** The due date has been extended to June 16, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. **

Transcription

1 June 8, 2017 To: All Potential Proposers Subject: RFP 17-Q Butterfly Lane Realignment Project Consisting of: RFIs and City Response, 3 PDFs Butterfly Ridge Elementary, Roadway Plan Sheet, Forest WRP This addendum is made part of the solicitation documents to the same extent as though it was originally included therein. In the event of conflict with the original contract documents, the addendum shall govern over all other contract documents to the extent specified. Subsequent addendums shall govern over prior addenda only to the extent specified. The proposer shall be required to acknowledge receipt of the informational addendum by signing the addendum and including it with the proposal. Failure of a proposer to include a signed informational addendum in their proposal shall deem their proposal non-responsive, however, the City may waive this requirement if determined to be in its best interest. The City will not be responsible for any other explanation or interpretation made verbally or in writing by any other city representative. We look forward to receiving your proposals. Sincerely, THE Keisha L. Brown, CPPB Purchasing Manager 1 ** The due date has been extended to June 16, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. **

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #2 The undersigned acknowledges that Addendum No. 2 for RFP 17-Q has been received by the undersigned and will be incorporated in all copies of said solicitation in the possession of the undersigned. It is understood that all proposals submitted in response to this project will be presumed to be based upon full knowledge of the contents of Addendum No. 2. (Printed Name of Company or Individual) (Signature-Authorized Official) (Title- if applicable) (Date) 2

3 Shawn Strasdauskas Area Sales Manager Who will be doing the hiring for the testing and inspections on this? The City will hire a third party testing and inspection firm when project is bid for construction. JENNIFER D. RIFFLE Senior Marketing Coordinator 700 East Pratt Street, Suite 500 Baltimore, MD Does the scope include removal of the existing signal and turn lanes at existing Butterfly Lane and Jefferson Pike or will SHA perform this work? The scope does not include removal of the existing traffic signal and turn lanes at existing MD 180/Butterfly Lane intersection. Removal of existing signal at Butterfly Lane and Jefferson Pike will be done by SHA. Refer to the SHA plans included with this Addendum. The City will be responsible for removing the remainder of Butterfly Lane outside of the SHA right of way, with coordination with the Frederick County, as part of the design effort to determine an appropriate terminus for existing Butterfly Lane at Acropolis Way. However, the above is expected to take a significant amount of critical coordination between the COF and SHA since SHA cannot close the existing intersection until Butterfly Lane is relocated to its new location at Swallowtail Dr Does the scope include removal of the existing signal at Butterfly Lane and Himes Ave?

4 Yes. 3. Does the limit of work for Contender Way terminate at the proposed elementary school site? Please confirm Contender Way does not extend to intersect Butterfly Lane at McCain Drive. COF is currently coordinating with FCPS on the final configuration of Contender Way from Station 3+10 to the south along school frontage. The Butterfly Lane RFP design will pick up design of Contender way from this terminus in the vicinity of the southern entrance to Butterfly Ridge Elementary School southeast to relocated Butterfly Lane, and in addition will include design for the two eastern lanes of Contender Way between Butterfly Lane and the school entrance as well as a shared-use path along the east side of Contender Way. To the southeast of the school entrance, Contender Way will narrow from a four lane, divided street with curb and gutter into a two lane open section road as it enters the park. Contender Way extends north to intersect with Butterfly lane at McCain Drive. See response above. 4. Is continuous street lighting desired along both new Butterfly Lane and Contender Way or is it only desired at the intersections? Street lighting is required along both realigned Butterfly Lane as well as Contender Way. 5. Is lighting desired for the parking lots? Yes. 6. Does the City have standard pavement sections or does the City desire pavement design for both roadways and the parking lots? City has standard pavement section for both roadways. The design consultant will provide recommendations for parking lot paving section. 7. Can the City please provide a copy of the jurisdictional determination (JD) that has been prepared for the site including plan and Corps JD letter? 4

5 The City does not have a copy of a jurisdictional determination prepared for the site. Wetlands were identified by a consulting firm working for a private developer prior to the City purchasing the property. The wetlands are indicated on the approved Forest Conservation plans prepared by the developer and, subsequently, for the City for subdivision of the property. That plan, approved 2/24/14, is provided with this addendum. The Consultant will be expected to verify the limits of the existing wetlands and to determine impact, if any, from the construction of Contender Way and/or parking area B. 8. Does the City desire a separate set of documents and permits for Contender Way? Or will both roadways be included in one set of construction documents and permits? The City desires to have one set of construction drawings broken into different phases or segments. Depending on construction costs, the City would like the flexibility to construct Contender Way independent of the construction of realigned Butterfly Lane. 9. Can the City confirm that all work is within the City limits and that no permitting will be required from Frederick County? Yes, correct. 10. Can the City provide the date of the survey and company who performed the survey? Flown in fall of 2009 by VRM and spring 2010 some obscured areas by City of Frederick survey. 11. Will the City submit the 2016 EAC/Archaeology assessment report for the Proposed Westside Regional Park to the Planning Department for formal review to satisfy Section 603 (d) of the City of Frederick Land Management Code? City will submit 2016 EAC/Archaeology report to Planning Department as part of a sketch plan submission. (6/26/17 next deadline for Sketch Plan submission) Design engineer should submit estimate for any additional assessment required for compliance. 5

6 RICHARD J. ADAMS JR., P.E. Director, Transportation 700 East Pratt Street, Suite 500 Baltimore, MD We are highly interested in proposing for the referenced project but have concerns with the current contract language. Specifically, we would like to request changes to the Indemnification and Hold Harmless Clause as we have noted on pages 5 and 14 of the attached RFP. The modifications to the Hold Harmless clause will make the clause consistent with the language in the indemnification and insurable by the standard insurance policies prevalent in the engineering industry. Our insurance policies only insure us for work caused by the "negligent act, error or omission of our firm or subcontractors". Consequently, any other liability for which we were found to be not negligent would not be insurable. Consequently, our firm (as well as other potential bidders) would be exposed to excessive uninsurable risk under the current contract language. Please remove the Hold Harmless language from pages 14/15; however, our Indemnification language on page 5 will remain as written. It is our standard and is in line with the terms of other local jurisdictions, even for engineering solicitations. Shawn Benjaminson, PE, LEED AP BD+C Principal ADTEK ENGINEERS, INC. P C Could you please review questions 29 and 30? They seem to contradict themselves. 29. Will geotechnical investigations be required? Yes, to insure that all soils on site are appropriate for use. 30. Are additional borings needed? No. For #30, the answer should be Yes. 6

7 Joseph H. Ceci, P.E. Vice President Fox & Associates, Inc. 1. Please provide an approximate size and/or number of parking spaces for each parking lot. According to the park master plan documents: Parking lot B 263 spaces (west of & serves multipurpose fields) Parking lot C 106 spaces (serves farmstead area) Parking lot D 259 spaces (east of & serves multipurpose fields) 2. Please confirm that there are no frontage improvements required to existing Butterfly Lane other than the roundabout and proposed terminus at the apartment entrance. The limits of work WILL include the upgrade of Butterfly Lane between McCain Drive and Himes Ave. The segment, beginning at the terminus of Butterfly Ridge Elementary School improvements just east of McCain Drive, will be closed section and include 38 ft. wide pavement (two travel lanes, 1 parking lane), with 5 ft. sidewalk north side of Butterfly Lane and 10 ft. shared use path on south side of Butterfly Lane. The improvements will include street lights and street trees. 3. Page 11 of the RFP mentions the need for soils testing to determine if corrosive soils are present in the location of the proposed water and sewer. Has the City encountered any corrosive soils in this area in the past? No, the City hasn t encountered any corrosive soils in this area in the past. 4. Will any design be required for the closure of the existing intersection of MD Rt. 180 & Butterfly Lane under this contract or will SHA handle all the design work to eliminate that intersection? Please refer to the SHA concept plan. SHA will be handling all the design work to close the existing intersection, which will include curb and gutter. 7

8 8