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: 10/24/2017 | Date Answered: 10/25/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please confirm that is the intent of RIDOT and the City of Providence that all mast arms, poles and posts for the traffic signals in all of the permanent intersections are to be the ornamental type. |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Entity will need to coordinate with the City on the design of the permanent traffic signals. It is anticipated that all signals will be ornamental type. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/24/2017 | Date Answered: 10/25/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
In accordance with the Technical Provisions Part 2, Section 5.1 Utilities, it states that “The Department will pay all utilities directly”. We understand that the construction force accounts will not be negotiated by RIDOT with the utilities until a DB Entity is selected and the scope of relocations for each utility is finalized. Since there is a combination of both public and private utilities identified in the RFP/BTC documents, please confirm if the cost of all utility work performed by the DB entity will be paid by the respective Utility to the DB entity via a force account or should the DB entity include it’s utility costs in the proposal? |
|
|
Answer:
All utility work performed by the DB entity is to be included in the DB entities cost proposal. Work performed by the utility company will be reimbursed to the utility company by RIDOT through separate agreement. Section 5.1 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised in a future addendum to reflect this. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/23/2017 | Date Answered: 10/25/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Special Provisions Period Price Archives Due to the uncertainty of structural steel and reinforcing steel cost through the life of the contract, fabricators and suppliers will be including a premium in their price proposals as a contingency to cover unforeseen cost variations. In order to manage and mitigate these price increases, would RIDOT consider special provision on the 6/10 Interchange project to make contract adjustment escalation clauses for structural steel and reinforcing steel prices to account for the prices in effect at the time the work is performed. |
|
|
Answer:
Due to the relative stability in the steel market over the past decade, a price adjustment will not be considered. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/23/2017 | Date Answered: 10/25/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Addendum #3, Part 2, revised Section 1.3.4 to "Other Trafficpersons including but not limited to. Municipal Police Officers and Uniformed Flaggers, shall be in accordance with Section 900 of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation Blue Book." Excerpts from Section 900, Incidental Construction Services Sections 913.05 Trafficpersons - Basis of Payment states: " Although services of Uniformed Trafficpersons (with/without cruisers) will be measured for payment by the number of hours for each person rendering services, there is no bid item for this work." "Uniformed Trafficpersons (with/without cruisers) shall be paid for based on actual cost as submitted by a bill of lading from the local community or communities involved and approved by the Engineer. The payment for this work shall be made directly by the State through a separate Purchase Order submitted by the local community or communities." Question 1. Please confirm the Basis of Payment for Trafficpersons will be in accordance with Section 913.05 Sections 914.05 Flagpersons - Basis of Payment states: "The unit bid price per manhour as paid to the Contractor shall constitute compensation for the flagpersons' services - including fringe benefits, and for associated protective clothing, hand signaling devices, communications equipment and other applicable equipment and incidentals deemed necessary by the Engineer. Overtime will be compensated for separately and in accordance with the union contract." Question 2. Whereas, there is no unit bid price per manhour for Flagpersons, Please clarify the method of payment for Flagpersons. |
|
|
Answer:
Question 1. Payment for Police, State & Local, with or without cruisers, is made directly by the State. Question 2. There is no separate pay item for flaggers or flagger’s overtime. This cost is to be included in the base bid. Section 1.3.4 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised in a future addendum to reflect this. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/19/2017 | Date Answered: 10/23/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
We appreciate the responses that RIDOT has given to both DB Team’s questions pertaining to the excavation, characterization, handling, storage and transportation of all soils for disposal. Please confirm that in addition to the disposal, the cost of transportation will be included in determining the differential disposal cost. |
|
|
Answer:
Transportations costs will be included in the differential cost. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/19/2017 | Date Answered: 10/23/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The area between Helme Street and Harris Ave that is labeled in the BTC for Future Development has no plan grades for final surface elevations. Please provide a plan with grades for this area. |
|
|
Answer:
The final design for restoration at this location shall provide level grading matching the back of curb or top of sidewalk of the existing surface streets bordering the parcel. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/19/2017 | Date Answered: 10/23/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Based on a response to a previous question pertaining to AMTRAK insurance requirements will part 2) under Section 7.4. submissions be revised? "Before AMTRAK will review any Documents, the DB Entity must require that its Consultants or any of its sub consultants performing design or engineering functions to 1) execute a copy of the indemnity Certificate sample included as Exhibit B in the AMTRAK Master Agreement, and return the form to AMTRAK at the address listed in the Notices section of this agreement, and 2) provide AMTRAK with written proof of the insurance coverage contained in the Agreement included in Section 3 of the AMTRAK Master Agreement. |
|
|
Answer:
Our response in regards to the tenant railroads & the insurance coverages listed in Exhibit E do not change the requirements as stated in Section 7.4. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/18/2017 | Date Answered: 10/23/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Several local roads have dark edge of pavement limits shown which we presume would indicate pavement work is needed in these areas. We understand that resurfacing is required where it is necessary to remove temporary or permanent pavement markings and in the transition from full depth pavement areas (which were previously clarified). Please clarify the intent of the proposed edge of pavement lines shown in the BTC (whether they’re intended to be prescriptive – showing the required limits of resurfacing, or indicative – showing possible limits of resurfacing that are dependent on our grading and work limits). Specifically, please clarify the pavement work shown in BTC plans at: a. Huldah St, Judith St, and Pilsudski St (south of Plainfield to 6EB Ramp) – some of these apparent edge of pavement lines outline areas that would be full reconstruction on new alignments b. Helme St. and Grove Street (west of the extensions of these roads which we understand will require new full depth pavement) c. Penn St., Tobey St., Ridge Street (east of Tobey St Bridge) – limits of proposed EOP shown extend 150’ or more beyond the intersection and appear to realign the intersection of these streets (which would include some full depth reconstruction) d. Harris Avenue (4 lane section north of New Harris Avenue ramp) e. Harris Avenue (segment south of the existing NB/SB Harris Avenue split) f. Hartford Avenue to 6EB ramp and 6WB to Hartford Avenue ramp g. Plainfield Avenue ramp to 6EB |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Entity shall coordinate the final design of all city streets with the City of Providence. In general, full width, full depth reconstruction should be used wherever there is a reconfiguration of the roadway geometry (including intersections) and where the roadway profile is changing. Pavement milling and paving shall be used in areas where lane arrangements are being modified, but no profile change is proposed. a. Huldah and Judith Streets shall be extended to connect as shown. The portion of the roadways shown on new alignment shall be full depth construction. The portion shown on the existing alignment are possible limits of resurfacing that are dependent on your grading and work limits b. The portion shown on the existing alignment are possible limits of resurfacing that are dependent on your grading and work limits. c. The intersections are to be realigned as shown on the plans. Offline areas shall be full depth construction. The portion shown on the existing alignment are possible limits of resurfacing that are dependent on your grading and work limits. d. The portion shown on the existing alignment are possible limits of resurfacing that are dependent on your grading and work limits. e. The portion shown on the existing alignment are possible limits of resurfacing that are dependent on your grading and work limits. f. The portion shown on the existing alignment are possible limits of resurfacing that are dependent on your grading and work limits. g. The Plainfield on ramp to 6EB is a new ramp and shall be full depth construction. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/18/2017 | Date Answered: 10/23/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please clarify the limit and scope of work at Plainfield to 6EB Ramp. This ramp is shown in the BTC plans relocated from it’s current location (based on work done during Magnolia Bridge Removal contract), however no new section, alignment or profile were provided. |
|
|
Answer:
The ramp shall be replaced as shown on the plans. The intent is to move the gore as far west as possible to allow for better operations on Route 6 EB. The proposed vertical and horizontal geometry shall be designed with this goal in mind. The typical section for full depth pavement construction shall be similar to the other new ramps on the project. The DB Team shall develop the design during preliminary and final design. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/18/2017 | Date Answered: 10/23/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Regarding the Master agreement between Amtrak and RIDOT, there is a requirement for professional liability. The wording is broad and states the insurance should cover “any and all errors and omissions … regardless of the type of damage”. Professional policies do not cover all types of damage (example includes liquidated or consequential damages). Please confirm the Professional Liability should cover all types that are in a commercially available policy, any other types are the responsibility of the contractor. |
|
|
Answer:
The wording in the Master Agreement in regards to professional liability is typical of other projects, projects in which the consultants have agreed to Amtrak’s liability insurance requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/18/2017 | Date Answered: 10/23/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Regarding Division I 107.13 f. Professional Liability Insurance, there is a requirement the Professional Liability policy should “cover the Indemnification clause in this contract as the same relates to negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with the Contractor’s Project work”. The Indemnification clause is much broader and includes injury and damage the likes of which are not covered by commercially available Professional Liability policies. Please confirm the Design Build Entity should obtain Liability Insurance that is commercially available that cover claims and damages arising out of the rendering or failure to render professional services by the Contractor and all parties for which the Contractor is legally responsible, and that therefore further liability included in the Indemnification clause is the responsibility of the contractor but not covered by the Professional policy. |
|
|
Answer:
Section 107.13 (f) of Part of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to indicate the Design Build Entity shall obtain Professional Liability Insurance that covers claims and damages arising out of the rendering or failure to render professional services by the Contractor and all parties for which the Contractor is legally responsible, and that therefore further liability included in the Indemnification clause is the responsibility of the Contractor but not covered by the Professional Liability policy. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/18/2017 | Date Answered: 10/23/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Regarding Division I 107.13 f. Professional Liability Insurance, please confirm the retroactive date of the Design Build Contractor shall be the date professional services related to the project were first rendered by the Contractor or its design subcontractors. |
|
|
Answer:
Section 107.1 (f) of Part 3 of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to indicate the retroactive date for the term of Profession Liability Insurance shall be the date professional services related to the project were first rendered by the Contractor or the date the Contract was executed, which ever occurred first. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/18/2017 | Date Answered: 10/23/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Regarding Division I 107.13 f. Professional Liability Insurance, it is stated, “The Contractor shall maintain this Professional Liability Insurance coverage for a period of at least three (3) years from the date of the Department's acceptance of the completed Project,…”. The terminology suggested by our insurance broker is as follows “The Contractor shall maintain this Professional Liability Insurance coverage for a period beginning at the executed contract date and ending at the Date of the Department’s acceptance of the completed Project with a reporting period of three years, …” This is in line with the way Professional liability policies are written. Please consider a revision to the wording in the referenced section. |
|
|
Answer:
Section 107.13 (f) of Part of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to indicate the Contractor shall maintain Professional Liability Insurance coverage for a term ending at the Date of the Department’s acceptance of the completed Project with an Extended Reporting Period of three years. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/18/2017 | Date Answered: 10/19/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
In reference to the 6/10 Interchange Combined Sewer System could the structurally lining specification for the system or systems that would be acceptable to line the NBC pipes with be provided. |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Teams should coordinate with the NBC for this information. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/18/2017 | Date Answered: 10/19/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
In reference to the 6/10 Interchange Combined Sewer System, Please provide any available recent CCTV inspections of the existing combined system. |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Teams should coordinate with the NBC for this information. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/18/2017 | Date Answered: 10/19/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
In reference to the 6/10 Interchange Combined Sewer System, Please provide dry weather and storm water flow data for the existing 60” brick combined sewer. |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Teams should coordinate with the NBC for this information. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/18/2017 | Date Answered: 10/19/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
In reference to the 6/10 Interchange Combined Sewer System, Please confirm the existing 60” brick combined sewer shall be structurally lined but the 12” sewer shown in the same alignment shall not be lined. |
|
|
Answer:
The 12” sewer shown is abandoned and does not need to be lined. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/18/2017 | Date Answered: 10/18/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Addendum 10, 1. Revisions states in bullet e. Part 1 - Instructions to proposers, Page 37: That the Table of forms in Section 6.9 is revised to indicate Form P - Schedule of DBE Participation is required to be submitted with the Technical Proposal only and not required to be submitted with the Price Proposal. Whereas, our cost proposal will not be finalized when we submit the Technical proposal on 11/1, can Form P - Schedule of DBE Participation and DBE certification letters be submitted with the price proposal? |
|
|
Answer:
Form P - Schedule of DBE Participation is required to be submitted with the Technical Proposal so that this information can be reviewed and evaluated as part of the Technical Proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/17/2017 | Date Answered: 10/18/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Section 3.14.4, Maintenance of Bridges during Construction states that the DB Entity will be responsible for maintaining the bridges for the duration of the projec and that maintenance work may include, but is not limited to the following: - Patching of spalls and holes in the bridge deck - Patching failing asphalt overlay - Patching concrete or shoring deteriorated piers that have lost capacity and are no longer structurally adequate It also states that Unit price items have been included in this contract to cover normal maintenance of the bridges and that these prices are set and not subject to negotiations. Please provide pricing and scope that the DB entity is to use on these Unit price items. |
|
|
Answer:
The cost of maintenance of these structures during construction will be paid for with standard RIDOT specifications, and this work will be treated as extra work and handled as a Report of Change during Construction. Section 3.14.4 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to reflect this. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/16/2017 | Date Answered: 10/16/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please confirm that presentation materials, videos, and/or graphics that are to be used as part of the Oral Presentations on November 11th do NOT need to be included in the Technical Proposal Submission on November 1st. |
|
|
Answer:
Presentation materials (videos and/or graphics) that are to be used as part of the Oral Presentations do NOT need to be included in the Technical Proposal Submission on November 1st. The Department may request copies of these be provided at the conclusion of the presentation. As stated in the RFP and in the invitation letter, Oral Presentations are scheduled for November 14, 2017 and not November 11th as listed in this question. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/13/2017 | Date Answered: 10/18/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Addendum 14 changes the final construction completion date to July 2023 and completion to November 2023. Will RIDOT be providing an actual proposed final construction completion date and completion date to be incorporated into the proposed schedule? |
|
|
Answer:
The current schedule dates will be revised in a future addendum to read as follows: “Substantial Completion by July 31, 2023 and Completion by November 30, 2023”. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/13/2017 | Date Answered: 10/18/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
The following is excerpted from Addendum 14, page 2 of 2: “1. Part 2 – Technical Provisions, Page 61a: Section 3.14.8 – Design Criteria has been revised to indicate that snow fences will be required on this project as shown in the attached document.” Please provide referenced attachment. |
|
|
Answer:
The statement “as shown in the attached document” refers to the documentation attached to Addendum No. 14 which includes a revised page 61a which includes language indicating snow fences are required on this project. A detail sheet for the snow fencing used on RIDOT Project No. 2008-CB-056 (Sakonnet River) was not intended to be attached and will be provided in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/13/2017 | Date Answered: 10/18/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Division I, Section 107.13 refers to Section 108.14 for the definition of the date the Department designates for the termination of the Contractor’s responsibility. Where can 108.14 be found? |
|
|
Answer:
Section 107.13 (h) will be revised under a future addendum to replace reference to “Section 108.14” with “Section 105.18 (b)”. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/13/2017 | Date Answered: 10/18/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Insurance requirements for CW or any other railroads are not included in the RFP. Please provide any insurance requirements needed to access their property and work next to their operation. |
|
|
Answer:
Amtrak owns the track & property. The DB Entity is required to obtain an access agreement from Amtrak granting them the right to enter Amtrak property and to comply with all Amtrak requirements. There are no separate insurance requirements for the tenant railroads. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/13/2017 | Date Answered: 10/18/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Addendum 10 provided an updated Technical Provisions Section 7 Railroad and the Master Agreement between Amtrak and the State of Rhode Island. Section 7 requires the Consultants submit “…written proof of the insurance coverage contained in the Agreement…”. The limits in Section E of the Agreement are well beyond the typical requirements of this type of project. The GL limit required is $295 million. Please confirm the insurance requirements of Section E of the Master Agreement do not apply to the D-B Contractor or its consultants. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT and/or Rail Corp shall provide the insurance coverages listed in Exhibit E. The insurance requirements of Section E of the Agreement do not apply to the D-B Contractor or its consultants. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/11/2017 | Date Answered: 10/12/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
A previous question and response to it indicated that RIDOT will require snow fencing on the project. In order to ensure that both DB Teams provide the same snow fence design (material type and size, height, limits etc) for it could you please provide the specifications and details for the fence and please also annotate the BTC highway and bridge plans to show the limits required. |
|
|
Answer:
Details for a snow fence will be included in a future addendum. The snow fence shall be similar to the snow fence used on RIDOT Project No. 2008-CB-056 (Sakonnet River). Snow fencing shall be provided on all structures except for at areas either over waterbodies or over terrain without transportation facilities. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/10/2017 | Date Answered: 10/12/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
SECTION 102.6. PROPOSAL GUARANTY states the following: “When the bidder is a joint venture, the Proposal Guaranty must be made out to the name of the Joint Venture and all parties of the Joint Venture must be named in the execution of the Proposal Guaranty made by the same thereon.” Is it the intent of the following statement “all parties of the Joint Venture must be named in the execution of the Proposal Guaranty made by the same thereon” that if the bidder is a joint venture, then the Proposal Guarantee must be executed by the Joint Venture Entity, as well as individually by each firm that is a party to the joint venture? |
|
|
Answer:
The 5% Proposal Guaranty shall be made out in the name of the JV entity. If selected as the Apparent Best Value Respondent, at the point of award the execution of the Performance and Full Payment Bond shall be 1) made out in the name of the JV entity; 2) endorsed by the JV entity’s authorized representative only; and 3) the full names of the JV Partners shall be fully disclosed i.e. “named” on said Performance and Payment Bond. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/10/2017 | Date Answered: 10/11/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
We would like to confirm that we correctly understand the BTC’s design intent to discontinue Harris Avenue southbound between Helme and Grove Streets and also between Grove Street and Harris Avenue northbound so that the abutting properties will no longer have access from their properties to Harris Avenue southbound. |
|
|
Answer:
Your understanding of the BTC layout in this area is correct. The properties noted front on DeSoto Street and will continue to have access to Harris Avenue via DeSoto Street. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/02/2017 | Date Answered: 10/03/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
The BTC plans for the Rhodeworks Toll Facilities project awarded earlier this year included two tolling locations that may have impact on this project. Gantry Location 13 and Gantry Location 14. Gantry Location 13 is located just west of the project area and has potential to impact to staging and utility work under this project. It appears that Gantry Location 14 (which included a gantry between Westminster and Broadway, and a gantry just west of the Rt 6 viaduct section) may have been removed from the work as it is not included on the latest map of Tolling locations available on the RIDOT website. Please confirm that Location 14 has been removed from consideration, and that no accommodation or coordination with the Toll Gantry DBOM team will be required for this Location. Also, please provide all preliminary plans and documentation available (to include gantry and utility locations and details, any planned changes to roadway features, staging plans, and schedule) for Gantry Location 13, 14 (if still active), and any other gantries planned along Route 6 and/or Route 10 in the project vicinity. |
|
|
Answer:
All tolling facilities within the project limits (including approach roadways) have been removed. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/29/2017 | Date Answered: 10/03/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
RIDOT does not have a standard requiring snow fence on bridges and the requirement is typically on a job-by-job basis. Will snow fences be required for this project? |
|
|
Answer:
Snow fences will be required on this project. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/29/2017 | Date Answered: 10/05/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
RIDOT has completed a Limited Subsurface Investigation to assess soil quality in parts of the Project Area. The results of the Limited Subsurface Investigation determined that soil within parts of the Project Area contain substances at concentrations that may require these materials to be controlled under Rhode Island rules and regulations. Since the available information makes it difficult to reasonable estimate the volume of soil that will be clean (not contaminated), reusable (contaminated at concentrations below RIDOT cleanup criteria), non-reusable (contaminated at concentrations above RIDOT cleanup criteria), and hazardous (per RCRA) would RIDOT be willing to modify their bid form to provide an estimate of the quantity of material within each category and allow the DB teams to provide unit prices for each item so that the teams would have the same basis for project bidding? Suggested bid items could include the following: Disposal – Unlined Landfill per Ton; Disposal –Lined Landfill per Ton; Disposal – Non-RCRA Lined Landfill per Ton; Disposal – RCRA Landfill per Ton; Disposal - Recycling Facility per Ton; Disposal-Stabilization Treatment per Ton. |
|
|
Answer:
As noted in our previous response to a question submitted on 9/22/2017, All excavation, characterization, handling, storage and transportation of all soils for disposal shall be included in the lump sum bid price. The differential disposal cost does not need to be included in the lump sum price. The Department will compensate the DB Team for the actual differential disposal cost under the terms outlined in Part 3 of the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/29/2017 | Date Answered: 10/03/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Part 1, Section 6.2 of the RFP indicates that calculations shall be included as an Appendix to the technical proposal. Considering the significant number of pages that will need to be provided, would the Department consider revising this requirement to one that would include providing an index of calculations in the Appendix and providing the calculations as pdf files on CD’s? |
|
|
Answer:
Section 6.2 of Part 1 regarding formal submission of cost calculations shall be DELETED and therefore not required as part of the Technical Proposal submission. This deletion will be formalized in a future Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/26/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
The requirements for Concrete Surface Treatment – Protective Coating differ between the RI LRFD Bridge Design Manual (section 5.9.2.4) and the RI Bridge Design Standard Details (Drawing #A3). Please clarify which of these two standards should be followed for the bridge substructure concrete on this project. |
|
|
Answer:
Note No. 12 on Drawing #A3 of the RI Bridge Design Standard Details shall govern. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/25/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
The RFP does not contain a requirement for protective coating on permanent median barrier? Should this be added? |
|
|
Answer:
Section 3.12 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to indicate that a protective coating will be required on the exposed surface of all permanent median barriers under this contract. A specification for protective coating will be added to the RFP under a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/25/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
The RFP does not contain a requirement for antigraffiti coating on walls and bridges. Should this be added? |
|
|
Answer:
Section 3.14.8 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to indicate that an anti-graffiti coating will be required on the exposed surface of all bridges and walls under this contract. A specification for anti-graffiti coating will be added to the RFP under a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/22/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Soil management quantities are determined by the DB entity based upon chosen means and methods. Environmental characterization of existing soils in the RFP reference documents is insufficient to reasonably estimate the volume and cost of soil reuse/disposal. RFP Section 110.7, Controlled and Hazardous Materials states that when disposal of controlled or hazardous material is required, the Department will pay for same at the applicable Contract unit prices. Please confirm DB entities should include in the Bid Price the cost of excess soils reuse/disposal assuming it is clean (non-regulated) and that differential “up-tic” costs will be paid in accordance with the unit prices provided by the DB for each soil type listed on Form E in RFP Appendix A. |
|
|
Answer:
All excavation, characterization, handling, storage and transportation of all soils for disposal shall be included in the lump sum bid price. The differential disposal cost does not need to be included in the lump sum price. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/22/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
In reference to 4.1 General Format of Proposals 1. Can all the 11 x 17 plans and schedules be inserted in a separate 11 x 17 binder by Appendix? 2. Can the plans and schedule be double sided or single sided? 3. Regarding Proposal Submission instructions – please clarify: a. 12 copies of the technical proposal must be submitted. In the instructions is says to have the original Transmittal letter inside the outmost container holding the smaller container. Is it acceptable to place the original in a separate envelope inside of the container? b. Having one larger container holding (12) – 100 page binders and appendices and price proposal may be too large to handle. Can multiple containers be used and numbered? |
|
|
Answer:
In reference to 4.1 General Format of Proposals. 1. Can all the 11 x 17 plans and schedules be inserted in a separate 11 x 17 binder by Appendix? YES. 2. Can the plans and schedule be double sided or single sided ? Single sided ONLY. 3a. Is it acceptable to place the original ( transmittal letter ) in a separate envelop inside of the container ? YES. All transmittal letters (Original + Copy) shall be placed in a clearly labeled, separate envelope and placed inside the container. 3b. Can multiple containers be used and numbered? YES. But make sure each additional container is labeled accordingly |
|
| Date Asked: 09/22/2017 | Date Answered: 09/22/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
In our utility coordination meetings, Verizon has indicated that their estimated timeframe for completing splicing work for the BTC temporary relocation and permanent relocation of Verizon wires at Westminster and Broadway may require up to a year or more of field work for each phase of the relocation. The system is a mix of copper wire and fiber optic lines and Verizon has not done any preliminary work to assess their infrastructure. Verizon has indicated that until they complete the preliminary and final design of the project they are unable to provide a better schedule for the work. In addition, Verizon indicated that it may be difficult to schedule dedicated crews to complete the splicing work because of other on-going Verizon projects. With this and the fact that there is a level of uncertainty with the infrastructure here, they are unable to provide a better estimate than 1+ year for each. Has RIDOT considered this timeframe for the Verizon utility work and the impact on the construction schedule in their contract time determination? |
|
|
Answer:
The contract Time Determination was based upon the best available information utilizing a Pre-10% design for the base technical concept. The D/B Entity should list all assumptions in the proposal to set a baseline for the utility work duration. Due to all the unknowns at this point in the process (Completion of final design, utility company staff availability, material availability, etc.) the schedule needs to clearly define the D/B Entities’ utility duration schedule ( based on information from the utilities) and assumptions. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/22/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Section 3.18.4 New CCTV Devise locations indicates “The Project includes the installation of several IP PTZ CCTV locations as shown on the plans, as well as upgrade and/or replacement of existing ITS devices… the CCTV cameras need to have a “minimum 60’ steel pole.” Since none of the existing poles meet that requirement is the intent to provide all new poles and foundations for the existing cameras that will remain. |
|
|
Answer:
To clarify, out of the five existing cameras, only one is installed on a wood pole (Rt 6 at Hartford Ave). The remaining four are all on steel poles. The wood pole at Rt 6 at Hartford Ave shall be replaced with a 60’ steel camera pole. Any existing steel camera pole that shall be affected by the relocation of roadways (requiring removal) may be relocated to a location approved by TMC staff, following the minimum downtime guidelines stipulated in the RFP. Whether the pole is relocated or not, the lowering device shall be replaced with an IP lowering device, and a new 10 port fiber Ethernet switch shall be provided. If the existing camera pole is deemed to not be of a sufficient height for the proposed relocation (e.g., due to changed road geometry or other visual obstructions) then the DB Entity shall be required to provide at a minimum a 60’ camera pole, or of height sufficient to provide unobstructed views of the roadway. Existing camera poles that shall not be affected by the relocation of roadways shall still have their camera lowering devices replaced with IP camera lowering devices. This shall also include furnishing and installation of a new 10 port fiber Ethernet switch. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/22/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RFP indicates in the Existing and Proposed ITS Field Devices table that there is a proposed Radar Detector at Atwells Ave (ID 17). However, a field visit revealed that there is an existing Radar Detector in the same vicinity. Is the intent to replace the existing device or maintain it? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes there is an existing EIS X3 RVD there which shall be replaced with a new HD RVD. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/22/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RFP indicates in the Existing and Proposed ITS Field Devices table that there is a proposed Radar Detector and CCTV at Dean Street (IDs 14 and 15). However, a field visit revealed that there is an existing Radar Detector and CCTV in the same vicinity. Is the intent to replace the existing devices or maintain them? |
|
|
Answer:
The existing camera pole is to remain if possible, only the lowering the device is to be replaced with an IP lowering device. If the pole needs to be relocated, the contractor shall follow the minimum downtime guidelines stipulated in the RFP. The existing lowering device shall be delivered to a TMC representative. The camera shall be provided by others. The existing RVD is to be replaced with a new HD RVD. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/22/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RFP notes in Section 3.18.6 that the DB Entity will utilize cantilever structures for DMS. However, the map of devices and table of devices state “Overhead/Ground Mount DMS.” Please confirm that RIDOT would like to use a cantilever structure for the two proposed DMS. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, as stated in section 3.18.6 the DB entity shall provide two new full color matrix DMS signs on cantilever support structures approved by the TMC staff. An overhead gantry structure that holds both signs (NB and SB) is also acceptable, provided that a suitable location (meeting sight distance guidelines, etc.) can be identified. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/21/2017 | Date Answered: 10/05/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Narraganset Bay Commission has indicated that, based on the BTC, they will require RIDOT to have all existing combined storm sewers within the project limits lined with a structural liner prior to construction within the area of the sewer. The installation of the liner will require sewer bypass pumping, with consideration for the multiple sewer laterals within these limits. As there is no mention of this in the RFP documents, please confirm that RIDOT has considered this structural liner in its job scope for both the project budget and schedule, as costs and time required for this work are very significant. If RIDOT does not want the proposers to consider this work as part of the project, please indicate so. |
|
|
Answer:
Based on discussions between RIDOT and the Narragansett Bay Commission (NBC), the DB Team will be required to line approximately 2500 (+/-) linear feet of combined sewer system with a structural liner. Approximate limits of the portion of the sewer system to be lined are from an NBC manhole in Union Street to an NBC manhole at the intersection of Troy & Oak Streets, which are shown on Figure 3-18 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This work shall be included in the Lump Sum Proposal Price and shall be depicted on the Proposal Preliminary Schedule. The DB Team is responsible for coordination of all aspects of this work with the NBC. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/21/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please clarify the timeframe when the DB Entity is to provide the two standby tow trucks as described in section 3.12.2 . Will they be required from the start of construction 24 hours per day through final completion or will they only be required at peak traffic hours or during the periods of construction when travel lanes are reduced? |
|
|
Answer:
Section 3.12.2 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum remove the requirement for standby tow trucks. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/21/2017 | Date Answered: 09/26/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Would RIDOT consider separate proposal submittal deadlines for the Technical Proposal and the Cost Proposal to provide additional time for the teams to prepare Best Value Price Proposal? Proposed Timeline: Technical Proposal Submission Deadline = November 1, 2017, Price Proposal Submission Deadline = November 15, 2017. |
|
|
Answer:
This will be addressed in a future addendum |
|
| Date Asked: 09/20/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Environmental characterization of groundwater conditions in the RFP reference documents is insufficient to reasonably estimate whether treatment is needed or the cost of any required treatment. Please confirm DB entities should include in the Bid Price the cost of typical sediment removals only, assuming discharge does not require additional treatment, and that costs will be paid in accordance with RIDOT Extra Work provisions should additional treatment be necessary. |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Entity shall base their bid on the conditions described in the limited subsurface investigation provided in Addendum No. 4. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/19/2017 | Date Answered: 09/20/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
For waterproofing of the Bridge decks on the project would it be acceptable to use either a heat-applied pre-fabricated membrane system or cold spray applied waterproofing system as long as the material is on the RIDOT Approved Materials List? |
|
|
Answer:
As noted under Section 3.14.8 of Part 2 of the RFP, all membrane waterproofing shall be a cold applied liquid membrane. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/19/2017 | Date Answered: 09/20/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide CAD drawings for the revised Base Technical Concept Highway Plans No 2, 3, 7, and 8 issued in Addendum 11. Please also provide any new traffic data or models that are available (as referenced in Addendum 11, Section 2.c and 2.d) |
|
|
Answer:
The AutoCAD file will be provided in a future addendum. There is no new traffic modeling info available. The changes were made as part of the ongoing NEPA process. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/18/2017 | Date Answered: 09/20/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RFP indicates that the “design and detailing of precast concrete deck panels shall include an extra ½” of sacrificial thickness to allow for grinding to achieve the required longitudinal and transverse profiles”. Since the RFP also indicates that all bridges will receive a waterproofing membrane and bituminous asphalt overlay, do the precast concrete deck panels still require an extra ½” of thickness? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will accept a final design that does not include an extra ½” of sacrificial concrete thickness in the precast panels and subsequent grinding after installation to achieve the required longitudinal and transverse profiles provided that the designer can demonstrate the panel dimensions will achieve the required profiles with no more than ¼” variation (+ or -) in the 3” pavement thickness due to panel dimensions creating a chorded profile. The extra ½” of thickness is not intended to provide additional protection for the concrete or reinforcing steel. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/15/2017 | Date Answered: 09/20/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Reference Appendix B, Section B.02 Guide Specifications Section 929 and 929.1000: Please confirm that you will no longer require the Contractor to supply 3.5” DSHD floppy disks for the project office. |
|
|
Answer:
This will be clarified in a revision to this Specification under a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/15/2017 | Date Answered: 09/20/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Reference Appendix B, Section B.02 Guide Specifications Section 929 and 929.1000: Please provide a better definition of what you intend for us to supply for the “dust shields and a security cabinet”. |
|
|
Answer:
This will be clarified in a revision to this Specification under a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/15/2017 | Date Answered: 09/20/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Reference Appendix B, Section B.02 Guide Specifications Section 929 and 929.1000: Please confirm that we are to provide only one 24” wide screen flat panel LCD monitor for each of the docking stations (2 Surface Pro and 10 PC laptop computers). |
|
|
Answer:
This will be clarified in a revision to this Specification under a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/15/2017 | Date Answered: 09/20/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Reference Appendix B, Section B.02 Guide Specifications Section 929 and 929.1000: Please confirm that we are to provide only one keyboard and mouse for each of the two (2) Surface Pro docking stations. |
|
|
Answer:
This will be clarified in a revision to this Specification under a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/15/2017 | Date Answered: 09/20/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
1. Reference Appendix B, Section B.02 Guide Specifications Section 929 and 929.1000: Please confirm that for the PC laptop computers, we are to provide only three (3) power adaptors and three (3) carrying bags in total, not 3 for each of the 10 PC laptop computers (i.e. not 30 of each). |
|
|
Answer:
This will be clarified in a revision to this Specification under a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/14/2017 | Date Answered: 09/20/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Section 3.17.2.1. Rhode Island Department of Transportation Lighting Facilities: Indicates that “All new lighting specified shall be LED and meet the current Department requirements. ….. Smart lighting technology; being implemented State-wide, shall also be implemented.” To ensure that we are providing a design that meets the most current Department requirements we would like to request that these smart lighting technology standards/requirements be provided. In addition, provide additional details for the required LED luminaires, including required lumen output and luminous efficiency (lumens per watt) for luminaires at both 30’ and 40’ poles, underbridge luminaire details, pedestrian/bike paths (if required) and any other standards or requirements for RIDOT or City of Providence LED lighting installations. |
|
|
Answer:
In general the proposer shall be cognizant of Smart lighting technologies and applications. RIDOT Smart lighting equipment/component selection shall be identified and pursued during Final Design by the selected DB team. All available documents/standards regarding lighting have been identified and noted in the RFP. Required LED Lumens are identified in the RFP in Section 2, on page 68. The proposer is directed to note illumination requirements in Section T.02, Highway Lighting of the RIDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and The Department’s Highway Design manual, Division 13 – Lighting for lighting requirements by facility type. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/14/2017 | Date Answered: 09/20/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Section 3.17.2.2. City of Providence Lighting Facilities: Indicates that “ Safety and creative lighting solutions shall be employed beneath Route 6 between Plainfield and Route 10 to maximize physical safety. “ Could you please confirm that the locations for these lights is within the limits of Plainfield and Pilsudski Streets where they cross under Route 6. |
|
|
Answer:
The limits shall include beneath all elevated sections of Route 6 EB & WB, including ramps, between the west abutment of the Plainfield Street Bridge and the western edge of the AMTRAK ROW. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/14/2017 | Date Answered: 09/21/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Could RIDOT please provide the contact information for the integration/operations installation vendor for the TMC? |
|
|
Answer:
The TMC does not have a dedicated integrated/operations installation vendor. The TMCs On-Call Consultant (currently Jacobs Engineering) shall facilitate any questions regarding integration/operations installation within the TMC. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/14/2017 | Date Answered: 09/27/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
• Please confirm that the proposed fiber optic trunk cable will splice into an existing fiber optic trunk at an existing Hub structure location near the RT 6/10 and I-95 interchange/Providence Place Mall Garage that provides interface and interconnection from the existing roadside devices to the RIDOT TMC (2 Capitol Hill) and that additional conduit and fiber optic cable will not be required from the Hub location to the TMC. Is it possible to obtain a layout of this structure? |
|
|
Answer:
As outlined on page 76 under Section 3.18.2. Device Communication, this project shall only be responsible for connecting to the existing fiber plant at the Providence Viaduct (I-95 and Route 6/10 Connector). The DB Team shall coordinate with RIDOT’s Fiber Optic manager to determine the most feasible plan for completing the splice into the existing fiber plant during final design. Plans for the ITS system in the vicinity of the Providence Viaduct will be provided under a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/14/2017 | Date Answered: 09/21/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
• Please confirm that the RIDOT TMC (2 Capitol Hill) has full capability to integrate/receive, integrate and process the data from additional (proposed) equipment into the existing TMC system without additions and/or modification to the network hardware infrastructure in that new decoders, rack assemblies, IP switches, routers, cables and cabling are not required to integrate the new ITS devices into the RIDOT TMC (2 Capitol Hill) to provide a complete working system. |
|
|
Answer:
Any proposed equipment or replaced equipment/devices shall be compatible with the current systems deployed by the TMC. The TMC is capable of handling modest increases in the number of devices, with the exception of licenses as noted below. The TMC’s On-Call Consultant will assist with incorporating new devices into daily operations as they come online. 1. For CCVE, the TMC’s video management platform is Aimetis Symphony. Any net increase in cameras will require additional licenses for this system. 2. For DMS, the TMC’s messaging platform is Daktronics Vanguard Professional. 3. For RVD, the TMC’s sensor platform is Wavetronix DataCollector. Any net increase in RVDs will require additional licenses for this system. 4. For all Fiber Optic interconnect plans, please coordinate with the RIDOT Fiber Optic Manager to determine an interconnect splice plan and reduce the impact on existing data traffic currently operating over the existing fiber optic cable installed as part of the I-95 Viaduct Project. Please take note that SFP modules may be required for the TMC end in order to complete the connection and successfully bring any network traffic back from the proposed fiber optic cable in this contract. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/11/2017 | Date Answered: 09/12/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Will you be issuing an updated Appendix B Index (last updated in Addendum 7), so that we can be assured that we have received all of the issued documents? |
|
|
Answer:
This will be included in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/07/2017 | Date Answered: 09/11/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Tabs are included in the proposal page count. Are they considered 1 page or 2? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT has reconsidered this directive; TABBED SECTION DIVIDERS WILL NOT BE COUNTED toward the 100 technical proposal page count. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/07/2017 | Date Answered: 09/11/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Addendum 3 says to insert "FHWA-1273" into Appendix A. In Addendum 10 Section 6.9. Forms that must Accompany the Technical Proposal, "FHWA-1273" is listed under Schedule of Submission as "Provided For Information". There is no signature page. Do we include "FHWA-1273" in the Technical proposal? Does it require a signature page? |
|
|
Answer:
FHWA-1273 is for informational purpose only citing all federal contract provisions applicable to the PROJECT. No further action or formal acknowledgement is required by the Contractor with regard to this document. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/07/2017 | Date Answered: 09/12/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
In Section 6.13 Trainees of the RFP, is the required written statement submitted with FORM O? |
|
|
Answer:
Form “ O” shall be DELETED in its entirety. The On the Job Training (OJT) requirements will be requested of the selected Contractor as part of the Department’s Post- Qualification process. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/07/2017 | Date Answered: 09/12/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
FORM O: RIDOT ON-THE-JOB TRAINING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND STATEMENT OF INTENT, was added in Addendum 3 with no explicit direction or instructions on when this submission is required and whether it should be completed in full, partially completed or acknowledged in the proposal and provide training program after award. Please provide further instructyion. |
|
|
Answer:
Form “ O” shall be DELETED in its entirety. The On the Job Training (OJT) requirements will be requested of the selected Contractor as part of the Department’s Post- Qualification process. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/31/2017 | Date Answered: 09/06/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
If the date of NTP for Preliminary Design is adjusted past December 20, 2017, will the Final Construction Completion and Completion dates be equally adjusted? |
|
|
Answer:
There are no plans to change the date for NTP for Preliminary Design. Refer to Section 2.3 of Part 1 of the RFP regarding start of Final Design and Construction. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/31/2017 | Date Answered: 09/06/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Part 2 Paragraph 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 tables state “To be provided under a future addendum”. Please provide the information that is missing. |
|
|
Answer:
The addendum is in progress. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/31/2017 | Date Answered: 09/01/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
RFP Part 2, Section 7.2 states that “the DB Entity shall assume only three nights per week for Amtrak outages and only 4 hours of outage time per night.” Shall it be assumed that this is valid for both single track and double track outages? |
|
|
Answer:
The DB team shall assume only three nights per week for Amtrak outages and only 4 hours of outage time per night. This assumption applies to either scenario, a single track outage or a double track outage. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/25/2017 | Date Answered: 08/31/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Within the main area of the project, most of mainline and ramps will plainly require full depth reconstruction due to horizontal alignment and/or profile changes, but the full depth limits are not clear at the project approaches or on City streets. The statement posted 8/18 in response to a question posed by Barletta on 8/7 regarding pavement sections at Harris Avenue indicated that in this area, “Full depth reconstruction should be used wherever there is a reconfiguration of the roadway geometry (including intersections) and where the roadway profile is changing. Pavement milling and paving shall be used in areas where lane arrangements are being modified, but no profile change is proposed.” It is assumed that this statement applies to all City streets, and not just to Harris Avenue. Please confirm. Also please clarify whether this applies to mainline roadways (Routes 6 and 10) and ramps within the project limits, or if there are specific limits of full depth pavement reconstruction for these roadways that should be used in development of the bid. |
|
|
Answer:
The response to the cited question noted that the provisions were for all City Streets. The same provisions would apply to mainline roadways as well. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/25/2017 | Date Answered: 08/31/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Are there any environmental permits to add to Appendix B.06 (NEPA documentation?) |
|
|
Answer:
The development of NEPA documents is underway. The NEPA process will not be completed prior to submission of Technical Proposals. The DB Entity is responsible for the preparation of all permit applications and supporting documentation per Part 2 Section 4 of the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/22/2017 | Date Answered: 08/25/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
RFP Part II, section 9.2 requires the RIDOT field office to be located within 5 miles of the project site and to be made available within 6 months of NTP. RFP Part III, Section 108.2 requires the RIDOT field office to be located within 1 mile of the site and made available within 30 days of the Department’s order to establish the office. Please clarify the correct distance from the site and when the office is to be available for use. Also, please provide specifics for computers, printers and other office furnishings that are required as well as the minimum size requirements for the office. |
|
|
Answer:
A job specific special provision will be included in a future addendum describing the Field Office requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/22/2017 | Date Answered: 08/25/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Is the D-B Contractor required to provide a Project Materials Laboratory? If so, is the lab as specified in the RI Blue Book Section 929 or is there a job specific specification. |
|
|
Answer:
The D-B Contractor will not be required to provide a Project Materials Laboratory. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/22/2017 | Date Answered: 08/31/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Section 3.20.6 of RFP part 2 appears to state that the “the Department has developed mitigation plans and specifications for the handling of“ controlled and hazardous ”materials.” We do not believe that these mitigation plans and specifications have been provided in the RFP or addendum to date. Please verify and provide as necessary. Also, section 4.7 still states “Environmental Mitigation – TBD”. |
|
|
Answer:
Part 2, Section 3.20.6 of the RFP was revised under Addendum No. 7. Any reference to the Department developing mitigation plans and specifications has been removed from this section of the RFP by that addendum. Section 4.7 of Part 2 of the RFP will be deleted in its entirety in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/22/2017 | Date Answered: 08/25/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
On 6/7/17, the Department answered a question regarding an erroneous statement in Section 1.1.1 regarding the location of liquidated damages in the RFP. It still does not appear that any information on LD’s has been provided in Section 8 or anywhere else in the RFP. Please provide this information. |
|
|
Answer:
See Section 108.8 in Part 3 of the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/22/2017 | Date Answered: 08/25/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
To date, no Guide Special Provisions have been provided for Appendix B.02. If this section is to be used, please provide the relevant provisions. |
|
|
Answer:
Guide Specifications will be provided in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/22/2017 | Date Answered: 08/28/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
The RFP requires that the original RFP and all addenda be included with each copy of the technical proposal submission. Would it be acceptable to revise this to a requirement to provide a written/signed acknowledgement affirming receipt of the RFP documents and Addenda 1 through X? If this is not acceptable, we request that the requirement for providing the RFP and addenda be limited to just the original copy of the RFP. Both of these methods have been acceptable on previous RIDOT Design-Build proposals. |
|
|
Answer:
In reference to Part 1, Section 6.1: The requirement to submit “All Addenda” shall be defined as follows: Respondents may submit the individual RIVIP Addendum Cover Page and authorized RIDOT Cover Page(s) for each addendum issued in consecutive/chronological order. This information shall be included in a separate Appendix to the Technical Proposal. This change will be addressed in a future Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/22/2017 | Date Answered: 08/25/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide an estimated timeframe to carry in the project bid schedule for the utility company’s force account work required to complete the utility work shown in the BTC plans and described in the RFP. As the utility Companies will not provide estimates directly to us, we need a base timeframe to utilize for formulating a bid schedule and price. |
|
|
Answer:
The utility companies cannot provide an estimate to the Department without a specific construction scenario. It is the responsibility of the DB Team to estimate the timeframes based on the proposed construction activities. The companies should be able to give approximate timeframes. Also, see previous question and response. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/22/2017 | Date Answered: 08/25/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
1. RFP Part II, Section 5.5 states “No additional time or compensation will be provided resulting from delays due to utility coordination and staging. The DB entity shall be responsible for all work associated with progressing work, maintaining schedule, and resolving conflicts for the temporary and/or permanent utility relocations of the impacted utilities.” Section 8.3.1.3 states “When delays occur due to reasonable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the DB Entity, including, but not limited to…acts of other contracting parties over whose acts the DB Entity has not control…a time extension will be granted only if entitlement to a time extension has been clearly demonstrated to have impacted the critical path…” Section 8.3.1.4 states “Municipal Departments or Other Third Parties. If any part of the Work is delayed by public service corporations, municipal departments or other third partied, as time extension will be granted only if entitlement to a time extension has been clearly demonstrated by a documented time entitlement analysis.” From this, we understand that the DB Entity will be held responsible for the delay if the DB Entity fails to perform due diligence to expedite the work of the utility companies, but will not be held responsible if due diligence is performed and the utility companies still fails to perform in the expected time frame. Is this interpretation correct? |
|
|
Answer:
Your assessment of these provisions is correct. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/21/2017 | Date Answered: 08/25/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
For the Route 10 NB to 6 WB Profile on Sheet 1 of 4 provided in the BTC the K value for the sag vertical curve at Station 805+75 is 46.87 vs. the K value of 59 in Roadway Design Criteria Chart on Page 36-a, and on Sheet 3 of 4 provided in the BTC the K value for the sag vertical curve at Station 818+00 is 41.29 vs. the K value of 59 in the same chart. Based on the required roadway geometry the K values shown on the profiles seem to be more appropriate than the ones shown in the chart. Please review and advise. |
|
|
Answer:
The Route 10NB to Route 6WB profile sheets in the BTC were superseded, as noted on the sheet, due to the change in horizontal geometry to the current flyover. The K values listed in the charts reflect the profile for this ramp contained in the CAD files supplied to the DB Teams and are appropriate based on the proposed design speed. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/21/2017 | Date Answered: 08/25/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
For the Route 6 WB Profile on Sheet 1 of 3 provided in the BTC the K value for the crest vertical curve at Station 504+00 is 56.08 vs. the K value of 87 in Roadway Design Criteria Chart on Page 34-a, on Sheet 2 of 3 the K value shown for the sag vertical curve at Station 511+00 is 46.99 vs. the K value of 83 in the same chart, on Sheet 3 of 3 the K value shown for the sag vertical curve at Station 515+00 is 73.44 vs. the K value of 83 in the same chart, and on Sheet 3 of 3 the K value shown for the crest vertical curve at Station 518+50 is 76.57 vs. the K value of 87 in the same chart. Based on the required roadway geometry the K values shown on the profiles seem to be more appropriate than the ones shown in the chart. Please review and advise. |
|
|
Answer:
The K values depicted on the profiles for Route 6 WB provided in the BTC are more appropriate, however, as noted in the chart, a design exception will be required for these values, for which the DB Team is responsible for obtaining |
|
| Date Asked: 08/21/2017 | Date Answered: 08/25/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
For the Route 6 EB Profile on Sheet 1 of 2 provided in the BTC the K value for the crest vertical curve at Station 2027+00 is 41.15 vs. the K value of 56 in Roadway Design Criteria Chart on Page 34-a. Based on the required roadway geometry the K value shown on the profile seem to be more appropriate than the one shown in the chart. Please review and advise. |
|
|
Answer:
The K values depicted on the profiles for Route 6 EB provided in the BTC are more appropriate, however, as noted in the chart, a design exception will be required for these values, for which the DB Team is responsible for obtaining. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/14/2017 | Date Answered: 08/18/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Could RIDOT please clarify the desired right shoulder width for Ramp D, Route 6EB to Route 10SB. The BTC CAD drawings and the roadway design criteria tables show the right shoulder as 4 feet. The BTC bridge cross section (sheet 10 of 16) indicates a 5’-6” right shoulder. |
|
|
Answer:
The correct shoulder width is 4’ as shown on the BTC Highway Plans. This should be considered the minimum allowable width. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/11/2017 | Date Answered: 08/11/2017 |
| Poster: lucy murray | Company: RIDOT |
|
Question:
RIDOT is retracting 8/3/17 response posted to question RE: FORM N originally asked by BARLETTA on 8/1/17 and resubmitting the response as follows: |
|
|
Answer:
FORM N shall be DELETED in its entirety. A 100% Payment and Performance Bond shall be required of the selected D/B Team only and shall be applicable to the TOTAL Design/Build project cost. The Performance Bond will be requested of the selected Contractor as part of the Department's Post-Qualification process which information must be approved prior to issuance of contract award. A 5% BID BOND shall be required as part of the RFP submission to be included as part of the TECHNICAL Proposal documentation provided. Correction of this statement and specifics regarding inclusion of the required BID BOND shall be formally addressed in an upcoming Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/11/2017 | Date Answered: 08/18/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
We request that for bridge that span over the railroad, that a deflection limit of L/800 conforming to AASHTO Section 2.5.2.6.2 be allowed rather than the more stringent L/1100 criteria included in the RIDOT Bridge Design Manual. A prior question asked whether RIDOT would waive their LL Deflection criteria for all new bridges. The answer was that all bridges must conform to the Bridge Design Manual requirements. We respectfully offer a more specific question: Given the Amtrak clearance requirements for bridges over their tracks, would RIDOT consider a waiver for just the “L/1100” criterion of section 2.5.2 of the Bridge Design Manual, for certain bridges, provided that the remainder of that section’s criteria are followed? The specific citation in the Bridge Design Manual is “The vehicular deflection limiting criteria of L/1100 of the span may be waived subject to the approval of the Managing Bridge Engineer…” This waiver would apply only to bridges that span over Amtrak that do not carry pedestrian traffic. |
|
|
Answer:
The live load deflection requirement for the bridges over AMTRAK without sidewalks can be increased to the live load deflection limit of L/800. This specifications change will be addressed in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/10/2017 | Date Answered: 08/18/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
RFP Part 3, Section 102.14 (c) requires bidders to submit DBE Certification forms in the proposal. Appendix A Form P includes a Schedule of Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) form and a DBE commitment letter. Please confirm that only the Schedule of Participation and commitment letter are required to be submitted with the technical proposals and not the RIDOT DBE Utilization form, which is normally submitted post-bid. For the Schedule of Participation form, please confirm that only the percentage of design and construction to be performed by DBE’s are to be shown. |
|
|
Answer:
This issue will be clarified and addressed in a future Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/10/2017 | Date Answered: 08/16/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
RFP Part II, section 9.2 requires the RIDOT field office to be located within 5 miles of the project site and to be made available within 6 months of NTP. RFP Part III, Section 108.2 requires the RIDOT field office to be located within 1 mile of the site and made available within 30 days of the Department’s order to establish the office. Please clarify the correct distance from the site and when the office is to be available for use. Also, please provide specifics for computers, printers and other office furnishings that are required as well as the minimum size requirements for the office. |
|
|
Answer:
A job specific special provision will be included in a future addendum describing the Field Office requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/07/2017 | Date Answered: 08/18/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Could RIDOT please provide the existing/proposed typical sections for the one and two-way portions of Harris Avenue. The limits for each section and the limits of full depth and/or mill and pave would also be appreciated. |
|
|
Answer:
The configuration of the City streets shown on the BTC are schematic. The final design of these streets are the responsibility of the DB Team. Full depth reconstruction should be used wherever there is a reconfiguration of the roadway geometry (including intersections) and where the roadway profile is changing. Pavement milling and paving shall be used in areas where lane arrangements are being modified, but no profile change is proposed. The typical section shown in the BTC for the West Service Road should be used for guidance on the pavement structure on full depth reconstruction areas. |
|
| Date Asked: 08/01/2017 | Date Answered: 08/03/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Our surety has asked for clarification as to why a Labor and Material Payment Bond is required with the Technical Proposal (Form N – Labor and Material Payment Bond (7551330PH2A3)). They have indicated that they have not previously seen this requirement, as this bond is normally submitted with the Contract. If the intent was to provide certification that a Labor and Material Payment Bond can be provided to the proposer, please advise. |
|
|
Answer:
Form N should be considered informational at this time. This form applies to Construction Phase of this project, not the Technical Proposal Phase. Reference for inclusion of this form in the Technical Proposal will be addressed in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/28/2017 | Date Answered: 08/03/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Section 4.4 Compensation(Stipends) for Proposal Preparation indicates that a Stipend Agreement is provided in Appendix A. It doesn’t appear that the agreement was attached. |
|
|
Answer:
The Stipend Agreement is being finalized by RIDOT at this time. It will be provided in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/28/2017 | Date Answered: 08/03/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
FHWA-1273 is included as part of Appendix A Forms. Could you please confirm what needs to be done for this document in our Technical Proposal. |
|
|
Answer:
Form FHWA-1273 was provided for information at this time. It must be incorporated in each construction contract funded under Title 23. The DB Entity must include a completed form in all construction contracts (including subcontracts). Inclusion of this form applies to Construction Phase of this project, not the Technical Proposal Phase. Reference for inclusion of this form in the Technical Proposal will be addressed in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/28/2017 | Date Answered: 08/03/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Form G-Debarment Certification included with the Original RFP is currently not shown in the Appendix A Index- Page 1 of 1 issued as part of Addendum 7. Could you please confirm that this form should be submitted. |
|
|
Answer:
Form G- Debarment Certification is required and should be submitted with the Technical Proposal. It will be added in a future Addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/27/2017 | Date Answered: 08/03/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
“Section 7.3. AMTRAK's Role”- indicates that “RIDOT is negotiating a Force Account Agreement with Amtrak which defines Amtrak's roles and responsibilities relative to the Work. (A copy of the Force Account Agreement will be provided once executed.) It is anticipated that elements of the Work will be subject to review, approval, inspection, testing, and/or acceptance by Amtrak, particularly the Work associated with the design and construction of the track, retaining walls and platform structures. DB Entity shall coordinate all activity necessary to assure timely Amtrak review of design and construction of the Amtrak Work. In addition, Amtrak will be responsible for constructing any portions of the work pertaining to modifications to their rail systems infrastructure described in the force account which includes track, train control and signaling, communications, and overhead electrification. The DB Entity shall be responsible for final design of any such modifications required as part of the Final Design under this project, securing Amtrak approval, and coordinating division of work and construction activities with Amtrak to maintain the overall project schedule.” Existing Bridge No’s. 050401 – Route 6 over AMTRAK & Route 10 NB & SB and 051001 – Tobey St. over AMTRAK have Amtrak catenary power “components” attached to the bridge at various locations. Proposed bridges No’s 050401B-Route 6W over Amtrak, 050401C-Route 6E over Amtrak, 050401D-Route 6E to 10S and the Harris Bridge over AMTRAK would appear to need to be designed to accommodate catenary power components. Please clarify if the force account will address the requirements for this work. |
|
|
Answer:
The RIDOT has executed a “Master Agreement for Design and Construction of Public Highway Bridges over the NEC in Rhode Island”. This agreement and supplementary text to Part 2, Section 7 will be included in a future addendum. The Force Account Agreement between RIDOT and AMTRAK is still under development. This agreement will be preliminary during the procurement phase, since final design has not yet commenced. The Technical proposals shall be developed under the assumption that the new bridges at these locations will have similar attachments to the AMTRAK appurtenances. The text in Section 7 is still applicable. The DB Entity will be responsible for the design of the attachments, and AMTRAK will be responsible for constructing any portions of the work pertaining to modifications to their rail systems infrastructure. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/09/2017 | Date Answered: 07/11/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide existing traffic signal plans including phasing and timing for the following intersections: • Rte. 6 WB at Hartford Ave. • Rte. 6 EB at Hartford Ave. • Rte. 6 EB at Broadway • Rte. 10 SB on/off ramps at Union Ave. • Rte. 10 NB on/off at Union Ave. • Rte. 10 NB on-ramp at Westminster St/Rte. 10 SB off ramp at Westminster St. • Westminster St. at Broadway/ Valley St. • Library/ Manton at Westminster St./ Plainfield/Hartford Ave. • Westminster St. at Barton St. • Barton St. at Broadway • Tobey St. at Broadway • Cranston St at Huntington Ave. • Union Ave at Webster Ave. |
|
|
Answer:
The signals noted are owned by the City of Providence. Proposer should contact the City of Providence Traffic Engineering Section to request any information related to City owned signals. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/09/2017 | Date Answered: 07/12/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Are the existing vehicle detection radar (VDR) and VMS located at 41°49'18.02"N, 71°26'9.42"W going to be removed, or relocated? These devices are not identified in the list of ITS hardware (Part 2, Pages 77/78). Same question for the existing VDR located at 41°48'44.15"N, 71°26'23.86"W. |
|
|
Answer:
The 2 RVD’s are currently operational and are to remain. At the time that the new DMS are installed, tested and operational, the trailer mounted VMS can be removed and returned to RIDOT. The RFP will be revised under a future addendum to reflect this. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/09/2017 | Date Answered: 07/12/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Will the existing ITS conduit and fiber be abandoned within the project limits? |
|
|
Answer:
There is no RIDOT owned conduit and fiber optic cable within the project area. The existing ITS sites are directly connected via leased line service or wireless modem back to the TMC. The RFP will be revised under a future addendum to reflect this. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2017 | Date Answered: 07/27/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Can RIDOT please provide the Stormwater Control Plan for the Woonasquatucket River. Addendum 3 page 70 indicates the drainage design shall consider all suggestions provided in the TMDL and Stormwater Control Plan. The TMDL is available on-line but proposers do not have access to the Stormwater Control Plan. |
|
|
Answer:
The Stormwater Control Plan will be forwarded to the DB Trams in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2017 | Date Answered: 07/11/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
“The existing conditions VISSIM models provided in Addendum No. 5, Appendix B.08 have not been calibrated (assuming free flow beyond the project limits). Please confirm that these models should be calibrated based on existing downstream traffic conditions (i.e., excessive congestion affecting traffic flow within the project limits as a result of geometric constraints, such as short weave segments and/or sharp radii ramps) to accurately reflect existing conditions within the project limits during the peak traffic periods.” |
|
|
Answer:
The VISSIM models provided reflect existing geometric and traffic conditions within the project limits and extending beyond the project limits to include the adjacent interchanges in each direction of Routes 6 and 10. These models include speed profiles based on geometric constraints (such as sharp curvature) and regulatory restrictions (such as speed limits) within these models limits. The limits and content included are intended to provide the bidders with a tool that includes the data necessary to model and analyze conditions (existing, during construction, or after construction) at the project-level, and are not intended to model regional operations beyond the vicinity of the project site. Although it is acknowledged that at some periods traffic within the project location may be affected by downstream congestion on other highways or other irregular congestion events, these are not considered base (or future) conditions for this project, and it is not required that the bidders attempt to incorporate these dynamic conditions into the model. Although not required to be incorporated, the VISSIM models are intended to be a tool for bidder use, and can be modified by the bidders at their discretion. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/06/2017 | Date Answered: 07/10/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
As a follow-up to a previous question on the existing Amtrak catenary structures and their cables we would like to obtain the elevations of the electrified cables in the vicinity of the bridges at the following locations: • Route 6W over Amtrak and Proposed Ramp-BTC Bridge Sheet 8 of 16 • Route 6E over Amtrak and Proposed Ramp-BTC Bridge Sheet 9 of 16 • Ramp D-Route 6E to 10S-BTC Bridge Sheet 10 of 16 • Proposed Bridge-Harris Ave over Amtrak-BTC Bridge Sheet 15 of 16 |
|
|
Answer:
Response RIDOT will request this information from AMTRAK and provide in a future addendum if it can be obtained. RIDOT cannot guarantee this information can be obtained or a date by which this can be provided. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/06/2017 | Date Answered: 07/27/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide Proposers with as-build plans for ITS devices and interconnection from the existing devices to the TMC. This information would include the existing communication Network Diagram, the network Architecture Diagram and pertinent information on the headend communication equipment (Ethernet, Modems, etc.) at the TMC. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT does not have as-built plans for the Existing ITS sites (as described in the RFP documents). The Department will provide a one-line network diagram in a future addendum showing the basic network topology for the Existing ITS devices. The vast majority of RIDOT’s ITS sites, including those on the 6/10 connector, communicate directly back to the TMC via a point-to-point leased line service (provided by Cox Cable). All new ITS equipment for this project shall have new fiber installed up to the existing Providence Viaduct fiber network, which can provide connectivity without the need for leased line service. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/06/2017 | Date Answered: 07/10/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Using the information provided on page 78 of Part 2 of the RFP, there is a discrepancy between the ‘described location’ and ‘Map Link’ (GPS) for both the proposed Wavetronics HD RVD (ID 11) and IP CCTV (ID 15). For example, the GPS coordinates for the Wavetronics unit places it at Westminster Street while the description places it at Union Avenue. Please clarify. |
|
|
Answer:
The following changes will be made to the table provided in Section 3.18.7 of Part 2 of the RFP in a future addendum: ID 11 Description shall be changed to “ROUTE 10 SB AT WESTMINSTER STREET” ID 15 Description shall be changed to “ROUTE 10 SB AT DEAN STREET” |
|
| Date Asked: 07/06/2017 | Date Answered: 07/10/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide Proposers with plans of existing signing within the project limits. RFP Appendix B.04 does not include existing signing plan sheets. |
|
|
Answer:
Accurate sign inventory plans may not exist, therefore, the DB Entity shall inventory existing signs for use in developing the technical proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/06/2017 | Date Answered: 07/10/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
From yesterday’s discussion, like the following to be submitted to RIDOT: As a response to a bidder question about traffic data, the Department provided the following response, “As noted in Section 3.12 of Part 2 of the RFP, the DB Entity is responsible for the final design of all traffic engineering aspects of the project, including modeling the future traffic conditions under the final design, in accordance with the requirements in the RFP.” In Addendum 5, the Department provided existing traffic data but no future traffic data. Will the Department be providing future traffic data and modeling relative to the BTC? Since the intent of this project is to replace deficient bridges, what are the Proposer’s obligations should the future traffic volumes and modeling indicate substandard capacity? |
|
|
Answer:
The technical and price proposal shall be based on the BTC plans provided. Current Traffic counts were supplied for use in Traffic Management Design. Modeling of future traffic will be required in final design. If changes result from this analysis, they will be subject to a change order. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/06/2017 | Date Answered: 07/11/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Per the RFP Part 2, Section 9.6.9 stay-in-place (SIP) forms are only allowed on bridge spans over the railroad. As SIP forms would provide a significant time and cost savings, we request that they be allowed for incorporation into all the bridge structures. SIP forms have recently been specified on RIDOT new bridges which included bituminous wearing surfaces, such as of Central Street Bridge No. 449, Barton Corner Bridge. Additionally, SIP forms are allowed by several state DOT’s on bridges with bituminous wearing surfaces and should be considered as a form of accelerated bridge construction for the 6/10 Connector. |
|
|
Answer:
As per section 9.6.9 of Part 2 of the RFP, stay-in-place (SIP) forms will not be allowed, with the exception of those meeting the requirements of the exception cases noted in this Section. RIDOT's preference is for the final design and construction to be in conformance with the Rhode Island LRFD Bridge Design Manual through the use of removable forms, which allows for future inspection of the underside of the bridge decks. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/27/2017 | Date Answered: 07/05/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Section 3.9.2-Roadway Design Criteria for “New Harris Ave” . The controlling criteria for “12. Minimum Vertical Clearance (FT) as proposed it is 21.5 over RR.” Bridge Sheet 15 of 16 shows this as 21’-8”. Please confirm. In addition, either clearance would appear to require a design exception from Amtrak since their design standard vertical clearance for this area is 24’-3”. If a design exception is required from Amtrak will RIDOT be obtaining it since there is no guarantee that the Design Build Team would be able to? |
|
|
Answer:
The clearance noted on Bridge Sheet 15 is approximate, since it is based on limited survey information. The Technical proposal should be based on a vertical clearance that is equal to or greater than the 21.5’ clearance noted in the RFP. An AMTRAK vertical clearance waiver may be required for this bridge. The Department will work with the DB Entity to obtain this waiver during final design. Minor adjustments to the roadway profile may be required after receipt of final survey information by the DB Entity. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/27/2017 | Date Answered: 07/05/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Section 3.9.2-Roadway Design Criteria for “New Harris Ave” . The controlling criteria for “7. Superelevation (%)” as proposed it is 0%.” Please confirm that this is the design intent based on AASHTO Table 2 which stated that "superelevation may be optional on low-speed urban streets". |
|
|
Answer:
Based on RIDOT’s highway design manual and AASHTO, low speed urban roads do not need to be superelevated. A normal crown section should be used, as shown on the typical sections provided in the BTC plans. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/27/2017 | Date Answered: 07/05/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Section 3.9.2-Roadway Design Criteria for “New Harris Ave” . The controlling criteria for “4. Minimum Radius (FT) as proposed it is 167.” It would appear that this radius would require a design exception. Please confirm. |
|
|
Answer:
The table for “New Harris Avenue” provided in Section 3.9.2 of Part 2 of the RFP will be updated in a future addendum to indicate that “Yes” a design exception is required for the as proposed value of 167’ for “4. MINIMUM RADIUS (FT)” which is less than the 279’ Design Standard. Section 3.9.2 of Part 2 of the RFP will also be revised in a future addendum to note that if a Design Exception is required for the as proposed value for a particular design as provided in the BTC, this will not require the submission of an ATC. An ATC will be required if a Proposer seeks to change a proposed design standard from the values shown for the BTC that results in a new Design Exception being required. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/27/2017 | Date Answered: 07/05/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Section 3.9.2-Roadway Design Criteria for “New Harris Ave”. The controlling criteria for “2. Sight Distance (FT) ( See Note Below).” Please clarify where the note is located |
|
|
Answer:
The note was omitted and will be added in a future addendum to state “Controlling sight distance based on the worst case of horizontal or vertical.” |
|
| Date Asked: 06/27/2017 | Date Answered: 07/05/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The roadway design tables included in “Section 3.9.2-Roadway Design Criteria” reference the 2004 version of AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Please confirm that the D/B Entity is to use the 2011 version of this publication and if this is the case please update the roadway design tables in the RFP . |
|
|
Answer:
The 2011 version of the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets shall be used. RIDOT will evaluate the tables provided in Section 3.9.2 of Part 2 of the RFP and re-issue the tables with any revisions required in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2017 | Date Answered: 07/05/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Based on the anticipated land required for stormwater BMP’s, is RIDOT intending to purchase off-site property for BMP's? If yes, please identify those areas in the BTC. If not, is RIDOT expecting the DB entity to identify off-site areas and propose these areas as an ATC? |
|
|
Answer:
Proposers shall make every effort to incorporate stormwater treatment within the existing right-of-way. If a Proposers determines that it is not feasible to do so, they shall submit an ATC identifying potential right-of-way needs for this purpose. The ATC should identify justification for why these areas cannot be included within the existing right-of-way. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/21/2017 | Date Answered: 06/21/2017 |
| Poster: sacardi@cardi.com | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Type your questions here.Part 2, Appendix B.08 “Existing Traffic Volumes” has yet to be issued. In addition to lack of information for existing traffic volumes, we also lack turning movement counts, projected volumes and any traffic modeling whatsoever. Pre-ATC conferences are 4 weeks out (July 18th). As traffic volumes and turning movement counts may form the basis of several different complex scenarios for ATCs related to maintenance of traffic, it is imperative that this addendum and any other available traffic information be issued as soon as possible. If this information cannot be released immediately, we request that the pre-ATC meetings be postponed to a date one month after the issue of Appendix B.08. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will provide existing traffic data and modeling of existing traffic in the next addendum to be issued on Friday June 23, 2017. As noted in Section 3.12 of Part 2 of the RFP, the DB Entity is responsible for the final design of all traffic engineering aspects of the project, including modeling the future traffic conditions under the final design, in accordance with the requirements in the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/21/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Would the Department please provide the boring logs for the geotechnical data report issued in Addendum #4 in GINT format. Please also provide the boring location plan in AutoCAD format. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will provide the requested boring log information and boring location plan, including the AutoCAD file, in the next addendum to be issued on Friday June 23, 2017. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/21/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Part 2 Section 5.7 reads “Should the DB Entity propose for its convenience any relocations other than those described in the RFP, the DB Entity shall be responsible for any additional costs and any scheduling changes caused by those relocations.” Please clearly describe the anticipate relocations of utilities, as this are not clearly defined in the RFP as stated in section 5.7. |
|
|
Answer:
A utility relocation concept is depicted in the BTC Construction Staging Sequence plans associated with the Broadway and Westminster Street Bridges. Should the DB Entity propose a different utility relocation concept than shown in the BTC, it shall require the submission of an ATC including an assessment and justification for the impact on the project cost, schedule, risk and an assessment of the change in cost to the owner of the facilities and to RIDOT. Section 5.7 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised in the next addendum to be issued on Friday June 23, 2017 to reflect this. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/19/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Part 2 Section 5.1.1.6. Gas reads “National Grid – Gas identified a gas regulator facility located on the southern side of Westminster Street, East of AMTRAK facilities and West of the Route 6 overpass. Preliminary discussions estimate the gas regulator facility may require up to 1 to1-1/2 years to relocate. This timeline should be taken into consideration when coordinating and scheduling utility relocations. National Grid-Gas currently has a facility improvement study under way. The DB Entity shall coordinate with the design of the improved facilities.” Please provide documentation pertaining to this study. |
|
|
Answer:
No formal documentation is available from National Grid at this time regarding the study noted. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/19/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Part 2 Section 5.1.1.2 reads “National Grid -Electric is undergoing a facility improvement study. The DB Entity will coordinate the BTC design with these facilities.” Please provide information pertaining to this study relevant to the 6/10 reconstruction project. |
|
|
Answer:
No formal documentation is available from National Grid at this time regarding the study noted. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/19/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Part 2 Section 5.2 reads “If utility assets are damaged by the Design-Build Firm , it shall notify the affected Utility Owners and the Department, and assume any costs related to the repair.” This should not be the case for mismarked utilities. If the owner mismarks the utility, the owner of the utility is normally held responsible for the cost of repair. |
|
|
Answer:
The DB firm shall not be held liable for mismarked utilities resulting in damage. Section 5.2 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised to reflect this in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2017 | Date Answered: 07/05/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Part 2 Section 4.7 reads “Environmental Mitigation - TBD” Please expand on this. |
|
|
Answer:
Environmental Mitigation may be required depending on the design prepared by the Design-Build (DB) team. If alterations are proposed to freshwater wetlands, flowing bodies of water or other regulated area, mitigation will need to be provided in the final design as required by DEM Rules and Regulations. Section 4.7 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised in a future addendum to reflect this. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/21/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Part 2 Section 3.20.6. Controlled and Hazardous Materials reads “The Department has completed an assessment of the Site and determined that there are hazardous materials present. The Department has developed mitigation plans and specifications for the handling of these materials. These plans and specifications are included in the BTC. No further design is required for this work, and this work may not be changed without the Department's advance written permission to do so.” Where is this assessment of the site and determination? |
|
|
Answer:
The Department has completed limited subsurface investigations of soils and shallow groundwater. The Limited Subsurface Investigation Report was provided in Addendum No. 4. The DB Entity is responsible for reviewing the available information as part of the preparation of their proposal. Sections 1.4.6 and 3.20.6 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to reflect this. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2017 | Date Answered: 06/19/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Section 3.20.7 reads “Any costs associated with this “Vehicle Emissions” Section shall be included in the general cost of the Contract. In addition, there shall be no additional time granted to the DB Entity for compliance with this section. The DB Entity’s compliance with this section and any associated laws or regulations shall not be grounds for claims as outlined in Section XX.” Where is Section XX located? |
|
|
Answer:
This reference should read “Sections 105.19 and 105.20 of Part 3 of the RFP”. Section 3.20.7 will be revised in a future addendum to reflect this. Sections 105.19 and 105.20 of Part 3 of the RFP will be provided in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/16/2017 | Date Answered: 06/19/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Please clarify the intent for the location of the bike path pedestrian bridge at Dike St. The bridge appears to be located well beyond the State ROW and appears to be blocking the entrance to the adjacent building. This bridge would require more than “minor adjustments” as has been the clarification for previous bike path layout beyond the ROW. |
|
|
Answer:
The proposed bike path pedestrian bridge is within the City of Providence Right of Way for Dike Street and has been previously coordinated with the City. The DB Proposer shall continue that coordination throughout design. The adjacent building will continue to have sidewalk access to their doorway as exists now and the property across the street will continue to be allowed a curb cut for parking lot access. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/16/2017 | Date Answered: 06/21/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Please provide the BTC design for the new separate storm drainage system, including potential outfall locations? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will not be preparing a BTC drainage design for this project. The DB Entity will be responsible for developing a storm water drainage design that matches the roadway design provided in their proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/16/2017 | Date Answered: 06/21/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Can the Department provide the Proposers with a copy of the photo control report associated with the survey data for the Project? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will provide available photo control information in the next addendum to be issued on Friday June 23, 2017. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/15/2017 | Date Answered: 06/19/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
In Stage 1B of the BTC staging plans, the Westminster to RI-10 SB on-ramp appears to be open to traffic. It appears that the ramp as shown can only accommodate traffic traveling eastbound on Westminster. Please confirm that the BTC is not requiring traffic heading westbound on Westminster to make a left turn onto the ramp. |
|
|
Answer:
The ramp was intended to be open to both directions as long as possible prior to demolishing that portion of the existing bridge, at which time it would be closed to both directions of travel. The DB Proposer is encouraged to investigate ways of maintaining the ramp movement as long as possible. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/15/2017 | Date Answered: 07/05/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT be providing information on the existing AMTRAK catenary structures and cables including the elevations of the cables in the area where the proposed bridges pass over the catenary ? |
|
|
Answer:
An accurate AMTRAK wire survey does not currently exist. If a Proposer has specific information they would like AMTRAK to obtain and provide, they should submit this request in an RFI for RIDOT to coordinate with AMTRAK on obtaining this information if possible. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/15/2017 | Date Answered: 06/19/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please clarify what is intended by RFP Part 2, Section 3.14.14, Bullet 3: "Alternate closure pour details making use of other materials.. ". There does not appear to be a standard closure pour detail or required closure pour materials presented in the BTC. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will provide a BTC Closure Pour Detail and a closure pour special provision including material and performance requirements for closure pours in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/15/2017 | Date Answered: 06/19/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
In the event the proposed superstructure for the Route 6 WB flyover ramp consists of box girders, will RIDOT allow SIP forms? Typically SIP forms are used for box girder bridges since forms cannot be removed due the lateral bracing inside the box. SIP forms are shown in RIDOT Bridge Standards 8.10. |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will accept a final design that includes the use of SIP forms on the new bridge carrying Route 10 NB to Route 6 WB if the bridge superstructure is comprised of steel box girders. The use of SIP in this case is due to concerns of internal bracing conflicting with the removal of conventional formwork. SIP forms will only be allowed for the portion of the bridge deck directly over the interior of each steel box girder and located between the webs of the box girder. SIP forms will not be allowed for deck overhangs and for portions of the bridge deck located between box girders, as these areas are accessible for formwork removal. The use of SIP forms must be in accordance with the RIDOT LRFD Bridge Design Manual and RIDOT Bridge Design Standards. Section 3.14.8 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to reflect this. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/15/2017 | Date Answered: 06/19/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Currently the RFP Part 2 Section 3.14.15 prohibits expansion joints except at bifurcating roadways. The length of Route 6 WB Flyover structure (approximately 1100 ft) and curvature of the structure will cause very large and complex thermal movements. Will RIDOT permit transverse deck expansion joints on the Route 6 WB Flyover? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will accept a final design for the new bridge carrying the ramp connecting Route 10 NB to Route 6 WB that incorporates an intermediate expansion joint in the bridge superstructure. The expansion joint shall be located in close proximity to the high point in the bridge profile in order to minimize the amount of runoff reaching the joint location. Section 3.14.15 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to reflect this. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Can the RIDOT Live Load Deflection criteria be waived for the new bridges? |
|
|
Answer:
All bridges must conform to the RIDOT LRFD Bridge Design Manual requirements for live load deflections. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
What are the road closure restrictions and or allowable duration of closures of 6WB/10SB associated with the construction and erection of the four temporary bridges facilitating traffic on 6WB/ 10SB during the initial stages of the BTC? |
|
|
Answer:
The intent is to build these structures during off peak (nights and weekends). It is assumed that this portion of the viaduct (Route 6WB and Route 10SB) can be reduced to two lanes on weekends during construction of the temporary foundations. It is also assumed that the Tobey Street on-ramp would be closed during the construction of these temporary bridges. Weekend full closures of either Route 6WB or Route 10SB may be necessary, but should be minimized or eliminated. The required closures and traffic management should be clearly identified in the technical proposals based on an analysis of the existing traffic. The DB Entities are encouraged to investigate innovative ways of building these temporary bridges and the permanent Broadway and Westminster Street Bridges with minimal disruption to traffic while be cognizant of the overall project schedule. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
The RFP makes note of demolition requiring substructure including footings being removed. Is it allowable to leave footings in place if they will remain below grade and do not interfere with new construction? |
|
|
Answer:
As stated in Section 3.14.5 of Part 2 of the RFP, demolition and removal shall include the entire superstructure, substructure and footings. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/08/2017 | Date Answered: 06/09/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Some of the BTC bridge sections show details with granite bridge curb cast with the parapets and some do not. Please clarify the required bridge parapet / granite bridge curb details. |
|
|
Answer:
Granite curbing is not required on parapets of bridges that require a crash tested safety barrier system. Revised BTC plans will be provided in a future addendum to reflect this. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide proposers with information relating to temporary shut downs of utility service, durations, notifications and other similar restrictions. |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Entity is responsible for contacting the utility companies to obtain this information. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide Proposers with plans and status of any planned utility work within the Project Limits. |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Entity is responsible for contacting the utility companies to obtain this information. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
What is the status of the NGRID - Electric facility and Gas facility improvement study? |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Entity is responsible for contacting NGRID to acquire information related to this study. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
The BTC, survey mapping and historical construction drawings show utilities within the Project Limits. the RFP notes that, "Meetings have been held with utility companies on the subject of utility location and ownership. The information obtained from this investigation is provided on the BTC Plans, but it was supplied by third parties and should be considered only approximate." Please confirm that utility information provided in the CADD plans conforms with information obtained from the preliminary utility investigation and information provided by third parties. |
|
|
Answer:
Utility information forwarded to RIDOT by the utility companies will be provided in a future addendum. This information does not relieve Proposers of their responsibility under Section 5.2 of Part 2 of the RFP for coordinating with the Department and all utility owners to arrange for required utility relocations on the Project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/06/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
The RFP requires the DB to review design plans and coordinate and monitor the work of any entity performing or proposing work adjacent to the project. The list of entities and local agencies is extensive and the requirement is quite broad in nature. Please provide the Proposers with a list of specific projects where the Department expects such coordination is warranted. |
|
|
Answer:
The Rhode Island State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is depicted graphically at the following site (http://ridoa.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html). This website contains information on adjacent projects. It is the responsibility of the Proposer to seek out and identify with any other entity’s work on other public or private projects in the area on and adjacent to the Site. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/05/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
We respectfully request that the Department expedite it’s conflict of interest considerations. Any documents prepared for the Department regarding the 6/10 Connector project by Respondent’s team members should be release for all teams use as soon as possible. With the limited time provided in the RFP to prepare ATC's and the expenditure of resources to develop designs lacking information that another team may already have creates an unfair bid advantage that should be resolved as quickly as possible. |
|
|
Answer:
The final BTC plan is different than previously developed plans as a result of the NEPA process. Previous plans are no longer valid. Major changes included the inclusion of the high level fly-over ramp, elimination of the low level ramp at Westminster Street, reconfiguration of Route 10 NB and SB in the vicinity of the fly-over ramp, and reconfigurations of the Westminster Street Bridge, Broadway Bridge, and the Tobey Street Bridge. These changes to the BTC plans continued until mid-May and were made available to both teams as soon as possible and at the same time. A planned revision to the project schedule that will be included in a future addendum will provide more time for teams to produce technical proposals. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
The RFP Part 1, Section 2.3 lists the proposed procurement schedule and shows a NTP for preliminary engineering anticipated for November 15, 2017. The following paragraph states that a second NTP for final design and construction activities is anticipated to follow on o. Is the State expecting to issue an NTP for Early Design and Construction to enable "Shovels in the Ground" before the end of the year 2017. Please provide details for proposed 2017 construction work. |
|
|
Answer:
The project schedule will be revised in a future addendum. The Notice to Proceed date will be adjusted to approximately December 20, 2017. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Has the Department established Force Accounts with the Utilities? We understand that this may need to be done for the Utilities to cooperate with the Respondent’s during the proposal phase. |
|
|
Answer:
The development of Utility agreements are in progress at this time. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Does the Department have utility plans, listing of utilities or conflict matrices with information on the multitude of utilities in the project area? If so, please release these. Their does not appear to be an appendix for this. |
|
|
Answer:
Utility information forwarded to RIDOT by the utility companies will be provided in a future addendum. This information does not relieve Proposers of their responsibility under Section 5.2 of Part 2 of the RFP for coordinating with the Department and all utility owners to arrange for required utility relocations on the Project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Section 1.1.1 of Part II of the RFP states that “Milestones, Incentives, Disincentives and Liquidated Damages are outlined in Section 9 Part II of the RFP.” Section 9, Part II is titled Construction Requirements and has no information for milestones, incentives, disincentives and LD’s. Please provide this missing information. |
|
|
Answer:
The 8th paragraph of Section 1.1.1 of Part II of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to indicate that Milestones, Incentives, Disincentives and Liquidated Damages are outlined in Section 8 of Part II of RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Reference is made to specific sections of Appendix sections A.01, A.02 and A.03, . It does not appear that Appendix A is included, yet no mention is made that it is “To be provided by addendum” as was done for several sections in Appendix B. Will the State provide Appendix A and the specific sections of Appendix sections A.01, A.02 and A.03? |
|
|
Answer:
References to Appendix A.01, A.02 and A.03 will be revised under a future addendum to reference Appendix B.01 and B.02. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Will the State have provisions for diesel, liquid asphalt, steel and cement escalation? |
|
|
Answer:
The Department will evaluate the need for these provisions and may include applicable specifications in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Are there any specialty items to be designated? |
|
|
Answer:
No specialty items are anticipated for this project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide a specification for the State field office, including required space, computers, furniture, and time frame for which the office is required. |
|
|
Answer:
A Special Provision for “Field Office and Materials Laboratory” will be provided under a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Can the DOT please provide a schedule to the proposers for ATC meeting's to occur between June 15 -29, 2017? |
|
|
Answer:
A more detailed schedule of ATC meetings will be included in a future addendum. The dates will be adjusted as part of the overall schedule change that will be included in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Relative to the CADD files provided at the Pre-Proposl meeting on May 25th, please provide the date the topo was created. Please also provide Proposers with the DTM which was used to generate the contours. |
|
|
Answer:
The topography used for BTC development was based on Lidar data from RIDOT. It is approximate; however it is acceptable to use this for technical proposals. It should be understood that minor changes may be required in final design as a result of the final field edited survey that is to be completed by the DB Entity. Please refer to Section 3.8 of Part 2 the RFP which provides additional information and requirements on the requirements of the Design Build Entity to provide any and all survey required for the proposed design and construction. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide proposers with CADD files to support the bridge plans provided in the BTC |
|
|
Answer:
A disc containing the CAD files listed will be made available to each Proposer on the afternoon of Friday June 9, 2017 at Room 110 of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation; however it should be noted that these files are schematic.” |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide the following information described in the RFP but not included in the appendices: - Plans for the new lighting installed on Westminster Street in 2012; - The ITS “map” alluded to in Part 2 Section 3.18.1 - Utility agreements; utility information provided to the Department by the utility owners and minutes of any meetings/discussions betewen the Department and utility owners relative to the project - A copy of the RR Agreement with Amtrak (even if in draft form). |
|
|
Answer:
Lighting on Westminster Street was installed by the City of Providence. The proposed lighting needs to be similar to, but need not be an exact match to the existing lighting. The final lighting design shall be coordinated with the City of Providence. The ITS “map” can be found in Section 3.18.7 of Part 2 of the RFP. Utility information and mapping will be provided in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
"Please provide the missing information in the appendices including: - Environmental Permit Applications - Environmental Compliance Reports - Existing Traffic volumes - Geotechnical Data Report - Geotechnical Baseline Report" |
|
|
Answer:
The following information will be provided in an upcoming addendum: Environmental Compliance Reports, Existing Traffic Volumes, Geotechnical Data Reports and Geotechnical Baseline Report. No Environmental Permit Applications have been prepared or submitted for review under this project at this time. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
With the limited time provided in the RFP schedule, the missing information in the appendices inhibits the proposers from having sufficient time to properly review RFP documents, consider and prepare Best Value ATC's. Would RIDOT consider Revising the RFP Schedule as follows? Confidential Pre-ATC Meetings July 1 - 15, 2017 Initial ATC Submission Deadline July 21, 2017 Initial ATC Review the State July 28, 2017 ATC Proposal Deadline August 11, 2017 ATC Determinations the State August 18, 2017 |
|
|
Answer:
The deadline for the submission of the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal will be changed to November 1, 2017. The deadline for submission of ATCs will also be adjusted accordingly. This will be included in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
RFP Appendix B.04. Please provide plans for Bridges 92601 and 92701 over Amtrak |
|
|
Answer:
These bridges are not included in the project. Plans for these bridges are available in the RIDOT plan file room. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Can all the existing CAD files associted with the PDF files located in the following RFP folder (7551330PH2RFP/Part2/7551330PH2RFP_Appendix B/B.03_Base Techincal Concept Plans) be made available for use. To date it appears only a portion of existing Highway cad files have been supplied |
|
|
Answer:
The CAD files listed will be provided. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Are there traffic restrictions anticipated (no trucks, for example) for the construction of the temporary bridges on 6WB/10SB associated with the BTC? |
|
|
Answer:
No traffic restrictions are anticipated for this work. Reduced traffic speeds and lane closures may be required for weekend work to accommodate the construction of these temporary structures. If traffic restrictions provide a significant benefit, they should be submitted as an ATC. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Part 2 - 1.4.2 Right of way. Where is the existing ROW identified in the BTC? It does not appear to be inlcuded in the available CAD files provided by RIDOT to date. |
|
|
Answer:
The approximate ROW limits are included in the CAD files. The layer may be turned off in the file noted. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Are there any circumstances where the 1600 veh/hr/ln capacity threshold can be exceeded? |
|
|
Answer:
The value of 1600 veh/hr/ln should be used for the purposes of developing the technical proposals. The DB Entity may submit an ATC for exceedance of this value, and would need to determine the impact of this change on traffic, and demonstrate a significant benefit to the overall construction process. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide further direction related to detour routes. For example, would it be permissible to close a secondary roadway and detour traffic to another nearby secondary roadway? The desired direction from the Department would indicate information such as permissible changes in traffic volumes and allowable durations for detours. |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Entity is responsible for determining appropriate detour routes. All detours will need to be verified by the DB Entity through the use of traffic modeling (VISSIM). It is anticipated that the closures of Route 6EB and WB will require a detour using Route I-295, Route 37, and I-95, combined with variable message signs and traffic monitoring. Detouring of City Streets may be acceptable as an ATC, however the DB Entity is responsible for coordination with the City of Providence and obtaining approvals from the City of Providence. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide Proposers with hourly ADT counts along the corridors and ramps. |
|
|
Answer:
Existing ADT counts will be included in a future addendum |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Please provide Proposers with any turning movement counts for the secondary road intersections along US 6/ SR 10 mainline. This would include all local road intersections especially anything in Olneyville Square, Harris Ave, Broadway, Plainfield St. and Westminster St. |
|
|
Answer:
Existing traffic count information will be included in a future addendum |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
It is our understanding that both a Syncho model and VISSIM model were previously created for the BRT concept. Can the Department provide Proposers with both of these models? |
|
|
Answer:
The BRT design is no longer being pursued. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Can Proposers be provided with a copy of the traffic simulation model for the secondary and US 6/ SR 10 mainline? Desired information would include all local road intersections especially anything in Olneyville Square, Harris Ave, Broadway, Plainfield St. and Westminster St. |
|
|
Answer:
A VISSIM model will be included in a future addendum. DB Entities will be responsible for modeling their proposed design. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
In Part 2 Section 3.15.2, it states, "The new bridges shall conform to the requirements and concepts shown in the Base Technical Concept (BTC) sketch plans." In Part 2 Section 3.14.6 the RFP indictes that the BTC plans are schematic in nature and are not to be relied upon. Which statement should Proposers rely on? |
|
|
Answer:
The bridges shall generally conform to the layout shown. Locations of abutments and piers are approximate. The bridges shown on the BTC plans were laid out based on the staging plans and the final layout of the roadways. The BTC plans contain notes that allow for adjustments to locations and configurations of abutments and piers. Preliminary designs for beams were not included in the development of the BTC. Structure thicknesses were set based on recommended AASHTO span-to-depth ratios. No preliminary designs of substructures were completed, therefore substructure dimensions are approximate and not guaranteed. The intent was to give the DB Entities the flexibility to design the most appropriate structure for each site. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
In part 2 Section 3.15, The reference to Appendix A.03 is incorrect. No such appendix has been provided. Please provide the referenced appendix materials. |
|
|
Answer:
Section 3.15 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to delete reference to Appendix A.03 and replace it with reference to Section 3.10.2 of Part 2 of the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Part 1 Section 6.6 states that, "State will respond within thirty (30) calendar days to complete Project first submittals." In Part 2 Section 3.4.4, the initial submission will be reviewed within twenty-one (21) calendar days from receipt of a complete submission. Please advise which governs. |
|
|
Answer:
Section 6.6 of Part 1 of the RFP and Section 3.4.4 of Part 2 of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to indicate the State will respond within thirty (30) calendar days to complete Project first submittals and the State will respond within fourteen (14) calendar days to complete project resubmittals. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
The format of the presentation meeting is not provided. Please proivide the format information to the Proposers at least one month prior to the date of the meeting. |
|
|
Answer:
The format of the Oral Presentation Meeting will be added to Section 8.4 of Part 1 of the RFP under a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
In Section 6.2, it states that, "Drawings and other graphic materials, including photos and renderings, shall be included in the Technical Proposal Appendix." In Section 6.5 under subsection 2, it states that, "The Proposer's concept plans, including plans, elevations, and typical sections" are to be included as part of the informatin included in the Technical Approach. We request that the structure plans are included in the Appendix and not in the Technical Approach. The reference in In Section 6.5 under subsection 2 should refer to plans provided in the Appendix. |
|
|
Answer:
Section 6.5 of Part 1 of the RFP will be revised under a future addendum to allow the Proposer’s concepts plans to be included in the Technical Proposal Appendix. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
We request that minor changes in the BTC do not require an ATC. Examples are an adjustment in bridge span length or the location of a substructure unit; adjustment to vertical roadway geometry; adjustment of a ramp teminal; and other similar changes which offer refinements to the BTC without changing the original intent of the design. |
|
|
Answer:
Notes on the plans and the RFP are consistent with this approach. Modifying span lengths, locations of substructures, and minor adjustments to horizontal and vertical geometry would not be considered an ATC. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/03/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Section 3.1 states that, "All Proposals must incorporate the BTC without any exceptions to or deviations from the BTC or the requirements of the RFP, unless the State formally accepts an ATC proposed by the Proposer." On the BTC Plans are notes implying the DB firm should modify the BTC Plans. An example is note on the Phasing plans indicating "the Rte. 10 NB To 6 WB Movement Has Been Modified Which Required Modifications To The Rte. 10 NB & SB, Rte. 6 EB & WB, Rte. 6 EB To 10 SB, And The West Service Road To Rte. 10 Horizontal Alignments. The Staging Has Not Been Changed". We request that changes which are requested by the State in notes on the BTC do not need to be submitted as an ATC. Type your questions here. |
|
|
Answer:
Minor modifications to horizontal and vertical alignments shown in the BTC are allowed without submission of an ATC. The proposed design should be consistent with the layout shown and remain within the existing right of way. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/02/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
East of the RI-10 corridor (between Union Avenue and Westminster), the proposed bike path as shown in the BTC, highway plan No. 1 and 2, does not appear to be within the existing State ROW. It appears to be within the footprint of Service Road 1. Is the State acquiring this ROW to allow the bike path to be constructed in this location? Is so please provide the proposed ROW. |
|
|
Answer:
The BTC plan is schematic. Minor adjustments to roadway alignments will be required to keep the multi-use trail within the existing ROW. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/02/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
At the southeast corner of the Broadway bridge, the proposed bike path as shown in the BTC, highway plan No. 3, appears to be outside of the State ROW. Is the State acquiring this ROW to allow the bike path to be constructed in this location? Is so please provide the proposed ROW. |
|
|
Answer:
The BTC plan is schematic. Minor adjustments may be required to keep the multi-use trail within the existing ROW. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/02/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The BTC Bridge exhibits contain the following note regarding vertical clearance: "The bridge shall be designed to provide the approximate vertical clearance as shown. Vertical clearance less than this is allowed with approval from the Department." Could you please provide the minimum vertical clearance that would be acceptable so that the DB Proposers can develop the most efficient and innovative solution? As stated, it implies that the DB Proposers are required to submit an ATC for any change in vertical clearance from what is shown in the BTC longitudinal sections. Please provide this information for bridges over roadways and railroads. |
|
|
Answer:
The clearances shown are based on the survey data that is available at this time. Vertical clearances for bridges with excessive vertical clearance may be reduced without an ATC. Bridges with critical clearances should be designed to a minimum vertical clearance of 14’-6”. AASHTO recommended span-to-depth ratios may be exceeded slightly in order to achieve this clearance, provided that the deflection of the bridge is kept within recommended AASHTO limits. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/01/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Thank you for providing the Highway Drawing AutoCAD files that were used to create the BTC plans at the pre-proposal meeting. In addition would RIDOT be willing to provide the AutoCAD files that were used to create the BTC Bridge plans included with the RFP documents. We would like to use them to prepare our ATC’s and our proposal documents. If so, when could they be provided. |
|
|
Answer:
AutoCAD Files for the BTC Bridge plans will be available next week. The DB entities will be contacted and the files will be available to be picked up at RIDOT Contracts & Specifications. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/01/2017 | Date Answered: 06/02/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Is submission of an ATC required for a horizontal shift in roadway alignment that does not have ROW impacts, does not impact utilities and meets roadway design criteria that is consistent with the BTC? |
|
|
Answer:
The scenario described will not require the submission of an ATC. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/23/2017 | Date Answered: 06/07/2017 |
| Poster: Kevin Lampron | Company: J.F. White Contracting |
|
Question:
Would RIDOT consider separate proposal submittal deadlines for the Technical Proposal and the Cost Proposal to provide additional time for the teams to prepare Best Value Price Proposal? Technical Proposal Deadline = September 1, 2017 Price Proposal Deadline = September 21, 2017 |
|
|
Answer:
The deadline for the submission of the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal will be changed to November 1, 2017. This will be included in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/23/2017 | Date Answered: 05/25/2017 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Would RIDOT be willing to provide the AutoCAD files that were used to create the BTC plans included with the RFP documents. We would like to use them to prepare our ATC’s and our proposal documents. If so, when could they be provided. |
|
|
Answer:
The Auto Cad files (CD's) were issued to the two DB proposers at the pre-proposal meeting. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/19/2017 | Date Answered: 05/24/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
For Westminster St. Bridge, please clarify if the BTC Construction Staging Plans are showing the current preferred concept. It appears that Westminster St. is running under 6/10 on these plans but is described differently elsewhere in the RFP documents. |
|
|
Answer:
The depiction of construction of the new Route 10SB and Route 6WB in several stages was shown on top of the Westminster Street Bridge for clarity. The final alignment of these two roadways is under Westminster Street and Broadway Bridges. The line work will be clarified and issued in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/19/2017 | Date Answered: 05/24/2017 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Please provide a schedule for the release of the missing appendices and other documents referenced in the RFP but not yet included. |
|
|
Answer:
This will be discussed at the Pre-Proposal Meeting |
|