Procurement

Professional Services
Question and Answer
For Current Technical Proposals

Technical Proposal

Question 1: Part 4, Section 10 – Similar to recently changed criteria for TP-138, and other previous solicitations, please confirm for the ARE position if prior ARE experience on projects of similar size and complexity is acceptable in addition to RE experience for the 5 years of additional experience? Is ARE experience on projects of similar size and complexity also acceptable in addition to RE experience for the 5 years of additional experience, the RE position?

Answer 1: We will only be accepting RE experience for the ARE position in Section 10 of the Solicitation due to the complexity of the project and the project having significant day and night work

Question 2: If a firm is a subconsultant on the design project, can that firm submit as the Prime consultant for the construction inspection project with a Resident Engineer position?

Answer 2: If the firm had any dealings with the design of the project, either prime or Sub, they cannot submit as the Prime Consultant for the Construction Inspection.

In addition “Resident Engineer position cannot be from the firms that had any dealings with the design of the project, either prim or sub”.

Question 3: The criteria in Section 1B and Section 10 of TP 143 is identical for both the Resident and Asst Resident although these positions are normally different from several aspects including work performance, qualifications and years of experience. In Section 10 shouldn’t the Asst RE (2) position reflect Asst RE experience not more Resident experience on top of that in Section 1B?

Answer 3: We want the criteria to be identical because of the excessive day and night work and the complexity of the project.

Question 4: In Section 1B the Office Engineer (5) position mandatory qualifications are listed as NICET 2 or 4 years Rd/Brg as a recent development regardless of project complexity. In the past the mandatory experience varied but included NICET 3 as well as BSCE to reflect the complexity and size of the project and the role of the Office Engineer. As Part A explains the position will not be compensated above the title requested. An office engineer on TP 143 can be expected to not only handle a large volume of conventional office documentation but also Monthly Progress payments along with complex Time Impact Analysis and Change Orders. These qualifications are normally associated with an individual with experience well above a NICET 2 level. Should the mandatory experience be adjusted to reflect the complexity of the job?

Answer 4: After further consideration, due to the complexity of the project, we are going to change the requirement of the Officer Engineer to be a NICET 3. A revised Evaluation Criteria has been posted.

Question 5: Considering the closing date of TP 143 (May 9^th) and the normal lead time to select, negotiate, and execute an Agreement shouldn’t the start dates for the Resident Engineer and Assistant Resident of June 1, 2017 be reset to perhaps August 1^st as more realistic?

Answer 5: Due to excessive inquiring of all the unrated NICET 2 positions, we are going to change one of the unrated NICET 2 positions to a NICET 3 position. See change on Solicitation. We feel that the project will be adequately staffed with the mixture of NICET IV’s, III’s and II’s.

Also, I changed the requirement to two resumes required for each unrated position.

The closing date has been extended one week because of the changes requested. The start date has also been pushed back.

Revised files have been posted.

Question 6: A review of the plans, specifications, and bid quantities does not identify the use of drilled shafts on the project although drilled shafts are part of the staff criteria in Part A and one of the key issues in Section 12. Should references to drilled shafts be removed from the Technical Proposal?

Answer 6: Drilled shafts have been removed from Section 12 of the Evaluation Critieria. A revised file has been posted.