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: 06/22/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Stacey Lopez | Company: TranSystems |
|
Question:
Is an 11x17 schedule required to be inserted in the 40 page technical proposal or can it be placed within an exhibit? |
|
|
Answer:
Schedule should be part of 40 PAGE narrative. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/20/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Paragraph 1 Line 5 in RFP Section 8.1 Project Schedule Requirements references a Payment Milestone Plan in Section 14.2. However, Section 14.2 is titled AMTRAK and P&W Flaggers etc. Please provide clarification. |
|
|
Answer:
The Project will not follow a payment milestone plan. The correct cross-reference will be addressed by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/20/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Section 2.11 List of Deliverable and Section 8.2.1 Project Schedule state that the Initial Project Baseline Schedule is due within 10 Days of Award. Please define the level of detail required for this schedule. Note that the Rhode Island Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Design Amended August 2013 page 1-58 details a schedule development process table with specific levels of detail and deadline dates. Will this table be utilized for this project. |
|
|
Answer:
Please follow Section 108.03 regarding the types of schedules to be submitted. The correct cross-references will be addressed by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/23/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum No. 7 includes the CCTV system and states that the video is to be transmitted live to the Hub Center Operator Work stations, Hub Center Video Computers, OCC, and Local Police. Please provide locations of the nearest network connectivity for all four locations. |
|
|
Answer:
It is the D/B teams responsibility as part of the design process to determine the nearest connectivity for all locations. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/23/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum No. 8 provided specifications 16770 for PA/VMS system, please confirm that the System be installed by ARINC at 45 high street and not by RailEdge system as currently used. |
|
|
Answer:
Contractor shall provide RailEdge system per current MBTA requirements at 45 High Street. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/23/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum No. 7 specifies to utilize new analog cameras within the station, the specifications for cameras submitted under Addendum No.8 does not provide analog cameras. Confirm that the analog cameras and DVRs are required under this project. |
|
|
Answer:
The camera and DVRs shall conform with the current requirements serving MBTA and RIDOT. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/23/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum No. 8 contains drawings from the previous Amtrak Project “Rehabilitation of Track 7 ‘Atwells’ to ‘Boston Switch’. The profile view of track 1 indicates top of rock elevations along the proposed alignment of the new platform. In order to supplement the current geotechnical data for the proposed station please provide all the contract drawings and any geotechnical reports that may be available from this previous Rehabilitation of Track 7 Project. |
|
|
Answer:
The plans for the Project “Rehabilitation of Track 7 ‘Atwells’ to ‘Boston Switch’" do not include geotechnical information. The contractor shall base their bids on the geotechnical report prepared for the Pawtucket/Central Falls Station Project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/23/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
As a follow up to Skanska's 5/19/17 question and your 6/9/17 answer with regards to contaminated soil disposal. The documents provided do not provide us with the information needed to determine the cost of soil disposal. Disposal costs for soils in this corridor can vary greatly depending on the level and type of contamination. Without the necessary information, how are D/B teams supposed to predict and estimate the disposal costs? |
|
|
Answer:
Hazardous material testing information was provided in Addendum 3 titled "Summary of 2015 Limited Environmental Subsurface Investigation" to determine cost of soil disposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/12/2017 | Date Answered: 06/23/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Comment #24 in the March 2017 VHB Response to Amtrak Comments (Addendum #5), states that the existing pier under the Conant Street bridge shall be removed by the D/B Contractor. This foundation is not depicted in the Design Documents. Please provide the dimensions, material type and the depth to which this pier is to be removed. |
|
|
Answer:
The existing pier under Conant Street, which no longer supports Conant Street bridge, is approximately 4’ wide by 53’ long. The existing pier is reinforced concrete, which sits on a 6’-9” wide by 2’-9” deep footing and is assumed to be 6’-6” below grade to the bottom of the footing. Concrete pier to be removed a depth of 3'-9" below grade / to the top of footing. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Thomas Le | Company: LM Heavy Civil Construction, LLC. |
|
Question:
Will the proposer be allowed to submit schedule/graphics that fall within the forty page limit on 11"x17" paper, accordion folded to 8.5 x 11 ? ... and if so, will the foldout be counted as one page ? |
|
|
Answer:
YES. Proposers may use 11” x 17” paper folded to 8.5” x 11” size and such folded sheet will count as a single page. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/14/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
There are a number of questions where the response indicated that "information" will be issued in an upcoming addendum. Is there an estimated day when this addendum will be issued so that all proposers will have time to review and incorporate any potential changes into their proposals including the time necessary to print and organize the proposal. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT endeavors to respond in a timely manner but some questions require additional time to research the answer. The final Addendum shall be issued no later than close of business on June 23, 2017 which will document all Q&A posted on the DOT website. Meanwhile, we are addressing the outstanding concerns still pending within the RFP and will post by Addendum as they are finalized. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/23/2017 |
| Poster: Justin Reardon | Company: Contech Engineered Solutions |
|
Question:
The special provision for the pedestrian bridge refers to these structures as weathering steel trusses, however note #12 of the "Prefabricated Truss Notes" on sheet S-28 indicates that it is to be painted. Since weathering steel is typically unpainted, please clarify the steel type and finish requirement for the pedestrian bridges. |
|
|
Answer:
The pedestrian bridge steel shall be painted in accordance with sheet S-28. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/23/2017 |
| Poster: Justin Reardon | Company: Contech Engineered Solutions |
|
Question:
Please provide the interior vertical clearance requirement for the pedestrian bridges. Scaling off of the section view on sheet S-29, it appears that this dimension could be as much as 11.5 feet. |
|
|
Answer:
The vertical clear dimension in the pedestrian bridge is 11'-6". |
|
| Date Asked: 06/07/2017 | Date Answered: 06/23/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum 008 Drawing T-25 Indicates Wetlands on the North side of Track 7 and the South side of Track 2, West of the Dexter Street overpass. BTC Sheet 9, Drawing T-05 (Existing Conditions) does not indicate Wetlands in these areas. Is the contractor to assume these Wetlands no longer exist? |
|
|
Answer:
This is a railroad drainage ditch. Such features (stormwater collection/conveyance features constructed in uplands) are not subject to USACE jurisdiction. This is not a jurisdictional wetland. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/26/2017 | Date Answered: 06/15/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The Draft Contract Section 19.2 has extended warranties on certain items as defined as follows: “19.2 Warranty Period…..provided that the warranty period for the following elements be extended to FIVE (5) YEARS in accordance with the following requirements: a) Precast concrete materials, sealants, traffic topping and sealers provided that RIDOT and/or its operator shall comply with recommended maintenance procedures on a semi¬ annual schedule and certify to the precast manufacturer that the regular maintenance is being performed in accordance with said schedule; b) Electrical pipe, conduit, wire, breakers and switchgear; c) Standby generator, life safety system, lamps, bulbs and ballasts, provided that RIDOT and/or its operator purchases a service contract from the vendors of such systems; d) Manhole structures, pipe and precast or granite curb, except as caused by settlement of soils or damage from traffic or plows; e) Signage and graphics from fading and discoloration; and f) Finish on aluminum storefront and metal roof systems from fade or discoloration.” The following is from our Surety Agent “Extended Warranty on Specified Items – Please be aware that the 5-year warranty applicable to certain subtrades and materials, per Draft Contract Section 19.2, will significantly increase the cost of the Design/Build Contractor’s bond. While a 5-year period is generally the surety industry’s maximum limit for bonding extended warranties, if the owner agrees to specifically accept a 5-year warranty directly from the applicable subs and suppliers (i.e., not pass through the Design/Build Contractors contract) then no additional bond cost would apply.” Please consider reducing the warranty duration and accepting warranties for the specified items directly from the applicable subs and/or supplier. Please also review the items requiring extended warranties for consistency with the requirements of the RFP. i.e there doesn’t appear to be a requirement for a standby generator. |
|
|
Answer:
Thank you for bringing the error to our attention. The Section will be revised in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/26/2017 | Date Answered: 06/06/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The following is from our Surety Agent; “Liquidated Damages (LD’s) – My understanding is that the Draft Contract included with Addendum #7 identifies “Liquidated Damages” as “substantial” but does not monetize LD’s. It is critical that RIDOT clearly define LD’s at a reasonable dollar value. Absent such a definition, the surety may deem the contract to be unbondable as it will be concerned that it is providing a guarantee of consequential damages. A consequential damages provision is generally unbondable, particularly on a revenue-generating project such as a train station.” Please provide the requirements for the LD’s so that we can continue with the bonding process for the Project. |
|
|
Answer:
The Liquidated Damages Special Provision will be issued in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/25/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Thomas Le | Company: LM Heavy Civil Construction, LLC. |
|
Question:
The revised drainage design Drawing SK-02 included as part of Addendum 7 shows a proposed connection to the existing underdrain system at the west end of the system and proposed connection to the existing 52” CSO on the east end. No indication as to the depth of these existing systems (invert elevations) at the point of proposed connections is provided. In the "Plan Revision Summary" the connection to the CSO indicates that the connection is into the “existing outlet”. Is there an existing connection or will a new structure be required to tie in the proposed drainage system at this location? Please clarify. |
|
|
Answer:
Information regarding the existing 52” CSO under Dexter Street has been issued as part of Addendum 8. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/25/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Per the Design Criteria (dated May 5th, 2017), Section 1.2.10.6.1 only lists a minimum foot-candle value of 15 for the station. In 1.2.10.5 of the Design Criteria, the document states the design shall be in accordance with MBTA standards for pedestrian lighting (Example: 55 fc at the platform tactile edge and 30 fc on exterior waiting areas). Please confirm the design must meet the foot-candle values of the MBTA lighting design directive of October 2015. If so, please provide the latest version of that standard. Also, please confirm if these elevated lighting levels are acceptable to the station abutters. |
|
|
Answer:
D/B team shall conform to MBTA Design Directive Dated October 2015. This design directive will be issued in a forthcoming Addendum |
|
| Date Asked: 05/25/2017 | Date Answered: 06/15/2017 |
| Poster: Thomas Le | Company: LM Heavy Civil Construction, LLC. |
|
Question:
Scope of Work (pages 60 & 61) "Section 8.4, Recovery Schedule" refers to "sections 14 & 15" in the following statements: "All costs incurred by Contractor in preparing and achieving the Recovery Schedule shall be borne by Contractor and shall not result in a change to the Price, except to the extent that a change in the Price is permitted in accordance with Section 14." "If a Recovery Schedule change to the Project Schedule would be required in order to achieve Substantial Completion by the Completion Deadline as the result of an event described in Section 14, RIDOT will have the right, in its sole discretion, to decide whether to allow a time extension (with no extended overhead or other delay damages payable except as provided in Section 14) or to require implementation of the Project Schedule without such time extension. In such event, Contractor shall submit to RIDOT at least two alternative Change Order forms, one of which shall include a Recovery Schedule and show the proposed Acceleration Costs associated with the Recovery Schedule, and the other which shall provide for an extension of the Completion Deadline without any increase in the Price, except as provided in Section 15." "Section 14 Allowances" & "Section 15 Payments and Retainage", both appearing on page 80 of the Scope of Work, do not adequately address "Schedule Recovery" as referenced in Section 8.4, pages 60 & 61 of the Scope of work. Please respond with a clarification for discrepancy. |
|
|
Answer:
Thank you for bringing the error to our attention. The Section will be revised in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/24/2017 | Date Answered: 06/06/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Price Proposal (page 20) requires the Respondent to provide the required information set forth in the RIDOT Adjustments to Asphalt, Fuel and Steel Prices. Please provide detail as to what required information RIDOT is requesting. |
|
|
Answer:
We will address in a forthcoming addendum. Steel prices have stabilized and are no longer an item that requires adjustment. The base contract unit prices for Asphalt and Diesel Fuel will be provided in the addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/24/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Per the Design Criteria (dated May 5th, 2017), Section 1.2.10.6.1 lists a minimum foot-candle value of 15 for the station. In 1.2.10.5 of the Design Criteria, the document states the design shall be in accordance with MBTA standards for pedestrian lighting. Please confirm the design must meet the foot-candle values of the MBTA lighting design directive of October 2015. If so, please provide the latest version of that standard. Also, please confirm if these elevated lighting levels are acceptable to the station abutters. |
|
|
Answer:
D/B team shall conform to MBTA Design Directive Dated October 2015. The design directive will be issued in a forthcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
In Pre-Bid Question #15, included in Addendum #4, RIDOT states that the removal of contaminated soil from the Project site will be “part of LS pricing in line with the Soils Investigation Report dated 10/13/15 and issued by RIDOT a part of Addendum 3.” Please elaborate as to the extent of contaminated soil the D/B teams will be expected to dispose of. Traditionally, LS pricing will include a quantity of soil disposal that is to be determined by the D/B team, but at a benchmark level of contamination established by the Owner (i.e. – less than RSC-1, In-State Unlined, etc.), since the exact level of contaminates won’t be determined until the D/B team is in the field and has performed further analytical sampling of excavated material that is commensurate with the requirements of the disposal facilities. Form K would indicate that the Owner has benchmarked all material to be disposed of at a contaminate level of less than RCS-1. Please confirm this and that the intent of Form K is to establish premiums associated with a higher level of contamination and that the D/B teams will be reimbursed the difference from their LS pricing based on the documented disposals at these dumping facilities. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT assumed the bidder is referring to Form E; Form K is a schedule of DBE participation. Form E was included in error and will not be required as part of the submittal. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm whether there are any requirements for a FM 200 fire suppression system within platform communication cabinets? |
|
|
Answer:
Fire suppression systems are not required within platform communication cabinets. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
For the “Typical SB Type A Platform Section” shown on Drawing No. S-15 please clarify the requirements for what appears to be a “barrier” on the Track 7 side of the platform? Will the Amtrak/MBTA require protective fencing along the entire length of the open back portion of the southbound platform adjacent to Track 7? If yes, please indicate the specific requirements for the protective fencing (material, height, opening size limitations, material). |
|
|
Answer:
The barrier proposed is fencing intended to provide a barrier to the freight track. Barrier materials and height to be determined by the D/B Team in coordination with RIDOT and stakeholders. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Are there any requirements to provide a means to controlled access to the platforms or vertical circulation elements (i.e. Security gates, grills etc…)? If controlled access to the station is required please provide locations and the types of control required. |
|
|
Answer:
This project does not propose controlled access to the platforms or vertical circulation elements. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Thomas Le | Company: LM Heavy Civil Construction, LLC. |
|
Question:
Section 12.1.14 Railroad Protective Insurance states that such policy shall name Amtrak, RIDOT and Rhode Island Public Rail Corporation. Is a separate policy required for each entity or is one policy naming all entities acceptable? Does MBTA and/or Providence & Worcester RR also need to be included or receive a RRP Policy as well? |
|
|
Answer:
One Railroad Protective Insurance policy naming Amtrak, RIDOT, and RI Public Rail Corporation is acceptable. MBTA and P&W also need to be named to the previously cited policy. Please see Attachment(s) B – Insurance Requirements for RIDOT Pawtucket Station Design Phase and / or Construction Phase (dated March 2, 2017) to be issued by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/18/2017 | Date Answered: 06/06/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Given the amount of outstanding questions, pending addendum, critical third party coordination and schedule information required, and the significant time that will be required to adequately engage subcontractors and suppliers with this pending information, we respectfully request a 2 week extension to the currently advertised bid date. |
|
|
Answer:
Addendum No. 8 revised the bid due date from June 5 to June 30, 2017 at 11:30 am. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/17/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Is there a requirement to provided “wall hydrants” for station/platform maintenance wash down? If so please provide their locations. |
|
|
Answer:
Wall hydrants shall be spaced a maximum of 150 feet from one another. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/17/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
It appears that the platform lighting levels in the BTC design do not meet the criteria for exterior lighting (minimum of 10 fc) or interior lighting (minimum of 15 fc) established in Section 1.2.10.6 of the Design Criteria Document issued as part of Addendum No. 007. It also appears that the BTC design and referenced Design Criteria levels do not meet the MBTA’s current Lighting Design Directive of October 2015 which requires a minimum of 55 fc at the platform edge and 35 fc elsewhere. Please confirm the criteria on which the station/platform lighting should be designed: (a) the BTC levels, (b) the Addendum No. 007 Design Criteria (clarifying which criterion is applicable to the platform), or (c) the MBTA Lighting Directive.” |
|
|
Answer:
D/B team shall conform to MBTA Design Directive Dated October 2015. The design directive will be issued in a forthcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Stacey Lopez | Company: TranSystems |
|
Question:
Are fax numbers mandatory for all key personnel references? Many agencies no longer use fax. |
|
|
Answer:
Fax numbers for individual personnel references are not required and shall be listed as 'N/A'. The company fax number will suffice if applicable. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The RFP is silent on the D/B entities responsibility to support any current or proposed public outreach program. Accordingly, we assume there will be no need for the D/B entity to include a Public Outreach consultant to provide progress updates, email blasts, attend public meetings, prepare project graphics, etc. Please advise if this is a correct assumption. |
|
|
Answer:
The bidders are correct to assume there will be no need for the D/B entity to include a Public Outreach consultant to provide progress updates, email blasts, attend public meetings, prepare project graphics, etc. If included as part of the project, RIDOT will conduct Public Outreach independently. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
In reading the Pawtucket design criteria for C&S along with the Amtrak and D/B Team area of work responsibility chart, it is still unclear on certain items that the D/B contractor is responsible for handling versus Amtrak. Please have Amtrak clearly define who will handle the following: (1) Control Line modifications required to integrate the new interlockings into the existing signal system. (2) Procurement and Installation of signal wayside equipment (Signals, Track circuits, etc.). (3) Signal circuit plan design required for installing and wiring the equipment and hardware within the signal houses. (4) Programming software for the microprocessors. (5) Site prep work required for placement of signal houses. (6) Delivery of the Amtrak prewired factory signal house to the field and installation. (7) Signal System Field Testing. |
|
|
Answer:
(1) D/B team shall be required to develop control lines which will need to be approved by Amtrak. (2) Procurement & installation of signal wayside equipment (Signals, Track circuits, etc.) will be done by Amtrak. (3) D/B team shall be responsible for design of circuit plan which will need to be approved by Amtrak. Installation of equipment & hardware within signal houses will done by Amtrak. (4) D/B team shall be responsible for development of programming concept, which will need to be approved by Amtrak. Amtrak will perform final programming for the field installation. (5) Site prep for signal houses will be performed by Amtrak. (6) Amtrak will handle signal house delivery and installation. (7) Signal System field testing will be the responsibility of Amtrak. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Please confirm if there is adequate space within the existing house located at Lawn interlocking for the proposed new Pawtucket Station interlocking or if a new signal house will be required to accommodate the new station. |
|
|
Answer:
New LAWN interlocking equipment shall be housed in the new signal house at the Center Street ramp. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Please explain how the converging paths of egress off the platforms to the pedestrian bridge complies with NFPA-101 and the RISBC. |
|
|
Answer:
Converging paths of egress off the platforms is governed by NFPA-130. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Please explain the lack of including occupant loads and capacities in the egress time calculations. |
|
|
Answer:
Occupant loads and specific capacities per path were included in the egress time calculations. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Please explain the discrepancies in the travel distances noted in the VHB egress code analysis, versus the travel distances as determined in our review of the provided CAD plans. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT does not note a travel distance in the egress code analysis and the discrepancy between travel distance in the CAD plans. Please provide additional information in order for RIDOT to answer this bidder question. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2017 | Date Answered: 06/06/2017 |
| Poster: Thomas Le | Company: LM Heavy Civil Construction, LLC. |
|
Question:
RFP No. 7551329 (Original), page 3, (under "Project Description") references "Liquidated Damages" without identifying a monetary value. Also, page 2, paragraph H, of the "Draft Contract" included with Addendum #7, identifies "Liquidated Damages" as "substantial", but likewise, fails to identify a monetary value. Please provide RIDOT's expected monetary value associated with Liquidated Damages. |
|
|
Answer:
The Liquidated Damages Special Provision will be issued in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT accept that the Designer and the Contractor are both covered under their own Professional Liability policies? |
|
|
Answer:
YES. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Paragraph 12.1.9 of the Draft Contract regarding Professional Liability Insurance requires that RIDOT, D/B team and all sub consultants be included as insureds under the policy. The Professional Liability policy is a first party coverage and the ability to add additional insureds is no longer commercially available. Will you be amending the specifications to reflect this? |
|
|
Answer:
YES. The specification will be revised by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide missing MBTA specification sections 16705 (Fire Alarm), 16750 (Emergency Blue Light), 16770 (VMS), and 16840 (CCTV). |
|
|
Answer:
The missing MBTA specifications will be included in the forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/09/2017 | Date Answered: 06/06/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Is it acceptable for the D/B Team to submit USB Drives instead of CD-ROMs for the Technical Proposal Submission? |
|
|
Answer:
NO. USB drives are not acceptable; please provide CD-ROM as directed in the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/23/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
In Addendum 007, Area of Work Responsibility Chart, please advise what durations are to be included for Amtrak work items 1.) Rail and Ties, Fine Grade Ballast, Sidings, Freight, Signal Bridge Fabrication, Catenary pole/portal beam fabrication, Track and Tie demolition. It is recognized that some items require input from the D/B team, but a duration will still be required from Amtrak for the D/B team to prepare a schedule as required by the RFP. |
|
|
Answer:
Once final designs are approved, Amtrak estimates the following durations for Amtrak work elements: • Signal bridge fabrication – approx. 6 months • Catenary – approx. 2 to 3 months to procure fabricator, approx. 4 to 5 months to build and deliver, approx. 7 months to install • Track 7– approx. 3 weeks to demolish, approx. 2 months to install once track materials delivered • Tracks 3 & 4 – approx. 6 months • Switches – approx. 11 months to fabricate, approx. 4 weekends to install with 55 hours outages • C&S – approx. 11 months for installation and testing • Signal house – approx. 7 months In addition to these duration estimates, Bidders are advised to use previous experience working on Amtrak and Northeast Corridor projects to develop project schedule. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum 007, Area of Work Responsibility Chart, what is the limit of catenary demolition work for the D/B team? Who will be responsible for removing the existing catenary poles and who will be responsible for catenary pole foundation demolition? |
|
|
Answer:
D/B team shall be responsible for the demolition of catenary foundations a minimum of 2 foot below grade. Amtrak will remove existing catenary portals after installing new catenary on new portals. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum 007, Area of Work Responsibility Chart, states that the signal building AND foundations will be furnished and installed by Amtrak. Please confirm Amtrak will furnish and install the signal building foundations. |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak will furnish and install signal buildings and foundation legs as outlined in AREA OF WORK RESPONSIBILITY CHART issued in Addendum 7551329A7. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Is the D/B contractor responsible to install the signal bridge concrete pile caps? |
|
|
Answer:
D/B team shall be responsible for design and installation of signal bridge and pier caps as outlined in AREA OF WORK RESPONSIBILITY CHART issued in Addendum 7551329A7. The D/B team shall be responsible for design and installation of new catenary pole foundations as outlined in AREA OF WORK RESPONSIBILITY CHART issued in Addendum 7551329A7. Amtrak will review design provided by D/B team. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/08/2017 | Date Answered: 05/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Can 10 point font be used on graphics, tables and captions? |
|
|
Answer:
YES. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/08/2017 | Date Answered: 05/08/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RFP indicates that the "RIDOT RFP and Addenda" should be included as an Exhibit to our proposal. Is it intended that all of the pages of the RFP and each addenda including attachments should be part of our document? |
|
|
Answer:
Please INCLUDE complete original RFP including attachments (RFP, W-9 and Forms). As far as ADDENDA, please include DOA Cover and DOT Pages explaining Addendum content; as applicable, any technical attachments associated with any Addendum ZIP FILE may be EXCLUDED. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/04/2017 | Date Answered: 06/22/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide Insurance Requirements for MBTA, Amtrak and P&W, as required for Railroad Protective Liability Insurance. |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak (including MBTA and P&W) requirements are included in Attachment(s) B – Insurance Requirements for RIDOT Pawtucket Station Design Phase and / or Construction Phase (dated March 2, 2017) to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/04/2017 | Date Answered: 05/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Drawing No. S-6 shows the proposed Retaining Wall C. In order to coordinate around existing and future properties adjacent to Retaining Wall C, the D/B Team asks that RIDOT provide access points and temporary construction easements along the west retaining wall. |
|
|
Answer:
Temporary construction easements that will be provided by RIDOT were identified in Addendum 7551329A7. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/04/2017 | Date Answered: 05/05/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Would RIDOT like the D/B Team to submit a Bid Bond Form with information on the Surety and Bond? If so, please provide a form to be completed by the D/B Team. |
|
|
Answer:
NO. Only FIVE PERCENT (5%) BID BOND made payable to the State of Rhode Island is required. Bid bonds must be provided by surety companies licensed and authorized to conduct business in the State of Rhode Island. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/04/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Drawing C-02 shows a proposed sidewalk with vertical granite curbing and lighting at the back of sidewalk along Pine Street. From the D/B Team's review, there is no drainage or lighting within this roadway and the pavement appears to require full depth reconstruction. How should this roadway be drained? What extent of pavement restoration is required? How should the back of sidewalk be treated since it appears it will be raised over 6” above current grade? What are the lighting design requirements for the sidewalk and roadway? What is the intended use of this road since there will be no mechanism for drivers to drop passengers off and turn around? |
|
|
Answer:
Design criteria for curbing and lighting was provided in Addendum 7. Pavement restoration shall be limited to new pedestrian access including but not limited to the Pine Street sidewalk and Pine Street at Goff Street crosswalk. Vehicular access on Pine Street will be provided by others. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/04/2017 | Date Answered: 05/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
RIDOT's answer to Skanska's question asked on 4/21/17 states that “The Design-Build team will be responsible for coordination with stakeholders including Amtrak. All stakeholders will have a maximum of 45 calendar days to review submittals (similar to RIDOT Standard Specification 105.02 for shop drawings). Section 5.2 of the RFP identifies the submittals that will require stakeholder and Amtrak review.” With 4 submissions required (60%, 90% 100% and Final) the design review period alone could be as much as 180 days (6 months). Will the D/B Team be allowed to begin construction prior to the approval of the Final Plans? Will the D/B Team be allowed to issue early start of construction packages - if so, what number of submissions and what review time will be required for these? Will the D/B Team be required to coordinate separately with each 3rd party reviewer or will a coordinated set of design review comments be returned after each submission? |
|
|
Answer:
This information will be clarified in a forthcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/04/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The BTC design does not have provisions for mechanical and electrical rooms in the Pawtucket/Central Falls Rail Station. Are these required for mechanical, electrical, communication, etc. services. If secure rooms are required, please clarify the security and access requirements. |
|
|
Answer:
The project does not require mechanical, electrical, or communication, etc. rooms. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/04/2017 | Date Answered: 05/05/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Form K requires the Design Build contractor to provide a schedule of participation for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), which includes naming company, their proposed activity, and activity amount. Due to the nature of Design-Build projects, it is uncommon to provide this level of detail, as teams are unable to provide relevant plans to certified DBEs that allow them to adequately prepare a quote for their specific scope or work. Will the agency consider changing this Form to reflect only the firms we have verified and intend to solicit quotations for opportunities to perform the work associated once a final design is set forth? |
|
|
Answer:
NO. The requirement is for Primes to indicate the activity and the PERCENTAGE (%) of work anticipated for each DBE participant. DBE compliance review will be part of the technical evaluation. If selected, actual executed DBE sub-contracts will be requested as part of the Post-Qualification process to further ensure that DBE costs are in line with assigned DBE Goals. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/26/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Page 20 of the RFP regarding "Price Proposal" states that the Respondent shall provide a Schedule of Values for the Price Proposal based on the items listed in the Price Proposal. Form N - Price Proposal was issued in Addendum No. 3 and does not detail any major work tasks to base the Schedule of Values on. Please advise if RIDOT will be issuing any major work tasks to base the Schedule of Values on. |
|
|
Answer:
The Contractor shall provide a Schedule of Values as an attachment to RFP - Form N in the format of its choosing and to the level of detail not to exceed one page. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/26/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Can tables and graphs be printed on 11"x17" paper provided that it is folded to fit within the 8 1/2"x11" document? |
|
|
Answer:
YES. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/26/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
As a follow up to Skanska’s 4/24/17 question and RIDOTs 4/25/17 answer with regards to DBE participation. It appears as though your 4/25/17 response results in a 10% overall DBE participation in the project, with half of this participation in the design and half in the construction of the project. As Skanska’s question indicates, this is completely counter to and a big deviation from the Pre Bid Question and answer #14. Is this 10% overall DBE participation correct or is your intent to have an overall DBE project participation of 5% of the overall contract with a portion associated with the Design and a portion associated with the Construction of the project? |
|
|
Answer:
YES. An OVERALL 10% DBE Goal is assigned to this Project. If you look closely at the Pre-Bid response it does state that the respective Construction and Design DBE cost shall equal 5% "each". |
|
| Date Asked: 04/26/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will the additional utility locations that are to be provided in a forthcoming addendum include the existing drainage systems in and adjacent to the project area? If not, please provide locations and invert elevations for any existing drainage structures, including existing outfalls. |
|
|
Answer:
Additional information about the existing trackbed drainage is shown in the Dexter Street CSO and Freight Track Improvement Project record plans to be provided in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/26/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
The BTC plans do not indicate a location and elevation for a drainage outfall that will effectively drain the proposed facility. Please provide classification for RIDOT's preference regarding where storm water runoff from the project site should be discharged. Is RIDOT opposed to including a stormwater pump station with the design? Will RIDOT consider extending the project limit to accommodate drainage? |
|
|
Answer:
Additional drainage detail was provided in Addendum 7. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/26/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Amtrak comments #21 and #22 (Addendum No. 005) request that the #15 turnout for Track 4 be moved outside of the curve. Without adjusting Tracks 1 & 2, the placement of the turnout in tangent track would be outside the project limits and require impacts to the Mineral Spring Ave bridge abutment. Please indicate if RIDOT intends to comply with Amtrak's request to move the #15 turnout and how to accommodate the move. |
|
|
Answer:
Additional detail on the proposed location of the turnout was provided in Addendum 7. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/25/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will a fire suppression system be required in the signal CIL's and the station? Please define limits. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes a fire suppression system will be required per Amtrak design criteria. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/25/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
In addition to PA, VMS and CCTV, are there any other communications devices expected, e.g., access control, fare payment Wi-Fi or other wireless? |
|
|
Answer:
Requirements of the communications systems is included in Addendum 7. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/25/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
What are Amtrak's requirements for the power supply for the snow melters in this area, and will the contractor be responsible for the design and/or installation of the power supply for them? |
|
|
Answer:
The D/B team shall calculate the loads for the snow melters required for this project so the correct transformer power source can be provided. The D/B team shall be responsible for the design and installation of the power supply. Amtrak will review design provided by D/B team. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/25/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will the contractor be responsible for the design and installation of a new radio hut for P&W? |
|
|
Answer:
Contractor will be responsible for design of new signal systems for Amtrak only. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/25/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide lighting study that supports the BTC design |
|
|
Answer:
The Design-Build team shall provide lighting calculations to determine the minimum requirements for the project as described in the contract documents. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/25/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide utility tie-in locations for Electrical and Communication services |
|
|
Answer:
Electrical power connections for station lighting shall be provided from existing service on Barton Street and Goff Avenue with independent metering for the station. Electrical and communication services associated with Amtrak work shall be coordinated with Amtrak by the Design/Build team's Amtrak-approved designer. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/25/2017 | Date Answered: 04/27/2017 |
| Poster: Stacey Lopez | Company: TranSystems |
|
Question:
Will subconsultant proposals require completed Standard Form 330s? |
|
|
Answer:
NO |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
The BTC shows retaining walls at either side of station which is composed of a post and lagging wall system over almost the entire length of the proposed station. Drawing S-42 indicates that the wall needs to be designed for a building surcharge load of 2500 psf. Can RIDOT clarify the wall design surcharge criteria and provide the limits of the existing buildings and offset from the walls so that the wall design can potentially be modified for portions where the building surcharge does not impact the wall in order to reduce cost? |
|
|
Answer:
The building surcharge load limit (2500 psf) includes relocated Track 7 Sta. 116+78 to 119+36. The minimum offset between wall WP and the face of building is approximately 15.7’. For the area outside the building surcharge influence, use 400 psf surcharge load. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/25/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
In Pre-Bid Question #14, included in Addendum #4, RIDOT responded “YES” indicating the 5% DBE goals are specific to their respective “construction” and “consultant” qualifying services. However, the remainder of the response indicates the DBE participation for consultants should be equal to 5% of construction cost, not design cost. Please clarify whether the DBE goal for “consultant qualifying services” is equal to 5% of construction cost or 5% of design cost. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT response correctly stated that an individual 5% DBE Goal is separately assigned to the Construction and Design services performed under this contract. The intent of the example was to further explain that the TOTAL contract cost shall include DBE services assigned to BOTH disciplines equaling 5% of the TOTAL cost assigned to Construction services AND 5% of the TOTAL cost assigned to Design services. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
SectionC.1.g in the proposal is entitled: Performance Standards - Identification of performance standards and measures to test such standards. Please provide additional details of what you are looking for in this section so we are able to accurately craft our response. |
|
|
Answer:
The Design Build team shall comply with the performance standards and measures defined in the design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Foundations for a number of the existing Catenary Portals are currently located within the BTC design vehicle access road between the New Centre Street Access Ramp and the southbound platform work zone. Some of these portals are shown to be extended (so the portal is no longer in the area), some are not. Please confirm that all the portals within the access road must be extended to the west to clear the access road for construction vehicular traffic, including the portal directly at the end of the Centre Street ramp. |
|
|
Answer:
The design of the proposed portals is intentional. The Design-Build team is encouraged to maintain existing catenary portals, balance weights and mid-point anchor structures east of the Conant Street bridge to the extent possible in order not to extend portals for construction vehicle access. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Since there are a number of open questions on the “Doing Business with RIDOT “ website and the final determination for the ATC’s will not be received until May 5th , will any consideration been given to extending the due date of the RFP. |
|
|
Answer:
At this time, RIDOT is not planning on extending the due date of the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Thomas Le | Company: LM Heavy Civil Construction, LLC. |
|
Question:
The insurance portion of the specifications require $2M limits for General Liability and Automobile Liability. Can these limits be satisfied by combination of primary and Umbrella policies? |
|
|
Answer:
The coverages can be made up of primary and umbrella Liability insurance policies so long as the excess insurance is following forms of underlying coverage. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the platform running slope can be maintained as shown in the BTC per MBTA requirements. |
|
|
Answer:
The platform running slope requirements will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. A summary of anticipated requests for variances to Amtrak design standards will be outlined in a forthcoming addendum, as well. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the platform amenities (benches, trash receptacles, signage) shall be furnished and installed as detailed and quantified per MBTA requirements and not Amtrak requirements. |
|
|
Answer:
Platform amenities will be provided in special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the contractor should provide grounding/bonding connections per Amtrak requirements, and that Amtrak will (only) make the final connection to the track counterpoise. |
|
|
Answer:
Grounding/bonding connection requirements will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm whether the station lighting levels should be designed using Amtrak or MBTA standards. |
|
|
Answer:
Lighting levels will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm whether the station will require a UPS to provide 90 minutes of backup lighting per NFPA 130 requirements. |
|
|
Answer:
Lighting requirement will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that sprinkler systems will not be required anywhere at the station |
|
|
Answer:
Sprinkler system requirements will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that there will not be any closets/storage areas required for maintenance equipment or salt/sand. |
|
|
Answer:
The BTC does not require closets/ storage areas for maintenance equipment or sand/salt. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the station should include a fire alarm control panel with auto-dialer, heat detectors in closets, manual pull stations, and illuminated exit signs at platform exit points |
|
|
Answer:
Fire alarm control panel with auto-dialer, heat detectors in closets, manual pull stations, and illuminated exit signs at platform exit points requirements will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that no emergency telephone kiosks (blue light-style) will be needed at the station. |
|
|
Answer:
Emergency telephone kiosk requirements will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the station will need an audio/visual public address system, separate from the TAMS system, which will broadcast train information. If yes, please delineate how this system is tied into train dispatch and what is the division of responsibility to furnishing, installing and connecting this system. |
|
|
Answer:
Audio/visual public address system requirements will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm whether an Train Approach Message (TAMS) system will required for the platforms, and the division of responsibility for installing it and tying into the track signal. |
|
|
Answer:
TAMS system requirements will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. Division of responsibility for installation is outlined in Addendum 6. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm whether the camera feeds will be monitored off-site with a fiber-optic or telecommunication line, or if the cameras will only be tied into a local head-in unit and DVR. |
|
|
Answer:
Camera feed monitoring requirements will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm the preferred camera resolution and whether they should be fixed or have tilt/pan/zoom capability. |
|
|
Answer:
Camera resolution requirements will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm the number and approximate locations of CCTV cameras needed for the platforms, pedestrian bridge and VCE’s. |
|
|
Answer:
The number and location of CCTV camera requirements will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The following files CADD files were not included in Addendum 5. Could you please provide these files? The following files CADD files were not included in Addendum 5. Could you please provide these files? A-22-Dependent on SB Platform North Elevation, A-23-Dependent on SB Platform South Elevation, A-24-Dependent on NB Platform North Elevation, & A-25-Dependent on NB Platform South Elevation, |
|
|
Answer:
The requested files will be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 05/22/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
We would like to obtain a copy of the BTC Drainage calculations and storm water report for the Project. |
|
|
Answer:
Bidders are advised of the proposed stormwater management and drainage revision issued in Addendum 7. Drainage calculations for this revision shall be the responsibility of the Design-Build team including but not limited to the approval by the Narragansett Bay Commission. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
It appears that the architecturally elements shown in the BTC were designed in REVIT. We would like to obtain copies of these files for our use. |
|
|
Answer:
The requested files will be issued in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The BTC platforms slope towards the tracks. Amtrak has indicated that they should slope away from the tracks as per their standard details. Please clarify the design requirements for the platforms including the drainage design. |
|
|
Answer:
The Design Build contractor shall revise the BTC platform slope to accommodate the Amtrak request. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/24/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Amtrak has indicted that all elements for the Project will be design to comply with their design standards even though the platforms are being constructed for MBTA use. Please clarify that this is indeed the case since there may be areas the conflict with MBTA standards. |
|
|
Answer:
These requirements will be provided in design criteria and special provisions to be issued in a forthcoming addendum. A summary of anticipated requests for variances to Amtrak design standards will be outlined in a forthcoming addendum, as well. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/19/2017 | Date Answered: 04/25/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
In Pre-Bid Question #1, included in Addendum #4, RIDOT states that a matrix defining both Amtrak and D/B Team responsibilities will be provided. When can the D/B Team's expect this matrix? |
|
|
Answer:
A draft area of work responsibility matrix was recently received by RIDOT from Amtrak and is under review. We will issue it in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/19/2017 | Date Answered: 04/25/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
What schedule durations should we hold for third party work including track work, catenary work and signal work? How should the D/B Team address delays in work by the third party entities' work? |
|
|
Answer:
The responsibility to plan, coordinate, schedule, and monitor the work of third parties, such as utilities and Amtrak, is the D/B Teams. As an example, please see RFP Volume II, Section 2.5 (p. 42). From another question posed today, Amtrak will complete the draft area of work matrix that will address durations for the activities you itemized which we will then issue in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/19/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Drawing No. S-6 shows an existing retaining wall between Tracks 2 and 4. The depth of this wall is not specified and the geotechnical borings appear to be incomplete at this location. The Design/Build Team cannot design the temporary measures required to protect Track 2 without the bottom of wall elevation. Will the Design/Build Teams receive additional information on the depth of this retaining wall and/or would it be possible to remove a portion of the retaining wall and abandon the remainder of the wall in place? What should the Design/Build Team assume for baseline geotechnical conditions below the incomplete borings in the design of the temporary measures required to protect Track 2? |
|
|
Answer:
Borings GZ-3, GZ-5, and GZ-9 were performed behind this wall. The Design Build team shall refer to the Geotechnical Report for interpretive data at these boring locations. No additional information will be provided. It is the responsibility of the Design Build team to coordinate and obtain approval from Amtrak to remove a portion of this wall and abandon the remainder in place. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will the contractor be responsible for design, furnish and installation of the SCADA system? |
|
|
Answer:
Procurement and installation responsibilities were provided in Addendum No. 7. The Design-Build contractor’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will this contract require VitalSim software simulation? |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak requires Vital Sim or equivalent software simulation. The Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
What Microlok II Complier version/revision should be used for this project? |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak standard compiler is Microlock version 8.0 executive, unless application software requires a more recent version. The Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
What is the Microlik II configuration that should be used for the new P&W processor interlocking design (one Vital and one Non-Vital or two Vital and one Non-Vital, etc. per location) and will new processors be added to the existing LAWN interlocking? Is the processor system planned to be redundant or non-redundant? |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak requires use of (1) processor to include all non-vital and vital software/hardware leaving 20% spare I/O. Contractor to develop contract with Wabtec/Xorail to design PC base LCP serially connected to this processor. Amtrak required the system to be non-redundant. A new processor at LAWN is not required. The Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Do any Block Points require modification by this contract? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, Block Points will likely require modification. Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall be responsible for the design that adheres to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
What level of redundancy for communications is required? |
|
|
Answer:
From a Systems perspective, Amtrak does not require redundancy. From a Communications perspective: If you are referring to communications to CETC for interlocking control and indication, Amtrak uses IP connectivity. There are redundant routes on the network from the nearest communications node to CETC. The Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
What control centers will the station need to connect to, and for which services? |
|
|
Answer:
The station will be required to connect to Boston CETC for control and indications of all signal appliances and PTC functions. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
What is the expected availability of communications backbone infrastructure for station connectivity for signals and for communication? |
|
|
Answer:
Procurement and installation responsibilities were provided in Addendum No. 7. The Design-Build’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will the contractor be responsible for any changes in the Ground Based Network for ACSES to accommodate the proposed changes? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, the PAW interlocking will require changes in the Ground Based Network for ACSES. The Design-Build’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will the contractor be responsible for the extension of data radio coverage for the new P&W interlocking, if required? |
|
|
Answer:
Assuming “P&W interlocking” refers to the PAW interlocking, yes, the contractor will be responsible for design of data radio coverage for the new interlocking. The Design-Build’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Where are the CETC II and the STS offices to be located at the time of this installation? |
|
|
Answer:
Offices for CETC II and STS will be located at Boston South Station at the time of this installation. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will the contractor be responsible for the design or coordinating the changes in the FDB (Fixed Data Base) in the STS (Safety TSR Server)? |
|
|
Answer:
The Design-Build contractor’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will the contractor be responsible for the design or coordinating the office changes in CETC to accommodate the new P&W and the changes to LAWN? |
|
|
Answer:
The Design-Build contractor’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
If ACSES changes are part of the expected design, may we assume that Amtrak will program the transponders and the WIU's involved, with the documented ACSES changes provided with the complete design? |
|
|
Answer:
Procurement and installation responsibilities were provided in Addendum No. 7. The Design-Build’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
What are the requirements for signal power? |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak requires the use of commercial power for signal power. All other interlockings on this line require commercial power as well. The Design-Build contractor’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
New interlocking housings will be required at the existing LAWN and new P&W interlockings. Will these housings be supplied by Amtrak or the contractor? |
|
|
Answer:
Assuming you are referring to the existing changes to LAWN and the new interlocking PAW, procurement and installation responsibilities were provided in Addendum No. 7. The Design-Build’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
If ACSES is included in the required scope of design, please also provide the existing Transponder Layouts and Control Lines in the entire area affected by the proposed track and signal changes. |
|
|
Answer:
The signal control lines submitted were created for simulation purposes only to test the operations of Pawtucket/Central Falls station and were not developed as part of the 30% signal design. The proposed control lines developed were based on Amtrak’s existing SIGNAL CONTROL LINES EASTWARD – “DAVISVILLE” to “LAWN” (sheet 13) and SIGNAL CONTROL LINES WESTWARD – “DAVISVILLE” to “LAWN” (sheet 7). |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide the existing plans for the LAWN interlocking, including the existing Signal and Cab Signal Control Lines in the area affected by the proposed track and signal changes. |
|
|
Answer:
The signal control lines submitted were created for simulation purposes only to test the operations of Pawtucket/Central Falls station and were not developed as part of the 30% signal design. The proposed control lines developed were based on Amtrak’s existing SIGNAL CONTROL LINES EASTWARD – “DAVISVILLE” to “LAWN” (sheet 13) and SIGNAL CONTROL LINES WESTWARD – “DAVISVILLE” to “LAWN” (sheet 7). |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
The proposed addition of the two short station tracks will significantly change the bonding and grounding of all mainline tracks in regard to the electric traction return system and the broken rail protection throughout the area. Will the contractor be responsible for the analysis of the bonding and grounding for the traction return network for the new layout to meet Amtrak requirements, including the broken rail protection required to ensure train detection on every track circuit in the event of a broken rail? (Note: This analysis should be performed from the "Orms" interlocking to "Hebronville" to ensure that no track circuit is overlooked and that the rail return system of the new layout will be adequate for the propulsion system).. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, the contractor is responsible for verifying all bonding between substations and making any required revisions with the installation of this project. The Design-Build contractor’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
What type of track circuits are used within and outside of the interlockings? |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak requires use of steady energy TRU III AC track circuits within the interlockings and electronic track circuits outside the interlockings. Procurement and installation responsibilities were provided in Addendum No. 7. The Design-Build contractor’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Is the existing LAWN interlocking microprocessor or relay based? |
|
|
Answer:
The existing LAWN interlocking is microprocessor based. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will the contractor's design need to include modification of the existing ASCES system that will be required due to the track and signal modifications at LAWN and the new P&W interlocking? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, the contractors design will need to include modification to the existing ACSES system, assuming you are referring to the existing interlocking LAWN and the proposed interlocking PAW. The Design-Build contractor’s Amtrak pre-qualified Communications and Signal Design Contractor shall adhere to Amtrak standards. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/13/2017 | Date Answered: 05/09/2017 |
| Poster: Jeremy Bosma | Company: Manafort Brothers, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will Amtrak procure, furnish and fabricate all equipment for signal and communication equipment for the work they will be installing as stated in Section 2.5 (Amtrak role) of the RFP? |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak’s role in procuring, furnishing and fabricating all equipment for signal and communication work is outlined in AREA OF WORK RESPONSIBILITY CHART issued in Addendum 7551329A7. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/12/2017 | Date Answered: 05/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
We note that there appears to be an existing signal house located within the limits of the Track 7 relocation. Please provide direction on how the D/B Teams are to address this hut. |
|
|
Answer:
It is the responsibility of the Design/Build Team to maintain all railroad operations throughout construction including but not limited to signal infrastructure. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/12/2017 | Date Answered: 05/11/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
What is the minimum horizontal dynamic envelope clearance required for the P&W (G&W) rail line during station construction? |
|
|
Answer:
Horizontal dynamic envelope clearance requirements for the P&W rail line are included in the design criteria issued in Addendum 7. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/12/2017 | Date Answered: 04/17/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Page 9 of the RFP states that D/B Teams must "Provide the NAME OF EACH COMPANY and COMPANY STRUCTURE comprising the D/B Team, including Sub-Contractors and any proposed DBE Firms." Did you intend for the D/B Teams to identify sub-consultants as opposed to sub-contractors? |
|
|
Answer:
YES. Full disclosure of ALL subcontracted services- Design and Construction- must be identified in the RFP submission. DBE disclosure must also include a copy of the current RI DBE certification letter. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/12/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Page 20 of the RFP states: "During design development, should the Contractor be unable to obtain required approvals from third parties (such as an environmental agency) for any ATC incorporated into the Contract, or if implementation of the ATC otherwise proves to be infeasible, the Contractor will be required to conform to the original BTC requirements, and RIDOT will not grant the Contractor any additional Contract time in which to complete the Project, nor will RIDOT adjust the Contract compensation, regardless of when the ATC's implementation proved to be infeasible. " Please confirm that the MBTA, Amtrak, P&W and the City of Pawtucket are not third parties as defined in this statement. |
|
|
Answer:
The Design-Build Bidders shall consider Amtrak, MBTA, P&W and the City of Pawtucket third parties from which the Contractor shall obtain approval. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/12/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
In Pre-Bid Question #7, included in Addendum #4, RIDOT states that an Access Agreement with Amtrak is in process. When will the D/B Teams receive this agreement? |
|
|
Answer:
The Access Agreement between Amtrak and RIDOT is currently in draft form and will not be finalized and made available prior to Proposal due date on June 30, 2017. The Access Agreement will be made available to the winning team once executed. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/12/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Section 5.2.1 of the RFP references review of submittals by additional stakeholders, including Amtrak. Who is responsible for coordinating these reviews with the stakeholders and Amtrak? How long will Amtrak and stakeholder review periods be for these submittals? Which submittals will be subject to these reviews. |
|
|
Answer:
The Design-Build team will be responsible for coordination with stakeholders including Amtrak. All stakeholders will have a maximum of 45 calendar days to review submittals (similar to RIDOT Standard Specification 105.02 for shop drawings). Section 5.2 of the RFP identifies the submittals that will require stakeholder and Amtrak review. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/12/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Section 5.2 of the RFP describes the Design Review and Submittal Process. So that we can properly plan design and construction, how long will RIDOT have to review each design submission (60%, 90%, 100% and Final) referenced in Section 5.2.3.1? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will provide design submission responses within 45 calendar days. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/12/2017 | Date Answered: 04/28/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
With the understanding that the P&W Railroad Yard will be developed by a separate entity and may be under construction concurrently with this project, what are the access restrictions along the northbound platform during this project? Please define the timing and limits of ROW access and temporary easements (if required) along northbound platform. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT is currently working on obtaining temporary easements for the project and will identify the locations and limits in a forthcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/31/2017 | Date Answered: 04/07/2017 |
| Poster: Thomas Le | Company: LM Heavy Civil Construction, LLC. |
|
Question:
Will the Lead Design Entity of the Design Build Team be required to submit a RIVIP Form ? |
|
|
Answer:
The RIVIP Form shall be completed by the lead entity submitting the bid responsible for supplying the bonding for the Project. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/31/2017 | Date Answered: 04/07/2017 |
| Poster: Thomas Le | Company: LM Heavy Civil Construction, LLC. |
|
Question:
If submitting as a Joint Venture, will each of the Joint Venture parties be required to submit individual RIVIP forms ? |
|
|
Answer:
NO. If submitting as a Joint Venture, the Joint Venture must be registered in the RIVIP and the RIVIP FORM completed and submitted in the name of the Joint Venture. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/17/2017 | Date Answered: 03/31/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RFP has the following statements pertaining to utilities: “Contractor shall be primarily responsible for the completion of all Utility Work. Costs for the Utility Work shall be considered part of the Price.” “Contractor is hereby notified of the existing fiber optic line within Amtrak ROW. Amtrak will relocate if required by the Design.” In order to determine if the existing fiber optic line needs to be relocated, could you please provide the record drawings and any other information that is available for the line? In addition we would like to obtain copies of all plans for all utilities in the project area that were used to generate the base mapping. Please include all Amtrak signal and communication facilities and any other underground facilitates that they or P&W might have in the Project area. |
|
|
Answer:
The utility locations will be provided in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/17/2017 | Date Answered: 03/20/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Page 11 of the RFP asks for 3 references for the Project Director, Principal On Site Superintendent, Design Manager, Principal QA/QC Administrator. These titles are consistent with the Key Personnel identified under ‘Resumes and Availability of Key Personnel’ on Page 24. In addition, Page 11 asks for at least one reference for all other key personnel. Who are the other key personnel that require references? |
|
|
Answer:
The assignment of "other" key personnel would be at the discretion of the D/B Respondent to determine these roles in line with their level of participation and involvement in the Project. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/17/2017 | Date Answered: 03/31/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Page 3 of the RFP under Project Status and Informational Disk indicates that “the BTC has received conceptual approvals from AMTRAK, RIDOT, State Historical Preservation Commission, and Municipal Entities, etc. Therefore, D/B Teams shall be responsible to submit any deviations to all governing Agencies and address such schedule implications in their Technical Proposal.” Could you please clarify what has been approved so that we can determine what deviations might need to be obtained prior to construction? Any Memorandums of Understating or similar documentation would be helpful. |
|
|
Answer:
This type of information was issued in Addendum Number 5 on 3/23/17. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/17/2017 | Date Answered: 03/31/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
On page 3 of the RFP under “3. Personnel by Discipline, Item p. indicates Hazmat, LSP.” Could you please clarify the requirements for the LSP? |
|
|
Answer:
We request further clarification of your question. Are you asking the requirements of an LSP or which parts of the BTC will need a LSP? |
|
| Date Asked: 03/17/2017 | Date Answered: 03/20/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Page 13, Item 7, Evidence of Surety and Insurance Requirements: Since we are providing a Bid Bond (Page 8, BID BOND) do we need to provide “Evidence of Surety”? |
|
|
Answer:
YES. Specific surety information and correspondence is requested for RIDOT review under this cited requirement. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/17/2017 | Date Answered: 03/20/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Page 8, BID BOND: Where should the Bid Bond be packaged, since the RFP indicates that “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”. |
|
|
Answer:
The 5% BID BOND shall be packaged along with the separately sealed TECHNICAL PROPOSAL and shall be included in a separate envelope labeled "BID BOND". Failure to include BID BOND shall be deemed a non-responsive submission. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/13/2017 | Date Answered: 03/20/2017 |
| Poster: Thomas Le | Company: LM Heavy Civil Construction, LLC. |
|
Question:
Please confirm what is meant by Sub-Consultant Proposal(s) inclusive of individual requirements i.e. resumes, as listed in Exhibits. |
|
|
Answer:
Any proposed subconsultant/subcontractor shall include a sub proposal prefaced by a Cover Letter on Company Letterhead to the D/B LEAD documenting the sub services to be provided under this Contract. Content shall also include key resumes of assigned personnel and any pertinent registrations/certifications etc. as outlined in the RFP requirements. These sub proposals shall be considered "Exhibits" to the 40 PAGE technical proposal narrative supporting TEAM services anticipated and the organizational structure of TEAM presented. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/13/2017 | Date Answered: 03/20/2017 |
| Poster: Thomas Le | Company: LM Heavy Civil Construction, LLC. |
|
Question:
Do all firms including subconsultants need to fill out Forms A – M as well as the W-9? |
|
|
Answer:
NO. These FORMS and the W-9 shall be submitted only by the D/B Respondent (PRIME) however, the PRIME shall be responsible for full-disclosure of any pertinent information as requested by these FORMS relative to ANY MEMBER OF THE D/B TEAM especially with regard to any Debarment actions and Lobbying activities. If there is nothing to report with regard to FORMS then no action or disclosure is necessary; the PRIME shall complete and authorize each FORM accordingly and submit in RFP package. With regard to DBE participation for this Project, FORM K does have a second sheet to be authorized by EACH proposed DBE assigned D/B Team along with a copy of their current RI state certification letter. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/09/2017 | Date Answered: 03/09/2017 |
| Poster: Daniel Bessette | Company: Manafort Brothers Inc |
|
Question:
At what time are the initial and final ATC submissions due? |
|
|
Answer:
The deadline for both the INITIAL and FINAL ATC submittals is 4:00 PM EST to be submitted care of MS.LISA HILL, RIDOA/ Purchases, One Capitol Hill, 2nd Floor, Providence, RI 02903. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/08/2017 | Date Answered: 03/09/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Can the organization chart be printed on 11"x17" paper provided that it is folded to fit within the 8 1/2"x11" document? |
|
|
Answer:
YES. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/08/2017 | Date Answered: 03/09/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Form B (Participant Industrial Safety Record) asks for statistics from 2005-2009. Will this form be reissued requesting more recent data? |
|
|
Answer:
YES. The FORM will be updated and reissued in an upcoming ADDENDUM. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/08/2017 | Date Answered: 03/22/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Page 11 of the RFP indicates that "Coordination procedures for notification of NITHPO will be provided by the RIDOT Cultural Resources Unit and will be detailed in the RFP." We have been unable to locate this information in the RFP. Please advise. |
|
|
Answer:
Information regarding Cultural Resources/ Historical Properties is shown in VOLUME II - Section 25 an will be supplemented in a forthcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/07/2017 | Date Answered: 03/08/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Page 1 of the Request for Proposals indicates that “VOL III, Contract Documents will be added by Addendum.” Are these the “2017Jan_Full Compiled BTC Set” provided in Addendum No.2, or is additional information going to be provided? |
|
|
Answer:
Volume III is the format for the Contract (DRAFT version) and it will be issued in an upcoming ADDENDUM. The BTC Plan set issued in Addendum 7551329A2 is NOT the same information cited as the Contract. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/06/2017 | Date Answered: 03/08/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
1. Section 28. of the RFP entitled State Building Code-NFPA-130 indicates that “The project State building code will adopt NFPA-130 (2014 Edition) ‘Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit Systems’ as an advisory code for the emergency egress occupant load, exit widths and locations. The NFPA-130 Standard is intended as a supplement to RI State Building Code; where conflicts are observed, most stringent requirements will govern.” In order to properly evaluate design options for possible elevator, stair, and ramp configurations, please provide the train/platform occupancy quantities which were utilized to determine the size and number of stairways, ramps, and pedestrian overpass, following NFPA 130 and/or the RI State Building Code that are currently shown in the BTC. 2. We would like to obtain any available cad files that were used to develop the BTC, for the production of our ATC's or Proposal plans. |
|
|
Answer:
1.) Code compliance documents will be issued in a forthcoming ADDENDUM that will include occupancy estimates. 2.) CAD files will be issued in a forthcoming ADDENDUM. |
|
| Date Asked: 03/06/2017 | Date Answered: 03/08/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Typical Sections Sheet T-06 indicates that the vertical clearance between the Top of Rail and the underside of the Proposed Pedestrian Bridge is 23'. Based on our understanding of the Amtrak Standards, it would appear that this dimension should be a minimum of 24'-3". Please review and advise. |
|
|
Answer:
You are correct that specific AMTRAK minimum vertical clearances have not been attained at the Pedestrian Bridge. However, the minimum clearances at the Dexter Street and Conant Street bridges (Sheets T-09 and T-10) govern the minimum requirements as they are the choke points through the station project. The Pedestrian Bridge clearance was determined based on NFPA 130 Emergency Egress travel time requirements. A Design Exception Request must be submitted to Amtrak and its approval is not guaranteed. |
|
| Date Asked: 02/24/2017 | Date Answered: 03/08/2017 |
| Poster: Anna Greenfield | Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. |
|
Question:
Page 9 of the RFP describes the Proposal Format for the Technical Proposal. The D/B team requests similar information for the ATC Executive Summary and Final ATC Submission. Page 16 of the RFP suggests schematic drawings as part of the ATC Executive Summary - would schematic drawings contribute to the ONE (1) page limit? |
|
|
Answer:
NO. Schematic drawings or sketches do not count towards the ONE PAGE ATC Executive Summary. Relevant extra material is permitted, but not required, only if it serves to supplement the single page Executive Summary. See guidelines on Page 16 subparagraph (a) items 1 - 9 for Initial ATC and Page 19 subparagraph (f) items 1 – 14 for the Final ATC submission that would include items introduced at the ATC Interview. |
|