Addendum 4 23320.pdf
PDF 108 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 751/23320. JLM; Musketawa Trail - Reconstruction
- Solicitation number
- RFP - 171 - 230000002424
- Issued by
- Kent County, Muskegon City, Michigan
About this file
This document is an Addendum to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional services related to the Musketawa Trail Reconstruction project in Michigan, issued by the Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) State Facilities Administration Design and Construction Division. The addendum provides responses to various Requests for Information (RFIs) received by the posted deadline, including the location of face-to-face meetings, preferences for construction drawing development software, the scope of work for observation decks and parking/trailhead areas, estimated construction budget information, identification of bridges for repair or replacement, details on existing culverts, and responsibilities for permit fees. The project is located in Kent County and Muskegon City, with a proposal due date of Thursday, July 20, 2023.
The addendum clarifies that the selected Professional Services Consultant (PSC) will be responsible for applicable LARA plan review, EGLE, USACE, and local county permit fees, which should be included as reimbursable expenses in their proposal. It also confirms that the PSC will not be required to conduct hydrologic/hydraulic analysis for culverts or bridge replacements, as coordination with the applicable county water resources and drain commissions will be sufficient. Additionally, the PSC is not expected to draft or procure any new easements, unless deemed necessary during the design process.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SAMPLE Billable Rate Contract (Rev 221207).pdf | ||
| Addendum 2 23320.pdf | ||
| Addendum 1 23320.pdf | ||
| Addendum 3 23320.pdf | ||
| Project Statement 23320.pdf | ||
| RFP Billable Rate 23320.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
DTMB-0414 RFP (Rev 2/22)
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
State Facilities Administration Design and Construction Division
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
ADDENDUM NO. 04
This form identifies an Addendum to a Request for Proposal for Professional Services, and incorporates interpretations or clarifications, modifications, and other information into the Request for Proposals.
Addenda will be numbered by the Project Director and distributed through SIGMA Vendor VSS as an attachment.
TO:
ALL PROPOSERS
DATE ISSUED
July 14, 2023
PROJECT NAME
Musketawa Trail Reconstruction
FILE NUMBER
751/23320.JLM
PROJECT DIRECTOR
Josiah L. Meyers
PROPOSAL DUE DATE:
Thursday, July 20, 2023
ADDENDUM ITEMS: (attach additional sheets and drawings if required)
Please note the following:
1. This addendum provides the following responses to all RFI’s received by the posted deadline.
2. Additional RFI responses were provided in Addendum 02 and Addendum 03.
RFI questions and answers:
Q1: Where are the face-to-face meetings mentioned in the RFP anticipated to be located?
A1: Muskegon State Park HQ
Q2: Is there a preference between Bentley ORD or Civil3D for construction drawing development?
A2: No preference.
Q3: Is the reconstruction of the existing observation decks part of the project?
A3: Yes, when PSC field investigation recommends replacement.
Q4: Are reconstruction of the parking and trail head areas part of the project?
A4: No, reconstruction of parking and trail head areas are not included in the project scope.
Q5: Can the DTMB provide an estimated budget for construction?
A5: The total project budget is not provided as part of this RFP.
Q6: Which two bridges identified for repair or replacement are to be included in Study Phase 100?
A6: Crockery Creek bridge and Black Creek bridge.
Q7: How many existing culverts are along the route? Are the diameters & conditions known?
A7: Number and sizes of existing culverts have not been quantified by DTMB or DNR.
Q8: Is the PCS responsible for any of the permit fees for the project?
A8: Yes, all applicable LARA plan review, EGLE, USACE, and local county permit fees should be included in the proposal as reimbursable expenses.
Q9: Is hydrologic/hydraulic analysis required for the culverts?
A9: No, Coordinate with applicable County Water Resources Commissioners and Drain Commissions to verify/determine the appropriate size and location of culverts.
Q10: Is hydrologic/hydraulic analysis required for bridge replacements? If so, will DTMB and/or EGLE provide the flows for the analysis?
A10: No, Coordinate with applicable County Water Resources Commissioners and Drain Commissions to verify/determine the appropriate size and location of culverts.
Q11: Will the PSC be required to procure any new easements for the project?
A11: If the design drives revisions to existing easements, the PSC will be expected to draft the revisions for the DNR. There is no known requirement to draft/procure new easements. If new easements are determined to be necessary, this task will be added to the selected PSC’s contract by modification.
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT DIRECTOR : Josiah L. Meyers DATE: July 14, 2023
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .