please confirm these are not required. The BTC shows Toll Point 7D, which is not in Attachment D. Will Attachment D be updated to allow the costs for 7D to be captured? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. The Correction to Attachment D will be formally issued by Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/16/2016 | Date Answered: 12/20/2016 |
| Poster: Karen Barber | Company: Raytheon Company |
|
Question:
RFP I-6.2. The RFP states 12 point font format is required for typed submissions. Is 12 point font required for drawings, graphs, and tables? Would 8 or 10 point font be acceptable for these artifacts? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. A minimum of 8 point font is acceptable for drawings, graphs, and tables. |
|
| Date Asked: 12/08/2016 | Date Answered: 12/09/2016 |
| Poster: Fred Vincent | Company: GM2 |
|
Question:
Section 1-6.3.3.2 dealing with Trainee requirements, page 25. Are min. OJT hours 3000 or 12000 for the project? |
|
|
Answer:
Please refer to re-formatted RFP provided as part of Zip File issued under ADD 1. There will be 3000 Trainee Hours assigned to this Project. |
|