Amend 2_QA_20250924.pdf
PDF 196 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Batavia Road Asphalt Overlay
- Solicitation number
- ISD_367912_CB
About this file
This document is Amendment 02 to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a road resurfacing project, containing responses to prospective offerors' questions. Key clarifications include: the project requires removing the top 1.9" of the current road surface, using 1.9" of asphalt topcoat after compaction, and implementing traffic control with two flaggers. The amendment addresses discrepancies in the original Statement of Work and Price Proposal Form, such as removing references to manhole and valve box adjustments, adding a line item for railroad crossing markings, and allowing strip reflective crack treatment as an alternative to longitudinal joint sealant. For aggregate shoulders, the specification requires the material to match the new roadway edge level and extend 36" outward. Bidders are directed to the RFP Instructions to Offerors for bid bond guarantee requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 28
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
AMENDMENT 02 to RFP ISD_367912_CB
FFDG Responses to Prospective Offerors’ Questions
Question 1: In Exhibit A – SOW, it calls for the grinding of ~1.9” of the existing surface coat but the price proposal form item #5 calls for Pavement Removal (full 3” grind). Can you clarify whether we will be grinding 1.9” or 3”?
Response: The requirement is for removal of the top 1.9” of the current road surface. This requirement is only for a surface mill, not full depth removal. The Price Proposal Form has been revised to remove “(full 3” grind)”. A revised version of the Price Proposal Form is being issued as part of Amendment 02.
Question 2: In Exhibit A – SOW, it calls for 1.9” surface course but the price proposal form item
#4 calls for 3”. Can you clarify?
Response: The Price Proposal Form has been revised to remove “(3”)”. The requirement for 1.9” surface course identified in the Statement of Work has been revised to make it clear that the 1.9” thickness is the requirement for the asphalt topcoat after compaction. Revised versions of the Price Proposal Form and Statement of Work are being issued as part of Amendment 02.
Question 3: In Exhibit A – SOW, it calls for manhole & valve box leveling adjustments (if needed) but there is not a line item for this on the price proposal form. Can you confirm whether there will be any manhole & valve box adjustments required and provide a pay item for them?
Response: There are no manholes or valve boxes in the road to be resurfaced. The reference to manholes or valve box leveling adjustments has been removed from the current version of the Statement of Work. The revised version of the Statement of Work is being issued as part of Amendment 02.
Question 4: In Exhibit A – SOW, it calls for surface course leveling mix, as needed. Is the tonnage for this included in bid item #4, Hot-Mix Asphalt Surface Course, IL-9.5 MIX D?
Response: Yes.
Question 5: The price proposal form includes “Two Traffic Flaggers” but does not include a line item for temporary traffic control devices. Is the intent for this cost to be incidental?
Response: FFDG intends for traffic control, including traffic control devices and two traffic flaggers, be covered by a single line in the Price Proposal Form. The Price Proposal Form has been revised to make the traffic control line more comprehensive. The revised version of the Price Proposal Form is being issued as part of Amendment 02.
Question 6: During the pre-bid meeting, there were discussions regarding the thermoplastic striping at the railroad crossing. There is not a line item for this included on price proposal form, can this be added?
Response: The Price Proposal Form has been revised to include a single line for all markings required to identify the approach to the railroad crossing. The revised version of the Price Proposal Form is being issued as part of Amendment 02.
Question 7: The price proposal form calls for 40ft of Longitudinal Joint Sealant. Due to the high mobilization charge for LJS would the owner consider alternate methods such Strip Reflective Crack Treatment?
Response: Yes, strip reflective crack treatment would be acceptable. The Price Proposal Form and the Statement of Work have been revised to reflect that strip reflective crack treatment is an acceptable means of sealing the butt joints. A revised version of the Price Proposal Form and Statement of Work are being issued as part of Amendment 02.
Question 8: Can you provide a specification or detail for the Aggregate Shoulders, Type B (Bid
Item #7)?
Response: The aggregate should be applied at a depth required for the aggregate to match the level of the outside edge of the new roadway (after rolling/compaction) and extend out from that edge by a width of 36”.
Question 9: For the item " Aggregate Shoulders, Type B", how wide are the shoulders? And how deep do you want us to go when replacing the existing shoulders?
Response: Please see the response to Question 8 above.
Question 10: What is the required percent of the Bid Bond? 5%, 10%?
Response: Please see the RFP Instructions to Offerors, Section 7 – Preparation, Submission, and Evaluation of Proposals, Paragraph B. – Part II Business Management & Price Proposal, Item
2) (on page 5 of 9) for the bid guarantee requirements.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .