advise the Department of their intent to salvage two Mast Arms adjacent to the Miramar interchange. The DBF stated their intent to salvage the two mast arms was clearly spelled in the language on page three of their Technical Proposal under Signalization (after it was reduced to allegedly fit the page limit requirement of the RFP). Also, that ATC No. 7 allowed for the adjustment of the horizontal alignment of Miramar Parkway, which would impliedly provide the geometry required to salvage the mast arms and factually without a separate ATC submittal for such. However, it would be unreasonable to expect the Department to understand the DBF's intent to salvage the two Mast Arms based on the description used in their Technical proposal or impliedly in ATC No. 7 without the appropriate information required for all separately identified ATCs submittal under the RFP, Addendum 5, pages 19 and 20 of 94. Therefore it is understandable why this issue was not raised during the Q&A since it was not a known issue at that time. Reciprocally, it would not have automatically been raised as an issue involving ATC No. 7. unless you were aware of the DBF's unstated intent to salvage the two mast arms at the time of the ATC proposal. On the other hand, Had the DBF clearly defined their intention in the Technical Proposal, or separately identified in ATC No. 7 that these two mast arms or more “can” definitively will be salvaged, then the Department would have been given the required opportunity to accept or reject. Unfortunately this was not the case. DRB Recommendation RFP, Addendum 5, Section R, page 84 of 94 clearly states that the DBF reconstruct existing mast arm signals at the “shall Parkway Interchange There was insufficient notice ….” in the Technical Proposal and vague or no separately identified
advise the Department of their intent to salvage two Mast Arms adjacent to the Miramar interchange. The DBF stated their intent to salvage the two mast arms was clearly spelled in the language on page three of their Technical Proposal under Signalization (after it was reduced to allegedly fit the page limit requirement of the RFP). Also, that ATC No. 7 allowed for the adjustment of the horizontal alignment of Miramar Parkway, which would impliedly provide the geometry required to salvage the mast arms and factually without a separate ATC submittal for such. However, it would be unreasonable to expect the Department to understand the DBF's intent to salvage the two Mast Arms based on the description used in their Technical proposal or impliedly in ATC No. 7 without the appropriate information required for all separately identified ATCs submittal under the RFP, Addendum 5, pages 19 and 20 of 94. Therefore it is understandable why this issue was not raised during the Q&A since it was not a known issue at that time. Reciprocally, it would not have automatically been raised as an issue involving ATC No. 7. unless you were aware of the DBF's unstated intent to salvage the two mast arms at the time of the ATC proposal. On the other hand, Had the DBF clearly defined their intention in the Technical Proposal, or separately identified in ATC No. 7 that these two mast arms “can” or more definitively will be salvaged, then the Department would have been given the required opportunity to accept or reject. Unfortunately this was not the case. DRB Recommendation RFP, Addendum 5, Section R, page 84 of 94 clearly states that the DBF “shall reconstruct existing mast arm signals at the Parkway Interchange ….” There was insufficient notice in the Technical Proposal and vague or no separately identified