Sacramento to Roseville Third Track Phase 1 Final Engineering Design RFSOQ
Following are questions we have received from prospective proposers along with respective answers. This page will be updated as new questions come in until July 3rd, 2017, 5:00pm PST.
This page was last updated on July 7, 2017.
- Please explain the Project Team’s responsibility for ROW engineering, surveying, etc.
ROW engineering, including surveying, would be part of the expected scope of work. There has not been much trackside engineering work done beyond station platforms and the area around the proposed layover track facility. Negotiating property acquisition with the land owners for the third mainline will be handled by Union Pacific.
- Will contract documents be executed with CCJPA or UPRR? Please also discuss any general vs. special conditions that are applicable.
The contract documents for the RFSOQ will be executed with CCJPA. The selected consultant team of the RFSOQ will work for CCJPA to produce the designs and other materials, which will be reviewed by UPRR for construction bid documents. As for special conditions, aside from UPRR-specific track design standards, there may be other design criteria (e.g. Amtrak) that may apply to the layover yard.
- How many Project Team members can we include in the Organization Chart? How many resumes to include in the SOQ submittal? And how many relevant projects to list in each resume?
You can include as many Project Team members as is warranted in the Organization Chart, but please include at least five. For resumes, please limit the number to five of the Key Personnel, and limit the number of relevant projects to three for each resume.
- Can you elaborate on the ancillary facilities that may need to be designed for at the layover yard?
Some ancillary facilities at the layover yard may include fuel and fuel truck storage, crew room, etc. There may be a fuel pump, but that is unlikely. The full functions of the crew base are still undetermined, so additional changes to the ancillary facilities at the layover yard are possible as the project develops.
- For bridge designs for this project, are you expecting type selection suggestions?
- Are there any DBE or SBE rules for this RFSOQ?
All funding is State, no Federal funding.
- When would we need to submit sealed envelopes of proposed rates?
You will need to submit sealed rate proposals when you are invited for oral interview.
- Can you discuss any previous explorations for assessing property acquisitions, for both CCJPA and UPRR?
We are unaware of any previous explorations for assessing property acquisitions.
- What is your position on potential consultants reaching out to stakeholders with questions when we are preparing our SOQ’s?
Please do not contact any private property holders near the project site or Amtrak for questions or comments. UPRR is part of the review panel, and they will be answering any questions through this Q&A format. General outreach to project stakeholders is discouraged, however, you could talk to peers who have worked with City of Roseville or UPRR.
- I assume the selected consultant team will need to coordinate closely with UPRR for any project tasks that require us to go out to the existing ROW, such as geotechnical boring?
- Will flagging be provided by Union Pacific?
- Do we need to fill out Section 14 of Exhibit 2, Statement of Qualifications and Business References, which asks for references to a surety company or companies?
Completing and signing the entirety of the Statement of Qualifications and Business References form is required under the RFSOQ. The answers that a Proposer provides will be dependent upon the Proposer’s business practice. The information presented in the Statement of Qualifications and Business References form will help determine whether the Proposer is a qualified and responsible firm.
- How will the selected consultant team support the public outreach process of this project?
Potential public outreach for this project will likely involve public meetings in the City of Roseville, and HDR, CCJPA’s on-call engineering consultant, will be mainly responsible for the public outreach aspect of the project. The selected consultant team may support public outreach efforts by answering questions about design aspects either in a written format or in a public meeting format.
- Should the responses to sections J through N of the SOQ submittal be in separate sections?
- How should we submit the draft project schedule in the SOQ submittal?
In a separate attachment.
- Can we recreate the Exhibits in the RFSOQ document for our SOQ submittals?
Yes, just make sure to keep the look the same.
- What do you expect the role of the selected consultant team to be for supporting the environmental process, as mentioned in the RFSOQ document?
The selected consultant team may be supporting a supplemental EIR that is related to relocating parking in the City of Roseville. Fehr & Peers, a subconsultant for HDR, is managing the parking mitigation aspects of the project, so the selected consultant team will likely need to work through CCJPA but ultimately with HDR and Fehr & Peers on the potential supplemental EIR.
- Is there a list of firms that would face potential conflict of interest on this project?
Please check list of preparers for the Sacramento to Roseville Third Track Final EIR, available on the Capitol Corridor website (capitolcorridor.org/sac-roseville-third-track/)
- Can we submit financial statements in a separate sealed envelope? Do we need to include financial statements in the electronic SOQ submittal?
Yes, to both questions.
- Is the selected consultant team expected to create and submit construction staging plans?
Yes, at the 90% design level, a phasing plan will be prepared for track construction based on input from Union Pacific. Phased construction plans are not likely required for the layover facility, because the area is away from existing active tracks.
- Who will be responsible for construction of the project?
Union Pacific will be responsible for mainline track work, but likely a contractor will be responsible for layover facility and station platform/track construction.
- How will HAZMAT investigation and contaminated soil removal ahead of construction be managed for the project?
The selected consultant team will notify of any HAZMAT issues discovered in the project areas. Union Pacific will perform soil testing for contaminants at the 30% design level and will prepare a report on how contaminated soil will be handled by the contractor during construction. The report will be included in the bid documents.
- Will power service or exterior lighting outside of the ROW and layover yard during construction need to be designed by the selected consultant team?
Additionally, new electrical services will be needed for power to signal control points, and lights will be needed at hand throw switches in yard and at crew change landing pads.
- Will bridge assessments need to be performed for this project? For any overhead bridges along the ROW project area, what types of assessments will need to be done by the selected consultant team?
Yes, bridge assessments will need be done for the 25% design documents. Assessment elements may include pier protection, height restrictions, etc. Hydrology and Hydraulic (H&H) studies will be needed for drainage structures.
- Are the comments on the existing Sacramento-Roseville 3rd Track Project conceptual documents on CCJPA’s website UP’s? What do the red lines indicate?
Yes, the comments on the conceptual design documents were made by UP. The red line indicates existing tracks. The selected consultant must prepare the plans using Union Pacific’s standard symbology, which is different from what is shown on the conceptual plan.
- J.3.a says “Show the estimated percentage of time to be spent on the Project by each firm and individual team member identified in the Organization Chart.” Please confirm this information would be an attachment to Part 1 Section D.
Yes, the estimated percentage of time for each team member should be part of Section D.
- J.3.c states that 3 projects per staff resume but J.3.b says resumes are limited to 2 pages in length. More than 3 projects can fit on 2 pages. Which parameter takes precedence?
Please list 3 projects per resume, and do your best to limit the number of pages to 2 for the entire resume. Project descriptions and information should be succinct enough to fit into 2 pages.
- R.b.1 states that a milestone delivery schedule would be submitted at the interview. Is this the same schedule referenced in R.a.3?
It would be the same schedule referenced in R.a.3, but in further detail. The more detailed schedule submitted at the interview should demonstrate additional insight, knowledge, and capabilities of the project team.
- Page 4 of 9, Section J.3.a – this section states that a “minimum” of 5 team members should be shown on the org chart, however, the next section (J.3.b) states that resumes should be shown for everyone shown on the org chart, BUT a “total of 5” resumes are to be submitted. So do we only show 5 team members of the org chart ONLY?
You can include as many Project Team members as is warranted in the Organization Chart, but please include at least five. For resumes, please limit the number to five of the Key Personnel.
- Page 5 of 9, Section J.3.c – this section refers to a “Section E-19”, however, when downloaded the SF330 from the GSA link provided, there is no section E-19. Is this actually SF330 Section F? And subsequently, is the next section (J.3.d) referring to SF330 Section G?
Section E-19 refers to Section E, block 19, Relevant Projects (see top of right column on page 2 of 14 on the SF330 document that you downloaded from GSA). J.3.d refers to SF330 Section F, Example Projects Which Best Illustrate Proposed Team’s Qualifications for this Contract (see also right column on page 2 of 14 on the SF330 document).
- Page 5 of 9, Section J.3.c – also regarding this section, it states ONLY 3 relevant projects should be provided. Should these only be from the Prime or can one be from a major subconsultant?
The relevant projects listed for each resume should be projects that the individual has worked on or is working on, regardless whether the individual is with the Prime or with a major subconsultant.
- Page 5 of 9, Section J.3.e – is SF330 Section H (Narrative) only submitted by the Prime or does CCJPA want this provided by the subconsultant as well?
The narrative for Section H is limited to 2 pages total and should discuss the project team’s approach and any proposed innovations in performing engineering services as required by the Scope of Services. The project team implies both prime and subconsultants.
- Does Section E-19 belong in Section E – Resumes for Project Team or is this a separate section?
Yes, E-19 (Relevant Projects) should be included in each resume submitted as part of Section E.
- Section E-19 states that a “listing of relevant projects (not to exceed shall be provided).” Does this mean only three projects per resume?
Yes, please only list three projects per resume.
- In past SF330 submittals to CCJPA, Section G – Key Personnel Participation in Example Projects was required. Is this section not required in this submittal?
Correct, Section G is not required for this RFSOQ submittal.
- Is an electronic signature acceptable for the SF330 Part IIs or do you require original signatures?
Electronic signatures on SF330 Part II forms are acceptable.
- Exhibit 1 asks for percentage of work AND anticipated dollar value of participation for each proposed team member. We do not have a dollar value yet since we are not preparing a cost proposal. How do we fill out this column?
TBD is acceptable for the anticipated dollar value column.
- Where should the milestone delivery schedule be placed in the submittal? We understand that this will be a standalone page, but is it part of Section H of the SF330? If so, is the schedule counted as one of the two allotted pages?
The milestone delivery schedule can be part of Section H or a standalone page from the SF330 format, whatever fits best into the submittal. The schedule will not count toward one of the two allotted pages for Section H.