hunts point interstate access improvement project design build … · 2019. 5. 7. · hunts point...

Hunts Point Interstate Access Improvement Project Design‐Build Project Contract #D900047

Final RFP Questions and Answers May 7, 2019

Question 219: RFP Part 6, indicative plans, typical section 10 of 10 indicates that proposed retaining walls and backfill work west of Sheridan Expressway will impact exiting NYC subway sections. In order to assess the impact to existing NYC subway structures, can as-built information of the existing NYC subway be provided? Answer: NYCT As Built Drawings were sent to the teams via MFT on March 15, 2019. Question 220: Directive note 6.2.1.4 on Dwg. GN-6 states to remove all existing signs that direct traffic to the entrance ramp at Hunts Point Avenue. Indicative Dwg. RP-2 Note 1 states to remove all existing conflicting North Route 895 signs. At-grade signs extend as far as E139th Street on Bruckner Blvd. Please provide the area limits or a listing of signs that contractor will be responsible for removal and potential modification/replacement. Answer: Refer to Addendum #9.

Question 221: Draft OCMC permit does not provide lane closure stipulations for Bruckner Expwy south of Bryant Ave and for Sheridan Blvd north of Westchester Avenue, which require overhead sign structure modifications. Please provide schedule of allowed lane closure times for the above two areas. Answer: Refer to stipulation 2.E. for Sheridan Blvd one lane closure. Refer to stipulation 3 for Bruckner Expressway 15min closure. Design-Builder may utilize Lane closure similar to stipulation 2.A.a. for longer lane closure duration. Question 222: Final RFP Part 6 Directive Drawing ES-RRC-06: Final RFP Part 6 Directive Drawing ES-RRC-06 shows stage 6 erection of Ramps SE and ES. The table indicates "Pour Ramp ES closure pours between precast deck panels over railroad tracks and within 10 feet of railroad ROW" requires track outage, requires power outage, and requires railroad protection personnel. "Pour Ramp SE closure pours between precast deck panels over railroad tracks and within 10 feet of railroad ROW" is shown with not requirements for track outage, power outage and railroad protection personnel. Since both pours occur over the railroad tracks, please confirm the requirements for track outage, power outage and railroad protection personnel is the same for Ramps SE and ES. Answer: Please refer to Addendum #8.

Question 223: Part 6, Directive and Indicative Plans - Railroad Clearances: Multiple discrepancies have been noted regarding the Amtrak and CSX required vertical clearances. These pertain to Bruckner EB and WB Expressways and Boulevards, Ramps ES and SE, and the Bryant Avenue Pedestrian Bridge. They are as follows: Bruckner Expressways and Boulevards 1. Drawing GN-6 – 21’-0” over CSX, 20’-0” over Amtrak (Directive) This is correct. 2. Drawing G-04 – 23’-0” over Amtrak (Directive) This sheet currently being discussed with Amtrak. Will be 20’-0” as shown on other sheets for this roadway. 3. Drawing BR-EL-02 – 21’-0” over Amtrak (Directive Conceptual) Updated Addendum #7. 4. Drawing BR-TYP-01 – 21’-0” over CSX, 20’-0” over Amtrak (Indicative) This is correct. 5. Drawing EL-03 – 21’-0” over CSX (Indicative) This is correct.



6. Drawing TYP-01 – 21’-0” over CSX and Amtrak (Indicative) Updated in Addendum #3. 7. Drawings PRO-3, PRO-4, PRO-5 – Shows 21’ clearance being met over assumed CSX and 20’ being met over assumed Amtrak (Indicative) This is correct. Ramps ES and SE 1. Drawing GN-3 – 30’-0” required clearance for Ramp ES over railroad tracks (Directive) This is correct. 2. Drawing GN-4 – 30’-0” required clearance for Ramp SE over railroad tracks (Directive) This is correct. 3. Drawing ES-EL-01 – Ramp SE 32’-0” minimum clearance, Ramp ES 35’-6” minimum clearance (Indicative) This sheet is unchanged. 4. Drawing ES-TYP-01 – Ramp SE 32’-0” minimum clearance, Ramp ES 35’-6” minimum clearance (Indicative) This sheet is unchanged. 5. Drawing EL-01 – Ramp ES 30’-0” minimum clearance (Indicative) This sheet is unchanged. 6. Drawing PRO-7 – Ramp ES 30’-0” minimum clearance (Indicative) This dimension is unchanged. Bryant Avenue Pedestrian Bridge 1. Drawing GN-5 – Meet or exceed existing vertical clearance over railroad tracks (Directive) This note is unchanged. 2. Drawing PED-EL-01 – 23’-7” minimum clearance (Directive Conceptual) This sheet is unchanged. 3. Drawing PED-TYP-01 – 23’-7” proposed minimum vertical clearance, 24’-1(7/8)” existing clearance (Indicative) This sheet is unchanged. Please clarify what vertical clearances should be applied for the given roadways over the CSX and Amtrak railroad tracks. Answer: As noted in the bullets, some sheets have been updated via addendum when they were incorrect. The dimensions at this point are correct on the various sheets. Question 224: Final RFP Part 6, Indicative Plan Sheets Typ-10A, Typ-10, Typ-11 all show 1:1 slopes from the bottom of the subway “bathtub” towards the new construction and labeled “Influence Line”. Does the Department consider this line the zone of influence for “no additional load” on the structure? If so, does the Department consider similar influences to all other structures that have a “no additional load” requirement on the project? Answer: These typicals were updated in Addendum #8. Question 225: Final RFP part 3 Section 16.3.2.1, Part 6 indicative plan GP-13: Part 3 of the RFP, Section 16.3.2.1 describe guide signs and structures required for the Contract. However, a proposed OSS with proposed and relocated sign panels is shown on indicative plan GP-13 at approximately Sta. ES 38+80 and is not listed in Part 3 of the RFP, Section 16.3.2.1. Question: Please confirm the proposed structure and sign panels (proposed and relocated) are required as shown on the indicative plan. Answer: This section has been revised in Addendum #8.



Question 226: Final RFP part 3 Section 16.3.2.1, Part 6 indicative plan GP-1: Part 3 of the RFP, Section 16.3.2.1 describe guide signs and structures required for the Contract. However, a proposed large ground mounted sign is shown on the closed entrance ramp on indicative plan GP-1, and is not listed in Part 3 of the RFP, Section 16.3.2.1. Question 1) Please confirm the proposed structure and sign panel is required as shown on the indicative plan. Question 2) please indicate how this ground mounted sign is to be attached to the existing bridge deck Answer: This section was revised in Addendum #8. Question 227: Final RFP Addendum 1 - Part 5 -SP-3: 3.3.4 3rd Paragraph states, "No work other than installation of the Engineer's Field Office, Mobilization, procurement, and administrative activities, installation of construction signs, installation of erosion and pollution protection, clearing and grubbing, field measurements, and survey and stakeout will be permitted to start until the Baseline Progress Schedule has been submitted to the Department's Project Manager..." Considering this is a Design-Build, please add pre-construction items such as geotechnical borings and Design and other pre-construction activities approved by the Department's PM, to be allowed prior to submission of Baseline Schedule. Answer: The Department has reviewed this provision; no revision will be made. Question 228: Final RFP Addendum 1 - Part 2 DB 108-04. B: DB 108-04. B, Non-Compensable Delays includes Railroad Delays. We strongly would recommend the Department take due consideration to provide both time and compensation relief for Railroad Delays not caused by the Design Builder. Doing so will reduce the amount of contingency a responsible Design-Builder will need to carry to manage such a risk. Understanding the Department has taken great measures to coordinate with the Railroads to mitigate such delays, this seems a reasonable approach and affords the Department the opportunity some savings and use of all the work and diligence performed to date by the Department. Please consider moving Railroad Delays to 108-04. A - Compensable Delays. Answer: We have now included a separate Force Account Item in the contract (Addendum #7) to cover “No-Show Compensation” due to the Railroad. These are only compensable up to the amount shown in Form SCD. Question 229: Final RFP Part 2, DB-100 – General: The Department appeared to make significant changes to Part 2, DB 100. The Design-Builder makes the following observations and requests clarity as follows:

a. A January 2019 set of Set of Standard Specifications is now posted on the Department’s website; please confirm these (currently appear draft) will be what is adopted as only the sections are referenced in the RFP.

b. In the Draft RFP and prior NYSDOT Design-Builds, the Department has included DB Specifications 111 to address Design Management. This no longer exists. We note that Part 3 of the RFP section 5 no includes most of those provisions, but not all. Please confirm that Section 5 is intended to supersede Specification 111 entirely eliminating DB 111.



c. The Final RFP eliminated DB 112 and 113 Design and Construction Quality Control and that these are now addressed in Part 3 Appendices. Please confirm that DB 112 or 113 has been removed.

d. We note Part 2 DB 100 includes duplication of DB 100s dated January 1, 2019…. These appear to be NYSDOT Standard Specifications. Please clarify their Order of Precedence with the DB 100s already in Part 2. As an example, the Final RFP includes 2 (two) version of 104-03, Differing Site Condition and DB-015-06 Cooperation with Utilities, among others. Please omit duplicates and clarify Order of Precedence.

Answer: a. Based on the schedule changes, we are now using the Standard Specifications dated May 1,

2019. b. Confirmed. c. Confirmed. d. Please refer to Part 5 SP-1

Question 230: Final RFP - Part 2, DB-102.B: DB 102.B – Project Components include: 7) DB section 100 General Provisions Part 2 and 8) Standard Specifications of the NYSDOT Sections 200-700. Understanding that Part 2 references NYSDOT Standard Specifications, please clarify that Part 8) is NYSDOT Standard Specification Sections 100-700. Please make the appropriate edit to this section to clarify. Answer: This will be updated in Addendum #10 to say: 8. Standard Specifications of the New York State Department of Transportation, current on the Proposal Due Date, Sections 100 through 700, and the Standard Sheets. Question 231: Final RFP - Part 2, DB 105-04 - Contract Documents: DB 105-04 of the NYSDOT Standard Specifications appears written exclusively for a Bid Build Contract and gives the Department the authority to interpret drawings; we believe this would put unwanted risk on the Department in a Design-Build Contract as the Department is not the EOR. We suggest removing this reference or adapting a Design-Build specific provision consistent with the terms of the Contract to avoid misunderstanding and burdening risk on the Department. Answer: The Department has reviewed this provision; no revision will be made. Question 232: Final RFP - Part 2, DB 107-07 - Protection of Underground Facilities: DB 107-07 – Protection of Underground Facilities in the Standard Specifications provides “Quality Levels” A-D for Utility Information and states “Quality Level D” if not shown in Contract Documents. It is not clear if Proposers are to assume Quality Level D for all Utility Information provided. Please clarify applicability to this Design-Build Contract. Answer: There is a note on the UTC, UTG, UTV, and UTF plans that states that this information is designated as Quality Level D unless otherwise indicated on the plans.



Question 233: Final RFP - Part 2, DB 105-09 - Work Affecting Railroads: DB 105-09. E – Standard Specifications Jan 1, 2019 – Reference to a “State Railroad Agreement” please make this available to the Proposers. Answer: These agreements are not going to be made available to the teams. Question 234: Final RFP - Part 2, DB 108-03A - Failure to Complete Work on Time- Engineering Charges: In addition to LDs, the State may impose “Engineering Charges” against Design-Builder, which are “all appropriate engineering and inspection expenses incurred by the State, its consultants and inspection agencies, and by railroad companies.” (DB, §108-03A.) Engineering Charges will be applied if Design-Builder receives relief associated with (a) reasonable time to review shop drawings, (b) changes to meet field conditions that do not significantly affect contract completion, (c) seasonal and weather delays, (d) local labor actions, (e) shortage of materials or supplies, and (f) other situations that should be anticipated. Can these "Engineering Charges" be better defined, capped or eliminate since it only applies if Design-Builder is offered relief, which presumably was due to an action or inaction not caused or anticipated by the Design-Builder. Answer: If an extension of time is granted, that is defined to be excusable, then engineering charges will not be assessed. Question 235: Final RFP Addendum 1 - Part 3: 14.3.1.J. “All reinforcement located in the mass placement(s), except for footings, shall be epoxy coated reinforcement unless as otherwise noted or specified in other sections of the RFP.” Please consider omitting this and have the Proposers follow NYSDOT Bridge Design Manual Section 15.12.15 which outlines the substructure elements respective to the splash areas and their respective chloride resistance. We believe the requirements as written put additional cost on the Project with no apparent benefit. The department has a Mass Placement Mix Design and requirements for thermal monitoring of Mass Placements which when done properly will result in superior chloride resistance given the high pozzolan content of the MP mix designs. Answer: The RFP will be revised and will require mass placements to be done in accordance with the NYSDOT Bridge Manual. Please refer to addendum #9. Question 236: Contract Documents - General - Traffic Counts: Please confirm Traffic Counts will be provided as an Engineering Document in Part 7 - Engineering Documents. Since the evolution of app-based rides such as Uber, Lift, etc., there has be compounding increases to traffic and congestion. We would suggest the Department Include Traffic Counts and a reasonable buffer to cap the Proposer's risk profile for what has been an extremely impactful phenomenon in the greater NYC area in regard to WZTC. Answer: See Traffic Counts in FEIS Appendix C.

Question 237: DB107-6 A.8 allows a $100,000 SIR. Given the financial strength of the bidders, would you consider amending this limit to $1,000,000? This allowance would provide greater flexibility to bidders in structuring their GL insurance which would result in premium savings that would lower the total cost of the project. Answer: This is updated in Addendum #10.



Question 238: DB107-6 B 5 addresses a requirement for Special Protective and Highway Liability policy, an OCP policy. The specification does not say if this is an annually reinstating limit of coverage. Is this an annual limit or a project term limit of coverage? Answer: Annual. Question 239: DB 107-6-B 7 provides for no more than a $250,000 SIR on a professional liability policy. The project specific professional liability insurance market for a NY project of this size and scope will not provide a policy with a $250,000 SIR. Would you consider increasing the maximum SIR to $1M? Answer: This is updated in Addendum #10. Question 240: DB 107-06 B (11) Builders Risk is a requirement only for structures or buildings. Given the size and scope of this project, a dedicated and project specific builders risk policy should be considered as a contractual requirement for all responsible bidders with a limit of coverage up to the full contract value, LEG3 coverage with no higher than a $500,000 deductible. Answer: Builder’s Risk Policy is required for this project in accordance with DB Section 107-06 B – Insurance Requirements. Question 241: Standard Specifications 107-5 L provides that Asbestos abatement contractors carry insurance coverage consisting of an asbestos specific-occurrence type policy with no deductible. Those policies are rare and most abatement contractors carry some level of deductible on their policies which are often a combined form with their GL policy. Suggest amending that deductible requirement to $100,000. Answer: The Department has reviewed this provision; no revision will be made. Question 242: Reference Part 4 HC-140 for Con Edison Electrical Facilities, Page 3 of 16, Item #2 and drawing UTC-02. Scope of work indicates replacement of existing conduit with 8-5” STL on the north side of Bruckner Expressway bridge over Amtrak. Con Edison Conduit Plate # 11-L does not show a conduit crossing the north side of the Bruckner Expressway bridge over Amtrak. Please provide clarification on whether these conduits exist and if any are loaded with active cables. Please also provide clarification on whether there are any active feeder lines on either the north or south duct banks crossing the bridge. If there are active cables, will they require temporary support and protection or can they be temporarily removed from service until the new duct bank is constructed? Answer: Please refer to Part 4 via errata via addendums #1 and #4. Question 243: Please provide design scope of work for utility poles and overhead cables impacted on the west side of Edgewater Road due to the alignment of new Ramp ES from south of Garrison Avenue north towards Bruckner Boulevard and along the south side of Garrison Avenue. Answer: Please refer to Part 4 via errata via addendums #1 and #4.



Question 244: Reference Part 4 HC-140 for Con Edison Electrical Facilities, Page 2 of 16, Item #2 and drawing UTC-01. Please provide design scope of work clarification; the utility alignment intent is clear however; the vertical location of the duct bank is not clearly discernible as it could be located under the new deck of Bryant Avenue Pedestrian Bridge. Answer: A suggested installation from Con Edison has been posted in the reference documents. Question 245: RFP Part 4 Drainage Plans indicate the use of Ductile Iron Pipe for Storm and Sanitary Sewers. Has NYCDEP approved the use of DIP in lieu of ESVP or RCP? NYCDEP Standard Drawings for the use of D.I.P. Alternative do not indicate the need for piles beneath sewers. Please confirm whether NYCDEP will require the placement of piles beneath DIP Storm and Sanitary Sewers within Edgewater Road. Answer: The Design Build Contractor should follow all applicable NYCDEP or NYSDOT specifications and standard drawings. NYCDEP has stated that sanitary sewers under ramps should be ductile iron pipe. Other sewers can be ESVP. Piles are required for sewer on Edgewater Road. Question 246: Please confirm whether the cleaning and video inspection of existing sewers can be omitted in portions of the project limits where the scope of work is limited to milling and overlaying of existing pavement only. Answer: Please refer to addendum #8. Question 247: Please clarify the requirements of the in-ground hydrodynamic separator unit (HSU). Per standard specification 604.5102nn15, only two manufactured stormwater treatment systems are approved for use by NYSDOT. These two systems are not recognized by NYSDEC as providing Enhanced Phosphorus Removal required for new construction. Answer: Please refer to addendum #10. Question 248: Additional Reference documents provided on February 5 included a letter from NYCDEP dated January 24. Item 5 regarding CCTV inspection of sewers states "All existing DEP Sewers and other structure that are found in bad condition are to be replaced at no cost to NYCDEP". Please clarify how payment will be made for repairs to existing storm sewers found during CCTV inspection. Answer: The NYSDOT states that existing DEP sewers and other structures will be replaced when in conflict with the proposed work.



Question 249: Part 6, Drawing GN-6 A) Part 6 – RFP Plans, Drawing GN-6, Directive Note 7.1.4.2 requires that the three Bruckner Expressway eastbound lanes be constructed and then modified to be two lanes. Alignment for the Bruckner Expressway EB (BRE) has been revised with a sharper radius. Please confirm that only 2 lanes are to be constructed based on the temporary alignment identified on DRAWING AL-2. B) Part 6 – RFP Plans, Drawing GN-6, Directive Note 7.1.4.5 requires that the Bruckner Expressway westbound be constructed with two lanes, with a future provision for a third lane. Alignment for the Bruckner Expressway WB (BRW) has been revised with a sharper radius. Please confirm that only 2 lanes are to be constructed based on the temporary alignment identified on DRAWING AL-2. Answer: Bruckner Expressway Bridges to be built to the future final three lanes configurations. Concrete barriers to be used to narrow Bruckner Expressway Bridges from three lanes configuration to two lanes configuration to transition to the existing two lanes configuration. Sheet AL-2 was revised in Addendum #8. Question 250: Part 6, Indicative Plans (RP-5) and Acquisition Plans The Roadway Plans (RP-5) show a proposed fence along the Edgewater Avenue side (east side) of the corner property at the corner of the EB Bruckner Blvd. and Edgewater Avenue. In the existing condition, there is a driveway from this property with access to Edgewater Avenue. In the proposed condition, this access is cutoff and it appears that no access is to be provided to Edgewater Avenue from this property, however the Acquisition plans do not indicate that access is cutoff (W.O.A. is not shown for this property). Confirm that access to Edgewater Avenue is not required from this corner property and that this existing access will be cutoff in the proposed condition. Answer: Gas station access to Bruckner Boulevard and Whittier Street will be maintained. Gas station access to Edgewater Road will be removed.

Question 251: Addendum 1, Part 3 – Project Requirements, Section 17.3.3 In Addendum 1, Part 3 – Project Requirements, Section 17.3.3 was revised removing detailed photometric criteria for temporary lighting to state “provide and maintain temporary lighting similar to permanent.” Permanent lighting criteria ranges from 0.8-foot candles to 5.0-foot candles. Part 7 – Engineering Data, pdf page 83 of 253 note 11 indicates an average of 1-foot candle and a 4:1 uniformity ratio shall be provided for temporary lighting. Question: Please clarify which criteria should be used, Part 3 or Part 7 Answer: Refer to Addendum #10.



Question 252: Part 3, Section 16.3.2.1 & Part 6, Dwg. GP-3 Part 3, Section 16.3.2.1 requires that new overhead sign panels (over the WB Bruckner Expressway and over the EB Bruckner Boulevard) be mounted on Ramp ES. Part 6, Drawing No. GP-3 identifies the sign panels to be mounted on Ramp ES; however, the drawing is an 'Indicative Plan'. Due to the sign panels being 12.5 ft high x 20.5 ft wide and 11.5 ft high x 20.5 ft wide and the steel girder depth only being 5ft to 6ft; should these sign panels be placed on separate standard overhead sign structures so that these large sign panels do not create an unnecessary complexity of forces and loadings to the superstructure that will also filter down to the substructure and foundations. Please revise the RFP to reflect these additional overhead sign structures being required. Answer: No change will be made to the RFP. Question 253: Part 6 - Final RFP Drawings AL-3, AL-4, MST-3 The Bruckner Boulevard eastbound entrance ramp alignment to Bruckner Expressway (Ramp BLV) has been added to directive plans on Drawings AL-3 and AL-4. The curve data on Drawing MST-3 for Ramp BLV does not agree with the alignments on the plans or in the NYSDOT furnished CADD files. Please confirm that the NYSDOT CADD files and plan geometry on Drawings AL-3 and AL-4 is correct, and NYSDOT will update Drawing information on MST-3. Answer: Please refer to Addendum #8. Question 254: Final RFP, Part 4 Appendix A sec A-2.2.1 Drawing UTC-07 Some of the existing utility poles are in direct interference with proposed ADA ramps and/or curbs. Currently, only some of these utility poles are called out as being relocated. For example, existing overhead ConEd lines running north and south along west side of Edgewater Road and crossing Lafayette Ave at Edgewater on the west side; There is an existing pole located in the ADA ramp/sidewalk that is identified to remain in place and be supported, protected and maintained as needed by the design builder which needs to be clarified. Can NYSDOT please verify the locations of these poles identified and provide revised direction in the RFP to relocate all of the utility poles impacting the proposed ADA ramps and curbs? Answer: Please refer to errata in addendum #4. Question 255: Final RFP, Part 3, Section 21.1 Part 3 section 21.1 says "The runoff from the new development area shall be conveyed and diverted to this outfall. In addition, runoff from existing impervious area along Edgewater Road, which is currently collected in the NYCDEP combined sewer system, shall also be conveyed and diverted to the new outfall. Therefore, there would be a net decrease in stormwater runoff contributing to the NYCDEP combined sewer system." The RFP does not state what the size of these two areas are independently for calculating the diverted runoff to the new outfall and what needs to be treated. We have found in the draft drainage report (reference document), states that the area is 3.02 acres. Can you confirm that actual limits of the runoff from both of these two areas is 3.02 ac and shall be diverted to the new outfall? Do both of these two areas need to be treated or does just one; please clarify. Answer: This will not be confirmed, these areas will both be treated.



Question 256: RFP Part 3 and 4 Since our previous Question from November 30th, 2018 has not been answered yet, we are submitting a new question regarding review times. We have reviewed the RFP and we have confirmed it is silent on anticipated review durations for third parties. As a result, preparation of an accurate Initial Baseline Progress Schedule will not be accurate. In order to provide a fair evaluation of all teams’ proposed Project Completion and Interim Milestone dates, we propose the following third-party review durations be defined in the RFP by NYSDOT:

- (Part 3, Section 21 & Part 4, Sections 4.7, 4.8) New York City Departmental of Environmental Protection - (Part 4 Sections 4.7, 4.8) Verizon - (Part 4 Sections 4.7, 4.8) Consolidated Edison - (Part 4 Sections 4.7, 4.8) Fire Department City of New York - (Part 3 Sections 10.2.6, 27.5) New York City Department of Parks and Recreation - (Part 3 Section 7.3.3) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: Review duration - (Part 3 Section 16.3.2.3) NYCDOT Traffic Signals: Review duration –

Answer: Please refer to Addendum #5 and #9 for utility, traffic signals, and NYC Parks review durations. For NYS DEC, if design meets their standards, it is a 5-day review. If you do not meet each of their standards, it is a 60-day review. Question 257: Drawing SP-1 shows an existing overhead sign structure on SB Sheridan Blvd at location 4; 300 feet north of Westchester Avenue which is to have sign panels replaced. A review of both Google and Bing Maps indicates there is no existing sign structure at this location. In addition, there is no mention of work being done at this sign structure in Section 16.3.2.1 of RFP Part 3. Please clarify if the signs at location 4 on SP-1 are correct. Answer: Refer to Addendum #8 for revisions to Section 16.3.2.1. Question 258: A new overhead sign structure is shown on Dwg. GP-13 which is to span across both NB and SB Sheridan Blvd. This sign structure is shown to have the same overhead panels as the structure shown at location 4 on Dwg. SP-1 in the SB direction. The sign structure is also shown to have new panels installed on the NB approach to the structure. This new sign structure is not mentioned in Section 16.3.2.1 of RFP Part 3. Please clarify if this sign structure is to be included in the project. Answer: Refer to Addendum #8 for revisions to Section 16.3.2.1. Question 259: Dwg. GP-13 also shows an existing overhead sign structure to be removed which is not identified in Section 16.3.2.1 of RFP Part 3. Please clarify if the removal of this sign structure is to be included in the project. Answer: Refer to Addendum #8 for revisions to Section 16.3.2.1.



Question 260: Section 16.3.2.1 of RFP Part 3 states that a new cantilever overhead sign structure is to be provided on NB Sheridan before the Westchester Exit Ramp at station SN 124+20+/-. It is noted that the text preceding this part of the RFP states that “the following overhead sign structures (including sign panels and supports) shall be removed and replaced”. Drawing GP-12 does not show or indicate the existing cantilever sign structure which is to be replaced. Please clarify. Answer: Refer to Addendum #8 for revisions to Section 16.3.2.1. Question 261: The signalized intersections comprise signal heads, illumination on signal poles and detectors. Please could NYSDOT confirm whether it would be acceptable for detectors and low-voltage signal wires to share the same conduit if each wire type was isolated within an inner duct, within the larger conduit? Answer: The conduits can share street lighting and signal wires as long they are installed according to NYCDOT specifications.

Question 262: Please clarify the directive instructions of RFP Part 4, Appendix C Sanitary Sewer Facilities Utility Work Agreement “East of Bronx River Storm Sewer / combined Sewer System – proposed”. a. The directive identifies several basins and scuppers to be “reset” in areas where the roadway is to be widened, therefore these reset inlets will not be located along the new curb or barrier. Additionally, several basins consist of frames and grates that include curb pieces and must either be relocated to the new curb/barrier location or replaced. b. Similarly, the directive states that the contractor shall not impact 7 existing catchbasins along the north side of the Westbound Bruckner Expressway. These basins include curb pieces and the curb in this location is to be relocated. The directive alignment shows the roadway to be widened in this area. c. The directive also states that the contractor is to “reset scuppers” within the limits of full deck replacement. Resetting scuppers in full deck replacement is not practical. d. Locations of existing inlets which the directive says to “reset” do not match the low points of the directive alignment. e. Where the directive says to reset inlets, please clarify whether the contractor is responsible to add inlets as required to meet spread width criteria through this section of expressway in accordance with NYSDOT highway Design Manual Chapter 8? Answer: Please see Addendum #4 for revisions to Part 3 Section 21, which clarifies some of this work. Please see Addendum #5 for revisions to plan sheets. Please refer to Addendum #10. The final plans and HC-140s are still being developed with NYCDEP and will be issued via addendum.



Question 263: Based on the Final RFP including Addendums 1, 2, and 3, the proposal due date is May 8th, 2019. Due to the multiple missing items (refer to list below), outstanding answers to questions and Third-party approvals still under discussion yet to be provided by NYSDOT, we are formally requesting the proposal due date be extended at the earliest to July 3rd, 2019. Will NYSDOT please revise in the RFP accordingly.

1. NYSDOT to provide the required Stakeholder/ Outside Agencies Review times/durations to accommodate for in the project Schedule. Refer to Addendum #5 and Addendum #9.

2. NYSDOT to provide the missing requirements and special provisions relative to not placing the

two new large sign panels of 12.5 ft high x 20.5 ft wide and 11.5 ft high x 20.5 ft wide on steel girders at the ES Bridge as previously required in Part 3, Section 16.3.2.1; Thus, adding two new overhead sign structures to project requirements for placement of the two new large sign panels. Refer to Addendum #8 for revisions to Section 16.3.2.1.

3. NYSDOT to provide Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Refer to Addendum #9.

Answer: See individual answers above. Question 264: Part 3 - Sections 14.3.1, 21.1 Based on recent NYSDOT design-build projects in Region 11, we understand that bridge scuppers must conform to NYCDEP standards. Please confirm and revise the RFP to clarify that NYCDEP standard scuppers are required and what bridge locations. Answer: Bridge Scuppers should be designed to NYSDOT Bridge Design standards. NYCDEP does not have standard scuppers.

Question 265: RFP Plans and RFP Part 4 Based on our review of the RFP documents related to the NYSDOT Addendum 3 revisions of EB & WB Bruckner - Blvd & Expressway horizontal alignments and vertical profiles, the approaches to the west in the interim condition of contract 1/contract 3 limit line do not provide the minimum cover requirements for many of the utilities. Just as an example, a 12" combined sewer line and 6" sewer line only provide approximately 3 feet of cover and do not meet the NYCDEP minimum of 4 feet. Will NYSDOT be coordinating with these utilities/agencies impacted to address these locations, modifications and revised design requirements such steel plates with driven piles to eliminate load transfer to the utilities as well as adjust the current agreements in Part 4? Answer: Relocations, replacements, and support and protection of utilities, including drainage pipe, due to grade changes will be addressed by the Design Builder during final design. The Design Builder must follow NYCDEP sewer design standards. If cover is reduced to less than 4', the Design Builder must comply with NYCDEP Sewer Design Standard Drawing SE-1 Note 3 - "Encasement required on pipe which has a cover, from final grade to the outer top of the pipe, of less than four (4) feet or when the upper limit of cover is exceeded." This drawing is available online and is also noted in Section 1.6 standards.



Question 266: RFP Plans BP-01 Based on NYSDOT RFP and directives on Dwg BP-01, the existing high CSX wall appears to have considerable loadings being transferred due to NYSDOT's directive design drawings for construction access constraints and construction activities. Was this CSX wall evaluated by NYSDOT for these conditions? Can NYSDOT provide the complete as-built information, allowable loading criteria and specific requirements relative to access for constructing along the high existing CSX retaining wall near CSX spur line/Concrete Plant park. As well as providing access agreements to CSX right-of-way to make potential modifications for strengthening the high existing CSX retaining wall. Answer: Sheet BP-01 was revised in Addendum #3. No, the CSX wall has not been evaluated, as-builts were provided to the teams. Question 267: Directive Notes 9.5.2.1 and 9.5.2.2 9.5.3.3 state that the existing Bronx River Avenue Viaduct substructure from Sta. BRE 123+95 to Sta. BRE 125+40 including cap beams and abutment and piles are to be retained, and the cap beams are to be repaired as noted in the Directive Drawings. Please confirm that the substructure can be reused without reinforcement or retrofit if the original design dead load and HS20 live load are not exceeded. Please confirm that RFP Part 3 Section 13.1 which states “Existing substructures and retaining walls shall not be re-used or incorporated into new work unless the Design-Builder provides detailed analysis showing that current and/or stated design standards are met, and verification that the condition of the existing structure demonstrates a remaining service life that meets or exceeds project requirements.” does not apply to these substructure elements. Please confirm that Extreme Event I Load Combination does not apply to this structure. Answer: See Addendum #9. Question 268: Directive Notes 1.2.1 and 1.3.1 state that existing Ramp SS and SN Bent 164 shall remain in place. Please confirm that RFP Part 3 Section 13.1 and Extreme Event I Load Combination does not apply to this structure. Please confirm that these bents can be reused without reinforcement or retrofit if the original design dead load and HS20 live load are not exceeded. Answer: Bent 164 shall be analyzed per the requirements for rehabilitated substructures, see Addendum #9. Question 269: Directive Notes 7.4.1 and 7.5.1 state that the existing abutments shall be repaired and modified as required to accommodate the new superstructure. Please confirm that RFP Part 3 Section 13.1 and Extreme Event I Load Combination does not apply to this structure. Please confirm that can be reused without reinforcement or retrofit if the original design dead load and HS20 live load are not exceeded. Answer: The existing abutments shall be analyzed per Directive Note 7.1.3 and strengthened if required in order to meet all project requirements. See Addendum #9.



Question 270: Directive Note 7.4.3 states that the existing eastbound superstructure steel may be reused. Please confirm that it can be reused without reinforcement or retrofit if the original design dead load and HS25 live load are not exceeded. Answer: The existing superstructure steel may be repurposed/reused if it meets all project requirements for new or replacement superstructures, with the exception stated in Directive Note 7.1.1. Question 271: Addendum 3 14.3.1.C includes the following new requirement “In situations where Armorless Joint Systems are not appropriate, an elastomeric expansion joint system conforming to NYSDOT Special Specification Item 566.13141501 shall be used.” This type of joint does not appear on the Department’s Approved Materials list, and the specification is not specific enough to determine what manufacturers and which models of deck joints are intended. Please provide a list of deck joint models that NYSDOT will find acceptable. Answer: Please refer to Addendum #9. Question 272: RFP Part 3 Section 14.3.1.B states that deck reinforcement shall be stainless steel. Is stainless steel required for the widening of the Westchester Ave. Exit ramp deck, where the existing deck uses uncoated steel? Answer: No, this was revised in addendum #5. Question 273: Final RFP Part 3, 14.3.1 Addendum #3 Addendum #3 modified project specification Part 3, Page 127, Paragraph B and now specifies that High Performance – Internally Curing (HPIC) Concrete OR Lightweight, High Performance be used for cast-in-place AND precast decks. There is no standard material specification referenced in this paragraph but it does references 2017 NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Table 5-1 (Deck Requirements); however, there are no standard material requirements listed in Table 5-1. The only material referenced in Section 5 is in the 4th paragraph under 5.1.2.3 which mentions incorporating light-weight fine aggregate saturated in water to replace 30% of the fine aggregate in the concrete. There is no mention of concrete strength or concrete mix components requirements. Please provide detailed guidance as to the standard material and specifications that are to be referenced and the concrete strength that is required for precast deck option. We suspect that Standard Specification 557-2.03 HPIC Concrete is the correct specification to utilize, but the precast will be governed by the NYSDOT PCCM (April 2017) which references Lightweight Concrete under section 4.1.2. The confusion comes in when the designation of “High Performance” is added to the title of the concrete. The PCCM leads us to section 4.1.3 which governs “High Performance” and points to Standard Specification 718-06 which is different than SS 557-2.03. SS 718-06 has a requirement to achieve 10,000 PSI at 56 days. SS 557-2.03 HPIC will likely have a lower strength requirement. There are also other material differences that need to be clearly defined. Please clarify the material requirements for this particular issue. Answer: Refer to standard specification for HPIC and special specification 557.01040018 for lightweight HP concrete (refer to Addendum #10).



Question 274: Final RFP Part 6, Indicative Plan WZXS-BR-01, Final RFP Part 4, Con Edison Electric Facilities, HC-140(11/27) Pg. 3 of 16 The existing Eastbound Bruckner Boulevard Bridge carries 8(ea.) - 5" Electric Conduits from M3407 to M33127. As per Part 6 Indicative drawing WZXS-BR-01 and Final RFP Part 4, Con Edison Electric Facilities, HC-140(11/27) Pg. 3 of 16, The contractor must relocate these conduits in Stage 1 of the construction sequence. In order to relocate these conduits as shown, it will be necessary to install a temporary bypass of the existing conduits. Has the owner coordinated this work with Con Edison? Given the schedule challenges associated with the construction of the bridges over Amtrak this utility relocation could cause significant schedule impact if not coordinated pre-bid. Answer: The preliminary HC-140 was coordinated with Con Edison. The Contractor must coordinate with Con Edison according to Con Edison Scope requirements in the HC-140 and to develop the final utility design and final HC-140. Question 275: Final RFP Part 3 - Project Requirements, Section 21 Final RFP Part 3 - Project Requirements, Section 21.2 makes several references to a minimum pipe slope recommendation of 8% in HEC-21. However, Section 2.4 of HEC-21 states, "Pipes and downspouts should be hidden or coordinated with the architectural design of the bridge. They should be pitched at 2 percent or greater slope to achieve self-cleansing velocities." Question: Can the department please clarify the minimum allowable slope for bridge drainage pipes not requiring additional supporting documentation? Answer: Please see Addendum 4. Question 276: There have been recent updates to the NYSDOT PCCM that effect the precast concrete structural items that fall under Item 557. Please clarify with whether or not corrosion inhibitor is to be included in the concrete mix design for precast elements such as precast concrete deck panels, precast approach and sleeper slabs, precast superslabs, permanent precast barriers? Please also confirm whether or not penetrating sealer is to be applied to any surface of the precast components at the precast facility? Answer: The requirements for corrosion inhibitor and penetrating sealer shall be as defined in the NYSDOT Prestressed Concrete Construction Manual, 3rd Edition April 2017 with January 2019 revisions. However, an exception to the penetrating sealer was added in Addendum #9.



Question 277: Addendum #3 modified project specification Part 3, Page 127, Paragraph B and now specifies that High Performance – Internally Curing (HPIC) Concrete OR Lightweight, High Performance be used for cast-in-place AND precast decks. There is no standard material specification referenced in this paragraph but it does references 2017 NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Table 5-1 (Deck Requirements); however, there are no standard material requirements listed in Table 5-1. The only material referenced in Section 5 is in the 4th paragraph under 5.1.2.3 which mentions incorporating light-weight fine aggregate saturated in water to replace 30% of the fine aggregate in the concrete. There is no mention of concrete strength or concrete mix components requirements. Please provide detailed guidance as to the standard material and specifications that are to be referenced and the concrete strength that is required for precast deck option. We suspect that Standard Specification 557-2.03 HPIC Concrete is the correct specification to utilize, but the precast will be governed by the NYSDOT PCCM (April 2017) which references Lightweight Concrete under section 4.1.2. The confusion comes in when the designation of “High Performance” is added to the title of the concrete. The PCCM leads us to section 4.1.3 which governs “High Performance” and points to Standard Specification 718-06 which is different than SS 557-2.03. SS 718-06 has a requirement to achieve 10,000 PSI at 56 days. SS 557-2.03 HPIC will likely have a lower strength requirement. There are also other material differences that need to be clearly defined. Please clarify the material requirements for this particular issue. Answer: Refer to standard specification for HPIC and special specification 557.01040018 for lightweight HP concrete (refer to Addendum #10). Question 278: RFP section 14.3.1 states that, “… If any existing bridge components are reused in the final product, they shall be inspected and certified for use by the Designer of Record. Reused components shall meet all design criteria.” Please qualify what constitutes “Inspected and certified for use” and elaborate on the DOT’s expected service life requirements for all of these reused structures. What inspections are required by the DOT for the existing structures/substructures/foundations that are incorporated into the final design? Is it limited to NDT & visual inspection or are concrete cores required, piles excavated for visual inspection, steel thickness dimensioned/welds inspected, etc. Do locations with partial rehab and partial reconstruction require full certification by the Designer of Record (Bruckner Expressway over Bronx River Ave Widening)? Answer: Refer to addendum #9. Question 279: Based on review of the documents, a utility discrepancy was identified; Can NYSDOT please provide clarifications: A water Manhole was identified on the sidewalk of north-east corner of Whitlock and Bruckner intersection – this Manhole is not shown on the CADD files and contract documents provided. Is it an abandoned manhole? Answer: The NYCDEP Distribution Map shows a water valve at the approximate location where this manhole is observed. This is likely a manhole associated with the 12" water main which is proposed to be abandoned as part of this project. The CADD files may not show every valve as these are based on survey mapping given.



Question 280: Based on review of the documents, a utility discrepancy was identified; Can NYSDOT please provide clarifications: A water valve was identified on the north side of Bruckner expressway, between Bronx River and Bronx river Ave. – this Valve is not shown on the CADD files and contract documents provided. Is it an abandoned water valve? Answer: There is a 6" water valve servicing the hydrant that is located in the approximate location that you are indicating and which is marked on the utility plans. The valve that you are indicating is likely this active 6" hydrant service valve. The CADD files may not show every valve as these are based on survey mapping given. Do not assume it is an abandoned water valve. Question 281: Based on review of the documents, a utility discrepancy was identified; Can NYSDOT please provide clarifications: CADD files, ConEd gas plates, and contract documents identify a gas valve on the north side of Bruckner expressway between Bronx river Ave. and close Ave. These does not appear to be a Gas valve in this location. Can NYSDOT please confirm this location? Is this gas valve to be abandoned? Answer: According to the Con Edison Service Plate there are 2 gas valves, reflected in the Contract documents. The Design Build Contractor, prior to Final Design and Construction, needs to check with the Con Edison Field Representative before abandoning or removing any existing gas facilities. The CADD files may not show every valve as these are based on survey mapping given. Do not assume you can abandon gas valve. Question 282: Based on review of the documents, a utility discrepancy was identified; Can NYSDOT please provide clarifications: A gas valve is identified on the WB Bruckner expressway, where ramp Y merges to Bruckner expressway – this Valve is not shown on the CADD files provided. This gas valve is shown on the drawing UTG-04 from part 4 of the RFP. As no pipe is shown going to that valve, is it an abandoned gas valve? Answer: The valve has been removed to match the Con Edison Plate, which does not show a gas valve at this location. The Design Build Contractor, prior to Final Design and Construction, needs to check with the Con Edison Field Representative before abandoning or removing any existing gas facilities. The CADD files may not show every valve as these are based on survey mapping given. Do not assume you can abandon gas valves. Question 283: Based on review of the documents, a utility discrepancy was identified; Can NYSDOT please provide clarifications: An unknown valve is identified on the south side of Bruckner expressway, between Close Ave. and Colgate Ave. – this Valve is not shown on the CADD files and contract documents provided. Is this valve abandoned? Or if not it, who is the utility owner? Answer: The Design Builder must coordinate with the utility owners to determine to whom the service connection belongs and who is responsible to replace the service connection. Please refer to NYCDEP Standard Sewer and Water Main Specifications Section 10.14 - "City Not Responsible for Accuracy of Subsurface Records or Information. The Contractor admits that the Contractor has carefully examined the location of the work, has made special inquiries at the offices of the companies or individuals owning, controlling, or operating pipes, conduits, tunnels, tracks and other structures, and the Contractor has determined to the Contractor's satisfaction the character, size, location and length of



such pipes, conduits, tunnels, tracks, and other structures, and the obligations, if any, of said companies or individuals to protect and remove the same;" etc. The CADD files may not show every valve as these are based on survey mapping given, which may not show subsurface valves based on previous overlays, but they are on the plates/record plans. Question 284: Since the project will have costs associated with abatement, containment, removal, and disposal (for asbestos and other regulated materials), will these be covered under the Fixed Force Account Item since the locations and quantities of these materials have not been provided in the RFP materials? Answer: The asbestos removal in the buildings will be covered under the Force Account Item. Question 285: Based on our review, our team is populating sheets 71-85 of the Amtrak / CSX Coordination Plans as well as SCD form-3a for the duration of railroad flaggers as part of our proposal submission. Please confirm that the inclusion of these forms is an RFP requirement that each team will be required to submit with their proposal. In addition, please provide clarification as to where these forms should be included within the proposal submission. Answer: These sheets have now become Form RN that will be included in ITP Appendix E for the teams to fill out and submit with their proposals. Please refer to Addendum #7. Question 286: ITP: Section A12.2 Quality Evaluation Weighting says that “external web links are not to be included anywhere in the proposal”. However, Section B2.3.4 Financial Information states that proposers may “provide links to online public records thereof”. May we assume that providing a link to financial information is acceptable, as often these documents are lengthy and easier to review electronically? Answer: Refer to Addendum 10 for clarification of Section B2.3.4 of the ITP. Question 287: Addendum #3 modified project specification Part 3, Page 127, Paragraph B and now specifies that High Performance – Internally Curing (HPIC) Concrete OR Lightweight, High Performance be used for cast-in-place AND precast decks. There is no standard material specification referenced in this paragraph but it does references 2017 NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Table 5-1 (Deck Requirements); however, there are no standard material requirements listed in Table 5-1. The only material referenced in Section 5 is in the 4th paragraph under 5.1.2.3 which mentions incorporating light-weight fine aggregate saturated in water to replace 30% of the fine aggregate in the concrete. There is no mention of concrete strength or concrete mix components requirements. Please provide detailed guidance as to the standard material and specifications that are to be referenced and the concrete strength that is required for precast deck option. We suspect that Standard Specification 557-2.03 HPIC Concrete is the correct specification to utilize, but the precast will be governed by the NYSDOT PCCM (April 2017) which references Lightweight Concrete under section 4.1.2. The confusion comes in when the designation of “High Performance” is added to the title of the concrete. The PCCM leads us to section 4.1.3 which governs “High Performance” and points to Standard Specification 718-06 which is different than SS 557-2.03. SS 718-06 has a requirement to achieve 10,000 PSI at 56 days. SS 557-2.03 HPIC will likely have a lower strength requirement. Please clarify the material requirements for this particular issue.



Answer: Refer to standard specification for HPIC and special specification 557.01040018 for lightweight HP concrete (refer to Addendum #10). Question 288: There have been recent updates to the NYSDOT PCCM that effect the precast concrete structural items that fall under Item 557. Please clarify whether or not corrosion inhibitor is to be included in the concrete mix design for the precast and whether or not penetrating sealer is to be applied to any surface of the precast components at the precast facility, specifically as these items relate to the NYSDOT PCCM. Please note that the updated PCCM has provisions to waive the requirement of having to utilize corrosion inhibitor when stainless steel is used in the precast components. The PCCM updates also address the application of penetrating sealer at the precast facility and the potential waiver of that requirement in certain applications, such as when the bridge deck will be ground after installation and then protective sealer applied in the field after grinding. Multiple previous NYSDOT contracts have waived the PCCM requirements of using corrosion inhibitor and the application of penetrating sealer, but that is done on a contract by contract basis. Thus, the request for clarification for this specific contract. Answer: The requirements for corrosion inhibitor and penetrating sealer shall be as defined in the NYSDOT Prestressed Concrete Construction Manual, 3rd Edition April 2017 with January 2019 revisions. However, an exception to the penetrating sealer has been added to the RFP via addendum #9. Question 289: Section B2.2.5 says the surety letter requested needs to state the surety "...is prepared to issue a Labor and Material Bond and the Faithful Performance Bond in the forms and amounts set forth in Form PAB and Form PEB (See ITP Appendix E)." Form PAB and PEB are not included in RFP Appendix E. Please confirm that this statement is intended to refer to the "Sample Form of Faithful Performance Bond" and "Sample Form of Labor and Material Bond" provided in RFP Part 2 DB Section 100 (Sections DB 103-08 and DB 103-09 Respectively). Also, please confirm the "amounts" the surety letter should commit to (which are blank on the sample forms) are intended to refer to ITP Section B2.3.4. Answer: Please refer to Addendum #8. Question 290: Addendum 4 added language to Section 21.1.1 stating the following: "The Design Builder shall design and construct a NYSDOT drainage system associated with Ramps ES, SE, ESS, and ESN which shall be conveyed to the new outfall." This language implies that the entirety of the drainage systems for Ramps ES, SE, ESS and ESN should be designed to convey all storm runoff to the new outfall at Garrison street. However, the draft Drainage Report and the indicative Drainage Plans contained in Part 6 both indicate that storm runoff on the north (Sheridan) side of the high point on each of these ramps should be conveyed to the Sheridan Ramps Drainage System, and that only storm runoff on the south (Edgewater) side of the ramps should be conveyed to the new outfall. Question: Please confirm that only storm runoff on the south (Edgewater) side of the high points of Ramps ES, SE, ESS, and ESN should be conveyed to the new outfall. Answer: This is confirmed. Refer to Addendum #10.



Question 291: We have identified the following inconsistency between the narrative in the HC-140 for FDNY work and the accompanying UTF drawings. As both the narrative and the drawings are contract documents, we request that the Department please clarify the following item: Intersection of Bruckner Boulevard and Whitlock Avenue to Intersection of Bruckner Boulevard and Edgewater Road: HC-140 pg 1 of 9 states that a FDNY manhole and FDNY call box should be located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bruckner Boulevard and Edgewater Rd; however, UTF-03 shows these items at the southwest corner. Answer: This was a typo in the HC-140 which has been corrected. The correct location of the proposed FDNY Call box is the southwest corner of the intersection of Bruckner Boulevard and Edgewater Road, as shown on Plan Sheet UTF-03. Refer to addendum #5. Question 292: The drawings and narratives accompanying the HC-140s for Con Edison electrical work, Con Edison gas main work, and NYCDEP water main work includes the installation and/or abandonment of facilities running north-south across Bruckner Boulevard at Colgate Avenue, as well as the installation of new gas and water main facilities crossing Bruckner Boulevard at Wheeler Avenue. It appears this work may have been originally required due to the reconstruction of this portion of the Bruckner Expressway as a retained-fill roadway, and a desire to replace the existing facilities due to the future loss of access below the expressway. With the changes in scope in Addendum 4, which modified the work in this area to maintain the Bruckner Expressway as a viaduct, is the utility work across Bruckner Boulevard at Colgate Avenue and Wheeler Avenue still required? Answer: Yes, this work is still required, Con Ed and NYCDEP both confirmed this. Question 293: In Addendum 4, a requirement was added to ITP Appendix C Table C Format of Volume 2 requesting 34" width roll plots for the WZTC control drawings. Is it acceptable to provide two sets of these roll plots, in line with the two sets of D-size renderings, or are roll plots to be provided with all 11 sets of 11x17 drawings (the original plus 10 copies)? Answer: Roll plots to be provided with all 11 sets of 11x17 drawings (the original plus 10 copies). Question 294: DB 107-06 INSURANCE, Section 8 on page 68, third sentence states, except as may be specifically provided in the Contract Documents of a particular project, the Design-Builder or third-party-administered insurance deductible shall be limited to the amount of the bid deposit or $100,000, whichever is less. The construction insurance market in New York will not support such a low deductible, particularly for Workers’ Compensation and Disability Insurance, Commercial General Liability Insurance, and Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. It is anticipated that the minimum deductible available will be $1,000,000 to upwards of $3,000,000. Please amend this requirement to allow for a minimum deductible of $1,000,000, and higher where available. Keep in mind that all deductibles will be guaranteed by security provided to the insurer and/or administrator of the risk management program. Answer: Refer to Addendum #10.



Question 295: Please refer to Table SCD-2b on Form SCD. Under project component, “BRUCKNER BLVD (NOT OVER RAILROAD Max durations of 200 days EB and 90 days WB are provided. Note 11 goes on to explain that Bruckner Boulevard not over Railroad is defined as all work within and adjacent to Westbound and Eastbound Bruckner Boulevard that will impact traffic and local businesses from the existing east approach slab of the bascule bridge at approximate station 123+00 to the Eastern project limits. Please refer to drawings WZTC-K4, WZTC-BS-01 through WZTC-BS-03, and WZTC-BL-01 through WZTC-BL-03 which details a temporary structure which begins at approximate station BRW 126+00 and ends at approximate station BRW 124+00. Please note that it is our understanding that this structure will act as a trigger for the counting of days as defined under note 11. This structure as per the staging will be in place in stages 1 through 3 of the Bruckner Blvd/Expwy east of the bascule bridge. It is our estimate that the duration of stages 1 through 3 could take approximately 12 months. Ramp Y construction which will also act as a trigger for this work is expected to happen in Stage 5. As the duration in the schedule is triggered based on the first WZTC set-up on the Bruckner Blvd. through to when the Boulevard is in its final configuration we ask that the max duration for this project component be revised to a duration of at least 800 days. Answer: Refer to addendum #7 for updates to this form. Question 296: Please refer to Table SCD-3b on Form SCD. Note #28 provides the definition of a “Railroad Diesel Engine Weekend.” a. If we are able to coordinate work between the various project components such that they are

performed on the same weekend. Are we able to have a count of 1 for one component and 0 for the other component where we are scheduling work to share a weekend?

b. As per the notes on the Hunts Point Access Improvement Amtrak/CSX Coordination Plans it is stated that, “One out of two Amtrak tracks may be de-energized (track outage) between 11pm and 5 am (Sunday through Thursday) and 11pm and 6am (Friday and Saturday) as authorized by Amtrak and NYSDOT. During single track outages, the second Amtrak track may be de-energized between the hours of 11pm and 5am (Sunday through Thursday) and 11pm and 6am (Friday and Saturday), however the track shall be re- energized to accommodate overnight trains. A minimum of one hour each shall be allotted for de-energization, and re-energization activities. De-energizing and re-energizing shall be performed by Amtrak personnel.” During the outage periods specified, with the exception of the railroad diesel engine weekends, there is only about 3 hours of productive time on these overnight shifts which is split due to the overnight trains. Because of these limited work windows, we request that additional railroad diesel weekends be provided to each component in the table to account for other operations such as steel erection, temporary pier construction, demolition, catenary modifications, construction of wingwall/abutment extensions and modifications at the Bruckner Railroad Bridges, installation of demolition shielding, etc.….

Answer: Refer to addendum #7 for updates to this form. This note number has been updated to Note 29. Question 297: Please confirm the voltage of the signal power cable? Answer: The standard voltage is 120V.



Question 298: Please refer to drawing LSD-01 which shows the Permatrak System supported on Foundation elements. Now that this plan sheet is indicative and no longer directive, are we able to construct the shared use path on grade? Answer: Refer to Addendum #5 for revisions to Part 3 Section 27. Question 299: Third Party reviews and approval of design/construction units is a requirement for each and any of the submissions made by the Contractor affecting any of the agencies, which are also conducting formal consultation and written comments. Minimum times have been included in the project requirements for each Utility third parties (30 days for NYCDEP, Con Ed, FDNY, ECS/Verizon, etc.), non-utility third parties (45 days for AMTRAK, CSX and 6 weeks for NYCTA) and 30 days for NYC Parks. Several of these third-party agencies are critical for the timely completion of the project, such as Amtrak and CSX. In order to mitigate the impact due to delay on the critical path directly attributable to delays on reviews and approvals, or out of ordinary review cycles by these critical third parties beyond Contractor control: would the Department consider establishing maximum review periods and maximum number of cycles beyond which the Contractor will be entitled to time extension and cost relief? Answer: Please refer to addendum #9. Question 300: Please refer to Instructions to Proposers, Appendix B Administrative Submittal Requirements, Section B2.3 Information to be Included in Appendices to Volume 1. Under the subsection B2.3.1 Evidence of Authorization, it is stated “Provide appropriate evidence that the Form of Proposal (Form FP) has been properly executed or that the representative has bound the Proposer, so that there is a valid Proposal that the Department can accept and constitute a binding Contract” with further description in number 3, Joint Ventures, stating “If the Proposer is a joint venture, submit notarized powers of attorney executed by each joint venture or partnership member appointing and designating one or more individuals of the joint venture or partnership to execute the Proposal on behalf of the Proposer, and to act for and bind the Proposer in all matters relating to the Proposal. Submit evidence of Authorization of the power of attorney with respect to each joint venture member, certified by an appropriate officer of such joint venture member.” 1a) We respectfully request NYSDOT please clarify that the Power of Attorney executed by principals of each joint venture member, which has named principals of the joint venture, their titles, and their authority to execute contract documents (including bid proposals) and act on behalf of the joint venture, is the ‘Evidence of Authorization’ instrument and will be approved, or if a separate document must be submitted specifically named ‘Evidence of Authorization’. 1b) If the Power of Attorney is not classified as the Evidence of Authorization instrument requested in the RFP, and a separate document is to be provided, we respectfully request that NYSDOT please clarify that this document must name the members of joint venture, including the principal that is related to this contract; or the document must name the members of the joint venture, and principals of joint venture. Answer: Form FP no longer exists and is not part of the proposal. This section was updated via addendum #8 to state the correct form that is needed.



Question 301: Addendum #8 drawings GP-3 and RP-8 indicate changes to the geometry of the shared use path through both Garrison and Concrete Plan Parks. However, no information (plans or CAD files) have been provided with the updated geometry information. We note that the alignment of the shared use path through both parks was shown as directive on RFP drawings LEP-03 and LEP-04. Please advise if the alignment of the path through the parks is no longer directive and/or if NYSDOT will be issuing revised landscaping plans and CAD files for the path. We note that the alignment of the path directly impacts the locations of the retaining walls that are to be installed next to the path. Answer: The alignment is directive. The landscape AutoCAD files have been posted as reference documents on 5-1-19. Question 302: Please provide the CAD files associated with Addendum #8. Answer: Updated CADD files have been posted as reference documents on 5-1-19. Question 303: ITP section 4.6.1 requires 1 original and 5 copies of all required documents of Volume 1. Due to the large number of documents associated with good faith requirements, can the proposer submit only 1 copy of the DBE good faith supporting documentation with Volume 1. Answer: The Department requires one (1) original paper proposal and five (5) paper copies, as well as one full electronic copy, be included the proposer’s submission. Please refer to Standard Specifications Section 102-12 G. for additional clarification on Good Faith Effort submission requirements and possible ways to reduce the volume of paper for your individual Good Faith Effort. Question 304: RFP: IFP, Appendix E, Form SCD, Note 26 - No Show Compensation The last paragraph of this Note 26 states the following: "The No Show Compensation amount is limited to a maximum amount compensable of $15 million in the fixed price lump sum item 800.04200015. In the event the full value of this item has been paid to the Design-Builder and additional 'No-Show' events continue to occur, no further reimbursement for 'No Shows' will be paid by any provision of the Contract by the Department. The No Show costs in excess of the maximum amount payable will be borne by the Design-Builder". This statement apparently places a maximum dollar limit payable to the Design-Builder for a bid item that the Design-Builder does not control. Question: Will the Department consider potential payment to the Design-Builder under the appropriate changed condition clause section of Part 2 of the RFP if the $15 million dollars is exceeded due to no fault of the Design-Builder? Answer: The stated $15M is the maximum amount that will be paid out for this item. Question 305: RFP, ITP, Appendix C, Section C3.2.2 In follow-up to Final RFP Question 185, ITP Appendix C, Section C3.2.2 Item H still says to provide "3 - unique drivers perspective views" while elsewhere in the RFP "3 - unique perspective views" are requested, please confirm the three unique views do not all have to be from a driver's perspective. Answer: Please see addendum #10.



Question 306: RFP, Part 3, Section 2.2.11 - Railroad Review Duration Part 3, Section 2.2.11 – Railroad Management Plan states, “the Railroad Management Plan and Design-Builder’s schedule shall include a minimum of 45 days for CSX, Amtrak, and NYCT reviews requiring any Railroad’s coordination or approval.” Not capping the review duration puts unreasonable risk on the Design-Builder ultimately to the expense of the Department in the Proposal. We strongly recommend the Department modify section 2.2.11 to state, “the Design Builder shall include a maximum of 45 days for CSX, Amtrak, and NYCT reviews requiring any railroad’s coordination or approval.” The Design-Builder would still be responsible for the ultimate approval and the risk on the number of review cycles required to get approval. Please modify and update DB-108-04. A to include relief for delays past any 45-day review cycle by the railroads. Answer: Section 2.2.11 was revised in Addendum #9. Question 307: Addendum 5, Part 3, Section 4.6.13 - Review duration by "agencies" Addendum 7, Part 4, Section 4.6.13 – Design Review states, “The Design-Builder shall include in their schedule a minimum of 30 calendar days for each design/ construction unit submission for consultation and written comment by the agencies (Con Ed, VDNY, ECS/Verizon, and DEP).” We have 2 recommendations: a) Not capping the review duration puts unreasonable risk on the Design-Builder ultimately to the expense of the Department via Proposal price. We strongly recommend the Department modify section 4.6.13 to state, “The Design-Builder shall include in their schedule a maximum of 30 calendar days for each design/ construction unit submission for consultation and written comment by the agencies (Con Ed, VDNY, ECS/Verizon, NYCDEP, NYCDEC, FHWA, and ACOE.).” We note the Design-Builder would still be responsible for the ultimate approval and the risk on the number of review cycles required to get approval. b) Please modify and update DB-108-04. A to include relief for review durations exceeding 30 days by (Con Ed, VDNY, ECS/Verizon, NYCDEP, NYCDEC, FHWA, and ACOE). Answer: Review durations in Part 3 were updated in Addendum #9 and Time Related Delays and Time Impact Analysis provisions must be complied with to assert time related delay damages. Question 308: RFP: ITP, Appendix A, Section A9.2 POST-PROPOSAL MEETINGS The second paragraph of the Section A9.2 of the ITP states that each Proposer is limited to only six (6) team members to attend the Post-Proposal Presentation to be held in the week of June 10, 2019. Question: As this is a major design-build project with some of the teams being joint ventures of two design-builders thereby increasing the number of personnel that who like to attend the presentation, and so the Design-Builders can ensure that they have the right technical personnel at the meeting to answer DOT's questions as part of the meeting, can the maximum number of team members allowed to attend the Post-Proposal Presentation be increased from six (6) team members to ten (10) team members? Answer: Based on space limitations, the maximum number of team members allowed to attend the Post-Proposal Presentation has been increased to eight (8) team members. Refer to Addendum #10.

x-apple-data-detectors://27/



Question 309: Final RFP, Addendum #8, Part 3, Section 21.1 The revision to Section 21.1 in Addendum 8 states, "The Department has performed a video inspection on portions of the existing facilities as indicated on Video Inspection Plan 1 and Video Inspection Plan 2, provided in the Reference Documents. The resulting videos from this inspection are posted in the Reference Documents." However, the videos have not yet been posted in the Reference Documents section of the project website. Can the Department please provide the inspection videos for review by the Design-Builders? Answer: These video files were too large to post so they have been sent to the teams via MFT on 5-1-2019. The RFP has been updated in Addendum #10. Question 310: Instructions to Proposers, Form SCD Note 28 Form SCD Note 27 states "The No Show Compensation amount is limited to a maximum amount compensable of $15 million in the fixed price lump sum item 800.04200015. In the event the full value of this item has been paid to the Design-Builder and additional ‘No Show’ events continue to occur, no further reimbursement for ‘No Shows’ will be paid by any provision of the Contract by the Department. The No Show costs in excess of the maximum amount payable will be borne by the Design Builder." While the Design-Builder has the responsibility to coordinate protection service needs with the various railroads, the Design-Builder has no control over the Railroads Protection Services workforce. As the risk of Railroad Protection Services No-Shows are not controllable by the Design-Builder, it is unreasonable to assume that the Design-Builder should be accountable for costs incurred due to No-Show Events. Please eliminate the requirement that no payment will be made in excess of the Maximum $15 million fixed price lump sum. In the event that costs overrun the maximum $15 million it will be necessary for the department to increase this amount to compensate the Design-Builder for costs occurred. Answer: The stated $15M is the maximum amount that will be paid out for this item. Question 311: Addendum # 7, page C-9, Update have the Table C, Vol. 2 Attachment B-Project Schedules of reference C4.1 with a new maximum number of pages as 40ea pages (changed from 20ea). On the same Addendum on page A16, on the ITP notes it stated that per Table C, " the Initial Progress Schedule is limited to a maximum of 20 pages. If Proposer submitted an Initial Baseline Progress Schedule 21 pages in length, the 21st page will be removed from the Proposal." Please confirm that this statement is not applicable Answer: This has been updated in Addendum #10. Question 312: Please provide updated CADD files for drawing included in Addendum No's. 4 through 9. Answer: Updated CADD files have been posted as reference documents on 5-1-19.



Question 313: As a very critical location on the project and in reference to a previously submitted question on 3/19/19. The RFP documents related to the NYSDOT Addendum revisions of EB & WB Bruckner - Blvd & Expressway horizontal alignments and vertical profiles, the approaches to the west in the interim condition of contract 1/contract 3 limit line do not provide the minimum cover requirements for many of the utilities. Just as an example, a 12" combined sewer line and 6" sewer line only provide approximately 3 feet of cover and do not meet the NYCDEP minimum of 4 feet. interim condition at these locations will require modifications and revised design requirements in the RFP such as steel plates with driven piles to eliminate load transfer to the utilities as well as adjust the current agreements in Part 4? Answer: Relocations, replacements, and support and protection of utilities, including drainage pipe, due to grade changes will be addressed by the Design Builder during final design. The Design Builder must follow NYCDEP sewer design standards. If cover is reduced to less than 4', the Design Builder must comply with NYCDEP Sewer Design Standard Drawing SE-1 Note 3 - "Encasement required on pipe which has a cover, from final grade to the outer top of the pipe, of less than four (4) feet or when the upper limit of cover is exceeded." This drawing is available online and is also noted in Section 1.6 standards. Question 314: Addendum 8 drawing GP-3 and RP-5 show the shared use path alignment through Garrison and Concrete Plant Parks shifted from what is shown on Directive Drawings LEP-03 and LEP-04. An AutoCAD file has been provided which matches the directive drawings however Microstation files have also been provided which show different alignments. Please provide direction on which alignment should be followed. Answer: Drawings LEP-03 and LEP-04 are directive. The landscape AutoCAD drawings posted to the website on 5-1-2019 are the most recent CAD files for this work and should be followed. Question 315: Directive note 3.3.5 (revised under Addendum #5) states to provide pavement under Ramp ES consisting of 6” of subbase, 1.5” binder and 1.5” top course HMA between Stations ES 23+70 to Pier ES-7. It also states to provide a 15’ wide crushed stone access way from Pier 7 to Pier 8. We note that Addendum #5 was issued on April 8th, 2019. The response to RFI question #99 states that paving is to be provided to the outer limits of Ramp ES from Westbound Bruckner Blvd (ES 23+70 to ES 27+00 and SE 14+20). The response was issued on April 1st, 2019. Please clarify if the directive note still governs. Answer: Addendum/Directive Note governs.