Questions Due: 12/11/14; Proposals Due 12/30/14: each by 2:00PM Central Standard Time

Transcription

1 1. Q: Can you please confirm the Due Date? The Event Details on the webpage states 12/30/14, but when you click into Event Details in the Documents, it lists the Due Date as 12/5/14. A: Proposals are due on 12/30/14. This is one issue you ll find we run into when posting P/T RFP s in SWIFT. When the project is entered into the system, we are required to provide an estimated date of release, along with an estimated event end date, when proposals are due. Once the RFP is approved and actually posted, those dates are finalized. Unfortunately, the way the system is set up, the RFP has to be posted before the dates can be finalized, and posting it generates the event details document. In the end, consultants should always refer to the actual Event End Date listed in SWIFT for the final proposal due date. The dates questions and proposals are due are also listed in the Event Details for example, for this project, it states: Trunk Highway 53 Relocation - Bridge and Roadway Design Questions Due: 12/11/14; Proposals Due 12/30/14: each by 2:00PM Central Standard Time If you need assistance: obtaining a Vendor ID; Completing the Registration Process; Navigating the SWIFT Portal; or Downloading/Responding to a RFP, you MUST call the SWIFT Helpline for assistance: , Option 1 (twice) 2. Q: Regarding the person who needs to be co-located in the CMGC office at the project site beginning in September 2015, what skill sets should this person have and what is the duration of time he or she needs to be co-located in the CMGC office? A: The design point of contact shall be assumed to be co-housed at the CMGC Office until all packages are let and until the final operations are underway (bridge decking and roadway paving). This person should be involved in project development and should be able to handle the majority of questions while providing timely communication to the Bridge, Roadway, and Geotech EOR as needed. 3. Q: Regarding the final early steel package, please confirm whether the intent is to order plate steel and shapes or if complete girder fabrication and steel component detail orders will be placed at this time. A: The early steel plans should assume complete steel details and plans sheets that would allow steel procurement and fabrication to begin.

2 4. Q: Please provide a summary of the additional geotechnical data (including boring location maps and boring data proposed types, and locations of field tests and results and laboratory test results) that MnDOT anticipates will be provided to the successful final designer at the time of NTP. A: Additional geotechnical data will include two sets of three borings at the western pier. Crosshole logging will be completed at the two sites. One site is already complete including the cross hole testing. Three drilled piles will be constructed and tested near the proposed west pier (two 24 diameter and one 16 diameter). One 6 diameter drilled shaft will be attempted near the west pier. Two angle borings will be taken from the top of the highwall near the east abutment attempting to intersect as close as possible to the proposed east pier. Two borings are planned at the east pier location, but will likely require specialized drilling access and site preparation for safety concerns. I am awaiting a response regarding these borings to see if they will be done prior to or as part of the design contract. Ten or twelve borings are planned along the roadway approach to the east abutment to provide information for evaluating the future stability of this area with regards to future mining operations. The location and proposed testing has yet to be determined. This information is in addition to the exploratory borings that have been completed. 5. The RFP Exhibit B indicates that State Deliverables will include many items. We request that State provide the current snap shot of these deliverables: a. Geometric Layout including identification of noise walls and retaining walls b. Wetland Delineations c. Design Memorandum d. Preliminary Drainage Information e. State and D1 electronic project directory standards and file naming standards f. Preliminary Hydraulics Report g. Preliminary Utility Design A: a) Geometric layout is 90 %, have not started on Noise walls or retaining walls b) phase 1 delineations have been completed c) design memo being worked on hope to complete in January d) have preliminary drainage areas e) done f) have in-place roadway hydraulic data g) working with City of Virginia, no gas line in project 6. Q: When will the landscape massing concept plan referenced in roadway scope item 15.0 be made available? A: Late February 2015.

3 7. Q: Is MnDOT providing the signed Preliminary Bridge Plan for Bridge No ? The RFP indicates that the 30% Plan is based on the Preliminary Plan; however, the Bridge Design Scope does not identify it as a deliverable or that it will be provided by MnDOT. Please clarify the responsibility of the Preliminary Bridge Plan. A: Preliminary plans for Bridge will be completed by this selected consultant based on the Type, Size & Location (TS&L) sheets provided by MnDOT. Assume that CMGC and MnDOT comments will change the bridge layout. It is anticipated that these comments will be provided within 30 days of Notice to Proceed. Also assume that the modification and completion of the final preliminary bridge plan will be done in parallel with the early steel and final design packages. 8. Q: Will MnDOT score additional key personnel identified by the team or is the scoring limited only to the positions shown? A: Additional key personnel will be eligible for scoring. 9. Q: Can a fixed fee (profit) less than of 10% be used in the cost proposal? A: To be addressed in upcoming RFP Addendum #1, to be issued as soon as possible. 10. Q: Please provide the current estimated utility construction cost so that we can accurately scope and cost the related design cost in our proposal. A: Also to be addressed in RFP Addendum # Q: Bridge Scope Section 4.5 identifies the requirement for the development of pre-design or construction geotechnical load testing, what should the proposer assume in the cost proposal for the number of test programs? A: The project site is geotechnically challenging due to the variability of the foundation materials and site stratigraphy/geometry. Testing programs, either in the design phase to help reduce conservatism or increase confidence, or in the construction phase to confirm assumptions (such as grouting behavior or creep behavior), are expected to provide project benefit. The number and extent of the tests are directly related to the foundation system design and intent. Some systems may require multiple tests to arrive at an appropriate level of confidence. The responder s overall design philosophy will play a role as to whether they feel it is more efficient to confirm design assumptions prior to construction or adapt the construction program to variable site conditions on-thefly and/or to use improved geotechnical resistance factors with more robust testing at time of construction.

4 Given the nature of the site, four to eight tests (Static, O-Cell, Statnamic) on compression or tension design elements, across the four bridge foundation elements, may be a reasonable preliminary estimate, noting that certain types of work (e.g. rock anchors) have prescriptive testing requirements for production installation and may increase that number- depending on how tests are counted. The actual number of geotechnical tests must be developed with the involvement of the project geotechnical engineering team. 12. Q: Bridge Scope Section 4.6 identifies the requirement for the design and detailing of the instrumentation geotechnical program, will the proposer also be required to oversee or participate in the installation and monitoring program and what should the proposer assume in the cost proposal if field work and monitoring is required during construction? A: The responder is responsible for reviewing the available structural and geotechnical information and assessing the potential long-term effects that the bridge structure and adjacent roadways and slopes may be subject to during the design life of the facility (e.g. blasting, water table lowering). The proposer is responsible for developing an instrumentation and monitoring program that can assess stability and performance measures; this includes establishing the requirements documents for system components, installation, design details, and special provisions (based on the design of the facility). This may include any needed qualification requirements for structural and geotechnical health monitoring installation experience or expertise on the part of the CMGC contractor. Similar to design-bid-build, the CMGC contractor will be responsible for the installation of the system components and construction monitoring during the execution of the Work, subsequently turning-over the system to MnDOT for long-term monitoring. As the design and construction components are coupled through the CMGC process, to the extent the responder feels oversight is necessary to ensure a successful implementation of the requirements, these costs or obligations should be included in the cost proposal. 13. Q: Please clarify Bridge Scope Section 7.2 which identifies load rating analysis with the segmental design and load rating criteria? A: The designer will need to develop AASHTO LRFD load cases and combinations, and perform concurrent load rating analysis with the criteria of Article 13.0 of this exhibit. 14. Q: Please verify that the rating of Br No is included in the proposers scope of work. It is not identified in the Roadway Design Scope Article 10.0 (Structure Design Br 69130) but is identified in the Bridge (69129) Scope of Work Section A: Yes load rating will be required for Bridge The bridge type will allow the rating to be completed using AASHTOWare software based on criteria laid out in the LRFD Bridge Design Manual, Chapter Q: Regarding RFP item 5. MnDOT Participation: What are the considerations consultants should use when estimating details of cost allowances?

5 A: Never mind the cost allowances. That is template RFP language, and not very applicable to this contract. Just provide your understanding of MnDOT s level of participation and any services to be provided by MnDOT. The cost allowances language will be removed through RFP Addendum # Q: Regarding RFP Insurance Requirements, Required Insurance, Item d. Professional/Technical, Errors and Omissions, and /or Miscellaneous Liability Insurance (page 8 of the RFP), is the minimum $10 million limit for the prime or all team members? A: The $10 million limit applies to the Prime consultant. Subconsultant insurance limits will be established through discussions with MnDOT Contract Management during contract negotiations. 17. Q: The RFP (Section 9. Cost Proposal) states to provide the breakout of the hours by task for each employee. Is it acceptable to provide hours by generalized employee classification coupled with a listing of employees by classification? A: Yes. 18. Q: At the pre-bid conference we were told that the meeting s attendee list would be posted. I am unable to locate it on the website. Would you please either post it or send me a copy? A: Project documents can be found at the following RID site: SP (TH 53) RID Site