Procurement

Professional Services
Question and Answer
For Current Technical Proposals

Technical Proposal

Question 1: The Scope of Work for the representative project (Route 9, Wrights Lane to Harbor Road) states that there are no structures within the project limits, and there are no significant environmental impacts to address. Under Part 12, the KEY ISSUES AND CRITICAL PROBLEMS lists ‘3. Bridge Deck Minor Repairs’ and ‘6. Environmental Issues/Permits’ to be included in the 4-page narrative. It is presumed that the write-ups for these two categories would only refer to key issues and potential solutions for typical pavement resurfacing projects?

Answer 1: Several of the projects may contain structural items.  

Question 2: Also, should the other Key Issues and Critical Problems topics listed (items 1, 2, 4, and 5) discuss both the representative project, and typical pavement resurfacing projects?

Answer 2: All discussion needs to be addressed to the referenced project.

Question 3: The CD report notes the project limits from MP 23.4 to 30.7 however page 1 of the solicitation omits MP 28.46 to 28.84. Was this section of highway removed from this project and spun off as a separate project?

Answer 3: CD report update with milepost correction has been uploaded.

Question 4: The qualifications shown for the Traffic Engineering Team Leader references experience in PASR2 and Transit 7F. Since these programs are no longer used in the industry, would experience in just Highway Capacity Analysis Software HCM and Synchro be acceptable

Answer 4: Yes.

Question 5: One of the “Key Issues and Critical Problems” states that Complete Streets needs to be covered in the Project Approach.   However, the NJDOT “Limit Scope Project Delivery Guideline” states that Complete Streets is not required for Limit Scope Pavement Resurfacing.  Please confirm that Complete Streets is required.

Answer 5: Use the guidelines as required for the SOW.

Question 6: The NJDOT will be awarding contracts to ESBE firms (set-asides) to account for federal funding requirements.  As such, non-ESBE firms are not required to meet federal ESBE goals.  After reviewing the language in both the solicitation and the evaluation criteria documents, which is different than typical, we’re wondering if ESBE firms are allowed to include non-ESBE firms on their teams as subconsultants, or do all firms on an ESBE’s team need to be ESBE certified?

Answer 6: The intent of the ESBE Set-Aside is to have 100% participation by ESBEs, we’re encourage the prime ESBE to make a good faith effort to sub-consult any work they will not be completing to other ESBEs.

Question 7: Solicitation #218, page 2, para 2 states that the Pilot Program will be for 3 years, $3 million with and option for 2 more years and an additional $2 million whereas page 2, para 5 states the project will be for 2 years with an option to extend to 3 years. Which is correct?

Answer 7: Both paragraphs are correct. Paragraph 2 is regarding the term and ceiling of the agreements. Paragraph 5 is regarding the duration that assigments can be made from the selection pool.

Question 8: Solicitation #218, Scope of Work, page 8, Traffic Signal states there are improvements to two signalized intersections (Route 9/Route 50 and Route 9/Hope Corson Road) whereas the PPA described in the Concept Development Report on pages 10 & 11 includes improvements to 4 signalized intersections (Route 9/Route 50, Route 9/Hope Corson Road, Route 9/Tuckahoe Road and Route 9/Roosevelt Boulevard). Which is correct ?   

Answer 8: The updated Concept Development Report has been uploaded to correct this discrepancy. Two signalized intersections is correct. 

Question 9: Solicitation #218, Scope of Work, page 7, B. Structural states there are no bridges within the project limits and no structural scope of work. Why is a Bridge Design Team Leader required and why is the topic of Key Issue No. 3, Bridge Deck Minor Repairs included under PART 5, PROJECT APPROACH, Section 12?  

Answer 9: This is a group solicitation. All discussion needs to be addressed to the referenced project.

Question 10: Can Roadway Design experience using TransPort be changed to AASHTOWare Project Estimation software for TP 218?    

Answer 10: Yes.

Question 11: Per Section 11 of the evaluation criteria forms, a Primavera schedule for the Preliminary Engineering phase with milestones for Final Design is required.  A Limited Scope Project eliminates the PE phase from project delivery.   Shouldn’t the Primavera schedule follow the Limited Scope Project Delivery Guidelines (June 2018) and include only those activities shown on the network diagram for TSM Limited Scope Process (July 1, 2017) and in the TSP Project Delivery Process Activity Descriptions (November 2017)?

Answer 11: Section 11 was corrected to remove “Preliminary Engineering" in the October 11th revision on BidExpress.

Question 12: The answer to Question No. 2 states that "All discussion needs to be addressed to the referenced project." Since the referenced project is Route 9, Wrights Lane to Harbor Road and there is no structural work within the limits of the referenced project I assume there would be zero discussion for Key Issue No. 3, Bridge Deck Minor Repairs. If that is  a correct assumption, would you eliminate Key Issue No. 3 and the need for a Bridge Design Team Leader resume?

Answer 12: No. This is a group solicitation. All discussion needs to be addressed to the referenced project(s).