|
-1-
Submitted: Friday 25-JAN-2019 12:21 AM
Company: CDM Smith
Contact: Darrel Stordahl
The list of key personnel in the RFQ and the SOQ Evaluation Criteria do not match up. The eval criteria lists Environmental Coordinator as a key personnel and the RFQ does not. Please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 28-JAN-2019 02:10 PM
Attachment A - SOQ Evaluation Criteria is hereby replaced with the following: ATTACHMENT A - SOQ EVALUATION CRITERIA
|
|
-2-
Submitted: Friday 25-JAN-2019 12:31 AM
Company: CDM Smith
Contact: Darrel Stordahl
The RFQ includes a bullet point stating: "Perpetuate the existing parking configuration/layout and maintain the current number of passenger vehicle (Class 3) and oversized vehicle (trucks WB-67) parking stalls. The parking area currently contains eight (8) passenger vehicle stalls, one (1) passenger vehicle handicap accessible parking stall, and five (5) oversized vehicle parking stalls…" Currently, there are only 4 truck stalls that can fit a WB-67 as the western-most truck stall would encroach into the travel lane if a full WB-67 stall was to be provided. The 5th stall shown in the conceptual drawings can fit a truck/trailer combination up to 60’ in length. Please confirm that the intent for the new parking lot is to provide four (4) full-length WB-67 stalls, with a truncated 5th truck stall allowing for a truck/trailer combination up to approximately 60’ in length (or as long of a stall as possible without encroaching into the travel lane).
Answer
Submitted: Friday 25-JAN-2019 12:16 PM
Yes, the western-most stall is shorter than the rest of the truck stalls due to the configuration of the existing layout. The intent for the parking layout is to provide as long of a stall as possible for the western-most truck stall.
|
|
-3-
Submitted: Friday 25-JAN-2019 12:41 AM
Company: CDM Smith
Contact: Darrel Stordahl
The RFQ includes a bullet point stating: "Provide design and construction for piping to enclose the existing irrigation ditch along the northern portion of the rest area site. Provide a new head gate structure near the NORTHEAST corner of the site to perpetuate existing irrigation patterns and flow rates for the neighboring property…" The Conceptual Site Plan Detail calls out a new head gate structure in the NORTHWEST corner of the site, while the existing division box in the northeast corner of the site is to be perpetuated. Please confirm that the new head gate structure is to be installed in the NORTHWEST corner of the site.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 25-JAN-2019 12:08 PM
Yes, the new head gate structure is to be installed near the NORTHWEST corner of the site as depicted on the Conceptual Plans.
|
|
-4-
Submitted: Thursday 28-FEB-2019 07:54 AM
Company: Stahly Engineering & Associates
Contact: Byron Stahly
Alternatives or Options are identified as part of "minimum information to be included" (bottom of page 40). On past ADA design-build projects it has been clarified that Alternatives or Options are NOT considered in scoring best value. On page 14 of the RFP in reference to Alternatives or Options it states "should" be identified. Will Alternatives or Options be considered for scoring best value on this project? If so, please explain how this criteria will be considered in the scoring of best value.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 04-MAR-2019 09:14 AM
Under the scoring criteria #3 - Project Understanding and Approach, the RFP states that "Narrative Innovations, Alternatives and/or Options = Maximum 50 points (10% of available points)". MDT is interested in the Firm's ideas on potential alternatives and/or options. However, pricing should still be excluded from the technical proposal and included in the bid price proposal as stated in the RFP.
|
|
-5-
Submitted: Friday 01-MAR-2019 04:37 PM
Company: CDM Smith
Contact: Jake Gunther
Can you please provide the shortlisted firms with the microstation reference files used in the Phase I plans? The provided RFP documents included the engineering and control surveys, but we are missing the reference files showing the utilities, new wells, drainfield/septic system, wetlands, and existing right-of-way.
The following files are requested (likely file names in parenthesis):
1) Utility Map (9023000utsuez01.dgn)
2) Wetland Map (9023000enmapz01.dgn)
3) Right-of-way Map (9023000romapz01.dgn)
The Phase I Road Map (9023000rdmapz01.dgn) would only be needed if it contains the drainfield/septic/new well information.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 05-MAR-2019 04:43 PM
DESIGN FILES
*Utility Map
Not applicable. Phase I of this project did not include a subsurface utility survey. Approximate existing underground utilities are shown in the 9023000RDMAPZ01.DGN file for information only and were drawn based on as-builts and select engineering survey points. Additional utility information was based on the Roberts-Boyd project UPN 4375004 files (4375004DIMAPZ02.DGN & 4375PHMAPZF1.DGN) previously provided by MDT.
* Wetland Map (9023000ENMAPZ01.dgn)
9023000ENMAPZ01.DGN file includes the wetland areas.
*Right of Way Map (9023ROMAPZ01.dgn). R/W was not retraced as part of the Roberts Rest Area Phase I project. Existing R.W lines shown are based on the Roberts-Boyd project UPN 4375004 files (4375004ROMAPZ0001.dgn) previously provided by MD along with information based on ownership records.
9023000RDMAPZ01.dgn can also be found at the link above. Note: This file includes the conceptual improvement linework from Phase I in addition to the new well locations (public water well and irrigation well). This file also includes approximate existing utility information drawn based on as-builts. Existing drainfield/septic information is approximate and for information only since underground utilities were not surveyed.
The requested files do not represent the staked project, but are only design files. The Department cannot guarantee the accuracy of the electronic data, particularly as it may be called up by your computer, nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents.
In addition, the Department will not make any revisions to the electronic files pertaining to the staked project, change ordered work, or changes that are made during construction to fit field conditions.
|
|
-6-
Submitted: Tuesday 05-MAR-2019 07:20 AM
Company: Stahly Engineering & Associates
Contact: Byron Stahly
Follow up question. Will Innovations have 25 points available and Alternatives and Options have 25 points available of the total 50 points available for "Innovations, Alternatives and Options"?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 05-MAR-2019 10:26 AM
There is no requirement to segregate the points as indicated in the question. The available points will be assigned collectively by the Technical Review Committee as deemed appropriate. Credit will be given based on the application, originality, and benefits derived from the Innovations, Alternatives, and Options.
|
|
-7-
Submitted: Thursday 07-MAR-2019 11:46 AM
Company: CDM Smith
Contact: Darrel Stordahl
1. Please confirm that the permanent well pump, well piping, check valves, and pitless adapter were installed during Phase I activities for the Public Supply Well (GWIC# 298383) as shown on the Phase 1 Public Well Detail sheet.
2. Please confirm that the old Public Water Well (GWIC# 161309) was abandoned as stated in the Phase I Conceptual Site Plan Detail.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 08-MAR-2019 12:16 PM
1. Yes, the permanent well pump, well piping, check valves, and pitless adapter were installed during Phase I activities for the Public Supply Well (GWIC# 298383) as shown on the Phase 1 Public Well Detail sheet.
2. Yes, the old Public Water Well (GWIC# 161309) was abandoned as stated in the Phase I Conceptual Site Plan Detail.
|
|
-8-
Submitted: Thursday 21-MAR-2019 11:53 AM
Company: TD&H Engineering
Contact: Loran Frazier
The RFP scope states: "Provide an inflow wastewater effluent usage meter." for the waste water system. The existing system is a gravity system. Researching available products initially show range of products with high costs and/or low accuracy for the volume at this site. Please confirm that MDT wants an effluent usage meter installed on the gravity system and the level of accuracy desired.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 22-MAR-2019 11:55 AM
After careful consideration it was decided that a wastewater effluent meter is no longer a requirement for this project. For firms who addressed the application of a wastewater meter in their technical proposal, the Technical Review Committee will not evaluate or score the design or associated narrative. The firms are free to exclude the cost of a meter system in their lump sum bid price.
|
|
-9-
Submitted: Monday 25-MAR-2019 10:44 AM
Company: Montana Waterworks and Irrigation
Contact: Derek Cottrill
Which form of RACET would be acceptable to install on the end of a corrugated HDPE pipe? There are two different details for the RACET's, one for CMP and one for RCP. I don't see one for HDPE?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 26-MAR-2019 07:40 AM
MDT does not have a standard detail for RACET connected to HDPE. The Design-Builder needs to propose a pre-manufactured or specialty built galvanized steel RACET. Note that although HDPE is acceptable for approach pipes, the design needs to ensure a minimum 2-feet of cover over the pipe.
|