Addendum_2.docx

Request for Proposals (RFP) Addendum #2 SWIFT Event #: 2000018771 Agency: Natural Resources Addendum Number: 2 Date of Addendum: October 26, 2026 Title: Minnesota Valley State Trail – Nine-Mile Segment Construction Administration

SCOPE OF ADDENDUM

The following are changes to the RFP: Sharing vendor questions and State’s answers.

Vendors’ questions to the RFP and the State’s answers are as follows:

1. Question: Engineer’s Estimate

· Is a construction cost Engineer’s Estimate available for this project? If so, can it be provided to proposers?

Answer: The Engineer’s Estimate is $3,099,957.39

1. Question: Project Manual / Specifications

· Can the project manual, technical specifications, and any special provisions be provided to assist proposers in developing the scope, level of effort, and staffing assumptions?

Answer: Yes.

DNR provided information:

Minnesota Valley State Trail – Nine-Mile Segment Construction Administration, 092-090-065 Final Project Manual are available for review on a SharePoint Site. Email monica.hanson@state.mn.us for access. Access will require a Microsoft Account.

1. Question: Material Testing Scope (Bid Item 2016.601)

· Can additional information be provided regarding Bid Item 2016.601 – Material Testing, including the anticipated testing scope and responsibilities? Alternatively, can the Owner confirm that the required testing and inspection services do not deviate from the State Aid (SALT) Schedule of Materials Control included in the RFP?

Answer:

Payment for Item 2016.601 MATERIAL TESTING is compensation in full for providing all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, transportation, laboratory services, documentation, and incidentals necessary to perform the required Contractor Quality Control testing, except testing specifically designated for payment under another Contract Item. Testing of the Work for which a separate testing Item is not provided will be incidental to the applicable Contract Item. The Department is responsible for Agency Quality Assurance and Verification testing required by the Schedule of Materials Control, unless otherwise specified in the Contract.

The consultant cannot provide services for the Contractor Quality Control testing and the Agency Quality Assurance and Verification testing. MnDOT considers that a conflict of interest.

1. Question: MnDOT Laboratory vs. Consultant Testing Responsibilities

· Section 2, Construction Quality, Item 2.b states that certain samples will be tested by the MnDOT laboratory. Can the Owner clarify which material samples are anticipated to be tested by the MnDOT laboratory and which are expected to be tested by the consultant?

Answer: Please review the Schedule of Materials Control. Typically, all plant inspection is done by MnDOT unless they don’t have personnel available. For example, MnDOT requires a sample of the rebar to be sent to their lab for testing. They will want a sample of the paint for the metal railing, a segment of the geotextile fabric, etc.

1. Question: Plant Monitoring and Testing Responsibilities

· Section 2, Construction Quality, Item 2.f identifies a specified number of concrete pours and bituminous paving days requiring plant monitoring.

· Can the requested plant inspection services be included as an optional task?

· If plant monitoring remains within the consultant’s scope, please clarify:

· Whether required QA samples should be obtained and delivered to the MnDOT laboratory for testing; or

· Whether the consultant is expected to provide independent laboratory testing services.

Answer: The requested plant services need to be included in the base bid otherwise your bid will be rejected. If MNDOT provides those services then obviously, you don’t get paid for that work. The consultant will be paid for actual services provided. The bid that you provide is a baseline so apples to apples can be compared for cost when reviewing proposals.

Consultant will be required to deliver samples for testing either to MnDOT or a laboratory testing service.

6. Question: In the RFP Tasks and deliverables section it lists the activities for the piling installation under structural inspection and is listed as separate item to estimate cost in the cost detail. Is it the intent of the RFP that the bridge inspection be completed as part of the 1400 hours budgeted under Construction Quality control assuming the bridge is built concurrently with the trail and not during the winter?

0. Provide structural inspection services for pile driving and concrete bridge construction,

0. Calculate the bearing resistance for each foot below cutoff using the MPF12 formula for each test pile and record in the Test Pile Report.

4. Calculate the bearing resistance achieved during the last ten blows of each foundation pile and record on the Pile Driving Report, along with the length of pile below cut-off elevation.

4. Consult with the DNR if the apparent authorized length is not within 10 ft of the estimated length.

Answer: Based on past experience and the time to review shop drawings and obtain approvals that bridge construction will not happen this winter. The only work that is anticipated is trail clearing this winter. Once the trail corridor is cleared and access to the site is obtained soil borings will be done to design the deep foundations. The design of the deep foundations will not be complete until early spring 2027.

7. Question: The RFP states that we should follow the 2025 Schedule of Materials Control; however, we were unable to find that schedule on MnDOT’s website. We found the 2023 Schedule of Materials Control, as well as the 2025 and 2026 SALT Schedules.

Could you please confirm which testing schedule we should use?

Answer: The 2025 SALT Schedule of Materials Control is attached in the SWIFT Event, under Attachments.

Rev. 07.01.2024 image1.png