Questions and Answers For:

RFP - Design Build Route 146 Reconstruction (For Short-Listed Firms Only) 2021-DB-015

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

The ask question function is now disabled;
please call 401-563-4100 with any new questions.

Date Asked: 12/23/2021 Date Answered: 12/23/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Regarding the offsite guardrail specified with quantities in Addendum 6, part 2 section 3.11.3, are millings under guardrail required under all new guardrail? And are millings under old guardrail that is removed and replaced in a different location required to be removed and replaced with loam/seed?
Answer:
Yes, millings under guardrail are required under all new guardrail. Yes, millings shall be removed and replaced with loam and seed where guardrail is removed and not re-installed in the same location.
Date Asked: 12/23/2021 Date Answered: 12/23/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
A question asked on 12/17 regarding the lighting requirements was responded to on 12/21 and states “Some lighting along the Rt. 146 corridor is not RIDOT owned (owned by National Grid). The intent is to upgrade existing state owned lighting or install new State owned lighting as shown on the BTC plans. The DB Team will be responsible to coordinate with the utility company and maintain existing lighting on utility poles not RIDOT owned”. This answer seems to indicate the DB entity is only responsible for proposed lighting as shown on the BTC plans and not the entire stretch from Route 99 to Route 146A. This contradicts RFP Part 2 Section 3.16 which states “New overhead highway lighting is required on Route 146 from Route 99 to the Route 146A interchange” as well as “The DB Entity shall be responsible for all calculations required to determine the appropriate number, spacing, mounting height, etc. of the lighting for the above locations” and “The State lighting and electrical system shall be designed and installed in compliance with RIDOT Standard Specifications and Standards”. Based on the answer given to the previous question and the language stated in the RFP, is the DB entity responsible to develop a lighting design to meet RIDOT standards from Route 99 to the Route 146A interchange or are they just responsible for the proposed lighting that is shown in the BTC?
Answer:
The DB Entity will be responsible for evaluating if any additional lighting (to be part of the State System) beyond what is shown on the BTC plans is required between Rt. 99 and Rt. 146A. Any other lighting that is not part of the State system shall be maintained and coordinated with National Grid.
Date Asked: 12/22/2021 Date Answered: 12/23/2021
Poster: Linda Sanson Company: Barletta Heavy Division
Question:
The legend on BTC drawing, volume 1, Sheet 5 of 112, replaced by Addendum 3 defines the “CLF” call out as “CHAIN LINK FENCE (4’-0” HIGH) MOUNTED ON TOP OF MASH TL-4 DOUBLE-FACED PRECAST MEDIAL BARRIER”. Addendum 6 issued a revised Part 2 of the specifications, where the second paragraph of section 3.11.3. – Permanent Roadside Elements indicates “All existing guardrail that is not MASH compliant and all damaged MASH Compliant guardrail (as determined by RIDOT) shall be replaced with new MASH compliant guardrail and appropriate end sections. In addition to the guardrail that is shown in the BTC plans, guardrail shall also be replaced within the project limits at the following locations: ● … ● … ● Route 146 between I-295 interchange and Sayles Hill Road that are not shown on the BTC plans ● ….” Currently guardrail is installed in the median on Route 146 between the I-295 interchange and Sayles Hill Road. Please clarify what RIDOT would like installed in the area between the I-295 interchange and Sayles Hill Road (between +/- Station 384+00 to 398+50). New TL-4 Guardrail? Or TL-4 Barrier with 4’-0” Chain Link Fence?
Answer:
Median barrier with chain link fence shall be installed in the median on Rt. 146 between STA 384+00 and 398+50.
Date Asked: 12/22/2021 Date Answered: 12/23/2021
Poster: Linda Sanson Company: Barletta Heavy Division
Question:
RIDOT issued TAC-0386R on 12/14/21 which has guidance for MASH Permanent Barrier and Test Level Selection for Bridges and Roadways. For Route 146, the applicable portion of the TAC indicates median guardrail shall be Thrie Beam TL-4. Addendum 6 indicates that MASH compliant guardrail shall be used in the median. Thrie Beam guardrail is not MASH tested and is only tested for NCHRP-350 TL-4. Thrie Beam has recently been installed along Route 146 in the median for other RIDOT projects. Please confirm that Thrie Beam guardrail is required for median applications.
Answer:
At a minimum, thrie beam may be used in the median in accordance with TAC 386R, unless it is determined another MASH compliant guardrail can be provided.
Date Asked: 12/22/2021 Date Answered: 12/22/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
A question regarding concrete road base joints was answered on 12/10 with a response that info would be in a forthcoming addendum. It does not appear that this was addressed in the most recent addendum, as we would have expected. Please include the clarification in the next addendum.
Answer:
This information will be provided in the next addendum.
Date Asked: 12/21/2021 Date Answered: 12/21/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP Part 1, Section 6.5 (Technical Approach) and Section 6.7 (Management Overview) indicate that proposers should provide a “Description of the planned coordination of Project work with the overall Project construction staging and other Project constraints including coordination with other projects in the area.”. This information is currently requested as part of each subsection within Section 6.5 and is also required in Section 6.7. In consideration of the page limit and to avoid repetitious material, would RIDOT consider eliminating this as part of Section 6.5 and allow proposers to address this item entirely in Section 6.7?
Answer:
This is acceptable. The RFP will be updated in a forthcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 12/21/2021 Date Answered: 12/21/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Please confirm that intelligent compaction is required only for friction course. Please also confirm if intelligent compaction is required on ramps or only on mainline paving.
Answer:
Correct, this is for friction course. Intelligent compaction shall be used anywhere friction course is proposed.
Date Asked: 12/20/2021 Date Answered: 12/20/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Table 2 on page 37 of the RFP states to include the Form O-Design Build Stipend Agreement in the Technical Proposal but section 4.4 on page 25 states to include it in the Price Proposal. Please clarify where to include this form.
Answer:
The stipend agreement needs to be submitted with the price proposal. This will be clarified by addendum.
Date Asked: 12/20/2021 Date Answered: 12/23/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The trench detail provided for fiber conduit showed concrete encasement covered by flowable fill. This detail is for fiber under roadways. Is concrete encasement and flowable fill also required for fiber in grass shoulders?
Answer:
BTC Plans, Vol 1 includes a typical trench detail for off-pavement locations.
Date Asked: 12/20/2021 Date Answered: 12/20/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP part 1, section 6.2, paragraph 6 requires a digital copy of the RFP and all addenda to be included on CD-ROM and submitted with the proposal. Please confirm if this is necessary, since we are required to acknowledge receipt of these documents elsewhere. The RFP includes many very large files including CAD files and may make it necessary to include on multiple CDs.
Answer:
Digital copies on a CD ROM are required. Multiple CD's are acceptable so long as they are clearly labeled.
Date Asked: 12/20/2021 Date Answered: 12/20/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Please confirm that the transmittal letter, proposal letter and form A, all referenced in part 1 of the RFP in multiple places, all refer to the same document which is included as form A in part 1.
Answer:
Confirmed, they are all one in the same.
Date Asked: 12/17/2021 Date Answered: 12/21/2021
Poster: Linda Sanson Company: Barletta Heavy Division
Question:
RIDOT issued TAC-0386 on 12/14/21 which has guidance for MASH Permanent Barrier and Test Level Selection for Bridges and Roadways. Among other things, the TAC indicates that all permanent barrier (Precast & Cast-in-Place) shall have galvanized reinforcing steel. The TAC also indicates that it does not apply for any current projects that are at 90%, PS&E, Advertising, or in Construction. Does TAC-0386 issued on 12/14/21apply to RIDOT Bid# 7611863PH2?
Answer:
This TAC will apply to this project. Galvanized rebar shall be used for all new permanent barrier.
Date Asked: 12/17/2021 Date Answered: 12/23/2021
Poster: Linda Sanson Company: Barletta Heavy Division
Question:
Sign requirements are provided for portions of the Route 146 corridor, but no signage is provided for the improvements at Sayles Hill Road or the Route 146A interchange. Additionally, Section 3.1 Part 1 of the RFP states that new signs and sign structures along Route 146 between I-295 and the Massachusetts State line are a major feature of the BTC. Please provide the overhead sign requirements for Sayles Hill Road flyover, Route 146/146A interchange, and north of Route 146A to the state line.
Answer:
Guide signs and structures along Rt. 146 beginning in the vicinity of Rt. 146A and up to the MA State Line were replaced as part of a previous RIDOT project in 2019. In general, the majority of these signs and structures are not anticipated to need replacement or modification. The guide sign plans included in the Misc BTC plan set are proposed guide sign and structure upgrades of existing signage located along Rt. 146 between I-295 and Rt. 146A. The DB Team will be required to determine any new guide signs and structures or modifications to proposed and/or existing signage needed for the new overpass/exits at Sayles Hill Road and reconfiguration of the Rt. 146A interchange in accordance with the latest MUTCD and RIDOT Design Standards. If a DB Team proposes to reuse existing sign structures, analysis showing the design meets current criteria will be required.
Date Asked: 12/17/2021 Date Answered: 12/21/2021
Poster: Linda Sanson Company: Barletta Heavy Division
Question:
The RFP states 3.16.4 “New overhead lighting is required on Route 146 form Route 99 to the Route 146A interchange” However, the BTC plans show lighting in the Route 146 median from STA. 419+50 to 431+40 and 457+00 to the 146A Interchange. Please clarify the lighting requirements and if lighting shall be placed throughout the stretch of Route 146 from Route 99 to the 146A interchange.
Answer:
Some lighting along the Rt. 146 corridor is not RIDOT owned (owned by National Grid). The intent is to upgrade existing State owned lighting or install new State owned lighting as shown on the BTC plans. The DB Team will be responsible to coordinate with the utility company to maintain existing lighting on utility poles that are not RIDOT owned.
Date Asked: 12/17/2021 Date Answered: 12/22/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Written correspondence received from NGrid, states that they have significant concerns regarding the BTC and they “do not support the proposed RIDOT Route 146/146A highway project”. Please provide a buildable BTC that has been accepted in concept by NGrid in regard to roadway layout and configuration, as this is absolutely necessary to accurately prepare a price and technical proposal for any design-build project. Please consider that significant roadway changes or scheduling changes will take time to evaluate, prepare and print at this late stage in the proposal and a delay to the proposal submission date should be considered.
Answer:
RIDOT has been coordinating with National Grid since 2020, including preliminary reviews with National Grid Transmission group in relation to the 2 transmission towers in the vicinity of Rt. 146A. Further clarification on additional N. Grid design and construction requirements will be added to the RFP by addendum. This update has recently been preliminarily vetted with National Grid and it will be the DB Teams responsibility to continue this coordination.
Date Asked: 12/17/2021 Date Answered: 12/21/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
We request a unit price bid items to be added to form N for the masonry repairs required for Reservoir Bridge, as quantities at this time are unknown.
Answer:
A unit bid item will be added in a forthcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 12/16/2021 Date Answered: 12/17/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Will a table of contents at the start of the Technical Proposal count towards the 100 page limit?
Answer:
The table of contents will not count towards the page limit.
Date Asked: 12/15/2021 Date Answered: 12/23/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
As a cost saving measure to the Department, would it be acceptable to provide new bridge girders with the exterior girders metalized and painted and all interior girders with only a metalized finish and no paint?
Answer:
This change constitutes an ATC, as it is a modification to the BTC which requires all new steel to be metalized and painted. RIDOT can no longer provide additional feedback at this time.
Date Asked: 12/15/2021 Date Answered: 12/22/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Neither the BTC general plans / typical sections nor the RFP indicate concrete road base under Route 146. We believe there is concrete road base under the majority of the Route 146 highway in the areas of full depth construction from the Rustic Drive In heading north to Rote 146A. Please confirm the locations of any known concrete road base and whether or not there is rebar in this existing concrete road base.
Answer:
In general, the Route 146 corridor includes concrete road base that has embedded reinforcing (refer to pavement core data in Appendix B). It is assumed, but not certain, that any concrete road base within the limits of full depth reconstruction has embedded reinforcing. For bidding purposes the presence of reinforcing should be accounted for in the DB Team’s bid under the appropriate cost items.
Date Asked: 12/15/2021 Date Answered: 12/23/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please reference BTC LOD/Stormwater Concepts Plans 1 & 2, the “BUS-ON-SHOULDER” scope of work for 12,550 LF on Route 146 South from Mineral Spring Ave to I-95. Scope includes: · ADDING PAVEMENT MARKINGS ROUTE 146 SOUTHBOUND BUS-ON-SHOULDER · ADDING SIGNS ROUTE 146 SOUTHBOUND BUS-ON-SHOULDER · REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS, RESTRIPE FOR BUS-ON-SHOULDER Please provide details on lane width for re-striping, pavement marking symbols, pavement marking removal limits, special traffic signs, etc.?
Answer:
Please refer to a question asked on 10/29 and responded to on 11/5 as well as a question asked on 11/8 and responded to on 11/10 regarding minimum lane and shoulder widths. The bus on shoulder is to be installed along Rt. 146 south between Mineral Spring Avenue and the Admiral Street exit. In addition, it will be the DB Team’s responsibility to determine striping and signage placement in coordination with RIPTA as part of the final design. It is anticipated that all signage will be ground mounted on u-channel posts and striping may include but not be limited to word messages in the shoulder. Signage and pavement markings should be consistent with guidance issued by FHWA regarding use of freeway shoulders for travel.
Date Asked: 12/13/2021 Date Answered: 12/15/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Recent project job specific specs for friction course have weather limitations of 55 degree air temp in the shade and if WMA is used, it is 45 degree air/surface temp in the shade. The mandatory specs for this project have temp limitations of 55 degrees in the shade and, with WMA, 50 degrees air/surface in the shade. We request that the weather limitations stated in the mandatory spec for friction paving with WMA be changed to be in line with current project specifications (45 degrees with WMA) and allow the most flexibility with the paving season possible.
Answer:
This special provision was updated based on input from FHWA. This special provision is currently being used on other awarded Design-Build projects and is also included in upcoming Design-Bid-Build projects that are currently advertised.
Date Asked: 12/13/2021 Date Answered: 12/13/2021
Poster: maureen mchugh Company: RIDOT
Question:
An update has been provided to a question posted on 12/6 and responded to on 12/9.
Answer:
Please refer to an updated answer to this question posted on 12/13.
Date Asked: 12/10/2021 Date Answered: 12/10/2021
Poster: Linda Sanson Company: Barletta Heavy Division
Question:
May a smaller font than Arial 11pt be used for labels, graphics, tables and captions?
Answer:
Yes this is acceptable.
Date Asked: 12/08/2021 Date Answered: 12/09/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
In reference to the General Insurance Requirements contained in Addendum A of the Blue Book- General Specifications, there are 5 separate Schedules listed (A1, A2, A3…etc.) which contain differing insurance coverage requirements based on class of work. Schedule A2 defines insurances needed for professional services performed for the State of Rhode Island. This schedule includes a requirement for Crime insurance. Further, Section A3 – Information Technology and/or Cyber Privacy includes a requirement for Cyber insurance coverage. Section A5 – Department of Transportation Projects does not contain requirements for either of these coverages. Are bidders to follow strictly the insurance schedule for A5 – Department of Transportation Projects, or as this contract is design build in nature, does the insurance requirements in A2 – Professional Services apply as well? Does the Crime Insurance requirement set forth in A3 – Information Technology and/or Cyber Privacy apply to this project?
Answer:
Only Schedule A5 of RI State Purchasing’s General Insurance Requirements apply to this project. Any additional insurance requirements for design-build projects are contained in RFP Part 3, which replaces Section 100 of the RIDOT Blue Book for this project.
Date Asked: 12/07/2021 Date Answered: 12/07/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
In order to have the least possible negative affect on pricing caused by the extensive vacation schedules of our subcontractors and vendors during the holiday weeks, and since the price proposals will not be opened for about a month after the current proposal submission date, we request that the price proposal submission date be extended to at least two weeks after the technical proposal submission date.
Answer:
The technical and price proposal will be due on January 6, 2022 as a complete package. The dates in the RFP will not be revised.
Date Asked: 12/07/2021 Date Answered: 12/08/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP part 1 section 4.1 requires the entire contents of the proposal including all copies of the transmittal letter, technical proposal, bid bond, price proposal all to be submitted together in a sealed container. Please confirm if it's acceptable to submit the proposal in separate containers if required by space or weight constraints, with each container labeled as box 1 of x, box 2 of x, etc.
Answer:
This is acceptable. Please ensure the bid bond and price proposal are provided in separately labeled and sealed envelopes or boxes as also required in Section 4.1.
Date Asked: 12/07/2021 Date Answered: 12/09/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
BTC plans do not note structural concrete repairs on the I-295 bridge abutments or wingwalls. Will required concrete repairs at these bridges be paid for under 1.16.2 or 1.16.3 on form N? If not, please provide a quantity to base our bid on.
Answer:
Repairs will be quantified and paid for under their respective unit bid items. Final quantities will be determined at the time of construction.
Date Asked: 12/07/2021 Date Answered: 12/10/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
It will be necessary to remove the single face barrier that runs along each side of the pier in order to demolish and rebuild the piers at the I-295 bridges. Will it be allowable to reuse or replace the barrier in kind or will it be required to replace it with MASH TL-4 barrier?
Answer:
New MASH compliant barrier (and in accordance with latest RIDOT MASH design guidance) shall be installed. Final limits of removal and the transition to existing barrier shall be the responsibility of the DB Team.
Date Asked: 12/06/2021 Date Answered: 12/10/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
It's impossible to determine a quantity for repairs to longitudinal and transverse joints in the road base, as this is specified to be determined by the Engineer. Please either add a unit price bid item or a quantity to carry in the bid for this work.
Answer:
The description of work and method of payment for this will be clarified in a forthcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 12/06/2021 Date Answered: 12/10/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
BTC highway drawings sheet #6, Key Plan, shows high friction surface treatment on Rte 146 from I-295 all the way to the MA State line. Is this correct? If not, please clarify where high friction surface treatment is required. Also, please provide a mandatory specification.
Answer:
This is not a correct interpretation of this key plan. The intent is that off-ramps from Rt. 146 within these limits are to be treated with the high friction surface treatment. Refer to Volume 1- LOD/Stormwater Concepts plan sheets that further clarify the scope of work at the off-ramps.
Date Asked: 12/06/2021 Date Answered: 12/13/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Part 2, section 3.13.7.4 for Rte 99 Bridge states that full depth concrete deck repairs are required. The plan for this bridge show crack repairs required. We cannot determine quantities. We request that separate unit price bid items be added to form N for this work or provide quantities to carry in the bid.
Answer:
Updated Response- 12/13/21- Concrete bridge deck repairs within the limits shown on the BTC plans to rebuild the concrete deck edge to facilitate the pier joint installation shall be included in the cost of Item 1.4.4 Rt 99 Ramp Bridge No. 098701 Preservation Repairs. Any concrete deck repairs beyond these limits, and any concrete crack repairs, both as directed by RIDOT, shall be billed and paid for to reflect actual costs incurred, as described in Section 109.04d, Part 3 of this RFP force account basis, under Item 1.15 Bridge and Roadway Special Maintenance. An updated Form N will be provided by addendum. (Superseded by the response above- Unit bid items and Quantities for bidding purposes will be added in a forthcoming addendum (original response posted on 12/9/21)).
Date Asked: 12/02/2021 Date Answered: 12/20/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Part 2 Section 3.11.2.10 of the RFP notes that the RTWS shall include vehicle detection, portable cameras, and PCMS and that the "RTWS shall detect traffic conditions in advance of, and/or through, the work zone and provide real time traffic information to motorists." A question asked on 11/2/2021 regarding the RTWS locations and system intent was answered on 11/22/2021.  The referenced specification T13.9901 Mobile Camera Surveillance System only refers to the camera system and online interface.  Please clarify what type of traffic data will need to be detected and what type of information needs to be disseminated through the PCMS provided by the DB Entity, if any.
Answer:
This will be clarified by a forthcoming addendum this week.
Date Asked: 12/02/2021 Date Answered: 12/03/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please confirm that the Proposer is to submit the Design DBE Form K and Form L with the Technical Proposal and that the Construction DBE Form K and Form L will be submitted 14 days prior to the start of construction activity.
Answer:
Confirmed.
Date Asked: 12/02/2021 Date Answered: 12/20/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Typical Section No. 8 indicates removal and replacement of median and shoulder guardrail with new mash compliant guardrail from station 490+00 to 758+00 (approx. 5 miles). Is the intent to replace all of the existing guardrail with MASH compliant guardrail?
Answer:
This will be clarified in a forthcoming addendum this week.
Date Asked: 12/01/2021 Date Answered: 12/20/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
This question is in reference to my previous question regarding Mandatory Spec 929.9901 on 8/2/21 and the response on 8/4/21. In the previous response, it was stated that replacement of field office equipment damaged or lost due to fire or theft would be the contractor’s responsibility. I would assume that the State carries insurance that would cover this loss as well. Rather than including additional cost for equipment replacement in the bid (which one replacement would be a substantial amount of money), would the State consider utilizing insurance to cover the loss and, if necessary, pay the contractor on a change order to replace equipment damaged by fire or theft?
Answer:
The Contractor must maintain all equipment throughout the duration of the project until it is complete. There will be no separate payment in the case of fire, theft or equipment breakdown.
Date Asked: 11/30/2021 Date Answered: 12/03/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please confirm it is not necessary to replace the technical proposal forms with those provided with an updated footer in Addendum 4 and any future addenda, unless the forms have been modified.
Answer:
It is not necessary to replace the technical proposal forms if only the footer has been updated. The latest version of any forms that have been modified by addendum shall be submitted with the technical proposal.
Date Asked: 11/29/2021 Date Answered: 12/07/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Please confirm whether the durations in RFP part 2 section 7.1.3.1 for each permitting agency also include the time required for RIDOT's permit review, which RIDOT requires to be completed prior to submission to the permitting agencies. If not, please provide the duration for each of the RIDOT permit reviews.
Answer:
The durations in Part 2 Section 7.1.3.1 are approximate durations for each permitting agency. RIDOT’s permit review is intended to ensure completeness of application materials, consistency with the RFP, NEPA, the consent decree or other requirements. The review timeframe should be considered the same as Review of Design Submissions.
Date Asked: 11/29/2021 Date Answered: 12/07/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP Part 2, section 7.1.3.1 does not show a duration for Army Corps of Engineers review. Please confirm the duration that needs to be carried on the project schedule for this review. Also, please confirm that the ACoE review can be concurrent with RIDEM Wetlands Alteration Permit review.
Answer:
Typically the ACoE review can occur concurrently with RIDEM, however an approved ACoE permit may not necessarily be received at the same time of RIDEM approval. The table in 7.1.3.1 will be updated by addendum to include ACoE with an estimated duration.
Date Asked: 11/23/2021 Date Answered: 11/23/2021
Poster: maureen mchugh Company: RIDOT
Question:
Addendum 4 has been posted but does not have a zip file to download.
Answer:
Due to file size, shortlisted Teams must pick up a CD from RIDOT Contracts Room 112 containing the Addendum 4 files.
Date Asked: 11/22/2021 Date Answered: 11/22/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Can RIDOT please provide information (plans, written description, etc.) for New P.A.B. PLAT 2990 shown on the Volume 1 General Plans?
Answer:
Additional information regarding Plat #2990 will be provided in a forthcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 11/19/2021 Date Answered: 11/22/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP Part 2 Section 1.1.6 (also alluded to on page 18 of the Infra Grant documents) states that the DDI and Spring Brook bridge must be complete prior to the start of the construction of the Sayles Hill Flyover Bridge in order to provide vehicles travelling Northbound safe and efficient means to U-turn and access Route 146 Southbound. The BTC plans show the existing Rte 146/Rte 146A intersection layout on the Sayles Hill Bridge MPT plans which directly conflicts with these statements. Since there is an existing U-turn on Route 146A that provides vehicles travelling Northbound access to Route 146 Southbound, please confirm that it is allowable to plan to utilize this U-turn during construction of both the DDI and Sayles Hill Rd bridge as long as this U-turn location stays open during the construction. If it is not, please clarify by what phase of work on the Sayles Hill Rd MPT plans does the DDI need to be complete and whether the entire DDI needs to be complete at that point or just the new U-turn in phase 2A. Concurrent work at these areas is absolutely necessary to compete the job on very aggressive schedule, as required by the RFP.
Answer:
The intent of the RFP is that the closure of the Sayles Hill Road intersection cannot commence until the existing 146 NB at 146A U-turn (as it currently exists) is replaced or improved upon in terms of safety. Based on this, some work at Sayles Hill Road, prior to closure of the intersection, may occur simultaneously with work at the Rt. 146A interchange.
Date Asked: 11/17/2021 Date Answered: 11/22/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Can the Department please confirm the profile for the Route 146 Southbound Off Ramp to Route 146A Northbound ties into the Route 146 Southbound mainline profile at the correct proposed grade? The ramp profile in the area of the gore, STA 1503+25 has a profile elevation of 290.29’ while the Route 146 mainline profile in the area of the gore, STA 485+50 shows a profile elevation of 297.33’. This results in an approximate grade difference of 5 feet at the proposed gore area based on the BTC profiles for each roadway shown on BTC Volume 1 Profile Sheets Nos. 19 and 31.
Answer:
Volume 1 Plan Sheets 73 & 74 have been modified accordingly and will be included in forthcoming Addendum #4.
Date Asked: 11/17/2021 Date Answered: 11/24/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part 2 Section 3.17.1 mentions the relocation of the existing camera and DMS sign on Route 146 south of the Route 146A split, which is shown on the highway plans.  However, this section of the RFP also mentions that a new fiber communications line with additional CCTVs are also included in the Project.  While the RFP and plans call out for the new fiber line to extend from I-295 to the Massachusetts State Line, there does not appear to be any reference of additional CCTV locations.  Please confirm the locations of the additional CCTVs required for the Project.
Answer:
Additional CCTV’s (other than the relocation of existing camera and DMS sign at Rt. 146A) are not included in the scope of this project. The fiber backbone and any required manholes shall be placed in accordance with locations in RIDOT TMC’s ITS Deployment Plan. The RFP language will be clarified further in a forthcoming addendum, as well as additional information regarding RIDOT TMC's ITS Deployment Plan.
Date Asked: 11/09/2021 Date Answered: 11/10/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
The RIVIP Bidder Certification Cover Sheet is no longer available for download on the RIVIP website. Please provide.
Answer:
Please confirm the Vendor information is properly entered, as a RIVIP form will automatically be generated once signed in to the solicitation. We are aware of another Vendor for a different project who was able to download their RIVIP form this week, so it appears to be working properly. If you believe the issue still remains, please contact State Purchasing as the RIVIP website is not administered through RIDOT.
Date Asked: 11/09/2021 Date Answered: 11/10/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Questions were submitted on 9/9/2021 and 10/14/2021 requesting Part 3 of the RFP, which we expect will contain Terms and Conditions and define liquidated damages. Responses indicated Part 3 will be provided in a forthcoming addendum. When can we expect this addendum? We will need sufficient time to review and evaluate the legal information provided.
Answer:
We expect Part 3 to be issued by addendum before the end of the month.
Date Asked: 11/08/2021 Date Answered: 11/10/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
A question asked on 10/29 regarding the bus on shoulder lane was responded to on 11/5, but some parts of the question were not fully answered. Could you please respond directly to these remaining questions? It should be noted that milling and filling rumble strips and milling pavement striping is typically for temporary work as the milled striping degrades the friction and the filled rumble strips don’t tend to last as long as full width milling and paving. Additionally, wheel paths may be moved directly onto pavement joints. Is this work expected to be a test project with permanent reconfiguration occurring soon afterward if successful? Will RIDOT pay the contractor as extra work to maintain and repair pavement that fails due to this “temporary” sort of work? Thank you.
Answer:
Installation of a bus on shoulder in this area was previously studied by RIPTA and shall be considered permanent. Although milling and filling rumble strips and pavement restriping are typically performed for more temporary situations, Rt. 146 in this area was milled and paved in 2017 therefore full width milling and repaving of Rt. 146 is not included in the scope of work for this project. Item 1.15.2 on Form N is for 'Bridge and Road Special Maintenance' should pavement repairs/maintenance be needed due to unexpected pavement failures within the project limits.
Date Asked: 11/04/2021 Date Answered: 11/22/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Sheets 48 & 49 of the BTC display the profile for the off-ramp from Route 146 Southbound to Route 99. This profile displays full depth construction beginning at approximate station STA 2500+25. On Sheet 21 in the General Plans, it shows full depth starting after STA 2100+00. Furthermore, in the area of the gore, STA 2503+00 has a profile elevation of 312.15’ while the corresponding profile elevation along the mainline at STA 379+00 is 305’. Upon review of this profile and attempting to develop a solution, we have concluded that a DER will be needed for this ramp as a profile cannot be developed to meet the parameter value specified in the BTC criteria. Please clarify if additional design exceptions found during review of the BTC will be the responsibility of the D/B entity?
Answer:
The profile was developed for a design speed of 35 MPH – refer to Design Criteria Chart No. 12 that will be included in forthcoming Addendum #4. The BTC was developed to ~30%, and the DB Team will be responsible for obtaining all required Design Exceptions.
Date Asked: 11/04/2021 Date Answered: 11/23/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The RFP states “The CCVE’s located throughout the project area communicate with the TMC via 72-strand fiber optic cabling (page 71)”. It is unclear if RIDOT expects the D/B team to use 72-strand fiber optic cabling for the trunk line. Please provide clarification regarding RIDOT’s fiber strand requirements.
Answer:
Existing CCVE’s communicate with the TMC via a 24 strand cabling. A 72 strand fiber optic cabling shall be use for the new fiber trunk line proposed between I-295 and the MA State line, splicing into the existing 24 strand fiber at I-295. Typically recommended is an OS2 Single Mode, Outside Plant Loose Tube Fiber. The RFP will be clarified further by addendum.
Date Asked: 11/04/2021 Date Answered: 11/24/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The RFP gives limited direction on the fiber installation aside from “installing underground fiber communications lines on Route 146 between I-295 and the Massachusetts State Line (page 1)”. The standard trench details in the RFP plans show 8-1.5’’ conduits although there is a notes that says “These details represent typical details utilized for fiber optic communication line installation. The final design consultant shall be responsible for site specific fiber design location and installation”. Please confirm that it is up to the D/B team to determine the conduit size and number of conduits used.
Answer:
As noted, the BTC plan typical detail shows 8-1.5” conduits. A minimum conduit size of 1.5" is preferred, however it shall be the DB Teams responsibility to determine the appropriate conduit size and number.
Date Asked: 11/04/2021 Date Answered: 11/22/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Page 1 of the technical provisions state “installing underground fiber communications lines on Route 146 between I-295 and Massachusetts State Line”. Terminating the fiber trunk line at the Massachusetts State Line as aforementioned is vague. Please clarify where the fiber trunk line is terminating at the northern end of the project.
Answer:
For bidding purposes, assume that underground fiber communications lines on Route 146 will terminate at Station 1758+20 (approximately 50’ from the MA State Line).
Date Asked: 11/04/2021 Date Answered: 11/24/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Fiber splice vaults are not mentioned in the BTC plans, mandatory specifications, or technical provisions. Should teams include them in their estimate/proposal?
Answer:
Yes, splice vaults and manholes should be included in the proposal. The final location of the splice vaults and manholes will be the responsibility of the DB Team to determine, however it is generally assumed fiber splice vaults will be needed approximately every 1,000-2,000 feet, and manholes shall be installed in the vicinity of existing ITS and proposed future ITS devices (to be installed by future contracts) in accordance with RIDOT’s ITS Deployment Plan. Per RFP Section 3.17.4 The DB Team shall be responsible for obtaining latest fiber optic communication equipment requirements and all aspects of fiber optic design and coordinate with the RIDOT TMC.
Date Asked: 11/04/2021 Date Answered: 11/22/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Page 71 of the mandatory specifications, item #T15.9920, states that the wrong-way detection system shall consist of cell modems but in the BTC plans, specifically on pages 108 through 111, there is a note that states “fiber communication line installed off the RI Route 146 NB shoulder”. It is unclear if the wrong way detection system on these sheets require a fiber connection. Is it a requirement to fiber connect the wrong way detection systems?
Answer:
The Wrong Way Driving detection system shall consist of cellular modems. The notes on the bottom of the LOD/Stormwater Concept Plans 1-11 (Sheets 102-112) is intended to list the major items of work within the LOD on those plan sheets.
Date Asked: 11/03/2021 Date Answered: 11/22/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Addendum 3, Table 2 on Page 37 states that Form H (Guaranty Form) should be submitted with the Technical Proposal but the form itself states that it will not be used. Please advise.
Answer:
This form is not applicable to this project and will not be used.
Date Asked: 11/03/2021 Date Answered: 11/23/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
The Bid Conditions Form is not included in Addendum 3. Please confirm whether this form is still required. 
Answer:
This form is not required to be resubmitted and therefore was not included on the updated forms in Addendum 3. Please disregard the previous response given to the question asked on 8/23/21.
Date Asked: 11/03/2021 Date Answered: 11/08/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
The draft Categorical Exclusion (CE) checklist (dated 10/8/21) issued under Addendum 3 to the RFP states that work associated with the reconstruction/replacement of the Route 146/Route 146A interchange will impact approximately two (2) acres of biological wetlands by filling, grading, and clearing of woody vegetation. This permanent impact estimate appears to be exceedingly high based on the wetland boundary locations shown on the BTC plans. Please provide supporting information as to how these impacts at the proposed DDI location was calculated.
Answer:
The 2 acres of biological wetland impacts at the Route 146/146A interchange include both anticipated permanent and temporary impacts within the LOD to construct the new Bridge 440 and DDI. The DB Team will need to flag the wetlands and calculate the areas of impact for the environmental permits.
Date Asked: 11/03/2021 Date Answered: 11/22/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The RFP Part 2 Section 1.1.6 (also alluded to on page 18 of the Infra Grant documents) states that the DDI and Spring Brook bridge must be complete prior to the start of the construction of the Sayles Hill Flyover Bridge in order to provide vehicles travelling Northbound safe and efficient means to U-turn and access Route 146 Southbound. BTC plan sheet #92 shows a temporary signalized U-turn installed for the first phase of the Sayles Hill Flyover Bridge construction which would provide a means for Route 146 Northbound traffic to U-turn and access Route 146 Southbound. It appears that the RFP language and BTC plans are conflicting. Noting that there is only approximately 3 years and 9 months from NTP to the required substantial completion date, it appears necessary that the Sayles Hill Rd bridge construction start much sooner than the completion of the DDI and Spring Brook Bridge, especially since there is an available safe temporary U-turn location elsewhere. Is this the correct interpretation of the contract documents? Also, the temporary U-turn on sheet #99 utilizes property beyond the SFL. Is this land that will be acquired through a temporary easement?
Answer:
The intent of the RFP is that the closure of the Sayles Hill Road intersection cannot commence until the existing 146 NB at 146A U-turn (as it currently exists) is replaced or improved upon in terms of safety. Based on this, some work at Sayles Hill Road, prior to closure of the intersection, can occur simultaneously with work at the DDI. The proposed temporary U-turn near Anchor Subaru is not intended to function as a replacement of the existing 146 NB at 146A U-Turn. The use of private property is not permitted for U-turn maneuvers. Plan Sheet 92 has been modified for clarity and will be included in forthcoming Addendum #4.
Date Asked: 11/02/2021 Date Answered: 11/23/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
The Route 146 mainline existing profile between Sayles Hill Road and the Route 146A interchange has multiple vertical curves outside of the proposed profiles included in the BTC Volume 1 Highway Plans. At approximate Route 146 Mainline Station 447+90 there is an existing crest vertical curve that does not meet the proposed sight distance requirements for 65 mph and only meets a 50 mph design speed. Can the Department please confirm that design exceptions will not be required for areas that are only being resurfaced?
Answer:
Areas of just pavement micromilling and overlay will not require design exceptions to be submitted.
Date Asked: 11/02/2021 Date Answered: 11/22/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please confirm whether the existing static weigh station on Route 146 Southbound shown on BTC Volume 1 General Plan No. 21 will be removed as part of this project. There is a note on BTC Volume 1 General Plan No. 21 calling for removal and disposal of existing weigh station entrance ramp pavement and placement of loam and seed, which conflicts with the BTC Volume 1 Route 146 Southbound Static Weigh Station Sheet No. 78 that shows resurfacing and modifications to the existing weigh station.
Answer:
The existing weigh station on Route 146 SB is to be reconstructed. Areas of existing pavement will be removed, and existing pervious areas that are disturbed will be loamed & seeded. General Plan No. 21 (Sheet #38) and Route 146 Southbound Static Weigh Station (Sheet #78) have been revised to match the micro milling and overlay limits, and will be included in forthcoming Addendum #4.
Date Asked: 11/02/2021 Date Answered: 11/22/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Part 2 Section 3.11.2.10 of the RFP states that the Real Time Work Zone Traffic Information System shall detect traffic conditions in advance of, and/or through, the work zone and provide real time traffic information to motorists.  Please clarify the applications required of the system and type of information that the RTWS should collect and disseminate to the traveling public.  Can RIDOT also provide locations where information needs to be collected and disseminated?
Answer:
The Real Time Work Zone Traffic Information System is in reference to Item T13.9901 Mobile Camera Surveillance System. This will allow the Department to disseminate traffic conditions over state wide message board system. Mobile Camera locations will be determined by the DB Team and RIDOT during final design.
Date Asked: 11/02/2021 Date Answered: 11/05/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Cost Proposal Form G appears to have several errors - please review. 1.4 states subtotal of msv 1.4.1 to 1.4.4 but subitems go through 1.4.5. Similar issue for 1.12, 1.15 and 1.16.
Answer:
Cost Proposal Form N replaced the Cost Proposal Form G as part of Addendum 3. However, Form N will also be revised in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 10/29/2021 Date Answered: 11/22/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The project documents requires that all drainage within the project limits be cleaned by the D/B contractor. For drain lines that terminate outside the LOD/project limits, what should be carried? To the outfall or the next structure downstream/upstream or should we not figure any drain cleaning outside the project limits/LOD?
Answer:
No work shall be performed outside of the LOD which disturbs soil.
Date Asked: 10/29/2021 Date Answered: 11/23/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
It's impossible to know the condition of the existing drainage structures within the project limits. How will necessary repairs beyond replacing frame and grates be paid for? Will this be paid force account or could an allowance be added to the bid? Otherwise, would the Department consider providing a specific quantity to carry in the bid and anything beyond that paid as an extra?
Answer:
For the RFP/BTC it was assumed that 100% of drainage structures would be replaced in areas of full roadway reconstruction (near Sayles Hill Road / Flyover, and at the Rt. 146A Interchange). Outside of these areas it was assumed that only adjustments to frames & grates would be needed to accommodate pavement micromilling & overlay. Any required reconstruction of drainage structures in excess of these assumptions would be paid for under Item 1.15.2 Bridge and Road Special Maintenance.
Date Asked: 10/29/2021 Date Answered: 11/05/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
In RFP Sections 1.1.1 and 3.9.1 it states the D/B entity will be responsible for “installing RIPTA Bus-on-Shoulder on Route 146 southbound between Mineral Spring Avenue to I-95”. On BTC sheets 102 and 103, it states the D/B entity is to add proposed pavement markings and signage for the Bus-on Shoulder while removing the existing pavement markings and “mill and fill” the existing high speed rumble strip. Typical minimum bus lane width is 12’. Based on review of available information, it appears the existing right shoulder in this area varies and is at times less than 11’. Due to the width of the busses, less than 12 feet may cause a potential traffic safety issue by forcing the bus to encroach on the travel lane. Does the department expect the D/B entity to restripe the roadway full width along this stretch of the corridor to be sure a 12’ shoulder can be accommodated? Will it be necessary to mill & fill the rumble strip within the proposed bus lane? Will HMA surface course be acceptable for filling in the milled rumble strips, since friction is not workable by hand? It should be noted that milling and filling rumble strips and milling pavement striping is typically for temporary work as the milled striping degrades the friction and the filled rumble strips don’t tend to last as long as full width milling and paving. Additionally, wheel paths may be moved directly onto pavement joints. Is this work expected to be a test project with permanent reconfiguration occurring soon afterward if successful? Will RIDOT pay the contractor to maintain and repair pavement that fails due to this “temporary” sort of work. We request further clarification on the proposed extent of work in this section.
Answer:
It was assumed that the high speed rumble strip would be milled and filled with Class 9.5 HMA, then restriped providing an 11’ minimum Bus-On-Shoulder and 2-12’ travel lanes. RIPTA has previously identified an 11’ min. shoulder as acceptable for low speed use of the shoulder. The intent of the Bus-On-Shoulder program is to permit use only during high traffic congestion on Rt. 146. The location of the rumble strip in the low speed shoulder was coordinated during the construction phase of a recent repaving contract on this section of Rt. 146 (RIC 2017-CH-014) in anticipation of the Bus-On-Shoulder program, therefore milling and filling the low speed rumble strip is not expected.
Date Asked: 10/29/2021 Date Answered: 11/10/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
In RFP Section 3.16.4, it states “existing highway luminaires on I-295 and Route 146 near the interchange have been upgraded to LED, meeting the current State requirements.” Does the department have as-built or design plans associated with the lighting upgrades in this area and if so, can they be shared with the teams?
Answer:
Highway lighting was upgraded under RIC 2016-CT-009. Reference plans and documents will be provided by addendum.
Date Asked: 10/22/2021 Date Answered: 11/24/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please refer to Volume I – Highway BTC Plans, Typical Section No. 8 and General Plan No. 21. Typical Section No. 8 indicates that several items of work are required to be performed from Route 146A to the Massachusetts State Line (STA 490+00 to 758+00), over approximately 5 miles. Some of these scope items include, micro mill and resurface (P) and new mash compliant guardrail with appropriate end sections test level 3 (GR). Are there any recently completed and/or ongoing projects that may significantly impact this scope required throughout this corridor?
Answer:
Pavement micromilling and resurfacing limits shall be as shown on the BTC plans. Guardrail repair/replacement assumptions were made based on field evaluation and areas noted to be in poor condition. The DB Team shall be responsible for evaluating/verifying limits of guardrail repair/replacement as part of the final design.
Date Asked: 10/21/2021 Date Answered: 10/21/2021
Poster: maureen mchugh Company: RIDOT
Question:
Addendum 3 has been posted but does not have a zip file to download.
Answer:
Due to file size, shortlisted Teams must pick up a CD from RIDOT Contracts Room 112 containing the Addendum 3 files.
Date Asked: 10/19/2021 Date Answered: 10/21/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Is it acceptable to provide 40 scale highway plans for the proposal?
Answer:
This is acceptable for the proposal.
Date Asked: 10/18/2021 Date Answered: 10/21/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
It appears that the BTC profile for Route 146 mainline does not tie into the pavement grades at station 436+00 on the north side of the Sayles Hill Road shown on BTC Volume 1 Profile Sheet No. 11. Can the Department please confirm this was intentional and whether the limit of full depth pavement reconstruction is accurate as shown on the BTC plans based on this proposed condition?
Answer:
The limit of full depth pavement reconstruction on the Route 146 mainline is at Station 436+50, as shown on General Plan No. 11 (north of Sayles Hill Road).
Date Asked: 10/18/2021 Date Answered: 10/21/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Will the Department be providing an updated Design Exception Charts with the complete list of design exceptions required for the BTC plans? The Draft Design Exception Charts provided do not include criteria for the Route 146 Southbound Off Ramp to the Route 99/I-295 CD road and appear to be missing the “utilized value” for various design elements on other roadways listed.
Answer:
Updated Design Exception Charts which include the Route 146 Southbound Off Ramp-to-Route 99/I-295 CD road, and utilized values will be provided in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 10/18/2021 Date Answered: 10/21/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Can the Department please confirm the profile for the Route 146 Southbound Off Ramp to the Route 99/I-295 CD road is accurate and requires a retaining wall not shown on BTC General Plan No. 4 between the ramp and Route 99 SB? Additionally, the Design Exceptions Charts do not include design criteria for this ramp. Will the Department be providing the proposed design criteria for this location?
Answer:
The profile for the Route 146 Southbound Off-Ramp to the Route 99/I-295 CD road is designed for 35 MPH (design speed). Based on the 30% design prepared for the BTC, a retaining wall is not required at this location, however, the design build team is responsible for finalizing design. The Design Exception Chart for this ramp will be provided in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 10/18/2021 Date Answered: 10/21/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Forms A-F and the Bid Conditions Form were submitted with the SOQ. Is it required to resubmit these forms as part of our technical proposal?
Answer:
Further clarification on required forms will be provided in a forthcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 10/14/2021 Date Answered: 10/14/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Part 3 of the RFP states that Terms and Conditions will be added by addendum. Please provide.
Answer:
Part 3 will be provided in a forthcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 10/06/2021 Date Answered: 10/14/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Section 4.2.1 of the RFP notes that RIDOT is in the process of completing the NEPA review process for this project and that a CE determination is expected to be issued by FHWA prior to NTP for final design and construction.  Can RIDOT please provide the documents submitted to FHWA for review prior to the distribution of the approval of the Categorical Exclusion checklist?
Answer:
A copy of the draft document will be provided by addendum.
Date Asked: 10/06/2021 Date Answered: 10/20/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Section 3.4.4 of the Technical Provisions provides 45 calendar day reviews for initial design submissions and 21 calendar day reviews for resubmissions.  However, Section 7.1.3 shows 30 calendar days and 14 calendar days, respectively.  Please confirm which durations are correct.
Answer:
Section 3.4.4 is specific to design submissions and the 45 and 21 day durations shown are correct. Section 7.1.3 will be modified in a future addendum to clarify that shop drawing submissions are subject to a reduced 30 and 14 day review period.
Date Asked: 10/06/2021 Date Answered: 10/20/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Section 3.11.2 of the Technical Provisions reference BTC detour plans.  There does not appear to be detour plans included in Appendix B.  Please provide the detour plans that are referenced.
Answer:
Any required detour plans are to be developed by the DB Team. Section 3.11.2 will be revised accordingly in a forthcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 10/06/2021 Date Answered: 10/20/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Section 3.11 of the Technical Provisions state a minimum of 11-foot wide travel lanes with 1-foot shoulders on I-295, Route 146, Route 146A, and Route 99 SB.  However, Section 3.13.7 references maintain 12-foot travel lanes during construction.  Current RIDOT projects are utilizing 11’ lanes with 6” shoulders where necessary. Please clarify the minimum lane and shoulder width requirements during construction.
Answer:
Section 3.13.7 will be revised in a future addendum to clarify it is acceptable to provide 11-foot wide travel lanes with 1-foot shoulders during construction. With respect to other RIDOT projects utilizing 11 foot lanes with 6 inch shoulders, per RFP Section 3.13.7, alternative means of constructing bridges as shown in the BTC documents shall be identified in an ATC. This may be approved on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of RIDOT.
Date Asked: 10/06/2021 Date Answered: 10/14/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
RFP Part 2 Section 3.9.2 states that if additional design exceptions result from the ATC process it will be the responsibility of the DB Entity to obtain approvals. Have design exceptions required for the BTC been approved?  Or will the DB Entity be responsible for obtaining approvals for all design exceptions required?
Answer:
The design exceptions noted in the RFP for the BTC have been preliminarily vetted within RIDOT. Final approval of all design exceptions will be the responsibility of the DB entity. It should be noted that this project is also a FHWA PoDI and certain submissions such as design exceptions will also require FHWA review and/or approval.
Date Asked: 10/04/2021 Date Answered: 11/10/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
We note that no project specific insurance requirements beyond the standard Blue Book requirements and conditions have been included within the RFP and/or any of the appendices. Are we to utilize the standard insurance requirements provided within the RIDOT Blue Book or will additional insurance languages, coverages, conditions, etc. be issued via addendum at a later date?
Answer:
The State’s updated Purchasing Regulations also provide general insurance requirements for RIDOT projects (Addendum A, Schedule A5). These requirements can be found on the Division of Purchases website, and will also provided to the selected DB Team in the Notice of Tentative Award. Please note Part 3 of the RFP (to be provided by forthcoming addendum) will include updates to some Blue Book insurance requirements.
Date Asked: 09/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/23/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Is the Initial ATC submittal (made on or before 9/13/21) adequate or is an additional 9 hard copies and an electronic copy required to be submitted for the interview? If so, what is the submittal process for remote presenters?
Answer:
Additional hard copies or CD copy beyond what was provided on the 9/13/21 Initial ATC deadline will not be required. However, electronic copies (PDF) of the ATC executive summaries should be submitted along with the ATC outline (refer to question posted on 9/22/21). This is to be emailed to the DOA.Rte146Questions@purchasing.ri.gov by close of business on 9/27/21.
Date Asked: 09/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/28/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP part 1, Section 3.6a.2 (Add#2) mentions an ATC Agreement, will this be provided prior to the interview for remote presenters?
Answer:
The RFP states the agreement is for the DB Team and RIDOT to agree to abide by the language in the first paragraph of Section 3.6a.2. The meeting attendance sheet will include this paragraph and will be emailed out to the DB Team prior to the meeting. Please fill out the attendance sheet with all team members attending the meeting and return electronically using the DOA.Rte146Questions@purchasing.ri.gov email. Please return this sheet no later than the day prior to the DB Team’s scheduled meeting.
Date Asked: 09/22/2021 Date Answered: 09/22/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Addendum #2 contained a new RFP part 1 and 2. The RFP addendum notification indicates 3 changes to part 1. Were there any changes made to part 2?
Answer:
Addendum #2 made changes to RFP Part 1 as noted on the addendum coversheet. A future addendum will be posted with remaining revisions to the RFP relating to the other questions and answers that have been posted to date.
Date Asked: 09/22/2021 Date Answered: 09/22/2021
Poster: maureen mchugh Company: RIDOT
Question:
Please provide clarification on what you are looking for in the ATC concept outline to be submitted by close of business on 9/27/21.
Answer:
This outline should serve essentially as an agenda for the meeting. The outline should list, in the order of discussion, which ATC’s the DB Team would like to present to RIDOT technical staff. Please also list the major design disciplines that will be involved in each concept and include the corresponding information from the executive summary of the ATC.
Date Asked: 09/22/2021 Date Answered: 09/22/2021
Poster: maureen mchugh Company: RIDOT
Question:
Please clarify if RIDOT will be holding confidential ATC interview meetings.
Answer:
RIDOT has made the decision to hold ATC interview meetings, with notification sent to the shortlisted DB Teams on 9/20/21. Please also refer to Addendum #2 for revisions to the RFP relating to ATC interview meetings and updates to the proposed procurement schedule.
Date Asked: 09/16/2021 Date Answered: 10/15/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Please provide missing existing plans sheets that detail the existing geometry of the 295/146 interchange (both I-295 NB & SB and of the ramps) and Route 99 north of Bridge 098701 and the ramp from 146 NB to Route 99 NB.
Answer:
All available plan sheets for the Route 295/146 Interchange and Route 99 will be provided in a forthcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 09/16/2021 Date Answered: 10/07/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Please provide the CAD files for RFP Appendix B Volume 3 – Misc BTC plans (Guide Signs & Reservoir Bridge No. 188).
Answer:
These files will be provided in a forthcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 09/14/2021 Date Answered: 09/14/2021
Poster: maureen mchugh Company: RIDOT
Question:
There appears to be an issue with the project specific confidential email address listed in the RFP. Please confirm the email address.
Answer:
Please use the following email address for any confidential project related questions in lieu of the one listed in the RFP: DOA.Rte146Questions@purchasing.ri.gov
Date Asked: 09/09/2021 Date Answered: 09/13/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Are there any pages missing from the "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters Primary Covered Transactions" Form that require a signature? 
Answer:
Yes this is the complete form. Although there are no signature and date boxes this form still needs to be signed and dated and submitted with the RFP.
Date Asked: 09/09/2021 Date Answered: 10/14/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Section 1.1.1 of the RFP states that Liquidated Damages are outlined in Section 108.08, Part 3 of the RFP. It is our understanding that Part 3 will be added by Addendum. Please provide.
Answer:
Part 3 will be provided by a forthcoming addendum.
Date Asked: 09/08/2021 Date Answered: 09/08/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP (see Part 1 Section 3.5, page 17) doesn’t specify what is required with the initial ATC submission (number of hard copies, disks, email, etc). Please let us know how many copies and in what format need to be provided to the Department of Purchasing.
Answer:
Please submit nine (9) hard copies of the initial ATC submission and one (1) digital copy on a CD. The digital version shall be exactly the same as the hard copy version.
Date Asked: 08/31/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Linda Sanson Company: Barletta Heavy Division
Question:
Where the RFP requires MASH TL-5 barrier on I-295 and Rt. 146 (including bridges), the plans do not provide details of the reinforcing for the crash-tested shape labeled in the bridge plans. The highway plans indicate a Modified 40.1.0 and 40.2.0 TL-4 median barrier to be installed. Please clarify the test level requirements of the barrier, which shall be used for moment slab and deck overhang design, and provide details with reinforcing required for both bridge and highway barrier.
Answer:
The BTC Plans are preliminary and do not contain finalized details. It is the responsibility of the DB Entity to finalize design and detailing in accordance with the RFP requirements.
Date Asked: 08/24/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Section 8.4 Proposal Clarifications states that “Clarifications requested at the oral interview should be confirmed in writing.” However there is no mention of interviews in the procurement schedule. Will interviews by part of this procurement process?
Answer:
Oral interviews will not be conducted. Section 8.4 will be revised in a future addendum to remove references to oral interviews.
Date Asked: 08/24/2021 Date Answered: 09/22/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
In Section 3.4 ATC Process, Figure 3-1 shows an ATC interview meeting. The procurement schedule does not show ATC meetings. Section 3.5 states that the State will hold one mandatory confidential Initial ATC Meeting within 7 calendar days of submission of Initial ATC’s. When will they be scheduled and how much time will be allotted?
Answer:
ATC meetings will not be conducted. Section 3.4 Figure 3-1 and Section 3.5 will be revised in a future addendum to remove references to ATC meetings. *Update- Please refer to follow up question posted on 9/22/21.
Date Asked: 08/24/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Linda Sanson Company: Barletta Heavy Division
Question:
Please confirm it is acceptable to RIDOT for proposers to communicate and coordinate with Public Utilities regarding the Bridge Group 96, Route 146 Reconstruction Project. Also, if is acceptable to communicate with the Public Utilities, please provide contact info for any specific individuals RIDOT would prefer that we contact.
Answer:
Correct, DB Teams may communicate directly with utilities during the proposal phase. A list of utility contacts based on the BTC and preliminary utility coordination performed by the State is provided in RFP Part 2, Section 5.3.1. Please note that contacts for National Grid Electric and COX have recently changed. National Grid Electric contacts will be updated to Sean McGovern, Email: Sean.McGovern@Nationalgrid.com, Phone: 401-255-2498 and Patrick Sullivan, Email: Patrick.sullivan4@nationalgrid.com, Phone: 781-493-5339. The COX contact will be updated to Shawn Murphy, Cox Communications/Northeast Region, Email: Shawn.Murphy@cox.com, Phone: 401-430-5599.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Section 6.8 states that we must label the envelope RFP# 7611863PH2-BID BOND but the directions differ in Section 4.1. Please advise.
Answer:
Please label all envelopes according to the instructions in Section 4.1. Section 6.8 will be revised by addendum.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Should the Conflict of Interest Determinations by the State be included in our Technical Proposal Appendix?
Answer:
Yes, include this in the Appendix.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Will the Conflict of Interest Determinations by the State supersede and serve as the Conflict of Disclosure Statement Form that is included in the Appendix? 
Answer:
No, please include both forms in the Appendix.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Regarding Section 6.14, will the Transmittal Letter serve as written acknowledgement of receiving the State's original RFP and all addenda?
Answer:
This letter may serve as written acknowledgement. The letter template (to be uploaded by addendum) contains a space for DB Teams to acknowledge the RFP and all addenda.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please provide Form J (OJT Program), which is not currently included in the Appendix.
Answer:
This form will be provided by addendum.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please provide the Stipend Agreement Form, which is not currently included in the Appendix.
Answer:
This form will be added by addendum.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Form G (Cost Proposal Form) is referenced in Table 2 and Table 3. Should this be included only in the Price Proposal? 
Answer:
Yes this form is to be included only with the price proposal in accordance with Table 3. Tables 2 and 3 will be clarified further by addendum to reflect this.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/10/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Will points be allocated to Section 6.7.4 (Design & Construction Management)?
Answer:
Yes, points will be allocated to Design & Construction Management under ‘Project Management’- Section 8.6.2. Section 8.6.2 will consist of three sub-categories: a. Administration and Quality Control (Max. 3 points out of 60), b. Risk Management (Max. 3 points out of 60), and c. Design & Construction Management (Max. 3 points out of 60). This change will be added by addendum.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Who should submit the "Bid Conditions" form on Pages 18-23 in the Appendix?
Answer:
All members of the design build team (contractors and consultants) should fill out and submit this form.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please provide Form K (DBE Utilization Form), which is not currently included in the Appendix.
Answer:
This form will be included by addendum. Per Section 6.12 this form is to be filled out for design qualifying work. The best value respondent will complete this form for construction qualifying work in accordance with Section 6.12
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Form A is referred to as the Proposal Letter in Section 6.3 and in Table 2 as the Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, And Other Responsibility Matter Primary Covered Transactions. Please clarify.
Answer:
Table 2 and the RFP will be revised to reflect any forms that were inadvertently not included.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/02/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please provide the Transmittal Letter (Form A), which is not currently included in the Appendix.
Answer:
This form will be included by addendum.
Date Asked: 08/23/2021 Date Answered: 09/10/2021
Poster: Anna Greenfield Company: Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc.
Question:
Please provide a detailed explanation for what Sections 6.1.2 (Relevant Experience and References) and 6.1.3 (Key Staff and Team Organization) should contain and how they will be scored.
Answer:
Section 6.1 will be updated by addendum to remove these 2 sections from being required in the Technical Proposal- no points are allocated to these sections. Note that Section 6.7.4 of the RFP outlines other team organizational relationships to be scored under Section 8.6.2.c (see response provided to question asked on 8/23/21 regarding Section 6.7.4 of the RFP).
Date Asked: 08/16/2021 Date Answered: 08/17/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Several recent projects along Rte 146 have included milling and friction paving including 2016-CB-043, 2017-CB-071, 2018-CB-083. Does the department expect the DB contractor to re-mill and re-pave these sections of Rte 146?
Answer:
The limits of micro-milling and overlay on Route 146 will be between I-295 and the Massachusetts State Line, inclusive of the recent project areas listed.
Date Asked: 08/16/2021 Date Answered: 08/18/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Can traffic flow maps be provided for the AM and PM peak hour conditions associated with the existing conditions, opening year and projected 2055 Build condition?
Answer:
The requested traffic information is available in the following folder: Appendix B-B06 Traffic-Vissim Files for RIDOT.
Date Asked: 08/13/2021 Date Answered: 08/19/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Do the proposed C-D roads for the Sayles Hill Rd/Rt.146 need to be wide enough to allow for vehicles to pass a disabled vehicle in the roadway? These roadway widths were not identified in the list of design exceptions.
Answer:
A design exception is required – refer to Design Criteria Chart No. 10.
Date Asked: 08/13/2021 Date Answered: 08/17/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
RFP Part 2 Section 3.13.9, part (a) excludes seismic from conflicts and part (e) states to use both the AASHTO and RIDOT manual. The RIDOT Bridge Manual, dated 2007, is essentially based on the AASHTO 4th Edition 2007. The current 9th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD manual is dated 2020 with numerous updates and advances in design ideology and technology. In order to avoid potential over or under design of components controlled by seismic criteria, will RIDOT allow the 9th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge manual to govern for seismic design?
Answer:
AASHTO criteria will govern seismic design. Part (e) will be revised in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 08/13/2021 Date Answered: 08/19/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
What is the largest design vehicle that will be required to navigate thru the interchanges at Rt. 146/Sayles Hill Road and Rt. 146/Rt 146A?
Answer:
The Sayles Hill Road Interchange as shown in the BTC was designed to accommodate a WB-67 for all turning movements except for the following: large vehicles travelling eastbound on the western part of Sayles Hill Road will not be able to turn right onto 146 southbound, and instead will have to continue eastbound on Sayles Hill Road to Route 99; Vehicles traveling southbound on Route 146 will not be able to turn right onto the western part of Sayles Hill Road and instead will have to detour to I-295 northbound to Route 146 southbound, and then to Sayles Hill Road, either directly via the CD Road/off ramp, or via Route 99 to Sayles Hill Road. The 146/146A Interchange (DDI) will accommodate a WB-67 for all turning movements.
Date Asked: 08/13/2021 Date Answered: 08/17/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Maintenance and Protection of Traffic plans included in the BTC do not accommodate left turns from Route 146 to Sayles Hill Road during construction stages 1E, 2A, and 2B, including the significant southbound left turn movement (300± vehicles in each peak hour). How is this movement accommodated?
Answer:
The BTC Maintenance & Protection of Traffic plans do not accommodate left turns during certain phases of construction. Appropriate detours must be developed by the DB Team. Refer to RFP Part 2, Section 3.11.2.2 (Access During Construction) for additional information.
Date Asked: 08/13/2021 Date Answered: 08/19/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The BTC General Plan sheets omit Route 146 from approximately Station 385+00 to approximately Station 398+50 (between General Plan No. 4 and No. 5)? Is there work proposed within these limits beyond pavement milling and overlay? What is the proposed striping at the Reservoir Road southbound ramps and Old Great Road northbound on-ramp?
Answer:
The proposed work in this area is further described in BTC Volume 1 Sheet 106, and in BTC Volume 3 on the plan sheets specific to Reservoir Bridge No. 188. The proposed striping in the areas of Reservoir Road and Old Great Road shall match the existing. The CAD drawings do contain the proposed striping, but the layer was frozen due to the small scale. The striping will be shown in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 08/13/2021 Date Answered: 08/19/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Would alternative proposed stormwater treatment units require an ATC if stormwater treatment requirements are still being met?
Answer:
Generally, if an alternate STU is proposed in the same location and provides the same treatment volume & average annual pollutant removal rates, it will not be considered an ATC. The stormwater concepts on BTC Volume 1, Sheets 102-112 are intended to depict potential areas of treatment. Refer to Conceptual Stormwater Notes on these plan sheets for additional information. However, RIDOT reserves the right to determine (on a case-by-case basis) whether a substitute STU constitutes an ATC, and for review and approval of all proposed STU’s at the time the final designs are being determined. If bidders seek further clarification if specific treatments would require an ATC and consider their proposed alternatives to be confidential in nature, the procedure to submit confidential questions, as described in Section 1.2 of Part 1 of the RFP, should be followed.
Date Asked: 08/12/2021 Date Answered: 08/12/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
The RFP bid solicitation form contains a sheet with a Zoom meeting link for December 1, 2021. What is the purpose of this Zoom meeting? Dec 1st is the date the technical and price proposal are scheduled to be submitted. I don't believe the price opening would be conducted on that same day. Should this date be changed to a later date, when the price proposal is opened and a best value scores can be compiled? We would appreciate if this were done in public or on a public Zoom meeting.
Answer:
December 1, 2021 is the deadline for the Technical and Price Proposal, see RFP Part 1, Section 2.3. The December 1, 2021 Zoom meeting is intended to confirm receipt of the Technical and Price Proposal. The Apparent Best Value Design Determination is planned for December 29, 2021.
Date Asked: 08/04/2021 Date Answered: 08/09/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
BTC volume 1, sheet 20 shows mill and overlay beyond the cut and match line on the ramp. Please clarify whether the mill and overlay ends at the cut and match line or if it continues down the ramp and if it continues, where does it end?
Answer:
The micromilling and overlay limits on I-295 SB On-Ramp extend to the physical gore, refer to Plan Sheet 105. In general, micromilling and overlay limits at ramps will be further clarified in Addendum #1.
Date Asked: 08/04/2021 Date Answered: 08/09/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
BTC plans volume 1, sheet #5 shows P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4 all with the same pavement structure. Please confirm that this is correctly shown.
Answer:
The identical pavement structures shown for P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4 are placeholders, to be modified by addendum upon receipt of forthcoming pavement cores.
Date Asked: 08/02/2021 Date Answered: 08/04/2021
Poster: Steven Morin Company: CARDI CORPORATION
Question:
Mandatory Specification 929.9901 - Field Offices states that the Woonsocket Depot will be used as the State field office. The spec also states that in the event of fire, theft, or equipment breakdown, all equipment involved shall be repaired or replace by the Contractor. It also states that if the office is destroyed or rendered untenable for any reason, it shall be replaced by the Contractor within 2 weeks, or as directed. Please confirm that if equipment or the office itself needs to be replaced, the extra costs will be paid to the Contractor through a change order? Is this spec requiring the field office to actually be replaced at the Depot or is it requiring that a new office would need to be located and procured for the use of the State, if the Depot office is untenable?
Answer:
This is a standard Blue Book requirement for field offices. Since RIDOT owns the field office located at One Depot Square, in the event the field office is destroyed or rendered untenable for any reason, a change order would be issued to have the DB Team secure a new field office. Maintenance of any equipment provided by the DB team is the DB Team's responsibility for the life of the project with no separate payment in the case of fire, theft or equipment breakdown.
Date Asked: 07/29/2021 Date Answered: 07/29/2021
Poster: Gary Garzone Company: Contracts
Question:
Please Note: This is a Best Value Design-Build Procurement Process (BVDB): A two-phase selection process in which the first phase consisted of submission of qualifications (RFQ) to create a shortlist of qualified Respondents. The shortlisted Firms are to Reply to this RFP only
Answer:
Thank You
Date Asked: 07/28/2021 Date Answered: 07/28/2021
Poster: Gary Garzone Company: Contracts
Question:
Part 2 of the RFP indicates there is an Appendix B with supplemental files that are not included in the zip file to download. Are these files available to pick up on a CD?
Answer:
Yes, due to file size Part 2 Appendix B is not included in the zip file. CD’s are available for pickup by shortlisted firms from the RIDOT Contracts Office. Room 112