Questions and Answers For:

D/B Services for I-95 Viaduct-Northbound-Shortlisted Firms Only 7598876PH2

Please Note: If this is the first time accessing our system on our new web site, you will be required to reset your password.

Date Asked: 12/11/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
Is the DB Entity responsible to satisfy the same minimum requirements outlined in RFP Part 2, Section 3.12.7 for piles that are shown as being reused as part of the BTC?
Date Asked: 12/11/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
Did RIDOT address the same minimum requirements for the BTC re-used piles that are required for piles to be reused as part of an ATC (as stated in RFP Part 2 Section 3.12.7) and if so can RIDOT provide this information?
Date Asked: 12/11/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
RFP Part 2, Section 3.12.7 outlines minimum requirements for the DB Entity if pile foundation re-use is to be pursued as part of an ATC. The BTC plans show pile re-use at several substructure locations throughout the site. What testing/calculations has RIDOT completed to determine the physical condition and load carrying capacity of the piles in order to confirm that re-use of piles at these locations is technically feasible?
Date Asked: 12/11/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
Can RIDOT provide electronic gINT files for the boring logs included in the geotechnical reports in Appendix B9 of the RFP?
Date Asked: 12/11/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
Please refer to sheet 7 of BTC Volume 2 Smith & Park Street Bridges. The Longitudinal Section indicates a minimum vertical clearance of 15’-1” under I-95 NB. Has the agency been granted an exception to the 16’-0” minimum federal standard?
Date Asked: 12/11/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
Please refer to sheet 44 of BTC Volume 11 Ramp Exit 23 drawings. Stay-In-Place Form Note 1 states that SIP forms are required over AMTRAK but will not be allowed at other spans. Please confirm SIP forms will be allowed at all proposed bridge spans.
Date Asked: 12/10/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP Part 2, Section 3.13.15. Is an ATC required if the D/B proposer intends to use an abutment comprised of spread footing supported on top of an MSE wall system if it is shown on the BTC plans?
Answer:
This type of abutment is permitted without an ATC only where shown on the BTC plans. Any other similar use of this abutment type requires an ATC.
Date Asked: 12/10/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Please provide plans of the existing Park Street retaining wall.
Answer:
These plans will be provided by addendum.
Date Asked: 12/10/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The Atwells Avenue Bridge BTC plans (Volume 4) shows work outside of the State right-of-way for construction of the pier foundation. Is an ATC required If the D/B Proposer does not exceed the limits of work shown in the BTC drawings?
Answer:
In this instance described, if the proposed footprint does not exceed the specific footprint shown in the BTC, then an ATC is not required. The DB Entity's Designer shall still be required to provide all documentation for this location as outlined in RFP Part 2, Section 3.8.8
Date Asked: 12/10/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The RFP does not reference TAC-298 – Design Loads for simple and continuous span bridges at Strength and Service Limit State? Does this TAC apply to this project?
Answer:
As stated in the RFP, all TAC memos apply to this project.
Date Asked: 12/10/2019
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Please provide the traffic analyses and reports that were prepared during the development of the BTC.
Date Asked: 12/10/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Several of the BTC bridges re-use existing abutments. Will the Department accept the assumption that the existing abutments are adequate as long the loads imparted by the new superstructures don’t exceed that imposed by the original superstructure, or will the Successful Proposer be required to certify or upgrade the existing abutments to meet current AASHTO and RIDOT design criteria?
Answer:
The successful team shall be required to certify or upgrade abutments to meet current criteria.
Date Asked: 12/10/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP Part 2, Section 3.13.9 Design Criteria states the bridges shall be constructed with a minimum 75 year design life. However, the INFRA grant application provided in Addendum No. 2 states the replacement Northbound Viaduct will have a design life of 100 years. Please confirm that the 75 year design life is the governing design life for this project.
Answer:
Confirmed. The governing design life for the project is 75 years.
Date Asked: 12/10/2019
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The BTC CAD drawings have Civil3D Data Shortcuts to various data objects which are not found on the RFP CD.  Can you please provide surface files for all BTC drawings containing Civil3D data shortcuts?
Date Asked: 12/07/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: Ali Alkouraishi Company: The Lane Construction Corporation
Question:
Staging depicted at the RIDOT Pre-Proposal Meeting is different from proposed staging provided in BTC Volume 2. Please clarify which staging plan governs as the BTC or if both staging plans are acceptable for use on the project?
Answer:
Clarification was provided as part of Addendum No. 2.
Date Asked: 12/07/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: Ali Alkouraishi Company: The Lane Construction Corporation
Question:
Type your questions here.
Answer:
We assume this was posted in error.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
Specification section 3.12 Geotechnical, sub section 3.12.7 Existing Foundations states, “If reuse of existing pile foundations is to be pursued as part of an ATC, the DB Entity must address the following, at a minimum, in the ATC submission as well as the statement of geotechnical intent:..” The contract drawings show reuse of existing foundation piles as part of the BTC. Assuming this is the intent of the BTC, is an ATC required for re-use of existing foundation piles?
Answer:
Yes. Any piles that are to be reused that aren't already identified in the BTC to be reused shall be submitted as an ATC.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
Specification section 8.2 Incentive/Disincentive Requirements ties the incentives and disincentives to specific dates. Would the Department consider tying the incentives and disincentives to NTP rather than to these dates?
Answer:
No. If NTP date as provided in the RFP is not achieved, RIDOT will evaluate the schedule impacts to other contract dates at that time.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
Please refer to specification section 3.13 Bridge Design and Other Structures, sub section 3.13.15 Potential Alternatives, would switching the superstructure of the bridges from a plate girder carrying member to a prefabricated bridge require an ATC?
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
3. Please clarify what is deemed to be an ATC.
Answer:
Please submit any confidential questions that would have been requested as part of the pre-ATC meeting to the confidential email address listed in Part 1 Section 1.2 of the RFP. All questions not specific to an ATC being considered for inclusion by a DB Team shall continue to be posted in the Q&A Portal.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
2. Part 1 of the instructions to Bidders provides deadlines for the Design Build bid process. At the informal pre-construction meeting held to discuss the BTC it was stated that no formal submission was necessary for the December 18, 2019 Confidential Pre-ATC Meeting however, submission of ATCs is required 5 days before the January 13, 2020 Initial ATC Deadline. Please clarify the intent of the entire ATC process.
Answer:
Clarification was provided as part of Addendum No. 2.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
Question:
1. Specification section 3.13 Bridge Design and Other Structures, sub section 3.13.16 Disallowed Alternatives, Paragraph A stipulates that “Elimination of any of the spans of the proposed Viaduct NB Bridge by means of filling between the spans shown on the BTC drawings” will not be accepted. Please clarify the Department’s reasoning for prohibiting this approach as an ATC.
Answer:
ATCs are permitted for filling spans. Spans filled need to avoid impacting/overloading existing structure foundations. Additionally, spans filled need to not interfere with sight distance criteria, need to allow for all structures in the area to be inspectable, and not compromise aesthetics. Any ATCs that fill spans need to clearly identify how the above mentioned items are addressed.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Please provide details of the design submittal review process expected for the 6 bridges requiring preservation activities to be complete within 12 months of NTP. This was discussed in the pre-bid meeting, but the answer was not very clear. Is the work expected to be complete directly from the plans provided in the RFP or is there design to be complete and design submittals to be reviewed/approved prior to construction? If so, please detail these submission requirements, which will need to be tailored for the short duration. With an expected NTP at the end of June, design work potentially to complete and have approved, winter conditions, and construction, 12 months is a very short period to complete the work. Preservation work often includes work that is very difficult to complete in the winter without significant extra cost.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/06/2019
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
3. RFP Part 1, Section 3.5 Submission of Potential ATC Concepts/Pre-ATC Meeting, Paragraph 5 states that each proposer will have a 3 hour meeting. Since all teams cannot meet on December 18, 2019 as stated in Section 2.3, Proposed Procurement Schedule, can RIDOT issue a schedule for the Pre-ATC Meetings so that the proposers can properly plan?
Answer:
See Addendum 2 for revisions to the ATC process. Confidential Initial ATC meetings will be held with each team during the week of January 13. As much notice as possible will be given to each team regarding the specific date and time for these meetings.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/06/2019
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
2. Please confirm that there are no deliverables required at the Pre-ATC Meeting as stated in the Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting on December 4, 2019.
Answer:
The ATC process is being revised as part of Addendum 2.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/06/2019
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
1. RFP Part 1, Section 3.5 Submission of Potential ATC Concepts/Pre-ATC Meeting, Paragraph 2 states that a list of potential ATC’s must be submitted five business days prior to the Pre-ATC meeting. Please confirm that this requirement is waived based the Q&A at the Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting on December 4, 2019.
Answer:
Confirmed. The ATC process is being revised as part of Addendum 2.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/06/2019
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Has RIDOT secured all easements for the construction of the Park Street wall?
Answer:
RIDOT is currently advancing the acquisitions / temporary easements shown on the BTC with anticipation of having these properties available prior to NTP. Any additional ROW needed as part of a proposal shall be identified in advance as an ATC.
Date Asked: 12/05/2019 Date Answered: 12/09/2019
Poster: Linda Sanson Company: Barletta Heavy Division
Question:
There are two different sets of construction staging plans included in Appendix B. One is B03 BTC\BTC Viaduct - April 2018\BTC Volume 2 Construction Phasing.pdf, and the other is B03 BTC\BTC Conceptual Sequence of Construction\Viaduct NB Conceptual Phasing.pdf Please clarify which is the correct set that proposers should be using.
Answer:
Clarification was provided as part of Addendum No. 2
Date Asked: 12/05/2019 Date Answered: 12/06/2019
Poster: Linda Sanson Company: Barletta Heavy Division
Question:
At the Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting, it was stated that potential conflicts of interest are to be submitted on a form. Please identify this form and where it can be located.
Answer:
Potential conflicts of interest should be submitted via letter with a revised due date of December 11. Additional clarification will be provided in Addendum 2.
Date Asked: 12/03/2019
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
The Department is requested to provide proposed locations, layout, details and other pertinent information related to its ongoing tolling and gantry installation Contract, for any of which may conflict with required work outlined by this RFP.
Date Asked: 12/03/2019
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
The proposed design speed for I-95 is 50 MPH, while the posted speed on I-95 is 55 MPH. Has a design exception been granted from FHWA?
Date Asked: 12/03/2019 Date Answered: 12/06/2019
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
With respect to the Department's outline and sequence for ATC development, will any ATC not previously submitted by the Design-Builder for evaluation at the "potential ATC" submission phase be allowed for further development and consideration at subsequent(i.e. "initial" and "final") phases? Are any and all ATC's required to be submitted and discussed at the "potential" phase?
Answer:
The ATC process is being revised as part of Addendum 2.
Date Asked: 11/27/2019 Date Answered: 11/27/2019
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Please provide Volume 13 (Bridge Preservation plans). This volume is referenced on the key plans but was not provided as part of the Appendix B materials provided on the CD.
Answer:
The bridge preservation plans are being updated based on the most recent bridge inspection data and will be provided by a future addendum.