Lower Westchester Bridge Bundle

Design‐Build Project Contract #D900049

Final RFP Questions and Answers December 11, 2019

Question 82: REF: Indicative Drawings Question: The item number listed for top course asphalt pavement does not exist. Please confirm the intent to use Item 402.126103. Answer: This is confirmed. Question 83: REF: Addendum 1, Part 3, Section 14.3.C & ITP Form SCD Per Addendum 1, Part 3, Section 14.3.C, the sewer main located on the north side of the existing bridge shall now be replaced with a minimum 66” diameter steel pipe with welded connections. Part 4 of the utility plan indicates that the Design Build Contractor will relocate the High Pressure Gas over the existing North Sidewalk (or 66” sewer structure) for temporary relocation. Additionally, Con Edison will install temporary overhead supports to relocate their existing underground cables over the existing bridge on the north sidewalk, followed by Verizon and Crown Castle relocating their lines on this same support. From the time these temporary utility relocates begin to the time the bridge is shut down for reconstruction, no pedestrian sidewalk can be maintained due to these relocations. Question A: Please confirm that the pedestrian sidewalk can be shut down during the period of these relocates without counting towards the 70 day shutdown. As an Alternative, should a lane be taken out of service to provide pedestrian access during this work? Additionally in reference to note 13 in Form SCD, the 10 weeks (or 70 calendar days) of traffic impact will be counted to “…begin on the day vehicular or pedestrian traffic is detoured from the existing bridge, and will continue until the new structure and approaches are completed and the bridge and highway is permanently open to vehicular and pedestrian traffic in its final configuration, with no further disruption to traffic.” The way Part 4 of the RFP is written, the bridge is to be constructed in two phases. Between these phases, the aforementioned 20” High Pressure Gas, Con Edison Electric, Verizon Fiber Optic and Crown Castle Fiber Optic will need to be relocated from their temporary location over the north sidewalk to their permanent location, on the bridge structure built in Stage 1. The relocation of the Con Edison electric from their temporary location to the new permanent duct bank will take 10 weeks alone, plus any additional time for Verizon and Crown Castle to relocate their utilities. Once the overhead utilities are relocated and the new 20” High Pressure Gas is tied in by Con Edison, then only can the north side of the bridge structure be demolished. Question B: For the Department to address this required 2nd stage of bridge construction, will additional traffic restrictions for a duration of 200 days be permitted (following the 70 days of full closure), where one 10.5’ travel lane in both travel directions is provided, along with a 10’ turn lane and one 5’ sidewalk (36’ Total Width). " Answer A: See Addendum 2 Answer B: See Addendum 2 Question 84: REF: Addendum 1, Part 2, Section 14.3.C Per Addendum 1, Part 2, Section 14.3.C, the sewer main located on the north side of the existing bridge shall now be replaced with a minimum 66” diameter steel pipe with welded connections. Question: Does the inside and outside of this pipe need any special protective coating to prevent chemical reaction with sewer gases? Please provide detail of protective coating and specification. Answer: See Addendum 2

Question 85: REF: Final RFP, Part 6, Directive & Indicative Drawings - Route 1 Over Mamaroneck River Site Currently there are five directive drawings (Drawing Numbers RTE-01, RTE-02, RTE-03, LAP-01 & LAP-02) and four indicative drawings (Drawing Numbers TYP-01, TYP-02, GNP-01, GNP-02) for the Route 1 Over Mamaroneck River Site. Also, directive drawing GN-01 provides a few notes related to the Route 1 Over Mamaroneck River Site. Question: As the scope of work and directive drawing LAP-01 at this site indicates the design and construction of new retaining wall for Pocket Park, does the NYSDOT have any other layout and/or alignment CAD drawings for this area so the Design Builders can perform a preliminary design for both the length, height, width of the wall and design a foundation for this retaining wall? Answer: CAD files have been posted as Reference Files. Question 86: REF: Final RFP, Part 6, Directive Drawing LAP-01 - Route 1 Mamaroneck Pocket Park Directive drawing LAP-01 indicates that a new retaining wall is required to retain the fill, planting bed, precast concrete pavers, topsoil and seed area, and concrete sidewalk. The actual horizontal limits of the proposed retaining wall are not defined as the limits of this retaining wall, the concrete sidewalk and planting bed are cut off the drawing without being terminated. Question: Can the Department either define the horizontal limits of the new retaining wall, the concrete sidewalk and the planting bed or provide an updated drawing that includes this information? Answer: CAD files have been posted as Reference Files Question 87: REF: Final RFP, ITP - General Instructions, Appendix A, Section A5.1 Anticipated Procurement Schedule The final date for Proposers to submit ATC’s for review is November 25, 2019 and the final date for the Department’s responses to ATCs submitted for review is two weeks later on December 9, 2019. We believe it will be very beneficial to both the Department and to all Proposers if these two dates could be extended just one week to allow the Proposers enough additional time after the next One-On-One Meeting (i.e. 3rd) to submit their ATCs for the project as the last (i.e. 4th) One-On-One Meeting is currently scheduled after the ATC submission deadline. Question: Therefore, will the Department consider postponing both the final date for Proposers to submit ATC’s for review (November 25, 2019) and final date for the Department’s responses to ATCs submitted for review (December 9, 2019) one (1) week from its current due dates thereby the Department will still have their two week review period for all ATC's. Answer: See Addendum 5 Question 88: REF: Part 3, Section 18.3.1.4.A Question: Section 18.3.1.4.A Closed Circuit TV states that the limits of ITS need to be covered. Please clarify if the entire ITS limits need to be covered by the CCTV network, as shown in Part 7 – Engineering Data for the Project ITS Limits (HRP). Answer: See Addendum 5 Question 89: REF: Part 3, Section 18.3.1.4.A Question: There is a stated requirement in 18.3.1.4.A.II for video analytic software. What are the requirements for this software? Answer: See Addendum 5 Question 90: REF: Part 3, Section 18.3.1.7 Question: In Section 18.3.1.7 for the New Flood Monitoring Stations, what sensory equipment is required for the storm water and runoff monitoring. Answer: See Addendum 5

Question 91: REF: Final RFP, ITP, Appendix C, Page C-8, Table C: Table C in Appendix C located in page C-8 of the IFP references the maximum page limits for all Volume 2 Narratives. Some of these sections will require more pages to address the three sites for this project. Question: Therefore would the Department consider increasing the page limits of the following Narrative Writings: Volume 2, Section B2 – Design Approach Narrative from 10 pages to 12 pages; Volume 2, Section B3 – Overall Project Construction Sequence Narrative from 6 pages to 8 pages; Volume 2, Section B3 – Work Zone Traffic Control from 3 pages to 6 pages; and Volume 2, Section 3 – Drainage Modifications from 1 page to 2 pages? Answer: See Addendum 5 Question 92: REF: ConEd’s CE-SI-1080 Section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 states that construction activities that included pile driving, hydraulic breaking, drilling or boring actives must be approved prior to commencing of work. Question: Please provide the minimum clearances that the Proposers are to assume for each of the demolition and subsurface construction activities adjacent to Consolidated Edison Co’s Oil-O-Static lines that run along Lincoln Avenue and crosses the HRP and Hutchinson River approximately 140 ft south of the Lincoln Avenue Bridge? Answer: Requirements for the Oil-O-Static line are included in the Reference Files. Question 93: REF: Only one subsurface utility engineering test hole Field Data Report (Test hole TH-3) has been provided that validates the location and depth of the Oil-O-Static lines that crosses the HRP and Hutchinson River approximately 140 ft south of the Lincoln Avenue Bridge. Test Hole TH-4 states that no utility was found. This utility will impact where a bypass culvert can be located and to what depth, roadway drainage and floodwall details. Question: Please provide an alignment and profile of this utility within the project limits. Answer: All available data has been provided. We are attempting to obtain additional test pits and will share any new information obtained. Question 94: REF: Reference Documents Question: Would NYSDOT or Consolidated Edison of NY please provide the unit weight per linear foot for the existing Oil-O-Static line. This is required to design the utility hanging support for the utility during construction and on the bridge? Answer: See Addendum 5 Question 95: REF: Part 3, Section 23.1 Part 3 Section 23.1 states that if floodwalls are to be used, they shall not be directly overtopped below the Q100 rate. Question: Will the Department provide a freeboard criteria for the top of the floodwall? Answer: Per Section 23.1, floodwalls shall not be directly overtopped below the Q100 flow rate. Question 96: REF: Part 3, Section 22 Part 3 Section 22.3.2 states the Design-Builder shall provide a 1' left shoulder width and 8' right shoulder width for the Saw Mill River Parkway. In order to prevent the spread from encroaching onto the left travel lane as required by NYSDOT HDM Section 8.7.4.4.C, inlets would need to be provided at approximately 35' - 40' spacing along the parkway, due to the super-elevation of the proposed roadway. Question: In order to improve the ride-ability of the parkway, would the Department consider issuing an exception to the Highway Design Manual requirement to limit the spread to the shoulder (at the left shoulder)? If the allowable

spread at the left shoulder was increased from 1' to 2', the inlet spacing would increase to approximately 140' (and 100' at the low points). Answer: No Question 97: Question: RFP Part 3 Section 21.1 states “All drainage infrastructure on the state highway system shall be replaced within the project limits as shown in Part 6, Directive Drawings.” Please confirm that the intent is for DB to remove and replace all existing drainage with new pipe and structures, wherever it is listed on Directive Drawing GN-01 Directive Notes. Answer: This is confirmed. Question 98: REF: Directive Drawing GN-01 Directive Notes states new curbs and underdrains are to be installed, including in mill and resurface areas. RFP Part 3 Section 20 states no partial-width full depth reconstruction will be permitted, and that any roadway requiring full depth reconstruction shall be reconstructed for its full width. Question: Please confirm installation of new drainage and/or underdrains does not require full width full depth reconstruction. Answer: This is confirmed. Question 99: REF: Question: RFP Part 7 “Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat Consultation” letter established numerous Environmental Performance Commitments to be followed at Route 1. For “Underwater Noise”, one of the commitments are no driven piles or sheeting. Does this restriction apply if piles are installed behind the existing structure? Answer: No Question 100: REF: Question: Part 4 Section A-3.1.1 lists multiple overhead lines to be relocated at Lincoln Avenue. The time frame for each of the utility owners is 3 weeks after Con Ed completes their work and vacates their poles. Please clarify whether the 3-week time frame is concurrent with each other, or will it be 3 weeks successive per overhead utility. Answer: Successive Question 101: REF: Question: Part 4 Section A-3.1.2 states Con Ed will be responsible for installing two utility poles along the east side of First Avenue and removing the pole at the southeast corner of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and First Avenue.

a. Please confirm this is in addition to removing the 5 utility poles at the south side of Lincoln Avenue between Wilson Woods Park Rd and First Avenue.

b. What is the anticipated timeframe for the removal and installation of these 2 poles along the east side of First Avenue?

c. Will the Department be providing a drawing of the anticipated location of these 2 poles?

Answer A: No, this is part of the same relocation work.

Answer B: Included as part of electric relocation timeframes.

Answer C: See Addendum 5

Question 102: REF: Question: Part 4 Section A-3.1.2 states the timeframe for Con Ed to relocate their electric lines is 20 weeks. Start date for this work is approximated to be September 15th, 2020 per Q&A Question #8. Con Ed is to relocate the lines in conduits relocated by the DB. This assumes DB has installed temporary conduit prior to September 15th, 2020, to the nearest manhole or riser pole. Should this work require excavation and therefore require installation of WZTC devices, will this trigger the start of counting traffic impact durations which is limited to 270 days on Lincoln Avenue? Answer: Yes Question 103: REF: Question: Part 4 Section A-3.1.2 states Con Ed shall remove their 5 utility poles on the south side of Lincoln Avenue after the last utility company has vacated the poles and is scheduled to be completed no later than June 2021. During the utility information meeting, it was stated the removal would take 4 weeks. Please confirm the timeframe Con Ed anticipates for completion of the removal. Answer: The referenced 4 weeks pertained to both the distribution line relocations and pole removals. The pole removals are not an additional 4 weeks.

Question 104: REF: Question: Part 4 Section A-3.1.2 states Con Ed shall supply all materials for the temporary and permanent conduit installations including but not limited to manholes, conduits and all associated fittings. However, in a later section, Section A-4.1.2 states Design Builder shall be responsible for furnishing the fiberglass conduits and wooden supports, and all other materials is by Con Ed. Please clarify whether Con Ed is supplying all material, or all material except fiberglass conduits and the wooden supports. Answer: ConEd will be responsible for supplying all materials for the conduit installation, including but not limited to manholes, conduits and all associated fittings. The Design-Builder is responsible for supplying supports, hangers and other hardware necessary.

Question 105: REF: Question: Part 4 Section A-3.3.1 states Verizon shall be responsible for the relocation of their cables from existing underground to the temporary, and from the temporary to the permanent. During the utility information meeting, the timeframe for this was stated as 60 to 90 days per relocation. Please confirm the timeframe for the Verizon work. Answer: From existing underground to temporary poles is 60-90 days. Installation of the new cables into the permanent conduit is 60 days. Removal of the existing cables from the existing conduits is 60 days.

Question 106: REF: Question: Part 4 Section A-3.3.2 states Con Ed shall supply all materials for the temporary and permanent conduit installations at Route 1. Section A-4.3.2 states Design Builder shall furnish the steel conduits. Reference PIN 847314 Con Ed Utility Package contains a letter dated October 10, 2019, stating precast concrete, steel and fiberglass conduits will be furnished by Con Edison. Question A: Please clarify whether all conduits are furnished by Con Edison. Question B: In the reference utility package, drawings show fiberglass conduit across the proposed bridge location. Please clarify whether the conduit required is fiberglass or steel. Answer A: See Addendum 5. Answer B: See Addendum 5.

Question 107: REF: Part 7: The City of Mount Vernon Sewer Maps from Part 7 show existing Mount Vernon manhole #3 on Lincoln Ave. and an unlabeled manhole to the north, at the northeast corner of BIN 5500100. Question: The construction of the new bridge and the floodwalls along the east side of Hutchinson River Parkway will limit/restrict the City of Mount Vernon access to these two manholes; was this condition reviewed and accepted by CMV? Answer: The Department does not anticipate this being an issue based on the height of the floodwall required as part of the Indicative plan. If the Design-Build teams sees this being an issue as part of their proposal, they should coordinate with the City.

Question 108: REF: Part 7B The asbestos report included in Part 7B of the RFP for the East Lincoln Ave Bridge over the Hutchinson River identifies several existing utilities we assume to be abandoned along the north sidewalk of the Lincoln Ave Bridge that are assumed Asbestos Containing Material (ACM). These utilities include telephone ducts, lighting ducts, 2-12” gas mains and a 10” water line that cannot be located and is not identified on record plans. The record plans provided for BIN 348300 in the Reference Documents make reference to these utilities on the first sheet of the PDF under the notes. None of these utilities are referenced in Part 4 of the RFP, Section A-2- ‘Utility Inventory’. Question: Should it be assumed that all these utilities are abandoned in place and will all require asbestos abatement? Answer: Telephone and lighting ducts are abandoned in place and assumed to have no asbestos. There is one 12” gas main across BIN 5500100 which splits to one 12” and one 8” gas main over BIN 3348300 which are assumed to have asbestos. We are not aware of the existence of the 10” water line. Question 109: REF: Part 4, Section A-3.12 During the utility coordination meeting, it was stated that ConEd requires 4 weeks to remove the existing overhead poles on the south side of Lincoln Ave after they have relocated their lines into their temporary alignment and each of the 5 fiber optic utility owners have also relocated their lines. Question: We do not see this 4-week period referenced in Part 4 of the RFP, please confirm this duration. Part 4, Section A-3.12 of the RFP states this work will be performed by June, 2021, please clarify whether this is to mean 6/1/2021 or 6/30/2021. Answer: The 4 weeks is included in the 20 weeks total for the temporary relocation. This is confirmed to be 6/1/2021. Question 110: REF: Table SCD Table SCD-2a as included in Appendix E of the ITP provides a maximum allowable traffic impact duration for ‘East Lincoln Avenue/First Ave Corridor’ of 270 days. The same table provides a maximum traffic impact duration of 210 days for ‘East Lincoln Bridge over Hutchinson River Parkway and Hutchinson River. Based on notes 8 and 9 for this table, we interpret the 270-day limit for traffic impacts on East Lincoln Ave/First Avenue Corridor to include the duration allowed for the 210 days to detour the East Lincoln Avenue Traffic, demolish the existing structures, build the replacement bridge, and place traffic into its final configuration. We further assume that the remaining 60 days allowed for the ‘East Lincoln Ave/First Ave Corridor’ allows for all utility relocation, and other final restoration work that requires WZTC controls to be in-place but does not require Lincoln Ave to be detoured. Question A: Is this interpretation correct? Answer A: See Addendum 5. Provided the utility coordination time durations from Part 4 of the RFP, 700 calendar days would be required for traffic impacts to the East Lincoln Avenue/ First Ave Corridor, plus any time required to construct and demolish the temporary bridge. This duration is derived from the need to install the temporary bridge and conduits prior to any utility relocation, and the accumulation of the following time periods:

· 35 weeks (245 CD) for the utility companies to perform their relocates (20 week relocation duration for ConEd electric and 3 week relocation duration for each of the five fiber optic companies) · 30 weeks (210 CD) to detour Lincoln Ave, demolish the existing structures and construct the new bridge and approaches · 35 weeks (245 CD) to relocate the utilities to their final location on Lincoln Ave · Once the utilities are relocated, further traffic impacts are required for demolition of the temporary bridge, and restoration of the tie-ins at Wilson Woods Park Rd and First Ave. In reference to the above interpretation and computation of traffic impact duration for ‘East Lincoln Ave/ First Avenue Corridor’, please clarify the following questions regarding the rules for counting these impact days: Question B: Will traffic impact days be counted against the 270-day total if between operations, WZTC devices are removed? Answer B: See Addendum 5. Question C: Will the traffic impacts from work performed by or waiting periods as referenced in Part 4 of the RFP by 3rd party utility owners be counted towards these durations? Answer C: Yes Question 111: REF: SCD Form Question: Will Liquidated Damages be specified for all required milestone periods as described in Form SCD in a final addendum? Answer: See Addendum 5. Question 112: REF: Part 4, Appendix A, Part A-3 Question: With regards to the counting of Traffic Impact Days per Form SCD in the ITP, please clarify the following: a) Will traffic impact days be counted between times when WZTC controls are removed and the site is turned over to Utility Companies to perform the required relocation work as per their Utility Work Agreement (HC-140) to the time the DB Contractor is remobilized? b) Will the days in which a Third Party Utility has to perform their utility relocates, per the requirements listed in Part 4, Appendix A, Part A-3 of the RFP, be counted towards the DB Contractor’s total traffic impact days? " Answer: See Addendum 5 for changes to Form SCD. The notes define how days will be counted. Question 113: REF: SCD Form and Part 4, Appendix A, Part A-3 Question: Please clarify the 150-calendar day Traffic Impact Duration for the Route 1 Reconstruction as required per Form SCD. This requirement references Note 14 of this same form, which states in summary that Traffic Impact Days will be counted from the time any WZTC devices are installed at this work location to the time when all work is complete (park areas are restored, and vehicular/pedestrian traffic are back in their final configuration). Per Part 4 of the RFP, during the construction of this bridge all electric and fiber optic utilities will be relocated on overhead supports over the north sidewalk. Additionally, the ConEdison 20” high pressure gas and 10” water line will also be relocated to the north sidewalk. Please be advised of the following as it relates to the RFP, Part 4: • Part 4 of the RFP indicates that ConEdison Electric has 10 weeks to relocate their lines. • Verizon must relocate their lines from the existing duct banks. RFP Part 4 Section A-2.3.1 is silent as to the required duration. Since all utility companies are required by state law 3 week notice for any costumer interruptions, let’s assume 3 weeks will be required for this discussion. • Crown Castle must relocate their line located within the Verizon Duct Banks. They will require 3 weeks after Verizon has completed their relocations. • ConEdison requires 3 weeks to perform each live tie-in of a gas main construction. Two (2) live tie-ins are required for both the temporary relocation and the final relocation for a total of 6 weeks per relocation. The above referenced deadlines for Third Party Utilities were used to calculate the following durations of Traffic Impact Days required:

• Closure of north sidewalk: at least 22 weeks (154 calendar days) prior to the demolition of the existing bridge structure and subsequent temporary relocation of utilities. This 22-week duration assumes the DB Contractor can concurrently perform their required work to relocate install the 20” high pressure gas main and 10” water main over the north sidewalk or 66” box beam sewer. • Per Form SCD, a 10-week (70 calendar day) closure is permitted for the full closure of the Route 1 Bridge over Mamaroneck River and the intersection of Route 1 (Boston Post Rd.) with Mamaroneck Ave. During this phase of construction, the bridge will be demolished and replaced up to the south side of the box beam sewer. • After the Stage 1 bridge structure is complete, which will include the installation of the structure supported 66” sewer pipe, 10” water main, 20” high pressure gas main, and duct banks for fiber optic and electric lines, the utility companies will be required to relocate their lines from their temporary location over the sidewalk to the new bridge structure. This includes ConEdison performing live tie-ins of the new gas main, relocation of ConEdison distribution feeders, and relocation of Verizon and Crown Castle Fiber Optic Cables. These relocations will take an additional 22 weeks (154 calendar days) per Part 4 of the RFP. • To determine our overall duration, we assume the DB Contractor can work concurrently with aforementioned utilities to perform tie-in of 66” steel sewer pipe. This will involve construction of doghouse manholes, bypass pumping, and construction of bulkheads within the existing pipe. • After all temporary utilities are relocated to their final configuration, the demolition of the existing 66” box beam sewer can commence along with the stone arch and headwalls on the north side of the bridge. Finally, the remaining bridge structure can be completed. Due to the WZTC restrictions as provided in Addendum 2, Part 2, Section 19.3.5.C of the RFP, the majority of this work will need to be performed during one shift per day during nighttime hours. It is anticipated for Stage 1 that work will be occurring on multiple shifts including weekends to achieve the 70-day complete closure limit. Therefore, based on our assumption and analysis, Stage 2 require 25 weeks (175 calendar days). Will the Department increase the maximum Traffic Impact Days to a duration that is consistent with Part 4, Appendix A, Section A-4 of the RFP? " Answer: See Addendum 5. Question 114: REF: SCD Form and Part 4 Appendix A Part A-3 Question: Please clarify the 90-calendar day Traffic Impact Duration provided for the Hutchinson River Parkway (HRP) Reconstruction, per Form SCD. Note 10 in reference to this requirement in summary states that all work within the limits of work on the HRP must be completed within 90 calendar days of the time the first WZTC devices are installed on the parkway. The following work activities for this site will require WZTC on the Hutchinson River Parkway, per the limits defined in Note 10 of Form SCD: o Installation of the temporary bridge (as per the indicative plan). This will occur at least 294 calendar days prior to the demolition of the existing bridges, per the required time periods referenced in Part 4 of the RFP o Temporary relocation of utilities o Demolition of existing Lincoln Ave. Bridge o Reconstruction of Lincoln Ave. Bridge o Installation of new 12’x4’ box culvert along west side of HRP o Installation of floodwalls o Replacement of all remaining drainage system o Removal of pavements and grading as required to achieve Q50 elevation curb to curb o Removal and replacement of existing median barrier o Removal of curb and guardrail o Removal of signage o Milling and paving work o Installation of new curb and guardrail o Installation of new median barrier o Installation of lighting system and required ITS o Removal of the temporary bridge after final utility relocations (no less than 294 days after construction of new Lincoln Ave. Bridge, per Part 4 durations provided in the RFP). It is assumed that the following days will be counted against the Total Traffic Impact Days allowed per Form SCD:

o Times between when WZTC controls are removed in an area to the time they are reinstalled o Durations provided to Third Party Utilities to perform their relocations Does the Department concur that all the above-mentioned work activities will require Traffic Impacts (or WZTC measures) to be installed on Hutchinson River Parkway? If so, we believe the longest path of this construction is as follows, totaling 868 calendar days: o Assumed 4 weeks for construction of temporary bridge o 294 calendar days are then required by others to perform all Third-Party Utility relocations, including 4 weeks for tie-in of the gas main. o 210 calendar days for demolition and reconstruction of the Lincoln Ave. structures (detour duration permitted as per Form SCD) o 294 calendar days required by others to relocate utilities off the temporary bridge and onto the permanent bridge o Assumed 6 weeks for removal of the temporary bridge and restoration of area The remaining work activities will be performed concurrently with the above critical path activities. Will the Department increase the maximum Traffic Impact Days to a duration that is compliant with Part 4, Appendix A, Section A-4 of the RFP? We suggest 868 calendar days be provided, which is reflective of the construction approach suggested on the indicative plans. In furtherance, the 868 calendar day time period referenced above for this milestone exceeds the total duration between Notice to Proceed (anticipated April 30, 2020) and Substantial Completion on July 16, 2022 (or 90 days prior to required Project Completion). Therefore, the Project Completion Date needs to be re-evaluated. Assuming the above referenced activity for removal and replacement of the Lincoln Ave Bridges begins immediately upon the removal of the ConEdison overhead poles on the South sidewalk of Lincoln Ave in June of 2021 and following the remainder of the timeline established above, the work at this site could feasibly be complete sometime in December 2022. Final Project Completion should therefore be adjusted to no earlier than March 31, 2023." Answer: See Addendum 5. Question 115: REF: Form SCD Question: Form SCD lists 270 calendar days as the maximum traffic impact duration for East Lincoln Avenue/First Avenue Corridor. Per Q&A #8, Con Edison Electric is approximated to start relocation of their existing lines on September 15th, 2020. However, this requires DB to have constructed all temporary conduits for Con Edison (and other utilities) to install the temporary cables before removing the existing. Temporary connection is expected to be either to the nearest manhole or riser poles on each side of the bridges. This work would require setup of WZTC devices on East Lincoln Avenue, which starts counting of the 270 maximum traffic impact days, PRIOR to the approximated September 15, 2020 Con Edison start of work. The expected durations for the utility work to relocate to the temporary is 20 weeks for Con Edison to vacate the poles, 3 weeks for all other aerial relocations after Con Ed (assuming all 6 listed utilities can work concurrently, otherwise this would be 18 weeks), and then per the utility info meeting, another 4 weeks for Con Edison to remove the existing poles, which is anticipated to be completed no later than June 2021. There is also a 28-day duration for Con Edison Gas to perform live tie-ins at both ends of the project site, assumed to be done at the same time. This is a total duration of 27 weeks (189 days), or worst case 42 weeks (294 days), all of which would be counted as traffic impact days, before DB can even begin demolition of the existing bridge. The expected durations for the utility work to relocate to the permanent is another 20 weeks for Con Edison to relocate from the temporary to the new. An optimistic assumption is made that the permanent relocation of all 6 other utilities are also progressing at the same time, in addition to Con Edison Gas performing live tie-ins. This tallies to 47 weeks (329 days), or worst case 62 weeks (434 days) of traffic impact which have been taken up solely by the utilities, and not in DB control. This is also the minimum duration for which temporary utilities will be in place before they can be removed. Similarly, Form SCD lists 90 calendar days as the maximum traffic impact duration for the Hutchinson River Parkway. The counting of impact days commences with setup of necessary WZTC devices on the HRP. This is potentially started via the installation of a temporary bridge and may stop upon removal of the temporary bridge. WZTC devices on the HRP would also be required for any of the ramp closures. Is the intent that 90 calendar days will be the maximum traffic impact for install and removal of a temporary bridge, removal and replacement of the existing drainage which crosses the HRP, construction of flood mitigation practices which may include a bypass culvert and floodwalls, widening of HRP, replacement of median barrier and reconstruction of all 4 Ramps?

Please re-evaluate the Form SCD stipulations for East Lincoln Avenue and Hutchinson River Parkway. Answer: See Addendum 5. Question 116: REF: Question: Record drawings for SMRP show “Traffic Monitors” in the vicinity of both bridges to be replaced. Do these need to be replaced in kind? Answer: Yes Question 117: REF: Form SCD lists 150 calendar days as the maximum traffic impact duration for Route 1 over Mamaroneck River. Part 4 Section A-4.3.3 states DB is responsible for excavating all trenches for temporary and final relocations, pertaining to the gas line. For the temporary gas line to be relocated, street closures would be required thereby triggering the count of traffic impact duration days. This would include the stipulated 14-days required for each live tie-in (there are 2) each, performed by Con Edison, before DB would be able to begin demolition of the existing bridge.

Per the utility information meeting, upon completion of permanent conduit installation, DB must then wait 60 to 90 days for Verizon to relocate their cables from the temporary overhead to the permanent, and 10 weeks for Con Edison to relocate their lines from the temporary overhead to the permanent. An additional 2 weeks is then required for Crown Castle to relocate from the temporary overhead to the permanent. Con Ed then has 2 weeks to remove the temporary poles. Only then will DB be able to finish construction of the new north sidewalk.

At the same time, assuming DB has also constructed the permanent gas over the new bridge and at the approaches via an approved Con Edison contractor, Con Edison is also allotted 14-days for each live tie-in. After the new line is switched, DB can remove the temporary gas lines.

Assuming both divisions of Con Edison and Verizon are all able to work concurrently, this is potentially 146 days that is outside of DB control before traffic can be returned to its original configuration and stop the count of traffic impact days allowing only 4 days to demo and reconstruct the bridge.

Question: Please re-evaluate the maximum traffic impact duration days allowed for Route 1 over Mamaroneck River. Answer: See Addendum 5.

Question 118: REF: RFP Part 7 Question: The proposer requests additional Subsurface Utility Engineering Test Holes along Lincoln Avenue to determine the profile of the Static Oil Transmission lines over the Hutchinson River Parkway. The proposer requests the holes be located at the crown and the abutments of the bridge span. Answer: The Department is in the process of obtaining additional SUE test pits for the Oil-O-Static line. Question 119: REF: RFP Part 3, Section 13.3.5 Question: The proposer requests NYSDOT confirm that surcharge load of 375 psf is to be considered in addition to live loading and any loading resulting from profile raises. Answer: The surcharge load of 375 psf accounts for all potential surface loadings and should be treated as a dead load. Question 120: REF: Part 4 Question: When does the Department expect to provide the Utility Agreements? Answer: Prior to the amendment deadline.

Question 121: REF: Part 3 Section 1.3.1, Part 6 Directive Notes, Part 7 Design Criteria Tables

The Part 7 Design Criteria Tables states the following: the right shoulder in both directions from the existing culvert crossing the HRP until the northern limit of work, will retain the existing non-standard width of approximately 6.5'. This culvert (labeled as CIN 890710 on Part 6 Indicative Dwg. BYP-5) would need to be extended to maintain this 6.5' shoulder, as shown on Part 6 Directive Dwg. HRP-03 at around Sta. HRP 110+00.

Question: Can the Department confirm that it is their intent to extend the existing culvert in order to provide the 6.5' shoulder? Part 3 Section 1.3.1 and the Part 6 Directive Notes do not include this work. Answer: Our intent is to maintain the existing approximately 6.5’ wide shoulder, not to extend the culvert. Question 122: REF: Question: Has the department obtained NYCDOT Bureau of Permit Management and Construction Control Work Permit for HRP closure as noted in part 3 section 1.5? If so, please provide this permit. Answer: See Addendum 5.