For additional information on Contract Number (CH3505174) click here

Contractor's Inquiry Responses

Contract No. CH3505174


Inq. 22	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. For the Step 2 Tech./Price Proposal document, Section 1.49, p. 2 of 3 - please confirm that temporary lane and shoulder closures are anticipated - (schedule states 'none').
	A. The Administration will take this under review in the development of the final RFP.

Inq. 21	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. The Step 2 Tech./Price Proposal document, Section 3.11.04.4.10, p. 54 of 89 states 'a stabilized maintenance access from a public right-of-way to all SWM facilities shall be provided and shall conform to the following'. The requirements for access roads which follows is basically what would be required for a newly designed facility - we expect that many (most) of the existing facilities will not have access roads that satisfy the requirements defined here. Please confirm that the access road requirements will be applied to 'all facilities' including those rated I, II, III. We note that access road upgrades are not listed in the summary of maintenance needs for facilities presented on p. 5 - 8 of 89.
	A. The Administration will take this under review in the development of the final RFP.

Inq. 20	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. The Step 2 Tech./Price Proposal document, Section 3.06.27, p. 28 of 89 states that inspection/rating for all SHA facilities in Charles County shall be addressed - not limited to the existing 100 BMPs. Please provide an estimate of the number of BMPs anticipated in year three of this contract based on planned projects.
	A. The project will include only the 100 facilities listed in the contract.

Inq. 19	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. The Step 2 Tech./Price Proposal document, Section 2.12, p. 19 -20 of 24, defines the rating of Technical and Price proposals be rated equally - (we understand this to mean given equal weight in the selection process). The Technical proposal will be rated on a verbal scale of exceptional to unacceptable with plus/minus intervals. Section 2.12.03 states evaluation of the Price proposal shall be based on total lump sum price. Please explain/define/comment to provide more insight on: 1) the consideration / weighting of Technical and Price, (e.g., bids rated Exception/$2.2 million verses bid rated Good/$2.0 million verses bid rated Acceptable/$1.7 million); and 2) how will the Price proposal be rated, (e.g., raw lump sum price, or lump sum price relative to internal estimate, or interpolated between high low bid, or other?).
	A. The final evaluation of the technical and price proposals shall be an integrated assessment, including tradeoff analysis, of the evaluation factors and Price considering the relative importance between technical (quality) and price. Based upon the final overall rating for the Technical proposal and the final Price, the Administration will determine the Proposal that is the most advantageous to the State. In general, Price evaluations will be based on the Proposal Price as reflected in the Schedule of Prices, the Cost Breakdown, accuracy, completeness and reasonableness. The final RFP will provide more detailed information regarding the Price evaluation.

Inq. 18	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. The Legal Structure and Financial Capability information requested in the Step 1 RFQ document, p. 17, will require more than the 5 page limit. Please define what SHA desires in the 5 page limit and what 'evidence' may be included beyond the 5 page limit.
	A. Yes, the Teaming Agreement is excluded from the total page count.

Inq. 17	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. We request that wording for Step 2 Tech./Price Proposal document, Section 5.02 and 5.03, p. 2 of 5 be edited to: 1) eliminate the word 'defend' in the first sentence of Section 5.02 - Indemnification; and 2) insert the word 'negligent' before the phrase 'performance of work by the Design-build Team' on the fifth line under Section 5.02 so it is consistent with second line under Section 5.03.1.
	A. The Administration will take this under review in the development of the final RFP.

Inq. 16	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. We have not located the Conceptual Design Report(s) for retrofit facilities referenced in the Step 2 Tech./Price Proposal document, Section 2.07.02, p. 3 of 24) - please define where the conceptual design report/information is provided.
	A. This will be addressed with the issuance of the final RFP.

Inq. 15	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. We have begun reviewing the information for the 100 BMPs provided on the Project Wise site specified for this contract. We did not find the plans/comps. for Facility #080051 (retrofit) - is information for this facility on Project Wise. If not (yet), will it be provided? Does SHA anticipate that there will be any updates to the SWM facility (100 BMPs) information (plans, comps, ratings/inspections, etc.) currently on Project Wise?
	A. There are no as-built drawings available for facility 080051. No updates are anticipated for the information already provided on Project Wise. All existing data has been made available.

Inq. 14	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. Is a Joint Venture with an MBE or Non-MBE Contractor for the purpose of bonding permissible for the SOQ and fulfill contract requirements?
	A. Yes. A Joint Venture with an MBE or Non-MBE Contractor for the purposes of bonding is permissible; however, if one member of a Joint Venture is an MBE contractor they cannot be used to meet the MBE goal.

Inq. 13	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. What constitutes evidence of satisfactory implementation of erosions and sediment control per a. Erosion and Sediment Control Quality Assurance rating if the Lead Constructor Firm has not been the Prime Contractor for previous SHA projects? Also what would be evidence for commercial projects not associated with the SHA? Could contract information, payment requisitions and paid invoicing be used as evidence? Or would the SHA prefer other sufficient documentation?
	A. Project examples constitute as evidence along with documentation from the project owner or agency that regulated the environmental compliance on the project.

Inq. 12	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. Page 17 states there is a 5 page max count for Section III , Legal Structure and Financial Capability. This does not allow enough pages for the requested information such as bonds, insurance certificates etc. Are these documents to be counted in the page count?
	A. Section III.A and Section III.B will fall under the maximum page limit. The maximum page limit will be revised to 1 page. The Teaming Agreement (if it exists) and information pertaining to Section III.C and Section III.D will have no page limit. This will be addressed by addendum.

Inq. 11	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. Page 17, Section III.B.a, requests a copy of the Teaming Agreement be included in the SOQ. Is the Teaming Agreement excluded from the 5 page max count for the section?
	A. Yes, the Teaming Agreement is excluded from the total page count.

Inq. 10	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. Page 15, Section B, states there is a 5 page max count for the Lead Constructor firm experience section. It also requests the resumes for that section follow attached Form A-1. This would exceed the page count for that section. Is form A-1 excluded from the page count?
	A. Please see the response for Question 4.

Inq. 9	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/3/2008
	Q. Page 16, Section I.B. a.ii.b, states there is a 5 page max count for that section. Is the environmental violation excluded from the page count for that section?
	A. The Environmental Violations information is not part of the page maximum. This will be addressed by addendum.

Inq. 8	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/2/2008
	Q. Does MDOT certified MBE/DBE company with S & E credentials and recognized to perform Project Construction Management (DOT MBE 06-316) qualify as either a joint venture partner with a non-MBE/DBE company or as a subcontractor for a non-MBE/DBE company? The MBE/DBE is a female/Native American owned company. If the MBE/DBE criteria is met, what percentage of participation would be recognized by the SOQ/Contract CH3505174?
	A. The minority firm can form a joint venture with a non-minority firm; however, this is a straight state funded project; therefore, no minority participation credit will be given for the use of a minority firm in the joint venture.

Inq. 7	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/2/2008
	Q. Can you provide applicable MDOT Standard Industrial Classification Codes and or National American Industry Classification System Codes for the MBE/DBE participation that this project will recognize as satisfactory for SOQ/Contract CH3505174 requirements?
	A. MDOT no longer uses the Standard Industrial Classification Codes (SIC). MDOT's MBE Directory is being converted to strictly North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS) and all new minority firms certified by MDOT will be certified only under NAICS codes. However, any MBE currently classified under the SIC will be accepted. Goals are based on the items of work available for subcontracting opportunities to the minority communities and we do not direct the contractor which work items to subcontract out to meet the minority participation goals. It is the contractor's responsibility to achieve the goal(s) with the items of work within the contract.

Inq. 6	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/2/2008
	Q. Can we obtain a location map of the 100 SHA stormwater management facility sites in Charles County which are referred to in the RFQ?
	A. Location maps have not been provided as part of this document. However, all spatial information data is available within the Geodatabase that has been provided.

Inq. 5	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/2/2008
	Q. What is the primary role of the GIS Specialist, to collect field data or to update the SHA database? According to the draft Request for Technical and Price Proposal the Design/Build Team will be given a current version of the existing geodatabase to update. This appears to require database management expertise which is different from the H&H and field experience described in the RFQ. It may be difficult to name one person with experience in both these areas; database management of geodatabases and experience in field collection for water resource projects. Which is the primary role for the GIS Specialist?
	A. The role of GIS Specialist is to be responsible for the geodatabase updates. The Specialist needs to have experience in water resources or environmental science, such that they understand the key components of the best management practices and can incorporate the field inspections into the appropriate tables within the geodatabase. The GIS Specialist will need to be able to utilize the existing geodatabase that has been provided to prepare field maps for inspection crews. The GIS Specialist will be required to attend the 2-day workshop to become familiar with SHA protocol and standard procedures for drainage, SWM inventory, and BMP inspections. The GIS Specialist is not required to perform the BMP inspections; these will be performed under the supervision of the H&H engineer.

Inq. 4	Post Date: 10/6/2008	Inquiry Date: 10/2/2008
	Q. Does the page maximum for the Lead Design firm experience and Lead Construction firm experience documentation include Form A-1 and is Form A-1 included for each of these sections? It appears that the Lead Design firm experience would include Form A-1, 5 pages of resumes for key staff and 3 pages for project experience, each project on a Form A-2. This would meet the maximum of 9 pages (5 for resumes, 3 for projects and 1 for Form A-1) listed for this section. It appears that Lead Construction firm experience would include Form A-1, 2 pages of resumes for key staff and 3 pages for project experience, each project on a Form A-2. This would be 6 pages and would exceed the maximum of 5 pages listed for this section. If Form A-1, which is a summary of the design and construction key staff, were not included in the Lead Construction firm experience documentation, then the maximum page limit would be met. Is this correct?
	A. The Form A-1 is not part of the maximum number of pages. One additional page is provided under the Lead Design firm for those Proposers who choose to submit more than three projects to highlight their project experience. An addendum will be issued to provide for an additional page under the Lead Construction firm to allow for the same.

Inq. 3	Post Date: 10/2/2008	Inquiry Date: 9/30/2008
	Q. The Request for Qualifications does not discuss a structural engineer, but this was included on Form A-1. Is a structural engineer needed?
	A. No. Only the positions clearly identified within the text of the Request for Qualifications need to be provided on the form. Proposers shall modify the form to reflect only those positions required in the RFQ.

Inq. 2	Post Date: 10/2/2008	Inquiry Date: 9/30/2008
	Q. Does the evaluation of the Statement of Qualifications carry through to the evaluation of the Technical Proposal?
	A. No. The evaluation of the Statement of Qualifications determines the Reduced Candidate List only.

Inq. 1	Post Date: 10/2/2008	Inquiry Date: 9/30/2008
	Q. Can DBE sub goals for Professional services be satisfied through the DBE sub goals for Women Owned/African American owned businesses?
	A. Yes, as long as they are providing professional services as outline in the RFQ:

CIC Home