Question 1. No. 13 under Proposal Content on Page 4 of 8, states “Identification of any cost information related to additional services or tasks. Include this in the proposal but identify it as additional costs and do not make it part of the total project cost. Should this information be included in the cost proposal envelope rather than in the main proposal?
Question 1 Answer: Yes included in cost proposal envelope.
Question 2. Task 7 involves updating the Official Map of Proposed Right-of-Way. Are we to assume that work tasks associated with updating the map include all of the research, verification, and certification of map components that have been completed and will not change?
Question 2 Answer: This Contract does not include any title searches. Annotate proposed right-of-way for future needs. The Contractor will do sufficient research to tie new boundary to existing right-of-way and prepare surveyor’s certificate. A licensed land surveyor shall attest to the accuracy of the future acquisition lines shown on the official map. See Minnesota State Statutes section 462.359.
Question 3. Does the Environmental Assessment need to be updated to include the Scoping and Preliminary Engineering for TH 55 & CSAH 42 work? If yes, is the update part of this RFP?
Question 3 Answer: No.
Question 4. Will the County provide the necessary traffic information for the development of an Approved Staff Geometric Layout for the TH 55 & CSAH 42 study area?
Question 4 Answer: Yes.
Question 5. Does the Scoping and Preliminary Engineering for TH 55 & CSAH 42 under this RFP include the study of the northerly termini of TH 55 at TH 52?
Question 5 Answer: No.
Question 6. Reference is made to an Official Map of Proposed Right-of-Way that was developed for 1906-45 and “submitted to the state” – was it created by Mn/DOT or a Consultant? If a Consultant who was it?
Question 6 Answer: The consultant was BOLTON & MENK, INC.
Question 7. The Official Map has not been approved or adopted by the City of Rosemount. Please explain why the City of Rosemount has not approved or adopted the map? Was there an expectation that adoption was to be achieved in an earlier phase of the project or was it understood all along that adoption would not be achieved until the 30% design is completed?
Question 7 Answer: Timing. The city of Rosemount was updating the land use in the interchange area, the Air cargo application was in progress and the upcoming RFP for 30% design was anticipated. In addition the expectation was to utilize RALF funding as parcel became available the RALF account was subsequently committed to late 2007.
Question 8. Please evaluate and describe the Official Map and Staff Approved Layout for 1906-45 in regards to their level of completeness and meeting of applicable standards (both electronically as well as hard copy)?
Question 8 Answer: Review the PDF file of the Official Map and the Micro station files of the Staff Approved Layout provided at the Dakota County File Transfer Protocol (FTP) website address provided in the RFP.
Question 9. The Consultant is required in Task 7.3 to obtain any data needed to complete the Official Map -- that is not provided by the Agencies. What information has not been provided, or is expected to not be provided, by the Agencies?
Question 9 Answer: Information that is developed in the design process.
Question 10. We are very clear on the limits of 1906-45 but we are not clear what the limits are for the rest of the 55/42 portion of the project. Please describe in greater details what the limits are for layouts of any work that falls outside of the limits of 1906-45?
Question 10 Answer: Preliminary engineering will include preparation of a level 1 geometric layout from westbound station 137+17.56 and/or eastbound station 119+88 to Fisher Avenue approximately 1.91 miles and 2.24 miles respectively. Assumed in the distance is the appropriate transition to the existing two-lane section of TH 55/CSAH 42 T or near Fisher Avenue. Additionally the preliminary engineering and preparation of the level 1 geometric layout includes approximately 1.0 mile of realignment of the new Courthouse Boulevard/Emery Avenue intersection.
Question 11. Does this project include the elimination of the 55/52 interchange? If yes, please describe the level of detail needed, and where the details are to be provided?
Question 11 Answer: No.
Question 12. Will Consultant prepare a layout for the entire 2.12 mile section of 42/55 or just for the north-south connection between the two roads?
Question 12 Answer: See answer to Question 10.
Question 13. The deliverables for the 42/55 common section were described in several different terms including: Preliminary Engineering, Level 1 Staff Approved Layout, “preliminary” Geometric Layouts, conceptual engineering plan layouts, Staff Approved Geometric Layouts. Please explain whether the Consultant must complete a Level 1 Staff Approved Layout to Mn/DOT standards?
Question 13 Answer: See answer to Question 10.
Question 14. If QBS is being used why is the Consultant asked to provide a cost estimate? Please confirm that the separate sealed cost proposal will not be opened until the selection is made and the apparent winner is prepared to negotiate costs?
Question 14 Answer: The Cost is not a factor in the evaluation criteria; the selection will be based on qualifications of the project team and the quality of the technical proposal. Requiring a separate sealed cost proposal is acceptable and will assist the consultant in development of understanding of the scope of work and project approach. The detailed price proposal marked on the outside “Cost Proposal” will not be opened until the selection is made. The remaining unopened cost proposals will be returned.
Question 15. Are the 500 fliers in task 2.2 separate from the newsletters in task 2.4? Can the notice of Public Meetings be included in the newsletters?
Question 15 Answer: Task 2.2 includes up to three open houses and task 2.4 includes up to four newsletters announcing the open houses in the newsletters is preferred. 500 newsletters per mailing is the estimate number.
Question 16. It is stated that the TIN has already been created for 1906-45 and that the aerial mapping is available for the 42/55 commons portion of the project. Has the TIN been created for any areas outside of the limit of 1906-45? If not, will consultant be provided with all necessary survey and mapping data to create TIN?
Question 16 Answer: Review the TIN and Digitized planimetric features provide at the Dakota County File Transfer Protocol (FTP) website address provided in the RFP. This is the current information available.
Question 17. Please provide greater details for supplemental surveying needed to fill in holes in the mapping?
Question 17 Answer: See answer to Question 16.
Question 18. Please provide greater details on frontage roads, backage roads, right-in right-out, and access changes? Specifically identify which Layouts and Official Maps must show these changes. Will they fall entirely within the 1906-45 mapping or might we need to address them on the 42/55 layouts?
Question 18 Answer: Task 4 is specific to SP 1906-45. Review Figure ES-2 – Preferred System Plan and The City of Rosemount’s Transportation Concept Map. Potential intersection location will need to be addressed in the Level 1 Layout.
Question 19. Could I get a list of updated firms looking at the County Project (CP) 42-82, SP 19-624-43, SP 1906-45, and MP TA05MN97(100) detail design on TH 52 and CSAH 42.
Question 19 Answer:
Bonestroo & Associates
CH2M HILL
Howard R. Green Company
Parsons Brinckerhoff
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson & Associates
URS Corporation
Yaggy Colby
MSA Professional Services
Northern Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Alliant Engineering, Inc.
Walker Engineering, Inc.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
EVS, Inc.
Northern Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Any questions or comments concerning this or any highway projects, email
Dakota County Transportation Department or phone 952-891-7100.