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: 07/08/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Addendum #10 volume 1 plan sheet 31 note #5 states that concrete surface treatment shall be gray. The concrete surface treatment on the previous contract was white. Is it the intention to re-coat all areas that were complete in the previous contract with gray concrete protective surface treatment or is that only for the Type 10 repair shown on the new sheet 31? Is the intent to only complete concrete protective surface treatment in areas that were not complete in the 2016-CB-059 contract or to re-do all these previously completed areas? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, all previously coated areas that are currently white shall be top coated gray. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/08/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
I would like to revise my question today regarding bridge deck waterproofing membrane. The question should read, will pre-formed bridge deck waterproofing membrane be allowed on this project as long as it is a product on the approved materials list? |
|
|
Answer:
Any product on the approved materials list will be acceptable. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/08/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Will the existing temporary access platforms and walkways be required to be removed under this contract? |
|
|
Answer:
Prior to completion of the project all temporary access platforms and walkways shall be removed. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/08/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Augustino Mizzi | Company: Coordinated Systems Consulting |
|
Question:
For the Superstructure Repair Details (sheet 34 of 56), there are minimum effective required lengths for Type A “U-wraps FRP” and Type D “longitudinal FRP”; however, the dimensions are not provided. If this is up to the DB entity, then is there a specific design code and/or guideline required for this project to determine the FRP extents? |
|
|
Answer:
As identified in the RFP the latest AASHTO LRFD design code shall be used. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/08/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Augustino Mizzi | Company: Coordinated Systems Consulting |
|
Question:
For the Superstructure Repair Details (sheet 34 of 56), the FRP for Type A and Type C at the End Block Detail A are both oriented vertically but Type A is a full “U-wrap” while Type C is a “two-sided wrap”, would it be possible to disregard Type C as it seems redundant with Type A and Type C is also a less efficient design? |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Team is responsible for determining the details of the required FRP to meet the required 25 year design life of the rehabilitated structure. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/08/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Augustino Mizzi | Company: Coordinated Systems Consulting |
|
Question:
For the Superstructure Repair Details (sheet 34 of 56), Note 1 defines that all drop-in beams in spans 1-6 & 8-14 require FRP strengthening while Note 2 states that the Design-Build (DB) entity is responsible for the design of the FRP system and that the details showing the FRP placement and orientation are conceptual; however, there is no performance criteria defined. Only concrete and steel properties are provided per Note 4. In order for a DB entity to provide a design for the FRP, the existing capacities and the desired demands of the drop-in beams should be provided to determine the FRP design to meet project requirements. Please define the required shear and/or flexural capacities and demands for all drop-in beams requiring FRP strengthening or provide a target tensile capacity that the FRP should provide. |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Team is responsible for determining the existing capacities and desired demands to meet the required 25 year design life of the rehabilitated structure. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/08/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Will hot applied bridge deck waterproofing be allowed on this project as long as it is a product on the approved materials list? |
|
|
Answer:
Any product on the approved materials list will be acceptable. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The previous Washington Bridge Rehab contract that bid in December of 2016 had a number of repair items that were required that are no longer included as part of the estimated quantities listed in Form N and Section 3.7.3 of the RFP. Since the estimated quantities of work previously completed are unknown please provide estimated quantities for all repair items that have quantities that cannot be determined from the RFP documents. A list of potential items that were in the previous contract that should be considered for unit price items are: 015 214.0100 CONTAINMENT SYSTEM FOR CONTROL OF HYDRODEMOLITION RUNOFF 016 214.0200 MAINTENANCE AND DISPOSAL OF HYDRODEMOLITION RUNOFF 032 803.9901 TEMPORARY DECK UNDERSIDE AND SIDE PROTECTIVE SHIELDING 045 813.0300 COLD APPLIED LIQUID MEMBRANE S049 817.9902 FIBER REINFORCED WRAP - DROP IN BEAMS (SPANS 1-6 AND 8-14) S050 817.9903 FIBER REINFORCED WRAP - AASHTO BEAMS (SPANS 15-18) S051 817.9904 FIBER REINFORCED WRAP - PIER CAPS (PIERS 14-17) 052 817.9905 CORBEL AND BEAM END CONFINEMENT 054 818.2010 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DECK REPAIRS (FULL DEPTH REMOVAL), 056 819.0800 DRILL AND GROUT REINFORCING DOWELS 057 820.0110 CONCRETE SURFACE TREATMENT (PROTECTIVE COATING) 058 821.1690 SAW & SEALING JOINTS IN BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT 069 828.0303 ELASTOMERIC BEARINGS LAMINATED 070 828.9901 RESET ELASTOMERIC BEARINGS 076 836.0100 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE CRACK REPAIR BY EPOXY-RESIN BASE 077 839.0200 FULL DEPTH R&D OF BIT PAVEMENT FROM CONCRETE BRIDGE DECKS 078 840.9901 DECK CONCRETE REMOVAL BY HYDRODEMOLITION (PARTIAL DEPTH 079 840.9902 REPLACEMENT OF DECK CONCRETE REMOVED BY HYDRODEMOLITION 080 842.0100 ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING |
|
|
Answer:
With the exception of the bearing replacements at Pier 14 the items mentioned have not been performed. For items with estimated and only bid quantities, previously completed quantities have been taken into account. No additional items will be added to Form N |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Washington Bridge Rehab Volume 1 - Deck Repair plan sheets 25 through 27 call for the use of hydrodemolition for the removal of concrete from the deck. The plans state “the contractor shall use hydrodemolition for removal of deteriorated concrete per details on sheet _” However, there are no details of the hydrodemolition or deck replacement shown. Please advise on the following: Is it RIDOT intent to perform hydrodemolititon of the entire deck area after removal of the asphalt overlay and waterproofing membrane? Is there a minimum depth of removal and replacement? Is epoxy bonding compound to be used prior to the new overlay? Is a bridge deck finish machine required to be used for the deck overlay? Are there specific requirements for the control, collection and disposal of water? Is shielding required under the deck during demolition? |
|
|
Answer:
The means and methods for deck repairs will be the determination of the DB Team. The Volume 1 plans will be revised in an upcoming addendum to remove the requirement for hydrodemolition. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
RIDOT response to the question posted 6/30 regarding the extent of deck repairs states that both partial and full depth are anticipated and that the quantities are included in Items 1.14.3, 1.14.4 and 1.14.5. These repair items are RIDOT standard 817 Items for substructure and beam repairs and are not the standards used for deck repairs. Please provide separate items and estimated quantities for both partial and full depth deck repairs. |
|
|
Answer:
Quantities for deck repairs are included in the estimated quantities for Items 1.14.3, 1.14.4, and 1.14.5. Separate items will not be added for deck repairs. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: alecia brouillette | Company: RIDOT |
|
Question:
Please take note of the revised answers provided on questions noted in the response section. |
|
|
Answer:
Revisions have been made to answers provided for questions asked by Cardi on 05/11/20 and Barletta on 06/24/20 and 06/25/20 regarding MASH barriers. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Responses to questions state that, “it is not the intent of the project to replace bearings not explicitly shown on the BTC drawings” but the BTC plans and RFP do not indicate any bearing replacements. Please confirm no existing bearings require replacement. |
|
|
Answer:
The bearings at Pier 14 were replaced under the 2016 contract. The need to (potentially) replace additional bearings will be determined by the DB Teams design to achieve a 25 year design life. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The BTC plans do not show the replacement of the existing overhead sign structures on the Washington Bridge. Sign panel modifications are required due to the new lane configuration on the bridge. Will sign panel modifications be permitted on the existing sign structure or will new sign structures with new panels be required? |
|
|
Answer:
It is anticipated that the existing overhead sign support structure and sign panel(s) will remain. The sign panel(s) will be modified, in place, as needed |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Section 3.17.3 states “The Contractor shall have the fiber optic communications system up and operational within 8 hours of taking the system offline.” However, Sections 3.17.4 states, “The fiber optic network shall not be down for more than 48-hours at a time.” Please clarify whether the fiber optic network can be down for 8 hours or 48 hours? |
|
|
Answer:
Section 3.17.4 will be modified to read 8 hours |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
There is no JS specification for 1.14.1. How is this item paid? Is it per each beam end jacked or per each beam jacked? Some beams require both ends to be jacked, others only one end. |
|
|
Answer:
The item is quantified per each beam end jacked. If a beam required both ends to be jacked that would be a quantity of 2. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/07/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Please confirm that it is acceptable to use separate binders for main proposal and the appendix. |
|
|
Answer:
Yes. Confirmed. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/06/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
RFP part 2 section 6.2 requires "the original RFP and all addenda listed above shall be included on CD-ROM or DVD-ROM." Including all RFP and addenda documents would make a very large file. Since Form A attests to the addenda which are included in the proposal, could this requirement be eliminated? If not, is there a simpler way to include the info that you need on the disk without requiring the hundreds of addenda files which include CAD, VISSM, .pdf, etc. Maybe it would make sense to include the 3 parts of the RFP and the signed addenda notification forms? |
|
|
Answer:
The original RFP documents and all addenda shall be included on a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM. Zipped files will be accepted. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/02/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
With all the open questions it will take time to resolve design requirements and complete plans after we receive these answers and addenda. Pricing up these late plans will be difficult to complete prior to the July 17th submission date. Would it be acceptable to delay the submission date of only the price proposal by two weeks (similar to what was done on the NB Viaduct project) with the technical proposal submission date remaining on July 17th? |
|
|
Answer:
The price proposal submission date will be extended 1 week to July 24th. This will only apply to the price proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/02/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Can RIDOT please provide the plans and details of the existing fiber optic conduit through the section of Washington Bridge to be widened? Can RIDOT please also provide the plans and details of the existing ITS equipment impacted by the proposed Waterfront Drive Off-Ramp? Specifically, what is inside each cabinet, and how the components are connected together? |
|
|
Answer:
The only available ITS related information was provided with the original RFP documents under Appendix B, folder B04 Existing Plans & Test Results, subfolder ITS Cameras |
|
| Date Asked: 07/02/2020 | Date Answered: 07/04/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Mandatory specs address code 401.9901 for incentives for rideability and paving. There is no spec or bid item for 401.9901. Should this be added? |
|
|
Answer:
Mandatory Spec 413 will be modified in an upcoming addendum |
|
| Date Asked: 07/01/2020 | Date Answered: 07/04/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Please provide the special provisions required to complete the job specific items that are bid by the unit price (items 1.14.1 - 1.14.6). We would expect that these would be provided as part of the mandatory specifications since they need to be measured for payment. |
|
|
Answer:
Three of the Estimated Quantity items fall under RIDOT Standard Specification and therefore do not require a special provision. A special provision for the Chloride Extraction has been provided in the Mandatory Specifications. The two remaining items are DB Team designed items to facilitate the means and methods of construction. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/01/2020 | Date Answered: 07/02/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Could the Department please post a list of the prospective bidders for this project? |
|
|
Answer:
Please reference the Plan Holder List located at http://www.dot.ri.gov/contracting/bids/contactlist.php?job=7603776. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/01/2020 | Date Answered: 07/04/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The original Washington Bridge was presumably designed using the AASHTO Standard Specifications with the HS20 Truck Loading. It is doubtful that the vast majority of the existing bridge will rate for the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications with the HL-93 loading, especially when a rating factor of 1.1 is applied. Appling this criteria will result in significant strengthening and potential replacement of major elements, which will increase the project cost significantly over the existing budget. Can the requirement for LRFD design with a rating factor of 1.1 be only applied to new construction portions of the bridges (Gano Ramp Bridge, Waterfront Drive Ramp Bridge, and the new beams and deck on the Washington Bridge)? |
|
|
Answer:
To provide an allowance against substandard ratings after the effects of future deterioration of members, all NEW bridges shall achieve a minimum superstructure Rating Factor (RF) equal or greater than 1.10 for all Design Loads, Legal Loads and for all Permit Loads and all rehabilitated bridges shall achieve a minimum superstructure Rating Factor (RF) equal or greater than 1.0 for all Design Loads, Legal Loads and for all Permit Loads. |
|
| Date Asked: 07/01/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The original piles on the Washington Bridge were designed using the AASHTO Standard Specifications using working stress methods. Is it acceptable to use either working stress methods or LRFD methods for the design of the widening of the Washington Bridge piles? This will ensure the most economical design. |
|
|
Answer:
Piles supporting the widened portion of the Washington Bridge pier and all other substructures of the Washington Bridge will be designed in accordance with the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, as indicated in the current RIDOT LRFD Bridge Design Manual. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Volume 2, sheets 5, 7 and 10 show conflicting information regarding which mixes are to contain "modified" oil. Please clarify where class 9.5 HMA (modified) is required as opposed to class 9.5 HMA without modified oil. |
|
|
Answer:
We believe the question was intended to indicate Volume 4, not Volume 2 plans. Volume 4 plan sheet 5 will be modified in the next addendum. All 9.5 HMA shall contain modified oil. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/04/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
1) Volume 1 – Washington Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening Sheets 25 to 27 show the anticipated Deck Repair Plans. These drawings indicate the need for both Full Depth Deck repairs and Partial Depth Deck Repairs. Is the intent of the bridge deck repairs shown on these plans to be all partial depth deck repairs? Please clarify where the partial and full depth deck repairs are to be paid. 2) Related to the above, will RIDOT please add Pay Items on Form N - Cost Proposal, 1.14 Estimated Quantity Items for Partial Depth Deck Repairs and Full Depth Deck Repairs? 3) RFP Part 2 3.13.7.1 – Washington Bridge Rehabilitation indicates that there are 6,000 LF of cracks that will need to be repaired and sealed under this rehabilitation. Will RIDOT please add a Pay Item on Form N - Cost Proposal, 1.14 Estimated Quantity Items for Crack Repair with a quantity of 6,000 LF.? |
|
|
Answer:
Deck repairs are anticipated to be a mix of partial and full depth. Deck repair quantities are included in Estimated Quantity Items 1.14.3, 1.14.4, and 1.14.5. Crack repair costs shall be included in the overall lump sum cost proposal. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/03/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The existing Washington Bridge has scuppers that allow the water to freefall to the river/banks. Will this condition be allowed to stay for the portion of the bridge not being widened and will this same condition be allowed for the design of the widened portion of the bridge? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes this condition will be allowed to stay and will be acceptable for the widened portion of the bridge also. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/03/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Part 2, Section 3.14.4 bullet point a requires the piers to have an architectural form liner pattern and finishes that compliment the abutments and retaining walls. Is the State's intention to have the Ashlar pattern required for the walls and abutments also included on the piers? If not, please provide an acceptable architectural finish to carry on the bid. |
|
|
Answer:
The Ashlar pattern will not be required on the piers. Part 2, Section 3.14.4 will be modified by addendum |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/02/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
RFP Part 2, section 3.13.14 states "Noise Barriers: This section to be updated pending final reviews and approvals for the noise walls recommended as part of the Traffic Noise Report, expected to be completed in late March 2020." I don't believe the Traffic Noise Report has been provided with the RFP or addenda. Please provide this if noise barriers are required. Please provide any additional BTC plans or specifications for any required noise barriers. |
|
|
Answer:
Noise Barriers will not be required on the project. The RFP section will be updated in the next addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/04/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
The introduction of link slabs as shown on the plans will require additional related work to replace and modify the function of existing fixed bearings. This will require the jacking of multiple beams simultaneously, on the order of 4 or more inches. This scope of work is not shown on the plans and does not appear to be compatible with the multi-phase maintenance of traffic requirements and other related work shown because it will require the temporary closure of multiple or all lanes of traffic on the I-195 WB Bridge. Please clarify RIDOT’s preliminary scope and cost expectations for this additional bearing work not currently shown, and whether the BTC traffic management may be modified. |
|
|
Answer:
The overall goal of the project is to provide a 25 year design life. The BTC plans show one way to achieve this using link slabs to eliminate as many deck joints as possible, preventing future deterioration of beam ends. It is not the intent of the project to replace bearings not explicitly shown on the BTC drawings. The Design Build Team may propose alternative methods to meet the 25 year design life goal, however preference will be given to proposals that minimize the amount of future required maintenance. The Design Build Team is responsible for any required retrofit or strengthening required by their proposal to achieve the 25 year design life. Please note that strengthening of beam ends and the east end substructure pier caps, as shown in the BTC, is required regardless of if link slabs are proposed or not. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/03/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Relating to the previous questions regarding link slabs, the Volume 1 plans do not show any modifications to the existing ½” vertical and “key” joints in the spandrel walls. Does RIDOT want the spandrel walls to be modified? |
|
|
Answer:
Modifications to the joints in the spandrel walls are not anticipated. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/04/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Page 47 of RFP Part 2 states that “Portions of the bridge superstructure……currently have an LRFR Rating Factor less than 1.0 for the HL-93 Design Load. The superstructure…..shall be strengthened such that at the end of the project, the rating of the superstructure and substructure shall achieve a minimum Rating Factor (RF) equal to or greater than 1.10 for all design loads, legal loads and for all permit loads and shall take into account differing behavior due to the addition of link slabs, including but not limited to the differing behavior due to the addition of the link slab…” Achieving this RF requirement raises several questions: A) What locations require the specified strengthening repair work shown on Vol 1 sheets 55 and 56? B) The 2016 Rehab Plans sheets 43 and 71 clearly specify the existing capacity and minimum required strengthening for the proposed repairs shown in RFP Vol 1 sheets 34 and 56. Do these repairs achieve the 1.10 Rating Factor requirement of the RFP? C) Achieving RF=1.10 throughout the entire structure will likely require additional strengthening beyond what is shown in the BTC plans, and will likely conflict with the stated objectives associated with traffic management and overall project cost. Has RIDOT evaluated the extent of strengthening repairs and retrofit required to achieve 1.10 throughout the structure and the associated impact on scope and cost? Please clarify RIDOT’s preliminary scope and cost expectations for this additional work not currently shown. |
|
|
Answer:
To provide an allowance against substandard ratings after the effects of future deterioration of members, all NEW bridges shall achieve a minimum superstructure Rating Factor (RF) equal or greater than 1.10 for all Design Loads, Legal Loads and for all Permit Loads and all rehabilitated bridges shall achieve a minimum superstructure Rating Factor (RF) equal or greater than 1.0 for all Design Loads, Legal Loads and for all Permit Loads. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/03/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please confirm that the 6/19/2020 response to the previous question regarding TL-5 barrier on the Gano Street Off Ramp includes the requirement for a “MASH compliant” barrier. If, “yes”, please also confirm RIDOT’s understanding that this will require partial deck reconstruction that is not currently included in the Volume 1 plans, and that the traffic management Stage 1B (“Short Term” closing of the Gano Street Off-Ramp to traffic) shown in Volume 4 will require a longer duration than currently indicated by the RFP and BTC plans. |
|
|
Answer:
The new bridge barrier along both sides of the Gano Street Off-Ramp shall be MASH compliant for geometry. The anchorage into the existing deck/top slab shall be designed for AASHTO TL-4 loading. The "Typical Gano Street Ramp Section" will be updated via addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/04/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Does FHWA, ACOE, or USCG require the tie-downs at Pier 4 to be designed for vessel collision? |
|
|
Answer:
As the pier is outside the approved navigational channel,it shall be assumed that design details for vessel collision will NOT be required. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/03/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Only the superstructure rating has been provided. Where substructure strengthening is identified, is the term "substructure" being used in reference to the pier cap strengthening called out at Piers 14-17? Please provide the baseline substructure rating that identified that substructure strengthening is required to indicate extents of substructure strengthening needed. |
|
|
Answer:
Substructure ratings have not been performed. Substructure strengthening was identified for piers 14-17 to meet current DESIGN requirements. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/30/2020 | Date Answered: 07/03/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
RFP Section 3.13.7.1 calls for the superstructure and substructure to achieve a rating of 1.10. Volume 1 Sheet 34 calls for FRP strengthening prestressed beam ends. The current bridge superstructure rating of 1.00 is controlled by the steel girder span which is not called to receive any strengthening. The drop-in prestressed members show they're rating at 1.12 for shear and 1.09 for flexure. Please clarify what is meant by "strengthening" for the superstructure as it appears the prestressed beams already closely meets the 1.10 rating requested without added strengthening. Is the intent of the FRP details that are included in the plans just to protect beam ends from deterioration, not strengthen? If beams are intended to be strengthened, please clarify where they don’t currently rate. |
|
|
Answer:
To provide an allowance against substandard ratings after the effects of future deterioration of members, all NEW bridges shall achieve a minimum superstructure Rating Factor (RF) equal or greater than 1.10 for all Design Loads, Legal Loads and for all Permit Loads and all rehabilitated bridges shall achieve a minimum superstructure Rating Factor (RF) equal or greater than 1.0 for all Design Loads, Legal Loads and for all Permit Loads. The drop-in member load ratings are from a proof load test and not from analytical load rating analyses. The members shall be strengthened such that analytical rating factors equal or greater than 1.0 are achieved. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/29/2020 | Date Answered: 07/03/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
As a follow-up to RIDOT’s 6/19/2020 response noting that TL-5 barrier is required for the Gano Street Off-Ramp, would RIDOT accept a TL-5 barrier shape that is designed for TL-4 loading due to this being a ramp bridge and not part of the mainline interstate as has been done on other RIDOT projects to reduce the limits of deck reconstruction? |
|
|
Answer:
The new bridge barrier along both sides of the Gano Street Off-Ramp shall be MASH compliant for geometry. The anchorage into the existing deck/top slab shall be designed for AASHTO TL-4 loading. The "Typical Gano Street Ramp Section" will be updated via addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/29/2020 | Date Answered: 07/02/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Volume 1 Cover Sheet indicates a design speed of 55 mph, while Volume 4 Cover Sheet indicates a design speed of 50 mph for I-195. Section 320.01 of the RIDOT Design Manual states the Roadways with a posted speed limit of 40 mph of greater shall have a design speed of the posted speed limit plus 10 mph. I-195 is posted at 50 mph. Please clarify design speed for I-195 to be used for design. |
|
|
Answer:
The design speed for I-195 is 50 mph. The Volume 1 cover sheet will be revised in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/29/2020 | Date Answered: 07/08/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The BTC plans for the Gano Street on/off ramp show a concrete transition barrier (CTB2) that transitions from 3” to 42” over 10 feet in length. Is this transition barrier acceptable to RIDOT as it could cause vehicles to launch if hit? Would an impact attenuator be the preferred option to protect the concrete barrier that separates the two directions on the ramp? Also, this concrete transition barrier is utilized at the entrance to I-195 WB from Gano Street on the trailing end of the barrier. Since this is the trailing end of the median barrier, is this concrete transition barrier (CTB 2) required? |
|
|
Answer:
Volume 4 Sheet 31 will be revised under addendum #11 to show an energy absorbing median terminal (EAMT), TL-3 in place of the CTB2 transition at the intersection of Gano Street and the Gano St on/off ramp. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/29/2020 | Date Answered: 07/02/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The RIDOT Statewide Destination Signage Contract has installed new cantilever and ground mounted exit signs for the Broadway exit (old exit 6/new exit 2A). Is the DB team responsible for renumbering and replacing the Broadway exit signage (which will be new exit 2B) due to the addition of the Waterfront Drive off-ramp exit (new exit 2A) that is being constructed as part of this project? This signage includes Broadway old Exit 6 new Exit 2A – ground mounted 1 mile, overhead ½ mile, overhead at gore and ground-mounted exit sign at gore. |
|
|
Answer:
The new Waterfront Drive off-ramp exit will be Exit 1E and therefore the Broadway exist signage will not need to be modified. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/29/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The BTC plans show a w-beam connection to the bridge end post that utilizes rubrail, however it is RIDOT practice to no longer install rubrail due to maintenance issues. On recent RIDOT projects, the connection to the bridge end post consists of a w-beam nested section (with 6’-3” post spacing) followed by a w-beam to thrie beam transition and then nested thrie beam (with 1’-6 ¾” post spacing) at the end post. Please advise on the guardrail to end post connection. |
|
|
Answer:
Alternative connections to the bridge end posts will be allowed so long as they are MASH compliant. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/29/2020 | Date Answered: 07/01/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The BTC plans show TL-4 energy absorbing end terminals, however a TL-4 energy absorbing end terminal product does not exist. Will TL-3 tested energy-absorbing end terminals be acceptable? |
|
|
Answer:
The BTC plans will be corrected in an upcoming addendum to state that the end terminals should be TL-3. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2020 | Date Answered: 07/03/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Regarding the anti-graffiti coating in Section 3.13.5, is it RIDOT's intent to coat all exterior surfaces of both existing and new structures? Are the piers in the water to be included? Are any structures not touched by the new construction in this contract to be included? If so, please specify. |
|
|
Answer:
A sketch clarifying the limits of anti-graffiti coating and concrete surface treatement-protective sealer will be provided in an upcoming addendum |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2020 | Date Answered: 07/03/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The RFP states that “The new bridge barrier shall satisfy AASHTO LRFD criteria for a TL-5 system and shall be MASH compliant”. There is no specific language regarding the deck. Is it the intent to place a TL-5 Barrier on top of the existing deck or do we need to consider replacing large portions of the deck to meet the TL-5 Loads? |
|
|
Answer:
The new bridge barrier along both sides of the Gano Street Off-Ramp shall be MASH compliant for geometry. The anchorage into the existing deck/top slab shall be designed for AASHTO TL-4 loading. The "Typical Gano Street Ramp Section" will be updated via addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2020 | Date Answered: 07/01/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
RFP, Part 2, Section 3.13.7.1, a) calls for “Demolition and complete replacement of the bridge barrier along both sides of the Gano Street Off-Ramp. The new bridge barrier shall satisfy AASHTO LRFD criteria for a TL-5 system and shall be MASH compliant. Volume 1, plan sheet 15 "Typical Gano Street Ramp Section" specifically calls out one for the bridge rail, guardrail and posts to be removed and replaced with TL-5 Bridge rail. The detail on the opposite parapet directs only the metal guardrail to be replaced. Please clarify the required work between the plans and RFP. |
|
|
Answer:
The bridge rails on both sides of the Gano Street Off-Ramp shall be replaced. The Typical Gano Street Ramp Section in the Volume 1 plans will be updated in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/26/2020 | Date Answered: 07/01/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Due to the complex nature of this project, the large amount of late added RFP documents and the remaining open questions, we respectfully request a minimum of a two week extension to the submission date of this proposal. |
|
|
Answer:
The submission date for this proposal will not be extended. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/25/2020 | Date Answered: 07/01/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Should the DB team assume that the foundation in the median for the toll gantry will be square in shape so that we can butt up the proposed vertical barrier to it on each end, rather than run the vertical barrier by the foundation. If the latter, the median as proposed in the BTC is not wide enough. Can a detail of this foundation be provided to confirm that the proposed barrier is able to be butted up to the foundation. Also, the CAD files show 2 different locations for the gantry center column/foundation, can a clarification of the correct location be provided. |
|
|
Answer:
The 100% plans for the toll gantry will be provided in an upcoming addendum. The location of the gantry center column/foundation shall be as shown on the 100% plans. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/25/2020 | Date Answered: 07/02/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Will required negotiations with the property owner, a temporary easement agreement and a property easement map be the responsibility of the DB Team or will the Department address the effort? |
|
|
Answer:
Please refer to RFP Part 2 Sections 3.8.8 and 3.9.1 for a breakdown of responsibilities between the DB Teams and RIDOT. Section 3.9.1 will be modified to include the additional acquisition required for the connector between Valley St and Waterfront Drive. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/25/2020 | Date Answered: 07/01/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Was there any outreach by RIDOT to establish a preliminary agreement with the Property owner to facilitate a temporary road between Valley Road and Waterfront Street to facilitate the Addendum 8 detour route being installed on their property? |
|
|
Answer:
No outreach has been done and no preliminary agreement has been established. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/25/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
As a follow up to our MASH TL-3 barrier question to be used project wide, due to limited work space on the bridge, will the RIDOT Office of Safety also permit a single face precast barrier for temporary traffic control? Single face concrete barriers are NCHRP 350 TL-3/TL-4 tested. |
|
|
Answer:
REVISED: The temporary traffic control barriers shall satisfy the requirements of TAC 0349. A TAC is being drafted that will allow for the use of MASH TL-3 temporary barrier, which will be allowed project wide. Alternative systems not meeting this requirement may be submitted to the Department for review on a case by case basis. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/25/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Please clarify the mandatory spec 931 - Cleaning and Sweeping Pavement. Much of this project is bridge rehab work and will not generate sediment in the roadways, especially I-195 and ramps. Even in the roadways where sediment may be generated, it will not be generated for the full duration of the project. If there is nothing to sweep, sweeping should not be required. Adding this specification as written forces the contractor to carry full cost for cleaning and sweeping weekly, which is past on to the department in our bid. Additionally, cleaning and sweeping requires traffic control on the highway and this gets expensive. We have seen this requirement on other projects and we have seen that contractors often do not end up being held to the specification. Could this spec be changed to place the requirement on the contractor to sweep regularly when needed rather than arbitrarily sweep areas that may not be needed? The failure to comply paragraph puts the burden on the contractor and it seems that sweeping should only need to be done when there is sediment to sweep and the RE is the check to direct the contractor if any areas requiring sweeping slipped through the cracks. |
|
|
Answer:
A revision to Mandatory Specification Section 931 will be provided in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/25/2020 | Date Answered: 07/01/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Part 1 Section 2.3 shows a substantial completion date of 11/15/24. Mandatory Spec section 108.08 shows 11/15/25. Which is correct? Will the substantial completion date be revised based on the latest NTP date? |
|
|
Answer:
The correct substantial completion date is 11/15/2024. The Mandatory Specification section will be updated in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/24/2020 | Date Answered: 06/30/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Can RIDOT please provide the design and as-built pile information for I-195 Bridge and Gano Street Ramp regarding existing pile tip elevations, pile driving logs, static/dynamic load testing information, and any other geotechnical information in this area that is available? |
|
|
Answer:
All available information has been provided in the appendicies of the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/24/2020 | Date Answered: 07/03/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
The Waterfront Drive off-ramp profile, at the crossing of Valley St., will reduce the depth of cover over the existing 20-inch brick sewer. Since the condition of the 20-inch brick sewer is unknown, should rehabilitation or replacement of a section of the 20-inch brick sewer be included in the project scope? |
|
|
Answer:
The DB Teams should anticipate replacement of the portion of the 20-inch brick sewer within the limits of the lowered roadway. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/24/2020 | Date Answered: 06/30/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Will RIDOT accept the use of a structurally equivalent NEBT precast, prestressed girder as an alternative solution to the AASHTO Type IV girder specified for the widening of I-195 WB ? |
|
|
Answer:
Yes, the use of a structurally equivalent NEBT precast, prestressed girder is an acceptable alternative to the AASHTO Type IV girder. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/24/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Per TAC 0324, all temporary barrier to be used on I-195 and the ramp approaches shall be MASH TL-4. Due to limited product availability and dynamic deflections of the MASH TL-4 temporary barrier, will the use of MASH TL-3 temporary barrier be acceptable for this project projectwide? |
|
|
Answer:
REVISED: TAC 0349 superceded TAC 0324. Due to limited product availability, RIDOT is currently drafting a TAC that will allow for the use of MASH TL-3 temporary barrier. MASH TL-3 temporary barrier will be allowed to be used project wide. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/24/2020 | Date Answered: 07/01/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The VISSIM files provided in Addendum #9 show 200-300 vehicles accessing I-195 West in the morning peak period from Vets Memorial Parkway/Warren Ave via Ramp DR-2. The Washington Bridge Traffic Operations Memo indicates a morning peak hour volume of 1,220 as shown on Figure 6-9. Please clarify what volume should be used in the staging models. |
|
|
Answer:
The VISSIM file provided in an earlier addendum was corrupted. The revised file will be provided in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/24/2020 | Date Answered: 06/30/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
RFP Part 2, Section 3.1.2.10 – Real Time Work Zone Information System (RTWS). Please specify if this system is required just on I-195 or if it is required on local streets impacted by the project as well. |
|
|
Answer:
RTWS is required on I-195, Taunton Avenue, and Veterans Memorial Parkway. Additionally, teams are encouraged to investigate the feasibility of RTWS on local roadways to reduce the impacts of the construction phasing to roadway users. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/24/2020 | Date Answered: 06/30/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
RFP Part 2, Section 3.11.5 – Permanent Traffic Signals, indicate that traffic control, such as signalization at the new Waterfront Drive off-ramp should be considered. The IJR and Traffic Study model this intersection as both unsignalized and signalized. To ensure all bidders are proposing on the same items, can RIDOT clarify if a signal shall be proposed? |
|
|
Answer:
The intersection the end of the I-195 westbound off-ramp at Waterfront Drive meets the traffic signal warrants for the design year. Teams are encouraged to determine if a signal should be installed based on a safety and sight distance review on opening day and plan accordingly. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The RFP states that “the substructures shall be strengthened such that at the end of the project, the rating of the superstructure and substructure shall achieve a minimum Rating Factor (RF) equal to or greater than 1.10 for all design loads, legal loads and for all permit loads and shall take into account differing behavior due to the addition of link slabs, including but not limited to the differing behavior due to the addition of the link slab…” This note brings up several questions: 1. Is it the intent to have proposers check every substructure and foundation element for this type of load rating and design strengthening? 2. The link slabs will potentially cause large stress concentrations at piers , in the bearings and in the concrete beams. Is it the intent to design the substructures for these large thermal forces and replace every bearing on the bridge in order to transmit these forces to the substructures? 3. Is it also the intent to strengthen all substructures? Rating of substructures and foundations is highly unusual, especially in a preservation project. It is also inevitable that there are numerous features of the existing substructure that do not meet the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the RIDOT Bridge Manual (seismic). 4. The widening of the west end of the Washington Bridge shows additional piles. Can the calculations used for the BTC be shared with the proposers? |
|
|
Answer:
The overall goal of the project is to provide a 25 year design life. The BTC plans show one way to achieve this using link slabs to eliminate as many deck joints as possible, preventing future deterioration of beam ends. It is not the intent of the project to replace bearings not explicitly shown on the BTC drawings. The Design Build Team may propose alternative methods to meet the 25 year design life goal, however preference will be given to proposals that minimize the amount of future required maintenance. The Design Build Team is responsible for any required retrofit or strengthening required by their proposal to achieve the 25 year design life. Please note that strengthening of beam ends and the east end substructure pier caps, as shown in the BTC, is required regardless of if link slabs are proposed or not. To provide an allowance against substandard ratings after the effects of future deterioration of members, all NEW bridges shall achieve a minimum superstructure Rating Factor (RF) equal or greater than 1.10 for all Design Loads, Legal Loads and for all Permit Loads and all rehabilitated bridges shall achieve a minimum superstructure Rating Factor (RF) equal or greater than 1.0 for all Design Loads, Legal Loads and for all Permit Loads. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/19/2020 | Date Answered: 06/30/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The CAD files for the phasing provided by addendum appear to be out of date and don’t match the pdf drawings provided. Please provide the updated CAD files. |
|
|
Answer:
The corrected CAD files will be provided in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/15/2020 | Date Answered: 06/19/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP, Part 2, Section 3.13.7.1, a) calls for “Demolition and complete replacement of the bridge barrier along both sides of the Gano Street Off-Ramp. The new bridge barrier shall satisfy AASHTO LRFD criteria for a TL-5 system and shall be MASH compliant. The MassDOT CF-PL3 bridge barrier will be allowed”. RFP Plans, Volume 1, sheet 12 of 56 shows a detail indicating a retrofit involving the use of RIDOT Standard Dwg No. 10.35. The design and construction of a TL-5 MASH compliant barrier at this location appears to require extending the limit of reconstruction into the existing roadway deck to anchor the barrier. This existing deck also serves as the top flange of the edge girder (refer to circa 1967, Contract 6754 plans, sheet 134 of 223). Please confirm and clarify the barrier requirements for Gano Street Off-Ramp and intended limits of bridge reconstruction work. |
|
|
Answer:
TL-5 barrier is required for the Gano Street Off-Ramp. The DB Team shall provide the necessary demolition and reconstrcuion to install the barrier. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/15/2020 | Date Answered: 06/19/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please confirm which spans of the Gano Street On-Ramp and the I-195 WB widening require snow fence. |
|
|
Answer:
Snow fence will be required on I-195 WB Spans 1, 2, 3, 15 and 16, Gano Off-Ramp Spans 1, 2 and 3 and the span over Waterfront Drive. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/15/2020 | Date Answered: 06/19/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Please disregard previous question. |
|
|
Answer:
Noted. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/15/2020 | Date Answered: 06/19/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
There are several conduits on abutment 2, some of which are over areas of the abutment that require repair. Is it expected that these conduits will be moved by the D-B contractor or the utility owner in order to complete concrete repairs behind the conduits? |
|
|
Answer:
Disregarded per request. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/12/2020 | Date Answered: 06/19/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The rehabilitation plans show link slabs at fixed bearing lines. The link slab will create a force couple between the slab and the anchor rods in the bearings when subjected to live load rotation. This will cause shearing forces in the anchor rods and additional stresses in the beam ends. Has this been determined to be acceptable by the Department or should we assume that the anchor rods will be required to be removed and bearings replaced? Another option would be to eliminate the link slabs. |
|
|
Answer:
The intent of the design is to eliminate the deck joints as shown in the BTC. The final design, including any secondary effects and any needed mitigation is the responsibility of the DB Team. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/12/2020 | Date Answered: 06/19/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The previous rehabilitation plans call for conversion of many deck expansion joints to link slabs. This will change the thermal movement behavior of the bridge. The connection of the concrete girders to the piers is a fixed connection. This will lead to a significant build-up of thermal forces in the beams and piers that will most likely not be acceptable to the Department. Is it the intent of the Department to follow this approach? Should at least one deck joint be detailed in each span to accommodate thermal movement? |
|
|
Answer:
The intent of the design is to eliminate the deck joints as shown in the BTC. It is the design build team’s responsibility to evaluate and mitigate, if necessary, any changes in structural behavior to satisfy this goal. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/10/2020 | Date Answered: 06/11/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
RFP Section 3.7.3 lists quantities for bidding purposes, but does not clarify how this correlates to the repair limits shown on the plans. Please provide limits of work complete as part of latest project (including all repair limits) to clarify remaining scope of work in plans. |
|
|
Answer:
Limits of work completed as part of the last project are not available. All responses to this RFP shall include the Items and Only Bid Quantities as listed in the RFP. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/10/2020 | Date Answered: 06/11/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Please provide details and limits of link slab installed as part of latest project. |
|
|
Answer:
No link slabs were installed as part of the last project. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/10/2020 | Date Answered: 06/11/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Can RIDOT please clarify the seismic requirements for this project? Section 3.13.9 Notes “a” and “d” appear to conflict with Note 2 on Volume 2 Sheet 2 for the new Gano Street On-Ramp Bridge. Is it RIDOT’s intent for the DB Team to design per AASHTO LRFD Seismic Zone 1 requirements or to follow RIDOT BDM and perform a multimodal seismic analysis per Seismic Zone 3 for all bridges? Likewise, please clarify the seismic requirements for Bridge 700 and the limits to which retrofitting is required. For example, Section 3.13.9 Note “o” seems to indicate the scope of retrofitting is limited only to the design of keeper blocks to resist lateral loads. Is it the intent for seismic retrofit to be limited to just superstructure to substructure fixity? |
|
|
Answer:
All NEW bridge structures shall be designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition, utilizing the site specific response spectra provided in the RFP. Note 2 on the Gano Street On-Ramp Bridge set will be changed accordingly. For Bridge 700, seismic retrofits will be limited to the fixity between the superstructure and the substructure. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/10/2020 | Date Answered: 06/11/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Can RIDOT provide as-built plans for Potter Street Bridge 046701? |
|
|
Answer:
The recent rehabilitation plans for bridge 046701 will be included in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/10/2020 | Date Answered: 06/11/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
RFP Section 3.13.7.1 states that gore area in span 18 needs to be evaluated to see if it can support live load. The original design plans showed this gore area as an open area, but 3 concrete beams and bridge deck were added subsequent to the original design. Can RIDOT please provide plans with beam details and a load rating report for these beams? |
|
|
Answer:
All available plans for the structure were included in appendix section B04 Existing Plans & Test Results. Details for the beams in question can be found in the 1969 folder for Bridge 070001. A copy of the latest load rating report for the structure will be included in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2020 | Date Answered: 06/11/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
In Section 3.11.5 Permanent Traffic Signals, it is noted that “Modifications to the Broadway at Warren Avenue, and Broadway at I-195 westbound ramps will also be required.” Please provide the specific type of modifications that are required. |
|
|
Answer:
The types of modifications to these two signalized intersections will depend upon the approved TMP and construction staging proposed by the DB Entity but it is anticipated that they will consist of adjustments to signal timing and phasing, due to the added traffic during implementation of detour plans, during construction. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2020 | Date Answered: 06/12/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
We have run the existing model and it does not consistently show backups, yet the documentation discusses backups to the State line. If the model is inaccurate, any proposed changes we make to the overall design or construction staging analysis will not be accurate. Can we get a copy of the calibration report for the model to review all of the assumed parameters used? |
|
|
Answer:
Corrected model files and a calibration report will be provided in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2020 | Date Answered: 06/11/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
There are no models for Construction Staging, just the Existing (2019), No-Build (2045) and Build (2045). Where these modeled? Can we obtain these files? |
|
|
Answer:
The information will be provided in an upcoming addendum. Only a select number of the construction phases have been modeled. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/09/2020 | Date Answered: 06/12/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The VISSIM Model appears to be incomplete or not the full model used in the analysis section (Chapter 6 of the Interchange Justification Report (IJR). The following items appear to be missing: a. The VISSM model does not include On/Off-Ramp intersections and next major intersection along the corridor as described in the IJR/Traffic Memo. In addition, the model does not include Henderson Bridge or the major intersections along the routes between the two bridges. The IJR reads: “At each freeway interchange, the study area includes the ramp, the ramp intersection with the secondary street, and the closest major intersection on each side of the ramp intersection. In addition, the study area extends northly to include the Henderson Bridge and the major intersections along the routes between the two bridges. b. The volumes used in the model do not match the volumes shown in the freeway figures in the IJR. |
|
|
Answer:
Syncro models were utilized for the secondary street networks and were included with the information given to the DB Teams. VISSIM was only utilized for the mainline analysis. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/08/2020 | Date Answered: 06/11/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
RFP Part 2 section 3.9.2 Roadway Design Criteria states "Appendix B contains design criteria tables for the various roadways on the Project. The tables also include anticipated Design Exceptions." This information does not appear to be included in Appendix B or anywhere else in the RFP documents. Please provide this information. |
|
|
Answer:
The information will be provided in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/05/2020 | Date Answered: 06/08/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Addendum 8 references the following files that have not yet been provided: • ALN-CDR-EX-I-195_Reloc • ALN-CDR-Gano-St Baseline • 57T-10_COR_HWY • ALN - CDR - Gano St Baselines • ALN - AECOM - Washington Bridge • ALN - CDR - I-195 Project Baselines Is it RIDOT's intention to provide these files, and if so, when? |
|
|
Answer:
These files were not included as they are superceded and no longer being referenced by any of the BTC drawings. |
|
| Date Asked: 06/01/2020 | Date Answered: 06/03/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
The BTC Plans were prepared at a scale of 1" = 40'. The RFP stipulates that the plans should be prepared in accordance with DPM 450.02 in which Section 450.02.05.01 states that plans should be prepared at a scale of 1" = 20'. We understand that the final design plans will need to be provided at a 1" = 20' scale, but will RIDOT allow the BTC General Plans and Profiles to remain at a scale of 1" = 40' for the proposal submission? |
|
|
Answer:
RIDOT will allow the BTC General Plans and Profiles to be submitted at a scale of 1" = 40' for the proposal submission. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/27/2020 | Date Answered: 05/29/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Is there an appendix B02 to be issued (Guide Specifications)? |
|
|
Answer:
At this time no Guide Specifications are anticipated to be released. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/27/2020 | Date Answered: 05/29/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The mandatory job specific specification 109.05 Payment for Work specifies monthly progress payments. Will bi-weekly progress payments be allowed, as this has been changed in the Blue Book standard specifications? Also, I believe this section should be 109.06, not 109.05. |
|
|
Answer:
The mandatory job specific specification 109.05 Payment for Work will be removed by addendum and the section provided in the Blue Book standard specifications will apply for this project. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/26/2020 | Date Answered: 05/29/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Could RIDOT please confirm that the Gano Street and Waterfront Drive ramp intersection plans have been reviewed and accepted by the Cities of Providence and East Providence, respectively? |
|
|
Answer:
The intersection plans have not been reviewed or accepted by the cities at this time. However, a review is pending. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/26/2020 | Date Answered: 05/27/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Could RIDOT please provide an editable version of the TMP and associated attachments? |
|
|
Answer:
Editable files will be released under addendum #8. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/26/2020 | Date Answered: 05/27/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
In the Project-Wide Plan released with the initial RFP, there is a section of shoulder widening shown on the eastbound side of I-195 near the toll gantry. The since-released Volume 4 and TMP does not indicate that this work is part of the project. Please confirm whether this work is being done as part of the gantry installation by others, or if it is the responsibility of the DB Team. |
|
|
Answer:
The Volume 4 plans and Draft TMP supersede the Project Wide Plan. The shoulder widening on the eastbound side is no longer a part of this contract or the tolling gantry project. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2020 | Date Answered: 05/15/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The zip file containing Appendix B07 appears to be corrupt. We cannot open the folder. Please re-post. |
|
|
Answer:
The files will be re-posted under addendum #7 |
|
| Date Asked: 05/15/2020 | Date Answered: 05/20/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
To date, MPT plans and the TMP have not been issued, nor have the CAD files. It is very difficult to evaluate this project and proceed without these. As there remains only one month until proposal deadline, and one month has passed since the initial issue of the RFP, we feel it would be fair to extend the proposal submission deadline by at least 1 month after the MPT plans, TMP and CAD files are issued. We respectfully request such an extension to the submission deadline. |
|
|
Answer:
The deadline will be postponed by an addendum to follow. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2020 | Date Answered: 05/13/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
RFP Part 2, Section 5.3 Ascertaining the Location of Utilities states that the DB Entity bears full responsibility for ascertaining the existence and exact location of all utilities on the Site. Please confirm that if the utilities are found to be in locations that require the BTC to be modified or the schedule adjusted, this will be considered a compensable changed condition. |
|
|
Answer:
Determination of compensatable changed conditions will be assessed on a case by case basis. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2020 | Date Answered: 05/13/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
Please provide the timeframe for the completion and demobilization of the current construction activities at the Washington Bridge when the selected DB contractor can expect unimpeded access to all parts of the bridge. |
|
|
Answer:
Demobilization has already occurred. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2020 | Date Answered: 05/13/2020 |
| Poster: Timothy McLaughlin | Company: SPS New England, Inc. |
|
Question:
The Volume 1 plans for Bridge 700 (I-195 WB) do not provide bridge repair quantities and indicate that the contractor shall determine the repair areas. Please confirm the completed quantities to date as part of the previous or ongoing contract(s) using Volume 1. |
|
|
Answer:
Refer to RFP Part 2, Section 3.7.3 Estimated Quantity Items |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2020 | Date Answered: 05/13/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Please provide Appendix A documents. Please also provide the missing MPT plans from volume 4. Thank you. |
|
|
Answer:
Appendix A documents are included at the end of RFP Part 1. They begin on page 46 of 119. MPT plans are included in Addendum #5. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2020 | Date Answered: 05/13/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
RFP part 1 Section 3.1 states, "All Proposals must incorporate the BTC without any exceptions to or deviations from the BTC and/or the requirements of the RFP." Is this statement disallowing Alternative Technical Concepts to be presented in the proposal? |
|
|
Answer:
No. Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC's) will be allowed to be presented in the proposals however there will be no formal ATC review process for this project prior to proposal submission. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2020 | Date Answered: 07/07/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
The RFP states that temporary barrier is required to be TL-5 on I-195. This is not in accordance with TAC 0349. Should we follow the TAC and provide TL-4 barrier? |
|
|
Answer:
REVISED: Due to limited product availability, RIDOT is currently drafting a TAC that will allow for the use of MASH TL-3 temporary barrier, which will be allowed to be used project wide for this project. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/11/2020 | Date Answered: 05/11/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Will a draft TMP be provided as stated on page 8 of the RFP part 2? |
|
|
Answer:
A draft TMP will be included in Addendum No.5. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/07/2020 | Date Answered: 05/13/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Part 1, 6.6 Key Staff and Team Organization, states that key personnel shall be identified and summary resumes provided. Are these full-page resumes to be provided in an appendix? Should resumes also be provided for the other members of the project team? |
|
|
Answer:
Full page resumes shall be provided in an appendix. Resumes for other members not specifically listed are not required, however may be provided as a separate group if desired. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/07/2020 | Date Answered: 05/13/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
The Construction Quality Control Manager qualifications require that the individual must possess a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering.... Is a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering and over 20 years of Construction QC direct oversight/management experience acceptable? |
|
|
Answer:
Ten or more years of experience working directly in the field as a Construction QC Manager will be acceptable in lieu of a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/07/2020 | Date Answered: 05/11/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Part 1, 6.3 Required Transmittal Letter states, “The Technical Proposal shall be accompanied by a Proposal Letter (FORM A) (referenced in Section 6.11 and Section 7.1 below) signed by an individual authorized to bind the Proposer contractually. The Transmittal Letter shall state, among other things, that the Technical Proposal shall remain valid beyond the Proposal Deadline until the Contract is fully executed, or until the Contract is withdrawn and the Project cancelled by the State, whichever occurs first. The Transmittal Letter shall also state the name, title, address, email address, and telephone number of one individual who will respond to State requests for additional information, and, also, of one individual who is authorized to negotiate and execute the Contract on the Proposer’s behalf.” Is the Transmittal Letter the same as the Proposal Letter (Form A)? The Form A Proposal Letter does not include this language or request this information. Will this form be reissued or should this information be added at the bottom of the form? |
|
|
Answer:
The referenced Transmittal Letter is the same as Form A. Form A will be revised by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/07/2020 | Date Answered: 05/11/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Does a Table of Contents count towards the page limit? |
|
|
Answer:
The Table of Contents shall be considered a cover page and will not count toward the 50 page limit. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/07/2020 | Date Answered: 05/11/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
Can RIDOT please provide electronic CAD Files for all volumes along with the remaining plans that haven’t yet been released? |
|
|
Answer:
CAD files will be provided by addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 05/07/2020 | Date Answered: 05/11/2020 |
| Poster: Linda Sanson | Company: Barletta Heavy Division |
|
Question:
May a smaller font than Arial 11pt be used for labels, graphics, tables and captions? |
|
|
Answer:
A smaller font size may be used for the referenced items. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/29/2020 | Date Answered: 04/30/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Please disregard previous question. |
|
|
Answer:
Noted. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/29/2020 | Date Answered: 04/30/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
RFP Part 2, 3.4.4.3 requires a preliminary construction cost estimate to be submitted with the 30% design submission. Please confirm that this will not be required as this a D-B project. |
|
|
Answer:
Question disregarded. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/29/2020 | Date Answered: 04/30/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
Volume 2 and 3 were added by addendum 2. Volume 1 has not yet been added. Do you have an expected date to add volume 1? Without this, it's difficult to evaluate the project and begin the proposal. Please consider pushing the procurement milestones dates listed in Part 1, 2.3, out to account for the late addition of the BTC plans. |
|
|
Answer:
Volume 1 will be released early in the week of May 4th. |
|
| Date Asked: 04/14/2020 | Date Answered: 04/14/2020 |
| Poster: Steven Morin | Company: CARDI CORPORATION |
|
Question:
There is only one plan sheet in Appendix B, B03 BTC folder. Are more BTC plans to be issued? |
|
|
Answer:
Additional volumes will be provided by addendum. |
|