PreBidMeetingMinutes 3June08.pdf

PDF 14 KB Posted

Attached to
FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT NO. R000-029-249
Solicitation number
DTFH71-08-R-00007
Issued by

About this file

PreBidMeetingMinutes 3June08

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
SF 30 Amendment 001 Final.pdf PDF
Aerial Photo with Project Overlay.pdf PDF
EPG ROW_10June2008_Demo Notes.pdf PDF
Form PP03A-03D.pdf PDF
Form PP02A-02D.pdf PDF
ACOE_Permit_05-4015-15.pdf PDF
EPG_ROW_LTM_Oct07.pdf PDF
SB I-95 Signing.pdf PDF
FHWA_BD_TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2030_FNL.pdf PDF
FHWA_BD_TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2011_FNL.pdf PDF
Price Form 02A-02D.pdf PDF
SF 30 Amendment 002.pdf PDF
DEQ_Permit___05-4015.pdf PDF
FCPPhasingPlan.pdf PDF
Plans_VDOT.zip ZIP file
FinalFCPRFQ.doc DOC document
Show all 16

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

Fairfax County Parkway From Rolling Road to Fullerton Road

Project R000-029-249 Pre-Proposal Meeting Minutes

Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 Time: 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

Place: Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, Sterling, VA Attendees: See attached list. Representative(s) from all 3 of the contractor teams pre-selected to bid on this project were present.

I. Project Overview. FHWA began the meeting with introductions, followed by a brief presentation by the Army on the current conditions of the EPG along with coordination efforts that will be required during construction. Following the presentation by the Army, the FHWA discussed a request for a time extension to prepare the proposal. FHWA indicated that they would review the schedule to determine if the proposal due date could be extended. The two RFIs that had been received were also discussed. There were no follow-up questions on RFI #1.

RFI #2 was discussed briefly and FHWA will provide a written response to questions. Many of the contractor’s questions concern issues related to utility coordination. FHWA reiterated that it is the contractor’s responsibility to coordinate with utilities and to ensure that the work is completed. Any time extension would be addressed in a subsequent Amendment. An Amendment will be issued to address any contractor questions and/or concerns and to address any time extensions.

II. Questions/Clarifications. The following questions/clarifications were asked by the contractors concerning the Request for Proposal (RFP) and the project in general. Items to be included in Amendment No. 1 are noted in Italics.

1. Page A-4 of the SF 1442 provides Subcontracting Goals which appear to conflict with the

VDOT DBE and SWaM goals in subsections 108.2A. This is an error. The subcontracting goals will be 10% DBE, 15% SWaM. This will be included in Amendment No. 1.

2. What storm water management pond requirements should we use?

Follow VDOT’s requirements and criteria for storm water management ponds.

3. Contractors have little if any control over the utility companies. Whose responsibility is it to ensure relocation and completion of utility work?

As stated in Subsection 107.02 of the RFP, It will be the Contractor’s responsibility to coordinate all utility related work during the design and construction of this project, including, but not limited to: obtaining permits; designing and constructing roadway elements in accordance with utility company specifications, details, and other requirements; coordinating utility work to be performed by others; and arranging a schedule of operations with the utility companies defining at which stage of the Contractor’s operations the utility work will be performed such that the project is completed within the established contract time.

4. For the price proposal, whose bid items should be used?

Use FHWA’s bid items that were provided with the RFP.

5. Will lighting be required for this project?

Provide lighting in accordance with the Traffic Engineering Design Manual and AASHTO Roadway Lighting Design Guide October 2005. Follow the lighting requirements provided in the RFP. On most sections of the Parkway, lighting is provided at intersections and interchanges.

6. How will the submittals be distributed and coordinated?

The Contractor shall send complete copies of all submittals to the individuals listed in Section 121.02 of the RFP. FHWA will coordinate the responses to the submittals from the other reviewing agencies.

7. Do the options included in the RFP account for the ultimate six-lane widening of the

Parkway?

The Contractor needs to ensure that the design and construction of the options account for the proposed or future six lanes of the Parkway. It is FHWA’s opinion that the options can be built while allowing for the future widening to six lanes.

8. What information is available for Option 2, SB I-95 Ramp? Who is doing the IMR?

The Army is in the process of completing the IMR for Option 2. FHWA will provide relevant information for Option 2 in a future amendment. At a minimum, FHWA will provide the traffic counts.

9. Will any assistance be provided with getting the utility companies to complete their work?

It is the Contractor’s responsibility to perform all coordination with the utilities.

10. There is not a substantial completion clause in the RFP. Is there the possibility of allowing for substantial completion within the 750 days with final completion beyond the 750 days?

All contract work, including options, is to be completed within the 750 days. Substantial Completion is covered in the RFP in Section 108.04 – Failure to Complete Work on Time.

11. The time available to prepare proposals is limited. Is there an opportunity for the due date to be extended?

EFLHD stated that there was little room in the schedule to allow for a time extension.

Since the pre-proposal conference, EFLHD has agreed to postpone the due date for the technical proposals to July 17, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. The cost proposals will be due July 30, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.

12. Can EFLHD provide a copy of the permits and the new jurisdictional delineation?

A copy of the permits obtained by VDOT will be provided with Amendment #1. The jurisdictional delineation for the rest of the project has not been completed. EFLHD will provide that information when available.

13. Can the environmental reports completed by the Army be provided?

The Army will provide the reports to EFLHD, which will upload to the FTP site.

14. Can the environmental reports completed by VDOT for Central Motors and Newington be provided?

EFLHD will provide copies of the Subsurface Investigation Reports completed for Central Motors and Newington.

15. Will the power lines on the EPG be abandoned prior to construction?

Yes. If the power lines have not already been abandoned with the project limits, they will be abandoned prior to the start of construction.

16. Can the Government provide information on the buildings to be demolished?

The Government will provide the information that was shared during the site visit. This information will be included in Amendment #1.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .