Source: http://www.dot.ri.gov/contracting/bids/quesanswer.php?job=7598876PH2
Timestamp: 2020-01-28 13:19:40
Document Index: 560566651

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2']

D/B Services for I-95 Viaduct-Northbound-Shortlisted Firms Only 7598876PH2
Date Asked: 01/28/2020
Our review of the roadway geometry that was provided in the BTC has found that a minimum stopping site distance of 200’ has not been provided for ramps DB-2, CB-2, CB-3 and AC. This stopping site distance of less than 200’ will introduce additional design exceptions for these ramps. Are the D/B Proposers to assume that these additional design exceptions will be approved by RIDOT and FHWA and can be carried thru the proposal design and final design?
Date Asked: 01/27/2020
Poster: joel kosberg Company: DW White Construction, Inc
We note that one or more of the permanent guide signs will likely be located outside of the project limits as shown in the BTC. Is the furnishing and erection of these signs included as part of this contract, and if so, will RIDOT provide any guidance regarding permanent guide signage design, size, location, or whether they will be mounted on new or existing structures?
Could RIDOT please provide the Finding of No Significant Impact issued by RIDOT/FHWA?
RFP Page 23, Section 5.3, discusses the submission of escrow documentation. Is there a specific timeframe after submission of the proposal for Escrow documentation to be submitted?
Date Asked: 01/24/2020
Page 39, Section 8.6, lists Technical Approach and Project Management Selection Criteria. In general these align with the Technical and Management Sections of the Proposal. However, Utilities and Railroad Management is included under Project Management Criteria while the Utilities and Amtrak Coordination proposal section is part of the Technical Approach. Are the proposal sections intended to align with specific evaluation criteria? And if so can RIDOT please clarify which proposal content will be reviewed in evaluation of each item?
Page 35, Section 6.14 requires “submission a copy of the State’s original RFP and any supplemental addenda, as applicable.” And on page 26 states “The Original RFP & All Addenda listed above shall be included in the Technical Proposal Appendix.” The RFP includes extensive documentation, including information in multiple file formats (PDF, word, CAD, etc.). In lieu of submitting the full RFP and addenda with every copy of the proposal, will RIDOT accept a signed acknowledgement of having reviewed the RFP documentation and all Addenda? Alternatively, can the RFQ and addenda be submitted with the electronic copy only?
RFP Page 25, Section 6.2, states “any inserts or cover pages at the start of sections will count toward the total page limit.” Please confirm this does not include standard divider tabs used solely for the purpose of indexing information. Typically tabs are not considered as part of the proposal content and would not be page numbered.
RFP Page 20, Section 4.1, states “The Proposer shall submit nine (9) printed copies and two (2) digital copies of the Technical Proposal and the required submittals included in Appendix “A”, including the bid bond.” Is it intended that 9 printed copies of the bid bond are included? Or should just the original bid bond be included in the separately sealed envelope?
Page 19, Section 3.10, requests “Copies of State letters granting final approval of an ATC for the Project shall be included in the Technical Proposal.” Please confirm these should go in the Technical Proposal Appendix.
RFP Page 32, Section 6.9 says all forms “must also be completed, executed and submitted in accordance with the Schedule of Forms & Submissions included in Appendix A.” We do not see a Schedule of Forms & Submissions in Appendix A, just the forms themselves. Please clarify if this is intended to refer to Table 2 or if the Schedule of forms is missing.
RFP Page 33, Table 2 Required Forms for Technical Proposal, please clarify which forms, if any, need to be submitted by the Designer
RFP Page 35, Section 6.13 Trainees says “The Proposer must also provide a written statement in the RFP submission using Form O provided in Appendix A…” From O is the Stipend Agreement – please confirm this section intended to reference Form J – On-The-Job Training Acknowledgement & Statement of Compliance
RFP Page 25, Section 6.2, states the proposal must be formatted “on 8 ½ by 11-inch sheets of paper with top, bottom, right and left margins of at least one inch…” Can header/footer text (identifying Proposer name, Project name, Section number, page number) be located within that 1-inch margin?
Date Asked: 01/23/2020
NGRID has indicated that their liaison, Kelson McDaniel, is working with RIDOT as to how NGRID is to proceed with requests from the design-build teams. Please provide guidance as to how the D/B Teams shall coordinate with both NGRID Gas and NGRID Electric. They have indicated that they will not meet or coordinate with our team until they have “worked things out” with RIDOT.
Date Asked: 01/16/2020
RFP Part 2 Section 3.13.13 - Bridge Ratings. To complete a load rating report, an initial inspection must be completed. Will RIDOT be conducting the initial inspections, or will the design build team be required to conduct the initial inspections?
Does RIDOT want to over design the northbound STU’s to compensate, knowing that the southbound project did not meet the RI linear stormwater manual requirements?
Date Asked: 01/13/2020
RFP Part 2 Section 3.11.3 (Addendum 4). Since there are no RIDOT standard bridge barriers that comply with MASH, will RIDOT accept the MassDOT CF-PL3 barrier, with a rear face modified to satisfy the architectural requirements, as TL-4 and TL-5 MASH compliant for this project?
Date Asked: 01/13/2020 Date Answered: 01/14/2020
RFP Part 2 Section 3.13.13 - states that load rating reports are required to be submitted within 30 days for all newly constructed bridges or phases thereof that are open to traffic. FHWA Q&A regarding inspection of new/reconstructed/staged bridges per 23 CFR 650 Subpart C states that SI&A information (including bridge load rating) is not required to be put in the bridge database until (1) in the case of staged construction, the entire bridge is open to traffic, and (2) within 90 days of the bridge opening to traffic. Will RIDOT change the bridge load rating requirements to conform to the FHWA guidance?
No, the current RIDOT policy requirements as outlined in the RFP will govern over the referenced FHWA guidelines.
Will bridge ratings be required for bridges in the bridge preservation package?
Date Asked: 01/09/2020
Can any prepared GS, CS, JS sections the DOQ and any other available draft contract documents for Smith St Bridge project be supplied as draft BTC documents?
Where third party utility force accounts provided to RIDOT for the Smith St. Bridge project and if so, can these be supplied as draft documents for the D/B Team’s benefit?
Is a minimum vertical clearance of 14’-3” acceptable for the following locations: Ramp CB-3 crossing under the Exit 23 Bridge, Ramp DB-2 crossing under the Ramp CB-2 bridge and Exit 23 Bridge?
Date Asked: 01/09/2020 Date Answered: 01/13/2020
When discussing the Stormwater Treatment Units (STU)s constructed in the southbound project, the RFP states “The DB Entity shall maintain and retrofit these STUs as necessary to meet RIDEM and RIDOT Linear Stormwater Manual Standards.” Please provide the Stormwater Management Report associated with these STUs.
The DB Team shall obtain a copy of the stormwater report from RIDEM.
Please provide cross-sections and all pertinent details for the Park Street retaining walls (Walls A & B in Addendum No. 3) north and south of Smith Street?
The plans were included in Addendum 3. Refer to B04a03 Existing Plans, Bridge Contracts, 1962, sheets: co_6291_br_701+702_b73.tif co_6291_br_701+702_b74.tif
Considering the complexity of the project and the number of ATC’s to be reviewed, we anticipate multiple design discipline leads will be required to properly address RIDOT’s questions. As such, we request that the limit on attendees at the initial ATC meeting be increased from 10 team members to 12 team members.
Due to the size of the room where these meetings will be held, it is respectfully requested to maintain the limit of 10 team members per D/B team.
Date Asked: 01/08/2020 Date Answered: 01/13/2020
Poster: Ali Alkouraishi Company: The Lane Construction Corporation
Some stormwater treatment areas/BMP/STUs are shown in the BTC plans, is an ATC required if the types or locations of these treatments are modified?
No. The DB Team shall develop stormwater treatment to address requirements of RIDEM and the RIDOT Linear Stormwater Manual.
Part 2, Technical Provisions of the November 21, 2019, I-95 Viaduct Northbound Providence RFP, page 9, Section 1.4.6 Hazardous Materials, of Section 1, Project Requirements and Provisions for Work, the following reference to RIDEM submittals and approvals, “a Remedial Action Closure Report (RACR) was submitted to RIDEM on June 14, 2018 and approved via an Interim Letter of Compliance (ILOC) from RIDEM to RIDOT on June 20, 2018.” Will copies of the June 14, 2018 report and the June 20, 2018 ILOC be made available to the bidders for review?
The 2018 RACR and ILOC mentioned in the RFP in this section refer to the Southbound Viaduct work already completed to provide background information relative to the work completed on Southbound, the RIDEM regulatory process and requirements. These items will be included in a future addendum.
1.	BTC Volumes 4 - 11, Job Specific General Notes 2, Concrete Notes, Note 1 call for use of synthetic fibers in deck concrete in accordance with Section 604 of the specifications. The 2018 Amended edition of the RIDOT Standard Specifications list Section 604 as “Not Used”. Additionally, the Supplemental Specifications issued with the bid documents delete section 604. Please clarify whether synthetic fibers are to be used in bridge deck concrete.
Synthetic fibers shall not be used per the Standard Specifications.
Date Asked: 01/06/2020
All new foundation elements will be designed using LRFD methods. The piles that support existing structures would have been designed, installed and load tested using ASD methods. For the reuse of existing piles, is their capacity to support future loads to be assessed using ASD or LRFD methods?
Can RIDOT please provide all the geotechnical reports and geotechnical design memoranda completed for the recently completed I95 SB Viaduct project?
Can RIDOT please provide pile load testing data, static and/or dynamic, including pile installation records and location plans of piles tested from the I-95 SB viaduct replacement project?
Is the GIR that was included in Appendix B9 of the RFP (entitled Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Replacement of I-95 Viaduct Bridge No. 578, Providence, Rhode Island,” prepared by GZA, dated October 2011 and revised August 2012) the report that was used to develop the final “for construction” set of plans and technical special provisions for the I-95 SB Viaduct replacement project?  If not, can RIDOT please provide the project specific GIR for the I-95 SB Viaduct replacement project?
The BTC shows the following: 1.	Ramp CB1 widened side having a 2 Bar Rail on the bridge and wing walls that call out a TL-5 crash level conforming to RIDOT Std Dwg 10.35, but maintains the existing non tested two bar rail on the other side. 2.	On the bridge of Ramp DB1 a 2 Bar Rail is shown which would indicate a TL-4 crash level according to RIDOT Standard Dwg 10.30 3.	On Wall K & Wall B1 of Ramp DB1 a 3’-6” high concrete barrier with a 7’-6” moment slab is shown (seemingly indicating a TL-5 crash level) 4.	On Ramp BR 4 a 3’-6” high concrete barrier is shown (seemingly indicating a TL-5 crash level) 5.	On Ramps CB2, CB3, DB2 and their adjacent walls a 2 Bar Rail is shown which would indicate a TL-4 crash level according to RIDOT Standard Dwg 10.30 Would RIDOT clarify the crash level required for the railings/barriers along all the ramps? Would RIDOT clarify if use of either a concrete barrier or a two bar rail is acceptable along on all the ramps & on ramp structures? If a TL-4 level is acceptable along the ramp structures, would a 2’-11” concrete barrier height as shown on RIDOT Standard Drawing 10.10 be acceptable?
2.	Section 8.2 of the RFP limits incentive amounts to ten (10) weekdays less than the allotted 45 day weekdays for the Atwells Avenue Bridge Preservation, Park Street Bridge Preservation and the Ramp DB Full Closure. Will RIDOT consider removing the 10 day incentive limit for these 3 bridge?
1.	Section 3.7.2 (Estimated Cost Items) of Part 2 of the RFP indicates that bidders should include a bid price of $3,000,000 for Item 1.13.5, Incentive Credit. However, Section 8.2 (Incentive/Disincentive Requirements) appears to limit the maximum achievable incentive at $219,000. Please indicate how the incentive credit amount was determined.
Date Asked: 12/30/2019 Date Answered: 01/06/2020
Will the use of soldier pile and lagging for permanent retaining walls, that do not have exposed steel and lagging, require an ATC for use on the project?
Yes, this warrants an ATC.
The Department has stated that the preservation plans are to be included in a future addendum, can the Department provide, in advance, a summary of the scope of the planned project preservation work?
The scope includes joint repairs, deck repairs, bearing replacement, and steel repairs. Additional information will be provided in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 12/20/2019 Date Answered: 12/23/2019
What is the expected response time for confidential questions submitted to the confidential email? Is there a deadline for email submission to generate a response before the initial ATC meetings the week of January 13? Would it be possible to send a confirmation email receipt to assure senders that the emails have been received, or is there another way to check to be sure that the emails have been received and responses are being generated?
Responses to confidential emails will be sent as expeditiously as possible. There is no specific deadline for questions related to the Initial ATC meetings. A confirmation email receipt will be provided to senders.
Date Asked: 12/19/2019 Date Answered: 12/23/2019
Section 5.5 of the RFP states the following: “The DB Entity shall notify the Department of all utility coordination meetings and shall not conduct a meeting without a Department representative present.” Please confirm that this requirement does not apply during the proposal phase.
The Park Street retaining wall plans provided as the BTC identify temporary SOE but does not dictate the type of SOE. Part 2, Section 3.12.11 states the following: “The BTC requires that all temporary excavation support for Park Street wall shall be drilled and socketed soldier pile and lagging system.”. Please confirm that the only acceptable SOE is a drilled and socketed soldier pile and lagging system.
Pre-existing foundations are anticipated in this area. This SOE system was prescribed to limit risk. DB Teams are permitted to propose alternate SOE measures as an ATC. If obstructions are found during implementation of SOE, the DB Team shall implement an alternative SOE system at no additional cost to the State.
The BTC shows the following substructures as being re-used: Smith Street West Abutment, Ramp BR-4 North and South Abutments. Since they are being shown as re-used in the BTC, will the design builder be required to certify and/or be retrofitted to meet current AASHTO and RIDOT design criteria, including reinforcement strength and detailing? Or can they be assumed to be acceptable as shown in the BTC?
There has been no investigation of substructure condition or load testing performed on the existing substructures to be reused. Reuse of substructures, including those identified to be reused in the BTC, requires certification by the Design-Builder that these components are suitable for reuse to meet current design criteria.
Date Asked: 12/19/2019 Date Answered: 01/02/2020
Are there CAD files available for the existing and proposed impervious areas across the site?
This information will be provided in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 12/19/2019 Date Answered: 01/06/2020
Please provide the CAD drawings for Ramp DB-1 (Bridge No. 1383) that show the proposed footing and pier locations.
S.V. Total for RFP Appendix A, Form N - Cost Proposal Form Item No. 1.10 Owner Specified General Condition Items (subtotal of m.s.v. 1.10.1 to 1.10.5) includes m.s.v Totals for sub-items 1.10.1 to 1.10.6. Please clarify if sub-item 1.10.6 is to be included in the S.V. Total for Item No. 1.10.
This information will be clarified in a future addendum.
RFP 7598876 Part 2, Article 3.7.2, Estimated Cost Items includes Item No. 1.13.3 Truck Mounted Attenuator m.s.v $1,000,000 which does not exist on RFP Appendix A Form N - Cost Proposal Form. Additionally, the item numbering for the estimated cost items is different at these two locations. Please clarify if this item is required and revise the numbering to reflect the changes.
RFP Appendix A Form N - Cost Proposal Form has a minimum m.s.v. of $350,000.00 for Item No. 1.10.4 Document Control Specialist. RFP 7598876 Part 2 Article 3.7.1 Minimum Price Items has a minimum m.s.v. of $375,000.00 for Item No. 1.10.4 Document Control Specialist. Please clarify the minimum m.s.v for item 1.10.4 Document Control Specialist.
Date Asked: 12/19/2019 Date Answered: 01/13/2020
Please refer again to Volume 2, Sheet 8 where in Phase 5 Ramp CD-DB/I-95 is shifted east and will require redesign and construction of the Park St/Hayes St traffic signals as well as other electrical boxes. Who owns the control boxes and where can they be relocated?
Four electrical boxes are located along I-95 across from Hayes Street in Providence. Moving from north to south based on an interpretation of record information: �	1st box is an electric meter and traffic signal controller for the Park Street and Hayes Street intersection. �	2nd box is an electrical meter for the traffic signal controller at the intersection of Smith Street and Park Street (State). Please note conduit run heads north along Park Street. �	3rd box is an electrical meter for the street lights for Park Street, Avenue of the Arts, Francis Street, and Hayes Street (City) �	4th box is electrical and conduit runs between the electric manhole at the Park Street and Hayes Street intersection, this box, and the electric manhole at the Smith Street and Park Street intersection (NGrid) The DB Team shall evaluate the following: �	Keeping the 1st box near the traffic signal at Park Street and Hayes Street intersection. �	Moving the 2nd box near the signal at Smith Street and Park Street intersection. �	Keeping the 3rd box near the Park Street and Hayes Street intersection to avoid major revisions to the existing conduit run �	Coordinating with NGrid to determine the function of this box. As the project was only preliminarily advanced, the utility relocation of these boxes has not been advanced.
Please refer to Volume 2 Sheet 8. In Phase 5 Ramp CD-DB/I-95 is relocated through a modular steel structure. What is this structure, who owns it, and is the DB entity responsible for its relocation and associated costs?
The BTC temporary bridge is built in Phase 2A. Conceptual plans are shown in Volume 11. The DB Entity is responsible for design, procurement, erection, monitoring, maintenance and removal of the temporary bridge. DB Entity is responsible for all lane shifts.
Please refer to Volume 4, Sheet 9 and Sheet 23 of the Atwells Ave Ramp BR-4 Bridge. The two sheets respectively depict the southeast corner of SOE 2 and the southeast corner of the east pier foundation to be installed outside of the State Freeway Line. Has the DOT obtained all necessary easements for this foundation and earth support and if not, who is responsible for securing the easement?
The State has not begun acquiring easements and/or acquisitions associated with the Atwells Avenue Bridge. The DB Team will be required to identify the ROW necessary to perform the work required in the project. The DB Team will be required to prepare ROW Plans and Plats including descriptions to the satisfaction of the RIDOT. RIDOT will then begin ROW actions. The DB Team shall assume ROW will be secured 6 months after RIDOT approves the ROW Plans and Plats (including descriptions).
Date Asked: 12/18/2019 Date Answered: 12/23/2019
To the mutual benefit of the Department and the Proposers, will RIDOT schedule an informational meeting with the Utility Agencies/Companies and Amtrak to review the project scope of the work?
RIDOT has met with these stakeholders and they are aware of the scope of work for this project. DB Teams are permitted to consult directly with these stakeholders during procurement.
RIDOT Standards allow for the use of lightweight concrete for structural components with the approval of the managing Bridge Engineer. Is an ATC required for the use of lightweight concrete?
Lightweight concrete will not be approved for use on this project.
Date Asked: 12/16/2019 Date Answered: 12/19/2019
Minimum vertical clearance on plans (Vol.4, Sheet 9) shows 14’-3”, however BTC Design Criteria spreadsheet shows minimum vertical clearance of 14’-5”* (*indicates previous RIDOT Approval). Please provide the requested minimum vertical clearance for the Atwells Ramp?
The referenced vertical clearance of 14'-3" shown in the BTC is the minimum clearance that would be found acceptable to RIDOT for this location. A proposal that increases this clearance would be looked upon favorably during the review process.
Date Asked: 12/16/2019 Date Answered: 12/18/2019
Are the Record Plans for all existing bridges within the project area going to be made available to Proposers via future Addendum?
Yes, this information will be provided in a future addendum.
Per the BTC plans, Volume 2 is referenced to include traffic signals, overhead signs, and traffic control plans. However, the Volume 2 files in Appendix B only show the construction phasing. Please provide the plans for traffic signals, overhead signs, and traffic control plans.
Traffic signals, overhead signs, and traffic control plans were not developed as part of the BTC. Additional clarification of final design requirements for these elements will be provided in a future addendum.
The BTC VISSIM files provided appear to have been clipped or cropped from a more extensive model. The signal at the Dean Street on-ramp to 6/10 NB is missing and ramp volume inputs are missing in the AM model. Please provide the full VISSIM files that were used to develop the BTC, INFRA Grant Application, and permitting documents.
Additional information to include the referenced signal will be provided in a future addendum.
Please provide the traffic analysis used to prepare the INFRA Grant Application and environmental permitting documents.
Please provide the future (2040) traffic volumes used to develop the BTC.
Date Asked: 12/11/2019 Date Answered: 12/18/2019
Is the DB Entity responsible to satisfy the same minimum requirements outlined in RFP Part 2, Section 3.12.7 for piles that are shown as being reused as part of the BTC?
Yes, the same minimum requirements outlined in RPF Part 2, Section 3.12.7 shall be satisfied for piles that are shown as being reused as part of the BTC.
Did RIDOT address the same minimum requirements for the BTC re-used piles that are required for piles to be reused as part of an ATC (as stated in RFP Part 2 Section 3.12.7) and if so can RIDOT provide this information?
There has been no investigation of pile condition or load testing performed on the existing piles. This will need to be performed by the DB Team during construction when they have been exposed.
RFP Part 2, Section 3.12.7 outlines minimum requirements for the DB Entity if pile foundation re-use is to be pursued as part of an ATC. The BTC plans show pile re-use at several substructure locations throughout the site. What testing/calculations has RIDOT completed to determine the physical condition and load carrying capacity of the piles in order to confirm that re-use of piles at these locations is technically feasible?
The nominal capacity of piles to be reused was assumed to be the twice the original design capacity (assuming a Factor of Safety of 2 on design capacity). The physical condition of the piles will need to be observed by the DB Team during construction to verify if there is corrosion or damage that will affect the remaining design life, and a field testing program (static load test or dynamic pile testing) will need to be performed for each pile type and capacity to verify the in-place capacity by the DB Team.
Date Asked: 12/11/2019 Date Answered: 12/17/2019
Can RIDOT provide electronic gINT files for the boring logs included in the geotechnical reports in Appendix B9 of the RFP?
These files will be provided by addendum.
Date Asked: 12/11/2019 Date Answered: 12/19/2019
Please refer to sheet 7 of BTC Volume 2 Smith & Park Street Bridges. The Longitudinal Section indicates a minimum vertical clearance of 15’-1” under I-95 NB. Has the agency been granted an exception to the 16’-0” minimum federal standard?
The referenced vertical clearance shown in the BTC is the minimum clearance that would be found acceptable to RIDOT for this location. A proposal that increases this clearance would be looked upon favorably during the review process.
Please refer to sheet 44 of BTC Volume 11 Ramp Exit 23 drawings. Stay-In-Place Form Note 1 states that SIP forms are required over AMTRAK but will not be allowed at other spans. Please confirm SIP forms will be allowed at all proposed bridge spans.
SIP forms will be allowed at all proposed bridge spans as specified in RFP Part 2 Section 3.13.9.
Date Asked: 12/10/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
RFP Part 2, Section 3.13.15. Is an ATC required if the D/B proposer intends to use an abutment comprised of spread footing supported on top of an MSE wall system if it is shown on the BTC plans?
This type of abutment is permitted without an ATC only where shown on the BTC plans. Any other similar use of this abutment type requires an ATC.
Please provide plans of the existing Park Street retaining wall.
These plans will be provided by addendum.
The Atwells Avenue Bridge BTC plans (Volume 4) shows work outside of the State right-of-way for construction of the pier foundation. Is an ATC required If the D/B Proposer does not exceed the limits of work shown in the BTC drawings?
In this instance described, if the proposed footprint does not exceed the specific footprint shown in the BTC, then an ATC is not required. The DB Entity's Designer shall still be required to provide all documentation for this location as outlined in RFP Part 2, Section 3.8.8
The RFP does not reference TAC-298 – Design Loads for simple and continuous span bridges at Strength and Service Limit State? Does this TAC apply to this project?
As stated in the RFP, all TAC memos apply to this project.
Date Asked: 12/10/2019 Date Answered: 12/18/2019
Please provide the traffic analyses and reports that were prepared during the development of the BTC.
The Existing, No-Build and Build (BTC) morning and evening peak hour traffic volume figures and the hourly traffic volumes used to develop the TMP will be provided in a future addendum.
Several of the BTC bridges re-use existing abutments. Will the Department accept the assumption that the existing abutments are adequate as long the loads imparted by the new superstructures don’t exceed that imposed by the original superstructure, or will the Successful Proposer be required to certify or upgrade the existing abutments to meet current AASHTO and RIDOT design criteria?
The successful team shall be required to certify or upgrade abutments to meet current criteria.
RFP Part 2, Section 3.13.9 Design Criteria states the bridges shall be constructed with a minimum 75 year design life. However, the INFRA grant application provided in Addendum No. 2 states the replacement Northbound Viaduct will have a design life of 100 years. Please confirm that the 75 year design life is the governing design life for this project.
Confirmed. The governing design life for the project is 75 years.
Date Asked: 12/10/2019 Date Answered: 12/17/2019
The BTC CAD drawings have Civil3D Data Shortcuts to various data objects which are not found on the RFP CD.  Can you please provide surface files for all BTC drawings containing Civil3D data shortcuts?
This will be provided in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 12/07/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Staging depicted at the RIDOT Pre-Proposal Meeting is different from proposed staging provided in BTC Volume 2. Please clarify which staging plan governs as the BTC or if both staging plans are acceptable for use on the project?
Clarification was provided as part of Addendum No. 2.
We assume this was posted in error.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/12/2019
Specification section 3.12 Geotechnical, sub section 3.12.7 Existing Foundations states, “If reuse of existing pile foundations is to be pursued as part of an ATC, the DB Entity must address the following, at a minimum, in the ATC submission as well as the statement of geotechnical intent:..” The contract drawings show reuse of existing foundation piles as part of the BTC. Assuming this is the intent of the BTC, is an ATC required for re-use of existing foundation piles?
Yes. Any piles that are to be reused that aren't already identified in the BTC to be reused shall be submitted as an ATC.
Specification section 8.2 Incentive/Disincentive Requirements ties the incentives and disincentives to specific dates. Would the Department consider tying the incentives and disincentives to NTP rather than to these dates?
No. If NTP date as provided in the RFP is not achieved, RIDOT will evaluate the schedule impacts to other contract dates at that time.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/23/2019
Please refer to specification section 3.13 Bridge Design and Other Structures, sub section 3.13.15 Potential Alternatives, would switching the superstructure of the bridges from a plate girder carrying member to a prefabricated bridge require an ATC?
3.	Please clarify what is deemed to be an ATC.
Please submit any confidential questions that would have been requested as part of the pre-ATC meeting to the confidential email address listed in Part 1 Section 1.2 of the RFP. All questions not specific to an ATC being considered for inclusion by a DB Team shall continue to be posted in the Q&A Portal.
2.	Part 1 of the instructions to Bidders provides deadlines for the Design Build bid process. At the informal pre-construction meeting held to discuss the BTC it was stated that no formal submission was necessary for the December 18, 2019 Confidential Pre-ATC Meeting however, submission of ATCs is required 5 days before the January 13, 2020 Initial ATC Deadline. Please clarify the intent of the entire ATC process.
1.	Specification section 3.13 Bridge Design and Other Structures, sub section 3.13.16 Disallowed Alternatives, Paragraph A stipulates that “Elimination of any of the spans of the proposed Viaduct NB Bridge by means of filling between the spans shown on the BTC drawings” will not be accepted. Please clarify the Department’s reasoning for prohibiting this approach as an ATC.
ATCs are permitted for filling spans. Spans filled need to avoid impacting/overloading existing structure foundations. Additionally, spans filled need to not interfere with sight distance criteria, need to allow for all structures in the area to be inspectable, and not compromise aesthetics. Any ATCs that fill spans need to clearly identify how the above mentioned items are addressed.
Please provide details of the design submittal review process expected for the 6 bridges requiring preservation activities to be complete within 12 months of NTP. This was discussed in the pre-bid meeting, but the answer was not very clear. Is the work expected to be complete directly from the plans provided in the RFP or is there design to be complete and design submittals to be reviewed/approved prior to construction? If so, please detail these submission requirements, which will need to be tailored for the short duration. With an expected NTP at the end of June, design work potentially to complete and have approved, winter conditions, and construction, 12 months is a very short period to complete the work. Preservation work often includes work that is very difficult to complete in the winter without significant extra cost.
Clarification will be provided in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 12/06/2019 Date Answered: 12/06/2019
3.	RFP Part 1, Section 3.5 Submission of Potential ATC Concepts/Pre-ATC Meeting, Paragraph 5 states that each proposer will have a 3 hour meeting. Since all teams cannot meet on December 18, 2019 as stated in Section 2.3, Proposed Procurement Schedule, can RIDOT issue a schedule for the Pre-ATC Meetings so that the proposers can properly plan?
See Addendum 2 for revisions to the ATC process. Confidential Initial ATC meetings will be held with each team during the week of January 13. As much notice as possible will be given to each team regarding the specific date and time for these meetings.
2.	Please confirm that there are no deliverables required at the Pre-ATC Meeting as stated in the Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting on December 4, 2019.
The ATC process is being revised as part of Addendum 2.
1.	RFP Part 1, Section 3.5 Submission of Potential ATC Concepts/Pre-ATC Meeting, Paragraph 2 states that a list of potential ATC’s must be submitted five business days prior to the Pre-ATC meeting. Please confirm that this requirement is waived based the Q&A at the Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting on December 4, 2019.
Confirmed. The ATC process is being revised as part of Addendum 2.
Has RIDOT secured all easements for the construction of the Park Street wall?
RIDOT is currently advancing the acquisitions / temporary easements shown on the BTC with anticipation of having these properties available prior to NTP. Any additional ROW needed as part of a proposal shall be identified in advance as an ATC.
Date Asked: 12/05/2019 Date Answered: 12/09/2019
There are two different sets of construction staging plans included in Appendix B. One is B03 BTC\BTC Viaduct - April 2018\BTC Volume 2 Construction Phasing.pdf, and the other is B03 BTC\BTC Conceptual Sequence of Construction\Viaduct NB Conceptual Phasing.pdf Please clarify which is the correct set that proposers should be using.
Clarification was provided as part of Addendum No. 2
At the Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting, it was stated that potential conflicts of interest are to be submitted on a form. Please identify this form and where it can be located.
Potential conflicts of interest should be submitted via letter with a revised due date of December 11. Additional clarification will be provided in Addendum 2.
Date Asked: 12/03/2019 Date Answered: 12/17/2019
The Department is requested to provide proposed locations, layout, details and other pertinent information related to its ongoing tolling and gantry installation Contract, for any of which may conflict with required work outlined by this RFP.
All currently available information will be provided in a future addendum.
Date Asked: 12/03/2019 Date Answered: 12/19/2019
The proposed design speed for I-95 is 50 MPH, while the posted speed on I-95 is 55 MPH. Has a design exception been granted from FHWA?
The required design speed is 50 MPH. As stated in RFP Part 2, Section 3.4.4.1, the DB Team is required to obtain all design exceptions required of the final design. Regarding the speed limit, RIDOT will perform a speed study at the conclusion of the project based on the final geometry of the project and determine appropriate speed posting.
Date Asked: 12/03/2019 Date Answered: 12/06/2019
With respect to the Department's outline and sequence for ATC development, will any ATC not previously submitted by the Design-Builder for evaluation at the "potential ATC" submission phase be allowed for further development and consideration at subsequent(i.e. "initial" and "final") phases? Are any and all ATC's required to be submitted and discussed at the "potential" phase?
Date Asked: 11/27/2019 Date Answered: 11/27/2019
Please provide Volume 13 (Bridge Preservation plans). This volume is referenced on the key plans but was not provided as part of the Appendix B materials provided on the CD.
The bridge preservation plans are being updated based on the most recent bridge inspection data and will be provided by a future addendum.