Q&A Document 1.pdf

Questions & Answers - 1

Solicitation 2024-008 - RFP for Professional Services for South Ark Neighborhood

Infrastructure Design

Buying Organization City of Salida

No Question/Answer Question Date

Q1 Question: Questions for South Ark Neighborhood

1. Please clarify what scope of work and services is included in each Phase 1, 2, and 3 to be priced as part of this proposal? Is the park included?

2. Is there adequate right-of-way to widen CR 107?

3. What are the limits of CR 107 that will be overlaid?

4. RFP indicates that CR 104 needs additional right-of-way but also states that all work is anticipated to be within city right-of-way or property. Which is correct?

5. What work needs to be completed on CR 104?

6. The RFP mentions streetscaping, to what extent is landscaping to be included?

7. Are trails within the open space included with this RFP? If so, which ones?

8. Are solar lights at the intersections preferred or will it be powered? Will it be solar throughout the development too?

9. What will be the coordination with Trout Unlimited?

10. Can you confirm that SUE will only be completed within CDOT R/W?

11. Do you have a pricing sheet that you would like all consultants to utilize for the fee portion of the proposal to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison?

12. There seems to be numerous unknowns with the project scope. If no pricing sheet for apples-to-apples fee comparison, would the City be willing to do a qualifications-based selection vs a cost proposal to better understand the project and negotiate an appropriate price for the work actually being requested?

Answer: 1) The street, trail, and utility infrastructure design is the primary scope identified. Park design is not a part of this scope.

2) An overlay is not intended to widen the roadway. Scope anticipates an overlay up to the entrance to the S. Ark neighborhood.

3) See note 2.

4) It is anticipated that the City will need to acquire ROW prior to the construction phase of the proposed and designed improvements.

5) CR104 shall be designed in accordance with the cross-section identified in the planning documents and in accordance with any CDOT requirements related to the connection at US-50.

6) Landscaping design is not a part of the scope. Sleeves for future irrigation will be identified.

7) Yes. Trails as shown on Figure 1 of the RFP 'Proposed Trails'.

8) Solar lights are preferred. See City code for light placement requirements. In general, one at each intersection.

9) TU coordination is anticipated to involve design review related to the restoration of ped and utility crossings of the S. Ark River. TU is working on a comprehensive river restoration project and infrastructure improvements need to be communicated between projects/teams.

10) Correct, SUE requirements are within CDOT ROW.

11) See evaluation criteria. Additionally, infrastructure cost estimates were provided in the engineering study for reference and consideration.

12) See evaluation criteria. For identified 'unknowns', describe these and potential cost implications for

City consideration.

05/29/2024

No Question/Answer Question Date

Q2 Question: Variety of topics

1.Will site overlot grading be included, or will the roadway grading tie back into the existing grades?

Same for utilities that are not under the roadway, will they be designed to the existing grades, or future grading?

2.Will any other areas of design be required at this time? (i.e. parking lots, open space areas, etc.)

3.For the water and sanitary sewer mains, will services be included, or will these be laid out and constructed with each lot development?

4.Should the storm sewer anticipate any separate connections for future ponds associated with the individual developed areas?

5.The scope includes lighting, but it is assumed this is within the right-of-way for the roads. Is lighting along the trails anticipated?

6.Are street lights anticipated on all Street Types, or only Type A?

7.Any street lights on the County roads?

8.Does the City anticipate any landscape, decorative, or signage lighting to be included in the scope?

9.The scope references QL B SUE plans within CDOT right-of-way. It is assumed that QL A will be needed. If so, how many test holes should we anticipate?

10.Please confirm that CDOT’s involvement will be primarily related to work within Highway 50, and that they have no oversight on the project.

11.Has any wetland permitting been started for either the proposed pedestrian bridge or water main crossing?

12.How close to the river will open cut be acceptable for the water main boring?

13.Will the site be platted in phases with filing numbers, or will the scope only include platting for the right-of-way, with tracts or blocks designated for future re-plats?

14.Will any rezoning, ODP amendment, or annexations be included in the scope?

15.For the underpass, is there any special aesthetics to consider, or will it be standard CDOT design?

05/30/2024

No Question/Answer Question Date

Answer: 1) It is anticipated that roadway grading will tie back into existing grades.

2) Infrastructure in general is shown in Figure 1 and 2 of the RFP and described elsewhere including water, sewer streets, storm sewer, and trails. No site work such as parking lots, open space/parks, or landscaping is proposed in the SOW.

3) W/S service stubs to be included in design and extended ~5-ft beyond the ROW into the proposed lots.

4) Storm sewer design is anticipated to include required detention for build out condition as well as infrastructure necessary to route offsite and onsite discharges through the development. See code requirements for Outlots related to detention and other required items.

5) Trail lighting is not proposed at this time.

6) Street lights are anticipated at intersections of all street types including intersections with the County

Roads.

7) See #6

8) Landscaping is not a part of the SOW.

9) QL A would likely be needed related to gravity san/storm or as defined by CDOT.

10) CDOT involvement is only related to project components in CDOT ROW and their necessary review/approvals to complete such work.

11) Wetlands/ACOE permitting has not been started.

12) Given anticipated soil conditions, assume open cut of water main and concrete encasement at river crossing. Prior cofferdam/diversions have been approved and constructed in recent years.

13) It is anticipated that Plat documents be prepared in phases similar to Construction Plans. Lots to be defined on plats in order to establish location of utility services and to expedite ability to develop.

14) Staff to lead any necessary efforts related to these items. If additional SOW is requested, the City will work with consultant to define at a later date.

15) Assume a standard CDOT design.

Questions & Answers - 1