RFP - Addedum No. 1 Project No. 2017-01
ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
TO: All Prospective Consultants
FROM: Bryan McKinney, P.E., City Engineer
DATE: March 21, 2019
SUBJECT: Washington Street at Fred Waring Drive Triple Left Turn Lanes,
City Project Number 2017-01
The following questions and answers are provided for the above referenced project. The
request for proposal and prior Amendments shall remain in force.
Clarifications
Q-1. How is the project being funded?
A.1 The project is being funded with Regional Funds through CVAG.
The remaining funds are being split using local funds through the
City of La Quinta, the City of Palm Desert, and the City of Indian
Wells.
Q-2. What is the estimated construction cost?
A.2 The anticipated construction cost is approximately $1 million.
This cost includes the cost for temporary easements and the
purchase of right-of-way. However, we expect the design consultant
to refine the cost estimate as part of the design.
Q-3. What is the City’s desired schedule?
A.3 In order to comply with the funding requirements, the project
needs to be in construction by May 1, 2020.
Q-4. Who prepared the initial concept?
A.4 The initial concept was originally prepared by RBI Traffic for
the City of La Quinta and subsequently refined by the City of Palm
Desert and NAI Consulting.
Q-5. Will the plans be reviewed only by La Quinta, or will Indian Wells and Palm
Desert staff also be reviewing the plans.
A.5 It is anticipated that the City of Palm Desert and Indian Wells
will have an opportunity to review the plans.
Q-6. Which City’s standards will apply to the design?
A.6 It is anticipated that each City’s Standards will apply in their
jurisdictional boundaries.
Q-7. It appears from the concept that the widening will remove existing
landscaping to stay within existing right of way. Is it the intention of the
project to remove existing landscaping for the widening and not replace it?
Will a Landscape Architect be required if landscaping does need to be
replaced back?
A.7 Generally, it is anticipated that landscaping and irrigation will
be modified as needed by the Contractor. Where turf area is
modified, it is anticipated that the Contractor can be directed to
modify the irrigation as needed and place the turf back that is
removed as part of the construction activities. Where planter beds
are modified it is anticipated that the landscaping will be removed
where improvements will now be and that irrigation will be capped
and modified as required by the Contractor. Where there is space to
place back landscaping in kind the Contractor should be directed to
do so. A Landscape Architect is not anticipated to be required for the
minor modifications needed. However, Consultants may propose a
Landscape Architect as an optional scope and fee with explanation as
to why they feel they are required.
Q-8. The RFP does not mention pot holing, geotech investigations, or drainage
study. Does the City desire any or all of those services be included in the
proposal?
A.8 Consultants should include an option scope and fee for the
potholing of the new locations of signal poles. If the Consultant
recommends additional potholing for other items it is at their
discretion and expertise to include in the proposal. The City does not
have subsurface information beyond Record Drawings. It is not
anticipated that any new catch basins are being placed, only
reconstructed to the ultimate condition so a drainage study should
not be required. It is anticipated that the existing pavement section
should be used for the widening so a Geotech investigation should
not be required.
Q-9. It appears from the concept that the project will displace existing utilities if
the widening is to remain in the right of way. Is it the intent of the City that
the utility companies are to secure their own easements for relocating
utilities onto private property?
A.9 It is anticipated that the Cities all have prior rights and the
utility companies will be required to relocate using their own funds.
However, the design and discussions with the utility companies
impacted should consider ways to minimize their impacts. For
instance, if there is an above ground feature, could it be placed
underground or moved where there is public right-of-way space?
Q-10. Can an exhibit map be presented on 11x17 sized pages?
A.10 Yes, exhibit maps may be presented on 11x17 pages.
Q-11. Section F. Appendices, (2) Insurance Acknowledgement asks for a signed
insurance acknowledgement(s). In lieu of an acknowledgement(s), can a
sample insurance certificate be submitted in its place?
A.11 Yes.
Q-12. Are subconsultants required to submit the Non-Collusion Affidavit Form or is
this just a requirement for the prime?
A.12 Only the prime is required.
Q-13. Section E.3.1 is requiring an endorsement with an edition date of 1992;
underwriters are currently using the edition date of 07/04. Can the edition
date be changed to the latest?
A.13 We can update the language to reference an edition date of
1992 or newer.
Q-14. Section E.3.9 states that all subcontractors provide the same minimum
coverage. Our insurance company would not have a way to verify the
subcontractors’ coverage. Can this section be removed and in its place this
statement be allowed: “insurance carried by our subconsultants will meet
the City’s requirements and proof of such coverage will be provided upon
award of contract.”
A.14 The consultant is not required to provide the insurance
coverage for its subcontractors or provide verification to the City of
the subcontractors’ insurance. However, it is the consultants
responsibility to ensure insurance carried by the subconsultants will
also meet the City’s insurance requirements.