Please Note: Addendum #2 Has Been Posted with the Rfp

US 10 and frontage road in Detroit Lakes; US 75 interchange on I94 in Moorhead; and MN 29 Interchange on I94 and MN 29 four lane expansion in Alexandria

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Posted 01/18/12 PLEASE NOTE: ADDENDUM #2 HAS BEEN POSTED WITH THE RFP.

1. Are we allowed to discuss the RFP with the cities and counties prior to submitting a proposal? The RFP prohibits contact with any MnDOT personnel other than the MnDOT Contract Administrator. Contact with any party outside of MnDOT is at the Responders’ discretion. MnDOT cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information obtained outside of MnDOT. Any conflict of interest must be addressed in the Consultant Conflict of Interest form that is submitted with the proposal.

2. How far do we take the R/W process in our proposals and cost estimates for all three projects? I see that we will do Construction Limits Map in the Scope of Services for Preliminary Design Section 7.7

The construction limits map is all that is required.

 Do we provide Appraisal work – Valuation? No  Do we provide services for Direct purchase – negotiation? No  Do we provide Platting? No  Do we provide a R/W Authorization Map? No  Do we take the R/W process up to Eminent Domain? No

3. One of the deliverables listed under Task 7 is an Interstate Access Request Letter. This task would apply to Projects 2 and 3. In order for us to estimate the hours required for this and Task 7.6 - Engineering and Operational Analysis Report, we need further information regarding the status/availability of previous modeling work and modeling expectations of FHWA for these projects. Specifically, please identify if our cost proposals should include CORSIM freeway analysis on I-94 and the approximate modeling limits or if HCM capacity analysis is sufficient. We understand the level of effort may be different for the two projects.

Existing analysis may be included in the available planning studies but the Responder will need to propose the anticipated methods to complete this task in accordance with the State’s Highway Project Development Process Handbook (HPDP). http://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/edms/download?docId=623340 4. In the Scope of Work, Task 7.8 Bridge Coordination notes [This task is not required for Project 2]. The Option C layout provided with the RFP shows three through lanes and an auxiliary lane for northbound US 75 on Bridge 14814 over I-94. Bridge 14814 is 50 feet wide (excluding barrier and sidewalk) which will not accommodate all the proposed lanes. It appears that bridge widening or a separate pedestrian bridge will be required.

Should Task 7.8 Bridge Coordination be added to the scope of work for Project 2? Yes. See Addendum #2.

5. It was indicated at the pre-proposal meeting that Mn/DOT desires to select 3 different firms for the 3 projects. Given this, when submitting proposals, will Mn/DOT permit a firm to prime on one proposal and be a subcontractor on a different one? Yes.

Posted 01/12/12 PLEASE NOTE: ADDENDUM #1 HAS BEEN POSTED WITH THE RFP. 1. Section E. Availability of Qualified Personnel requests the “Committed hours for the next 12 months”. What month should be used as the starting point for the requested 12 month period? Use 01/26/12 – the date the proposals are due.

Posted 01/05/12 PLEASE NOTE: 1 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT HAS BEEN POSTED WITH THE RFP.

1. Does the consultant or the consultant team need to be pre-qualified in any or all of the various work types (e.g., Geometric Layouts, Highway Design, Wetland Delineation, Design/Location Surveys)?

No, firms do not need to be pre-qualified. This RFP is open to the public.

 In order to ensure that all firms are providing a cost estimate for each project similarly, please provide:

 The expected level of effort for additional field surveys (# of hours).

A complete design survey for each project is required.

 The expected level of effort for wetland identification for Project 1 and Project 3 (# of hours).

The Contractor in accordance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act as administered through Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) will complete all tasks involved with identifying and describing project related wetland impacts, preparing impact assessment sections for project documents and documenting wetland sequencing measures.

 The general approach to traffic control (i.e., carrying traffic through construction vs. road closure with detours). Traffic will be maintained through construction on all three projects.

 Under 3.0 Data Collection, “design locate, or field locate utilities as necessary” is listed as a deliverable. In order to ensure that all firms are providing a cost estimate for each project similarly, please provide the expected level of effort for field locates (# of hours).

The Contractor is expected to complete Step 1: Utility Identification in accordance with the State Utility Manual.

 Will the Consultant be leading, attending, or not involved with utility coordination meetings? If leading or attending, how many meetings should be assumed?

The State will conduct the utility coordination beyond Step 1: Utility Identification.

 Can you provide a sample District 4 scoping template?

Attached.

 Will an Engineering and Operational Analysis Report be prepared for all three projects?

As included in the Scope of Work it is not required for Project 1.

 The Scope of Work states that bridge coordination is not required for Project 2. For Projects 1 and 3, will the Consultant coordinate with another consultant or with the Mn/DOT Bridge Office? In order to ensure that all firms are providing a cost estimate for each project similarly, please provide the expected level of effort (# of hours).

Contractor will coordinate clearance and profile requirements with MnDOT Bridge Office and provide any other information as needed for bridge design.

 The Scope of Work does not mention geotechnical work. Please confirm that this task is not part of the Consultant scope.

Correct, geotechnical work is not included in the scope.

Posted 01/03/12 PLEASE NOTE: 4 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN POSTED WITH THE RFP.

1. The previous question posted 12/29/11 stated the following:

“Only the responders’ cost proposal for the selected project will be used to allocate the 10 points in the cost portion of the selection.”

What method will Mn/DOT use to allocate the 10 points for the cost proposal?

Points will be allocated in the same manner as any regular best value selection process – The lowest cost will receive the full 10 points and the remaining responders will receive a ratio based off the low cost (ie. “low cost / responders cost *10). 2. In order to ensure that all firms are providing a cost estimate for each project similarly, please define the expected limits of the work for each project including modifications or improvements to adjacent and connecting county roads and city streets.

Project 1 The limits are shown on Sheets 15 and 16 of the Detroit Lakes Area Planning Study (posted with RFP documents).

The objective of this contract is to provide preliminary and detailed design services for the reconstruction of the United States Highway (US) 10 from Airport Road to United States Highway (US) 59 in Detroit Lakes. This project also includes a frontage road and trail on the south side of US 10 and continuing on the west side of US 59 and an underpass of US 59 at Morrow/Main as included in the Detroit Lakes Area Transportation Study. The City will have utility work and will also be extending a City street (Thomas Ave). The City’s plan sheets will need to be included in the overall plan. The preliminary design will include all aspects of the project including the extension of the City Street. The bridge plans will be prepared by MnDOT Bridge Office.

Project 2 An additional file (SP1406-66 Option C) has been posted that isn’t included in the Planning Study. The work on 30th Ave as shown in the attached layout has been completed and will not be included in the project.

The objective of this contract is to conduct preliminary and detailed design activities for the reconstruction of the United States Highway (US) 75 interchange on Interstate (I) 94 in Moorhead. The limits on US 75 are from 24th Ave to 30th Ave. The work on I-94 eastbound includes an auxiliary lane from the proposed on ramp to 20th Street off ramp.

Project 3 The objective of this contract is to conduct preliminary and detailed design activities for the four lane expansion of Minnesota Highway (MN) 29 to County State Aid Highway (CSAH 28) and reconstruction of the interchange at Interstate (I) 94 in Alexandria. This project includes the realignment of Douglas CSAH 28 or County Highway 87 and access improvements to 50th Ave. The proposed work includes the recommended alternatives from the Alexandria Area 2030 Transportation Study which includes a tight diamond interchange. The 50th Ave improvements will include the recommended alternative excluding the west extension. The bridge plans will be prepared by MnDOT Bridge Office.

3. Is it Mn/DOT’s intention that the work for the selected consultants will only include the Preferred or Recommended Alternatives defined in the project planning studies and that further study of alternatives will not be required for each project?

Further study of alternatives will not be required but could be considered. Separate value engineering studies will also be conducted and recommendations from those may need to be incorporated into each project.

Posted 12/29/11 1. The cost proposal section of the RFP contains the following statement:

“MnDOT reserves the right to utilize any of the three projects in relation to the cost allocation.”

Please describe further what this statement means. Is it referencing how the scoring for the cost proposals will be allocated? How does Mn/DOT plan on weighting the points for this section?

Prior to opening any cost proposals, MnDOT will select one of the three projects and use that selected project for the cost portion of the selection process. Only the responders’ cost proposal for the selected project will be used to allocate the 10 points in the cost portion of the selection. The remaining projects cost proposals will be used in the negotiation process if a responder is selected.