I-25 South Gap CM/GC

I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1) ADDENDUM 2 TO SOLICITATION 12/4/2017

This Addendum modifies the RFP Document(s) for I-25 South Gap CM/GC only to the extent indicated herein. All other areas not specifically mentioned or affected by this Addendum shall remain in full force. This Addendum shall be added as a part of the RFP Documents.

This Addendum is issued for 2 reasons: (1) to make revisions to the RFP throughout the document; (2) to respond to questions and comments received by the Project Team for the above referenced RFP. 1. Revisions to the RFP:  A new Scoring Section has been ADDED to the RFP. o Section 3.1.3 is modified to add subsection C, “Approach to Cost.” o Section 2.8(B) is modified to add one (1) additional 8 ½ x 11 page is added to the page limit for the technical proposal to accommodate this change. o Appendix B-1 is modified to redistribute 5 points to the new scoring factor.  Section 1.1 is modified to delete the bullet referencing option to co-locate the CMGC and design firms. CDOT does not anticipate co-location at this time.  Section 1.3(B) has been edited to reflect changes to the Project Information and Definition throughout the section. Due to budget and funding concerns, the majority of bridge structures will only be included to the extent that budget allows.  Section 1.7(A) is modified to remove the Consultant Project Manager from the list of routine working contacts. This change is made to clarify that no formal contractual relationship exists between the CMGC and the Design firm and all communications should go through CDOT.  Section 1.13 is modified to clarify that the awarded firm must provide 75% of preconstruction work.  Section 1.19 is modified to clarify that the DBE goal for construction phase is TBD and will be determined by construction package.  2.10 (F) Is modified to o Clarify that the threshold for rejecting bid proposals based on the Engineer’s Estimate will be by unit price and not by total price. o Clarify that a rejected price proposal will result in a score of 0 for the bid item price scoring section, but will not result in disqualification from further consideration.  Section 3.1.1 is modified to remove the Accelerated Bridge Construction Manager from the list of required Key Personnel.  Section 3.3.2 is modified to o Incorporate Standard Specification 109.06(i) “Fuel Cost Adjustments” and 109.06(j) “Asphalt Cement Cost Adjustments” o Correct the Price Scoring language, which improperly referred to the management percentage.  Appendix A Section 2 is modified to add indicate that contractor may be responsible for providing a local office. This change is made to reflect that CDOT does not anticipate co-location. I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1)  Appendix C-2 is modified to o Reflect updated quantity estimate range for HMA. o Incorporate Standard Specification 109.06(i) “Fuel Cost Adjustment” option. o Add assumptions to reflect the modifications to unit quantity range and project information.  All revisions to the RFP documented in Addendum 1 remain active unless specifically modified herein. 2. Final questions and answers regarding the RFP are added to the documents as Q&A Version 2, attached. Please note: Some responses have changed. Note: Q&A Version 2.1 – 3 questions have been added to the Bid Item Pricing and Pavement Design subsection of the Q&A document that were erroneously excluded from the version 1. This change alone does not represent a separate material change and does not need to be independently acknowledged. Addendum 2 must still be acknowledged.

END OF ADDENDUM This addendum represents a material change. Acknowledgement of receipt of this Addendum must be included with your Proposal in your Cover or Introductory Letter. Enclosed: I-25 South Gap CMGC RFP Version 3, I-25 South Gap CMGC Q&A Version 2.1 I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1) Q&A: I-25 South Gap CM/GC

I. RFP, PROCURMENT, SCORING

1. Why did you pick CMGC for this project?

Selection of the CMGC delivery method was tied to the construction start date in November, and also because it allows for packaging, constraints working around RR bridge, collaboration and constructability review adds to design phase, flexibility for multiple CAPs. The PDSM is available online at https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/innovative-contracting- and-design-build/pdsm/pdsm-i25-s-gap-proj-goals-constraints-risks-10-26-17/view.

1. What will be the composition of selection panel?

CDOT will not release the identities or titles of the panelists at this time.

2. Primary focus will be firm’s capabilities. How will past performance be considered? Contractor Capability is the biggest factor – how is that evaluated?

Exhibit B-1 has been modified. The most substantial factor is Project Management team.

In Contractor Capability, Past Experience will be considered based on the demonstrated capability of the contractor to successfully manage a project of similar size, complexity, etc.

3. Any flexibility or opportunity for change in the procurement schedule?

No, we have an aggressive schedule with the intent of having our CMGC on board for FIR.

4. What qualities are you looking for in a PM/CM?

We are looking for someone with a good concept of traffic needs, scheduling, and the safety of travelling public. We are also looking for someone who comes to the table with answers/solutions not just questions/problems.

5. If teams form joint-ventures, would both have had to attend the pre-proposal meeting?

Only one partner in the joint venture must have attended the pre-proposal meeting.

6. If teams form joint ventures, will the agreement need to be in place by the proposal deadline?

No. Joint venture agreements must be in place and registered with CDOT before a contract may be awarded. Prequalification requirements for proposers will still apply at proposal intake. Please refer to CDOT’s contractor prequalification rules for joint ventures. I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1) 7. If teams form joint ventures, can they present a surety letter for each firm to reach the required bonding capacity when added together?

No. CDOT requires that the joint venture show that it can obtain bonding at the required level itself. CDOT will not accept a cumulative amount of smaller bonding capacities to achieve the total.

8. How will DBE/OJT goals be set?

There is a 0% DBE goal for pre-construction phase. Goals for construction phase will be set at the CAP/Package level.

9. Are you anticipating co-location? Where?

CDOT may or may not opt for co-location, but this has not been determined with any certainty yet. If CDOT decides to use this option, colocation could be at CH2M Hill’s office (they have a secured office just for this project), but it will depend on what CDOT and CH2M Hill decide is needed and what they agree to do, which is still to be determined.

10. Does CH2M have an ITS specialist or should CMGC have one?

Yes. This has not been identified in the key personnel, but the CMGC contractor should provide ITS support for the express lanes.

11. Are the goals listed in order of priority?

12. For past experience – will non-CDOT experience be ok?

Yes, but clearly demonstrate how it relates/compares to this project.

13. Is local CMGC experience more heavily weighted?

No. Experience with CDOT practices and specification is considered and demonstrated familiarity with CDOT standards/specs/software is a benefit. This experience should relate to the requirements of this project, but CDOT CMGC experience specifically is not more heavily weighted than other CMGC experience for the other subfactors in this scoring section.

14. What does the group see as the most important attributes for the CMGC? Weight of value for experience?

Important attributes are ability to form and maintain relationships during design, understanding local/political aspects and impacts to traffic, and understanding phasing. I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1) 15. In staffing, is it important to have individuals that worked together in the past or individuals that are the most experienced individually?

Collaboration is critical. Past experience showing that a team can successfully deliver a project together is a strength.

16. Top 3 risks? Anything that could derail or substantially delay?

Safety of travelling public with congestion in the corridor (handling through both design and construction) and public messaging around that

Preconstruction/Schedule – getting to final design and construction package out by November

Scope – making all 18 miles with the budget

II. BID ITEM PRICING & PAVEMENT DESIGN

1. How will the Bid Item Pricing be used in CAP? Will the ratio to the state average be used for all items in CAP?

This sentence has been deleted. The project team does not anticipate using the bid item pricing ratio. Bid Item Pricing proposal information including unit prices and Cost Model approach may be used in CAP for those items listed in Appendix C-2.

2. When will the LCCA be done?

Should be done late December/early January, but after selection has been made. CDOT has determined that asphalt will be the selected material in advance of the LCCA results. Please see CE memo, attachment to Addendum 1.*

3. Pavement concerns – How will you be able to select a contractor without knowing what the pavement type will be since this is a pavement project more than anything else? Especially with LCCA not finished?

Right now, we’re taking a risk, we know we need to widen median and outside and need to do an overlay. We know pavement will be a big quantity item. We would have liked to reconstruct but don’t have the budget, so it will be an overlay.

We are now only considering asphalt. Please see CE memo, attachment to Addendum 1.*

4. Will CDOT take into account the LCCA when deciding the pavement type?

No. Please see CE memo, attachment to Addendum 1.*

5. Right now, we are pricing one pavement type. How do we bid an asphalt pavement type if it might be concrete?

We are now only considering asphalt. Please see CE memo, attachment to Addendum 1.* I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1) 6. Will the selected firm be held to this price for the whole term of the contract (through Spring 2021)?

Yes, unless there is clear justification for the change. Adjustments may be made per spec.

7. Could there be a consideration to remove the 5% for Bid Item Pricing?

We are not considering that at this time. We realize what we are doing is different, but this is a unique project. It’s a discussion we’ve been having with our executive management and this was a risk we felt was something we wanted to try.

8. Will the items identified in C-2 Pricing be eligible for Fuel Cost Adjustment?

Yes, CDOT Standard Specification 109.06(i) will apply to Appendix C-2 pricing if elected.

9. What is the nominal size of the SMA aggregate to be from Table 703-5?

The nominal Max size (NMS) is 1/2 in

10. What are the maximum lift thicknesses for the 10” Sx HMA?

2 inches

11. During construction, will grading S or Sg be allowed with increased thicknesses?

At this time, CDOT has determined that SX is to be used.

III. FUNDING

1. When will we know more about funding/have harder dates?

Should hear about INFRA in February or March (maybe as late as May).

2. Is the pre-construction services contract tied to funding or waiting on those decisions?

No, funds for pre-construction services are secured separately.

3. Is packaging driven by funding?

No, the INFRA Grant will be available immediately and SB 267 funds would also become available in July, so most of the funds should be available up front.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL

1. What environmental commitments are there so far?

Environmental Assessment, Section 106, 4(f), Section 404, Section 7, CLOMR/LOMR, Water Quality, wildlife crossings, concerns about visual impact.

2. What is the contractor relationship to EA/NEPA permits? Any value engineering in that phase? I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1) Could look at different options for constructability. We are currently working on historic, but this will likely not be an issue. The Contractor may have some input in a supportive role.

3. What major environmental issues are there so far? Any open houses?

Information is available online at the old PEL website (https://www.codot.gov/projects/I25COSDEN) and the new EA website (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-25-south-monument-castle-rock-ea).

The old open house info is available online. This is all currently handled by CDOT/CH2M blended team, but the CMGC Contractor may have some input.

4. Anything CMGC can do to help with EA during first few months?

Yes, the contractor can help to define the phasing needs to make sure we clear the appropriate footprint and the contractor can help to define the construction methods to avoid or help to mitigate environmental impacts.

UTILITIES

1. Will CDOT be responsible for utility coordination?

Stanley is doing utility coordination.

2. Will relocation be done before construction?

No, probably not.

3. You mentioned the footprint of the project will stay within ROW – any anticipated major utility conflicts that may need to be addressed?

No. DOD says they do not have their own fiber but may be part of or using someone else’s.

V. PUBLIC INFORMATION & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

1. What will the stakeholder involvement be?

Stakeholder groups are heavily involved. There is a coalition that helped identify funding. There are also Technical Groups, Steering Committees, etc. Douglas county and El Paso county have been heavily involved in meetings and are funding partners.

2. What has been the level of stakeholder interaction so far? How involved will the contractor be in public information? Is there a PI firm that will be involved?

There is a PI firm working on the project from the design side and they have had robust involvement so far. The contractor will be responsible for a high level of public information services during the construction phase. I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1) 3. Are stakeholder meetings run by CDOT?

Yes, with design team.

4. Should the CMGC be at stakeholder meetings to support?

Yes. There are many groups that have had involvement and input so far (steering committees, interest groups, etc.) The CMGC will be involved in supportive role.

5. What are the PI expectations for construction?

PI will be required at the highest tier (4). There is very robust PI in pre-construction under CH2M, which should continue into construction side. The contractor will be responsible for PO during construction phase. CDOT PI is doing most website updates and updates for now.

6. Any challenges with stakeholders so far?

Locals have been very supportive, but there are some public concerns over express lanes.

VI. STRUCTURES

1. What is the status of the railroad bridge review? Have you started discussions with UPRR?

We have started early communication with the UPRR, but have not provided any formal project documentation or review yet.

2. Are wildlife crossing locations pinned down?

Approximate locations primarily at drainage locations, primarily adding height for elk and deer, spread out approx. every mile to mile and a half. Some crossings will be deferred to the PEL due to clearance and budgetary issues. One crossing is being considered as an overpass (similar to SH9), but is not anticipated to be a part of this project.

3. Is there a game fence?

¼-1/2 mile each side of a wildlife crossing

4. Are wildlife crossing bridges mostly for large animals?

5. A resume for an ABC manager is required - is that going to be the primary delivery for structures or is there an opportunity to use non-ABC approaches?

The ABC Manager is no longer required

We’re open to whatever gives us the best option on schedule

6. Wildlife crossings – over or under? I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1) All under, except one (which may not be included).

7. Anticipating rehabilitating existing box culverts and extending instead of replacing?

8. Have you identified certain bridges that will need to use ABC?

No, we will use the Contractor to help assess when/where ABC might be appropriate

VII. DESIGN

1. Where will the design be done out of?

CH2M Hill’s office (south Denver metro).

2. Substandard curves discussed – one right into larkspur one into Greenland – is there a preferred alignment or more just widening?

Widening is planned with correction to substandard superelevations.

3. What is the design speed?

Posted is 75, but we are still evaluating if that might change in design phase.

4. 4 curves that have issues and could potentially be ROW issues (Tight areas around Larkspur, etc.) Any additional areas that may have ROW issues?

Wildlife crossings and water quality could potentially be areas that need additional ROW, but the goal is to minimize ROW takes if possible.

5. What area is in the floodplain?

Information can be obtained from Douglas County GIS data which can be accessed through: https://apps.douglas.co.us/dcmaps/map.html?mapInstance=realProperty.

Go to the “optional layer” tab at the top of the page and choose Floodplain. You can then zoom and pan to see the floodplain along the Douglas County portion of the project.

In discussions with the Douglas County Floodplain Administrator, there are errors in the FEMA mapping notably the northern most area shown in the floodplain is incorrect. Split profile makes it difficult to move traffic.

6. Split profile makes it difficult to move traffic. Is there an option to reduce to 14’ or committed to 16’?

The 16’ shoulder has been changed to a 12’ inside shoulder to reduce project costs to stay within budget. I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1) 7. Will there be an interchange at Larkspur or existing ramps?

Existing interchange movements will remain.

8. Do you anticipate a lot of corrections to cross slopes?

Cross slopes are substandard and will be corrected. This is currently reflected in the asphalt quantities.

9. Horizontal curve correction – will that include full main line shifts?

Mainline is not expected to shift. Widening will occur to both the inside and outside of the existing template.

10. The express lanes will be on the median side?

11. There is a passing lane on the NB side - will that stay or will the Express lane take out the passing lane?

Haven’t determined the start point for the express lanes yet. R2 is restriping to change lane configuration.

12. What ideas are you considering for re-profiling? Will you match profile, fix grade, etc.?

Looking at widening and overlaying, some areas superelevation may be corrected. If the Greenland structure is replaced, a raise in profile will be required. We will match profile as much as possible throughout the corridor.

13. What is the existing pavement?

Monument to Larkspur: Northbound lanes have 14”-16” asphalt depth with 12”-15” asphalt shoulders; Southbound lanes have 5”-6” asphalt over 8” concrete with 8.5”-11.5” asphalt shoulders.

Larkspur to Castle Rock: Northbound and Southbound lanes have 7”-8” asphalt over 8” concrete with 8.5”-11.5” asphalt shoulders.

14. Do the weigh stations need to stay in place or will they move?

Haven’t addressed yet if equipment might need to be moved/reset, but they will likely need to stay open during construction. The weigh station coordination for a new location and associated costs have not been analyzed yet but will be addressed in the PEL.

15. Any other improvements in the pipeline in this area (Frontage roads, involvement with local jurisdictions, etc.)?

West frontage road between Plum Creek and Tomah looking to be moved to the west side of the railroad track, but that’s a local project separate from this project. No additional frontage I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1) road work anticipated on this project. May need to extend the drainages under I-25 to continue under the frontage roads.

16. Could we recycle asphalt?

That’s a possibility, but would need to consider each proposal separately.

VIII. CONSTRUCTION

1. How will QA/QC be handled on this project?

Quality Management will be handled more like Design-Bid-Build than Design Build, with Owner in charge of QA, Contractor in charge of QC. No IAT will be used.

2. ABC needs/options?

We are leaving it open for innovation. We’re under a tight schedule. UP in the middle provides challenges. We must maintain traffic during construction due to lack of appropriate detour routes.

3. Is there a phasing plan yet?

No, CMGC will help with phasing

4. Any initial ideas on phasing?

UPRR bridge lends itself to building southern portion of the corridor first, but nothing set yet for what we’re going to do. SB traffic at the hill at Monument is a big issue. There is a higher rate of accidents in the northern part of the corridor, so if some way to address that early would be good. The selected contractor will collaborate on phasing/packaging

IX. SCHEDULE

4. Is the Spring 2021 date for construction completion or open toll lane completion?

Spring 2021 is the date for e completion. The date was extended to 2021 to accommodate tollway integration. (Integration anticipated winter 2020/2021)

5. Design completed in August? Sept-Nov. for CAP negotiations?

Yes, that is the plan. CAP negotiation has not been built into the planned dates, but must be completed in order to get to construction in November

6. Any internal milestones that may be a commitment to open early?

No, this has not been determined.

7. Regarding early work packages, since funding approvals may have different timelines, will that limit where we can work when? I-25 South Gap CM/GC NHPP 0252-450 (21102) Addendum 2 and Q&A (v2.1) The NEPA EA decision document will drive our start options and SB 267 funding will need to be available before we can really start. El Paso funds will be available about a year from now. June would be earliest start for early work packages

8. Is the area around Larkspur developed yet? Will that be an early package?

No with the UPRR bridge that will probably have to be a later package

9. Priority on what gets built first?

Will be determined in CMGC process to prioritize and package

10. Is the Consultant open to multiple packages?

Yes, open to whether to use and how many packages will be used.