For additional information on Contract Number (AT376A21) click here

Contractor's Inquiry Responses

Contract No. AT376A21


Inq. 73	Post Date: 1/27/2006	Inquiry Date: 12/21/2005
	Q. Inquiry # 6: When will a decision on separate DBE goals for design and construction be announced? Reference Section H.2 and Inquiry # 6 - DBE Goals?
	A. Based on preliminary estimates, we currently anticipate that the overall DBE participation goal will be in the range of 13 to 17% of the total Contract A price. It is also anticipated that within the overall goal there will be a minimum subgoal of 4% of the total Contract A price for professional services, which includes, but is not limited to: design; supplemental geotechnical investigations, surveying and other preliminary engineering; quality control as defined in the RFQ; environmental compliance activities; utility coordination; permitting; and public information. The final goals will be in the RFP. Please read the Notice to Prospective Design-Builders Regarding Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Provisions contained under "Notices" on the SHA Internet site under Contract No. AT376A21, which provides a summary of how the DBE provisions for Contract A are being structured to accommodate Design-Build under the laws and regulations of Maryland. Additionally, because of the MDOT certification requirement for DBE's, firms are encouraged to submit paperwork for certification as soon as possible. This clarifying information will not be added to the RFQ by addendum.

Inq. 72	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/17/2006
	Q. Further to Inquiry 27 and response thereto, regarding definitions and employment status of the Design-Builder's Environmental Manager and Project Quality Manager: It is in the best interest of the ICC Project and the SHA for the Design-Builder to identify and commit to the project the best qualified individuals with appropriate credentials and proven track record to perform the key management functions specified in the RFQ. With specific regard to environmental and quality management, many of the best resources to perform these critical functions reside within the professional consulting community, particularly those with extensive experience within Maryland and/or on similar projects. Acknowledging the importance of these positions, it is requested that SHA allow these key individuals to be employed by the Design-Builder as well as consultants under the authority of the Design-Builder? Reference Section A.1.b --Definitions.
	A. See answer to Inquiry # 69.

Inq. 71	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/17/2006
	Q. You state that the Project Quality manager must be employed by the Design-Builder. Yet, you also want someone who has experience with the Administration's quality control system and documentation. As this person will oversee the preparation of quality plans for the design as well as construction, we believe the "Designer" could provide a much better candidate for oversight of the quality assurance/quality control activities, especially for the design activities? We are asking SHA to allow the "Designer" to provide the Project Quality Manager key staff person. The Designer, whether on the Design-Builder's team joint venture team or a subcontractor, is an integral member on the Design-Builder's team. Similar to the Environmental manager position discussed in Inquiry 70, our goal here is to get the best qualified person in this important role? Reference Section A.1.b --Definitions
	A. See answer to Inquiry # 69. The Project Quality Manager may be employed by a subconsultant (other than the QC Engineer and the Designer).

Inq. 70	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/17/2006
	Q. The size of this Design-Build is attracting the interest of national construction companies. Two key positions, however, require extensive Maryland expertise that national contractors might not be the best parties to supply. The Environmental Manager position will be responsible for all "environmental design and construction issues..." The RFQ states that he/she (or the environmental support team) should have local knowledge of the corridor, should be able to ensure that the design plans are in conformance with all commitments and conditions and should have abroad background in environmental and construction management on large complex transportation projects." We are asking SHA to allow the "Designer" to provide the Environmental manager key staff person. The Designer, whether on the Design-Builder's team joint venture team or a subcontractor, is the key member on the Design-Builder's team who will have an important stake in the successful outcome of this project. Limiting the Environmental Manager to people on the contractor's staff would preclude capable, experienced consultants and possibly prevent SHA from getting the best person in this critical position? Reference Section A.1.b --Definitions.
	A. See answer to Inquiry # 69. The Environmental Manager may be employed by the Designer.

Inq. 69	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/13/2006
	Q. We are sending this is response to SHA Contractor's Inquiry response posted for Inquiry #27. The issue deals with the nature of the employment for the QC manager and Environmental Compliance Manager to the Design-Builder. In your response you define the allowed employment structuring of these Key managers to be something that can not be if a "Consultant" employs them. Given the unique qualities needed for these individuals, they typically are employed by consultants/engineering firms. These same consultants/engineers in the Design-Build market are not typically part of the "at risk" management entity (partnership, JV, or LLC), a.k.a. Principal Participants. By prohibiting these Key managers from working for a consultant, which is not a Principal Participant, the project will not benefit from the best professionals the industry has available for these key functions. It has been our experience with Design-Build projects, a relationship between the Design-Builder and the QC and Environmental manager, without the restriction you have defined in your response, in no way impedes the success of these managers in their roles and duties on the project. We are requesting you reconsider your position taken on this issue and would welcome your thoughts as to what your specific goals are and how we can work together to achieve them? Reference Section A.1.b --Definitions
	A. This thoughtful question is appreciated, and it has been considered in view of what's best for the PROJECT. Environmental Manager: It is important that the PROJECT have benefit of the best individual available for this very key management position and acknowledge that this individual is not normally employed by the Principal Participants. Therefore, a future addendum will change the definition of Environmental Manager in Section A.1.b of the RFQ to read: '"Environmental Manager" means the individual designated by the Design-Builder and under the authority of the Design-Builder's Project Manager, with overall responsibility for the environmental compliance of the project during design and construction. The Environmental Manager may be an employee of a consultant firm or the Designer.' Direct responsibility to the Design-Builder (as opposed to his or her consultant firm or the Designer) is important and is what influenced the original definition. The SOQ evaluation of the Project Understanding evaluation factor will consider how well the Proposer describes the importance of this relationship and organizes to achieve the Administration's intent and the PROJECT's environmental goals. Project Quality Manager: The benefit of having the best individual available on the PROJECT is the same as discussed for the Environmental Manager. However, it is important to the Administration that the position occupied by the Project Quality Manager report directly to the Design-Builder and not to the Project Manager. The Design and Construction Quality Managers (to be defined in the RFP) will report to the Project Quality Manager. Because of the overall responsibility to the Design-Builder for quality including design and construction, the Project Quality Manager can not be an employee of the QC Engineer or the Designer. Therefore, a future addendum will change the definition of Project Quality Manager in Section A.1.b of the RFQ to read: '"Project Quality Manager" means the individual designated by the Design-Builder and under the authority of the Design-Builder's corporate management or JV Board, with overall responsibility for development and management of the Design-Builder's Quality Plan and responsible for the overall Quality Control program of the Design-Builder, including the quality of management, design, and construction. The Project Quality Manager may be an employee of a consultant firm, not the QC Engineer or the Designer.' Also, Section E.4.b.3.B.2.f of the RFQ will be changed in the next addendum to require a registered professional engineer, but not a Maryland PE. Direct responsibility to the Design-Builder (as opposed to his or her consultant firm) is important and is what influenced the original definition. As with the Environmental Engineer the SOQ evaluation of the Project Understanding evaluation factor will consider how well the Proposer describes the importance of quality and the Project Quality Manager's relationship with the Project Manager and organizes to achieve the Administration's intent and the PROJECT's quality goals.

Inq. 68	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. The requirement says: "References shall be owners or clients for whom the Key Personnel have worked within the past ten (10) years and shall not be current or past employers of the Key Managers." Please clarify the intent of the above referenced provision and specifically: (1) Are former MDOT employees of an agency other than SHA able to include references from SHA? (2) Can a client be used as a reference if he also happens to be a past employer too? (3) Can a client be used as a reference if the Key Manager hasn't worked for the client for more than 10 years? Reference Section E.4.b.3.B.2 and Form E-1 of Appendix C - References.
	A. Reference information must be provided for representatives of the owner/client who have direct experience with the manager's performance on the referenced project. If the appropriate owner/client representative has moved to a different organization, he/she can be used as a reference only if he/she does not work for a firm that is affiliated with a Proposer team member. Also, specifically: (1) Yes, but only with regard to the manager's performance working under a contract with SHA. (2) Yes, but only with regard to the manager's performance working under a contract with the client and not with regard to his or her experience with the manager as an employer. (3) Yes, but only with regard to the manager's performance working under a contract with the client.

Inq. 67	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Specific guidelines have been issued regarding conflict of interest and ethics matters? Our team members do not have conflicts based on these guidelines as they understand them. Should a conflict arise or be specifically identified subsequent to the submittal of the RFQ, can the conflicted form drop from the team prior to submission of the RFP response at no recourse or penalty to the team? Reference Section C.2 and C.3 - Conflict of Interest and Ethics
	A. If a conflict with regard to Sections C.2 or C.3 of the RFQ is discovered after a Proposer is listed on the Reduced Candidate List (RCL), but prior to the proposal due date, immediate and full written disclosure shall be made to the Administration (see the last paragraph of Section C.2). Based on a review of the conflict, the Administration, with any necessary input from the State Ethics Commission, may allow the conflicted firm to be removed or replaced. The Administration reserves the right to find an offeror is not responsible and/or remove the offeror from the RCL if the removal or replacement of a conflicted firm warrants such action. If replacement of the conflicted firm is allowed, then the provisions of Section A.17 of the RFQ and approval by the Administration of the replacement firm will be required.

Inq. 66	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. The owner requests the percent of the total work performed by the company on the specified project. Is this the actual percentage of the work performed by the listed company's forces or is it the percentage completed according to the contract? Reference Appendix C, Form E-2 - Percent of Total Work Performed
	A. It is the percent of the Final Value (US $) performed directly by the firm submitting the Form E-2. Includes labor, equipment and materials, but not subcontractors.

Inq. 65	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Page E-9 of the RFQ divides form PP-1 into 5 different sections, labeled A-E. Please confirm that a separate form PP-1, in its entirety (pages 1-3) is required from each principal participant and each designer? Also, please confirm that the designer(s) should leave Section C blank? Reference Section E.4.b.5.B.1 and Appendix C, Form PP-1.
	A. A separate Form PP-1 is required for each Principal Participant and "the Designer" (note that if the Designer is a joint venture a separate form is required for each joint venture member). Form PP-1 may also be provided for Specialty Subcontractors if desired for awards and/or commendations. A PP-1 form is not required for subconsultant designers. See answers to Inquiries # 29, 41 and 49, with special attention to the elimination of unused pages where sections are not applicable and leaving the liquidated damages section blank (or deleting the section) for the Designer.

Inq. 64	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Section B limits past project descriptions to no more that nineteen (19). Appendix B-2 shows a maximum of 15. (1) Please clarify. (2) Also, is it acceptable to include the "One (1) page summary of background experience" for our subcontractors in Appendix B together with the company brochures? Reference Section E.4.b.4.B.1, Form E-2 and Appendix B, SOQ Section 4, Forms E-2 and E-3 - Experience of Firms.
	A. (1) The maximum number of descriptions is 19 (see answer to Inquiry # 14 and Addendum No. 1). (2) No, the summaries of background experience go in SOQ Section 4 (see answer to Inquiry # 43 for further information on the background summaries).

Inq. 63	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Regarding SOQ format "Number each page in each section consecutively (i.e., 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, Etc)". Do we need to number our pages Section 1 - Legal and Section 2 - Financial, since the majority of this is legal and financial documentation? Do we need to number the pages in Appendices A, B and C? Reference Appendix B - Page Numbering
	A. Please see the answer to Inquiry # 33.

Inq. 62	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Major coordination will be required. Will the utility statement specify schedules for clearing and utilities? Will utility work anticipated to be concurrent with construction be identified as such? Reference Appendix A, Section 4.0, Topic 13 - Utilities.
	A. Yes, to both questions.

Inq. 61	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Will there be limited work hours dictated by noise levels (such as pile driving, dump truck tailgates, Etc)? Reference Appendix A, Section 4.0, Topic 10 - Noise Restrictions.
	A. Yes, they will be part of the Environmental Performance Specifications.

Inq. 60	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Supplemental explorations "may not be performed until execution of the contract". To what extent can the Design-Builder rely on the limited geotechnical subsurface investigations in developing a bid? Reference Appendix A, Section 4.0, Topic 6 - Geotechnical.
	A. The SHA currently intends the Proposers to submit pricing based on the geotechnical investigations data to be provided in the RFP, with a provision for future adjustments should the supplemental investigations reveal a significant variation from the RFP baseline. The exact language for this approach will be in the RFP.

Inq. 59	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Can roles be more specifically defined to include required interaction with the independent environmental monitor (EM) identified in Appendix page A-8? Reference Appendix A, Section 4.0, Topic 5 - Environmental Manager
	A. Both the definition in Section A.1.b of the RFQ and the discussion under Environmental Manager and Staff (EM) of Appendix A, Section 4.0, Topic 5, describe the roles of the Environmental Manager. The answer to Inquiry # 45 is also related. The independent environmental monitor (IEM) will be monitoring the environmental team efforts of both the Design-Builder and SHA. The interaction will be to accommodate the IEM as they fulfill their responsibilities and to jointly react to any notifications of compliance problems.

Inq. 58	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Will the referenced strategic plan be made available? Reference Appendix A, Section 4.0, Topic 4 - ICC DBE Strategic Plan
	A. The referenced strategic plan is under development as a way for SHA internally to manage the DBE program for this project. In the RFP, SHA will make available a list of subcontracting opportunities that were assumed in the development of the goals.

Inq. 57	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. If a MBE/DBE firm is certified by a state other than Maryland, will reciprocity be considered? Reference Section H.1 - Certification Reciprocity
	A. No, reciprocity with other states concerning DBE certification will not be available on this project. All firms must be MDOT certified. Interested firms are encouraged to immediately begin the certification process.

Inq. 56	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Will evaluation factors include "Safety"? Reference Section C.1.b - Safety
	A. Safety will not be a separate evaluation factor, but it is currently contemplated that submittal of a safety plan, possibly in draft or outline form, will be required in the technical proposal under management approach. See Section C.1.b.B.7.

Inq. 55	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Has the Administration determined the warranty period(s) for the various elements of the work? Reference Section A.10 - Warranty Periods.
	A. Not as yet. The warranty periods will be provided in the RFP.

Inq. 54	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Will the RFP specifically state the requirements for project documentation? Will the lines of responsibility be defined regarding Design-Builder QC Vs Owner QA? Will contract documents include specific SHA reference manuals? Reference Section A.9 - Quality Assurance/Quality Control
	A. Yes, to all three questions.

Inq. 53	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. What will be the basis for the daily liquidated damages? Will they be limited to inspection fees or will other costs be added? Reference Section A.7 - Liquidated Damages
	A. The inclusion of liquidated damages remains under consideration, and the basis of liquidated damages if any will be provided in the RFP. If utilized, liquidated damages will be based on an estimate of actual costs incurred by the state in a particular situation and will not be a penalty.

Inq. 52	Post Date: 1/24/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Are there more details available regarding the basis for the Performance Award fee? What will be the method of measurement? Reference Section A.6 - Award Fee
	A. Not at this time. A complete description of the Award Fee and the method of measurement will be included in the RFP.

Inq. 51	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/24/2006
	Q. The anticipated contract execution date is December 13, 2006. Can we assume a notice to proceed in December as noted in Table C-1 on page C-5? In the event that the NTP is delayed will the acceptance for maintenance date be held at November 30, 2009 or will I move day-for-day? Reference Section A.5 - PROJECT Schedule
	A. The exact dates for the PROJECT NTP and acceptance and completion and provisions for the adjustment of schedule dates will be covered in the RFP. You may anticipate that any delay in the NTP will result in an appropriate extension of the completion date.

Inq. 50	Post Date: 1/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/10/2006
	Q. Have there been any changes in the list of consultants and/or subconsultants ineligible to participate on a Design-Build team? Reference Section C.3
	A. Yes, AB Consultants, Inc. has been removed from the Section C.3 ineligible list. AB Consultants, Inc has not performed any activities for SHA in connection with the ICC that, in SHA's view, would affect their eligibility to participate on a Design-Builder's team.

Inq. 49	Post Date: 1/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/9/2006
	Q. When pages 2 an 3 of Form PP-1, Past Performance, do not apply to a team member, will SHA allow respondents to summarize on page 1 of Form PP-1 that the second and third pages have been eliminated from the submittal because they are not applicable and then remove these pages, which would otherwise remain blank, from the page count? Reference Appendix C - Form PP-1
	A. Yes.

Inq. 48	Post Date: 1/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/9/2006
	Q. In the MD SHA web site: marylandroads.com business with SHA in the Contractor's Inquiry Responses AT376A21 Inquiry 9 post date 12/21/2005 regarding the list of firms that are ineligible to compete on Design-Build it is noted: Prime and its sub consultants are no longer working on the ICC as of November 29, 2005 (the date the RFQ was released) then they are eligible. However, if the prime and/or sub consultants working beyond this date, they would be ineligible. At the ICC Contract A Design-Build Forum on December 8, 2005, Mr. Neil Pederson, Administrator, indicated in his presentation that the cut-off date was December 8, 2005. This cut-off date (Dec 8th) was restated as the criteria for eligibility several times during the subsequent presentations. A clarification is required regarding the eligibility date? Reference Section C.3 - Eligibility
	A. As indicated in the answer to Inquiry # 9, the date of November 29, 2005 "is SHA's conservative interpretation on the issue. The ultimate decision is up to the Maryland State Ethics Commission. If a firm has a question/concern, they should raise it to the Commission." SHA is not aware of any activity performed between November 29 and December 8 that would disqualify a firm. Among the issues the State Ethics Commission would consider, if asked, is whether the activity is a planning or preliminary design activity.

Inq. 47	Post Date: 1/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/9/2006
	Q. In Inquiry 17 a question has been raised about the page restriction of 60 pages for Section 3 through 6. It was responded to by SHA as something that would be addressed in and addendum. As this restriction is creating some difficulties, it would be helpful if this could be addressed as soon as possible to allow teams to adjust accordingly in an effort to meet the February 3 submission date? Reference Section E.3 and Appendix B - Page Limit
	A. The page limit has been increased to 70 pages for Sections 3 through 6 of the SOQ (see answer to Inquiry # 30), and the SOQ Due Date has been changed to February 9, 2006, 4:00 PM (see answer to Inquiry # 31).

Inq. 46	Post Date: 1/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/9/2006
	Q. In Section 3, Form E-1 it requires references for each Key Manager. In an effort to assure current status of contact information for these persons being utilized as references, can we contact these people if they are SHA employees and/or employees of the GEC? Reference Section E.4.b.3.B.2 and Form E-1 of Appendix C - References
	A. Yes, but only for the purpose of verifying that the contact information is correct. This applies also for contacts required by Form E-2 (see warning in Section E.4.b.4.B.4), Form PP-1, and Form PP-2.

Inq. 45	Post Date: 1/13/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/5/2006
	Q. Can you expand on the role of the environmental compliance firm listed in Section E.4.b.4.B.2? Can the designated Designer and the environmental compliance firm be the same firm? Reference Section E.4.b.4.B.2 - Environmental Compliance Firm
	A. It is expected that the environmental compliance firm under the direction of and in coordination with the Environmental Manager will be performing all the environmental compliance functions for the Design-Builder. These include, but are not necessarily limited to: responsibilities H) and I) under Section 2.0 of Appendix A to the RFQ and most of the Design-Builder's environmental responsibilities highlighted in Topic 5, Environmental, in Appendix A to the RFQ, including staff to the Environmental Manager. Yes, the Designer can also be the environmental compliance firm if the Designer has the requisite environmental capability and experience.

Inq. 44	Post Date: 1/13/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/5/2006
	Q. Related to the above question (Inq 43) regarding SOQ Section E.4.b.4.B.1 , no space is allocated for summaries of the background and experience of the Design-Build firms, the environmental compliance firms, the public information firm, and the QC engineer. Should summaries for these firms be included in Appendix B or elsewhere in the SOQ? Reference Section E.4.b.4.B.1 - Firm Experience
	A. Experience of the Principal Participants, the Designer, the environmental compliance firm, the public information firm and the QC Engineer is to be provided through past Project Descriptions using Form E-2. In addition, short summaries of background and experience for these firms can be included in the three-page Cover Letter, and company brochures for all these firms can be included in Appendix B of the SOQ.

Inq. 43	Post Date: 1/13/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/5/2006
	Q. Do the one (1) page summaries of the background and experience of each subcontractor that we list in our SOQ count against the 60 page limit? Reference Section E.4.b.4.B.2 - One (1) Page Summary for Subcontractors
	A. Yes, but the summaries don't have to be a whole page, and one summary can follow another on the subsequent pages attached to Form E-3. The page limit has been increased to 70 pages for Sections 3 through 6 of the SOQ (see answer to Inquiry # 30).

Inq. 42	Post Date: 1/13/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/5/2006
	Q. Are we required to include a 2 page resume for our proposed Principal-in-Charge in our SOQ? Reference Section E.4.b.3.B.3 - Resumes
	A. You are required to submit a resume for the Principal-in-Charge. The Principal-in-Charge is being added to Section E.4.b.3.B.2 in Addendum No. 1. Resumes can be a maximum of two pages, but do not have to be two pages. The two-page maximum was allowed so as not to unnecessarily restrict Proposers in providing the requested information.

Inq. 41	Post Date: 1/13/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/5/2006
	Q. Do we need to submit a separate and complete Form PP-1 and PP-2 for each Principal Participant and Designer on our team? A team comprised of two joint venture builders and two joint venture designers would have to use at least 16 pages for the forms. This is nearly 1/3 of the page limit allowed for the entire proposal. Reference Section E.4.b.5.B.1 & 2 and Appendix C - Forms PP-1 and PP-2
	A. A separate Form PP-1 shall be submitted for each Principal Participant and the Designer (see answer to Inquiry # 29). A separate Form PP-2 shall be submitted for each Principal Participant and each major Construction Subcontractor meeting the 20% criteria listed in Section C.2. A Form PP-2 is not required for the Designer. The Proposal page limit has been increased to 70 pages for Sections 3 through 6 of the SOQ (see answer to Inquiry # 30).

Inq. 40	Post Date: 1/13/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/5/2006
	Q. Is it acceptable to submit a candidate for Project Quality manager who is a registered Professional Engineer in other states and will complete the Professional Engineer registration process for the State of Maryland prior to the proposal stage of this procurement? Reference Section E.4.b.3.B.f - Project Quality Manager
	A. Yes, include an explanation in the SOQ.

Inq. 39	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/3/2006
	Q. In prior Design-Build projects, the State provided a "letter of intent" form MDE giving conceptual stormwater management approval. In addition, the Concept SWM report was provided to all bidders. Is this same approach planned for the ICC Contract A? If not, what will the bidders be given in the way of stormwater management computations and guidance?. Appendix A, Section 4.0, Topic 8 - Stormwater Management
	A. SHA intends to provide proposers with a letter of intent from MDE that gives approval to the criteria for stormwater management set forth in the performance specifications. It will be the design-builder's responsibility to develop conceptual and final stormwater management plans, reports and calculations. SHA anticipates providing proposers on Contract A with a letter of intent from MDE, stormwater management performance specifications, ROD commitments, and a copy of the FEIS.

Inq. 38	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/3/2006
	Q. The unusual requirement of E.4.b.2.B.4 to note utilized bonding capacity in the surety Letter is problematic and should be deleted. Reference Section E.4.b.2.B.4 - Surety Letter
	A. The provision will be revised in a future addendum to read as follows: The letter must specifically state that the surety company has read the RFQ and has evaluated the team's backlog and work-in-progress in determining its bonding capacity. In instances where the SOQ identifies material changes in the financial condition of the Proposer or any other entity pursuant to Section E.4.b.2.C.2, the letter must include a certification that the surety's analysis specifically incorporates a review of the factors surrounding such changes and must identify any special conditions that the surety intends to impose as a condition to issuance of surety bonds for the Proposer.

Inq. 37	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/3/2006
	Q. Regarding Form E-2: If both a contractor and a designer (for example) participated in a single project, can Form E-2 be adapted to show the involvement of each partner on the same form, or will two separate E-2 forms be required to convey each participant's role? Reference Section E.4.b.4.B.1 and Appendix C - Form E-2
	A. The Form E-2 may be adapted to reflect the involvement of both partners. The form can not be altered as to the format and information, but the fields (especially the first four blocks and Percent of Total Work Performed by Company in the last block) can include information specifically identified for each partner.

Inq. 36	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/3/2006
	Q. Based upon the information provided in the Design-Build Forum and subsequent mail-out, the level of design suggested that the proposers will be required to perform simply to respond to the Proposal (specifically Traffic, ITS and Tolling) is significant. It is estimated that third party costs in excess of "Contractor" costs may approach $750,000. Will the Administration consider increasing the stipend for non-successful Proposers? Reference Section A.15 - Stipend
	A. Yes, based upon an assessment of the final RFP submittal requirements, an increase in the stipend amount will be considered.

Inq. 35	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/3/2006
	Q. The RFQ states single-sided pages shall be used. May the financial statements be printed double sided? Reference Appendix B - Financial Statements
	A. Yes, but only for the financial statements.

Inq. 34	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/3/2006
	Q. The RFQ states only the original SOQ shall include the financial statements in Section 2. Five separately stapled copies of these financial statements shall be provided in a separate sealed envelope. May the five copies of the financial information be submitted in separate three ring binders? Reference Appendix B - Financial Statements
	A. The requirement for the sealed envelope is to maintain confidentiality of Proposer's financial information. There is no objection to providing the five additional copies in separate three ring binders and packaged all together in a separate, sealed and identified box.

Inq. 33	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/3/2006
	Q. The RFQ states that each page shall be numbered consecutively (i.e., 1-1, 1-2; 2-1, 2-2; 3-1, 3-2, etc.). Does this apply to the forms, financials, awards, etc. or does it only apply to the sections of the SOQ with pages of text from our response (i.e., Cover Letter, Section 3, Section 6)? Reference Appendix B - Page Numbering
	A. The section page numbering only applies to those pages included within Sections 1 through 6. It does not apply to the Cover Letter or to Appendices A through C, the page numbering of which is left to the discretion of the Proposer. In Sections 1 through 6, each page including forms, written narrative, resumes, surety letters and financial statements must be numbered consecutively. Those individual forms and documents with multiple pages may have their own separate individual page numbers (i.e., for each 2-page resume, it would be expected to see page numbers 1 and 2. The section numbering system will allow SHA and the Proposers to account for all pages and to make sure the total page limit for Sections 3 through 6 is not exceeded.

Inq. 32	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 1/3/2006
	Q. Does the design-build team need to provide right-of-way acquisition services? Reference Appendix A, Sections 2.0 and 3.0 - Right-of Way Services
	A. No, however, in writing the Contract Documents consideration may be given to requiring the Design-Builder to provide right-of-way services for additional land required by a Design-Builder's accepted alternate technical concept or design modification.

Inq. 31	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 12/23/2005
	Q. Is there a change in the due date for submission of the SOQs? Reference Section C.4, Table C.1 - Procurement Schedule
	A. The SOQ Due Date has been changed to February 9, 2006, 4:00 PM. This change will be included in a future addendum.

Inq. 30	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 12/23/2005
	Q. Please consider raising the page limit from 60 to maybe 70. The number of Form PP-1's will affect the pages. Reference Section E.3 and Appendix B - Page Limit
	A. The page limit has been increased to 70 pages in Sections 3 through 6 of the SOQ. This change will be included in a future addendum.

Inq. 29	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 12/23/2005
	Q. Should individual Form PP-1's be submitted by each required company or is there only one PP-1 for the job? If multiple PP-1's are required, who should submit? Should the designer submit? Reference Section E.4.b.5.B.1 - Past Performance
	A. Separate Form PP-1's shall be submitted for each Principal Participant and the Designer. As described in Subsections a) - e) of Section E.4.b.5.B.1, each Principal Participant must complete all sections of Form PP-1 and, the Designer must complete all sections except the section on liquidated damages. The Proposer may elect to submit additional Form PP-1's for Specialized Subcontractors (e.g., Specialty Subcontractors), that provide information on their Awards and/or Commendations. No other sections of the Form PP-1 need to be completed for the Specialty Subcontractors.

Inq. 28	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 12/23/2005
	Q. It is required that the "Construction Manager" be a PE, but not the "Project Manager". It seems since the Project Manager is the head person and also oversees design, it would be more appropriate that he be a PE. Also, in the Construction Manager position are you looking for more administrative or field supervision skills? Please reconsider the PE requirements. Reference Section E.4.b.3.B.e - Construction Manager
	A. See response to Inquiry No. 4. From this response it is imperative that the Construction Manager have a wide range of management skills including administrative, field supervision, and integration of quality, environmental compliance and design. Further, it is not required for the Project Manager to be a PE and is left to the discretion of the Design-Builder in submitting the qualifications of the Project Manager.

Inq. 27	Post Date: 1/10/2006	Inquiry Date: 12/23/2005
	Q. The definitions of "Environmental Manager" and The "Project Quality Manager" require that both employees be "employed... by the Design-Builder." Does this mean that they must be on the Design-Builder's payroll as direct employees or can they be employees of consultants? Reference Section A.1.b - Definitions
	A. They must be either on the payroll of the Design-Builder or if the Design-Builder is a partnership or a joint venture, then they may be an employee of one of the partners or one of the joint venture members. They may not be the employee of a consultant. The functions of environmental compliance and quality are critical issues to the Administration and as such warrant direct overall management by the Design-Builder.

Inq. 26	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. During the Pre-SOQ Informational meeting on 12/8/05, goals for small businesses were mentioned. They are not included in the RFQ. Will they be established and if so, when? Reference: Informational Meeting and Section H - SBE Goals
	A. There will be no small business enterprise goals for this project. This will be certified in a future addendum.

Inq. 25	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Since the Administration does not represent the completeness of the lists of firms ineligible to participate and the Proposers may not be aware of what firms may have received monetary compensation to develop the concept plan, will the Administration be willing to review and confirm the eligibility of specific firms if submitted in advance of the RFQ by the Proposers? Reference: Section C.3 - Eligibility
	A. See response to Question No. 9. Further, it is the responsibility of the State Ethics Commission to rule on eligibility.

Inq. 24	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. If a Proposer is obtaining competitive bids from subcontractors with a value over 20% of the construction and one or more of the subcontractors are also bidding to one or more other Proposers is that considered a conflict of interest? Reference: Section C.2 - Conflict of Interest
	A. No, as long as the subcontractor is not identified as part of your team in the SOQ or Proposal and doesn't participate on your team in the preparation of your SOQ or Proposal.

Inq. 23	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Do substitutions of Specialty Subcontractors require written approval prior to submission of the proposal, or just Principal Participants? Reference: Section A.17 - Specialty Subcontractors Substitutions
	A. Yes, but only those that are identified in the Proposer's SOQ, on which their qualifications and inclusion on the Reduced Candidate List was based.

Inq. 22	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Will any exceptions be allowed to the State Finance and Procurement Article of the Maryland Code or will exceptions be considered "non-responsive" and therefore disqualify the Proposer? Reference: Section A.6 - Exceptions
	A. Please clarify the question. SHA does not have authority to permit exceptions to statutory requirements.

Inq. 21	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. The definition of Specialty Subcontractor is very broad and open to interpretation. For example it includes subs for landscaping, retaining structures and notes "other specialty Work" and "Work critical to the success". Many primes would elect to subcontract much of the work after award and after sufficient design is completed to obtain competitive pricing. Can the Specialty Subcontractor be more narrowly defined to allow the proposers more future flexibility? Reference: A.1.b - Identification of Specialty Contractors in the RFQ
	A. Section E.4.b.4.B requires on Form E-2 that only the following Specialty Subcontractors be identified in the RFQ: Designer, the environmental compliance firm, the public information firm and the QC Engineer. Form E-3 includes any other subcontractors, including additional Specialty Subcontractors that the Proposer wishes to identify in their SOQ submission. Identity of additional Specialty Subcontractors at the time of the SOQ is entirely at the discretion of the Proposers.

Inq. 20	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Since large design/build projects are very expensive to bid it would be important to the potential proposers to have an opportunity to review in advance the planned Design/Build Contract prior to committing to team members and the RFQ. Can a draft of the RFP and Design/Build Contract be published immediately and well in advance of the SOQ date? If the D/B Contract is not available for Contract A can you make it available to interested proposers in advance of the future RFQs for the other contract packages? Reference: Section A.6 - Request to see Contract Documents
	A. The Design-Build Contracts Documents for Contract A are currently not available as they are being written as part of the preparation of the Contract A RFP. They will be made available to Proposers of the Reduced Candidate List as part of the Draft RFP Review. The Contract Documents will follow Maryland law and the FHWA regulations on Design-Build contracts as well as include best practices in Design-Build. The Contract Documents for Contract A will be available to use as a reference for interested Proposers on subsequent RFQs.

Inq. 19	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Will the responses to Proposer questions and addenda be posted on the SHA Internet site? Reference: Sections A.12 and A.13 - Proposer Questions and RFQ Addenda
	A. Yes, both the responses to Proposer questions and addenda will only be posted on the SHA Internet site at marylandroads.com. To access the documents, click on the link "Contracts, Bids, & Proposals" under "Business with SHA". Click "Competitive Sealed Proposals" under "Construction Contracts". The Request for Qualifications will appear under this link. All responses to questions on the RFQ and addenda to the RFQ will be posted on this site. Responses to questions and addenda will not be mailed out. This procedure will be included in a future Addendum. SOQ submittals shall include the completed Acknowledgement form.

Inq. 18	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. The RFQ doesn't address a self-performance requirement for the Design-Builder. Is there a self-performance requirement, and if so, is it only applicable to the construction portion of the Design-Build Contract? Reference: Section A - Self Performance
	A. This item will be included in a future Addendum.

Inq. 17	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. With potential of multiple joint venture partners and the number of Key Managers and specific firms to be identified, including resumes and project descriptions, is the limit of 60 pages reasonable? It is requested that the page limit be increased to allow for a full and comprehensive SOQ submittal? Reference: Section E.3 and Appendix B Page Limit
	A. This will be addressed in a future addendum.

Inq. 16	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. What qualifications are required for the Principal-in-Charge? The RFP lists minimum qualification requirements for all the other Key Managers. Does the Principal-in Charge have to be an engineer or an officer of one of the Principal Participants? Reference: Section E.4.b3.B.2 - Submittal Requirements for Key Managers
	A. The designation of the Principal-in-Charge is at the discretion of the Design-Builder. As Principal-in-Charge, the designated individual must have the authority to represent, make decisions for and oversee the performance of the Design-Builder. These Qualifications will be included in a future addendum.

Inq. 15	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Will the ICC have a designated HOT lane? Reference: Appendix A Facility Operations
	A. No. The entire roadway will be a managed lane.

Inq. 14	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. RFQ page E-8 notes that no more than 19 past projects shall be described on Form E-2, whereas Appendix page B-2 identifies a maximum of 15 under Section 4 ... which is correct? Reference: Section E.4.b.4.B.1 and Appendix B, Section 4; RFQ Submittal
	A. Nineteen (19) is the correct maximum number of past projects. Appendix B will be corrected in a future Addendum.

Inq. 13	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Will the short-list (Reduced Candidate List) based on evaluations of the SOQ be published? Reference: Section C - Publish RCL
	A. No. In accordance with the Annotated Code of Maryland Title 21 Subsection 05.03.01.02 G (2), we are not providing the Reduced Candidate List to proposers. We are providing a list of attendees of the December 8, Informational Meeting. Attendees are sorted by DBE or non-DBE and consultant or contractor. This is posted on SHA's website.

Inq. 12	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Is any additional information available on the environmental mitigation and environmental stewardship contracts? Also ITS contracts? Reference: Information Meeting - Other ICC Contracts
	A. While details are not yet developed, some of these 50+ contracts may be packaged together and advertised as either Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build, over a 3-year period starting summer 2006. ITS will be a part of the five mainline contracts, except for toll integration.

Inq. 11	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Must subcontractors be pre-qualified, certified, and have bonding? Reference: Section A.10 and H.2 - Subcontractors
	A. Maryland does not require pre-qualification. The only certifications required are Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, DBE's. All DBE's must be certified by MDOT for their specialty. Bonding is only required of the Prime.

Inq. 10	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Please expand on the detail/level of plans to be provided in the RFP ... specifically, what percent complete? Reference: Appendix A, 3.0C Concept Plans
	A. Concept plans for the roadway, horizontal and vertical geometry will be provided; structure plans will be "pre-TS&L" style, but no precise definition of percent complete is available.

Inq. 9	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. On RFQ page C-4, the list of firms that are ineligible to compete on Design-Build, are subs to those firms also ineligible? Reference: Section C.3 Appendix D.1, D.2 - Eligibility
	A. Generally, if a Prime and its sub-consultant are no longer working on the ICC as of November 29th (the date the RFQ was issued), then they are eligible to compete. If only the Prime is working beyond November 29th , the sub-consultant firm is eligible. However, if the sub-consultant is working beyond this date, the sub-consultant and also the prime consultant would be ineligible. This is SHA's conservative interpretation on the issue. The ultimate decision is up to the Maryland State Ethics Commission. If a firm has a question/concern, they should raise it to the Commission.

Inq. 8	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. With reference to the ethics discussion, rumors are that if a DBE has been involved in planning, they can not team for DBE efforts on construction? Reference: Section C.3 - Eligibility
	A. There is no distinction between DBE and non-DBE firms. See the response to Question No. 9 for additional information.

Inq. 7	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. With reference to the DBE presentation, please define "entry level". Reference: Information Meeting - DBE Entry Level Staff
	A. Requirements for on-the-job training are for any position, including skilled positions, based on Department of Licensing and Labor Regulations (DLLR).

Inq. 6	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. When will a decision on separate DBE goals for design and construction be announced? Reference: Section H.2 - DBE Goals
	A. The DBE goals are being finalized and will be provided in a future Addendum.

Inq. 5	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. With the design-builder providing QC, and SHA providing QA, will SHA's work be by SHA staff or consultant staff? Reference: Section A.9 - QA/QC
	A. The QA responsibility will be performed by an integrated team composed of both SHA and the GEC, with the GEC providing the majority of the staff.

Inq. 4	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Under the RFQ, please expand on the responsibilities for the Construction Manager ... including duties, locations, and the need for a Maryland PE. Also, isn't this position really a design coordinator? Reference: Section E.4.b.3.B.2.e - Construction Manager
	A. The Construction Manager is the on-site individual responsible to the Design-Builder's Project Manager for all the construction aspects of the PROJECT. A Professional Engineer is required because of the significant quality, environmental compliance and design interface requirements of the PROJECT. A Maryland PE license is not required.

Inq. 3	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Will Alternate Technical Concepts (ATC) submitted by individual firms remain confidential? Reference: Informational Meeting: Alternate Technical Concepts
	A. Yes

Inq. 2	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. Can we get color copies of the PowerPoints, including the mapping? Reference: Informational Meeting: Copies of Presentation
	A. Technical excerpts from the PowerPointTM presentation describing details of Contract A were provided to all in attendance at the Informational meeting and are posted on the SHA internet site.

Inq. 1	Post Date: 12/21/2005	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2005
	Q. In addressing factors in the RFQ, especially for teams that are now forming, how do we address the different frequencies for safety meetings, etc.? Reference: Section E.4.b.5.B.3 and Appendix C Forms
	A. The safety meeting frequencies of Form S should be whatever they are for the individual firms (each Principal Participant and major Construction Contractor) for which a Form S will be submitted. In Step Two of the procurement process, the safety plan in response to the RFP will set a consistent Design-Builder's safety meeting frequency for the PROJECT.

CIC Home