Advertisements   Division Home   Bid Results   Bid Tabs   Ad Report   VDOT Forms   ProjectWise
Project Info
Order Number UPC State Project Number Last Date to Post Questions
C94 110424 0360-004-664 C501, B607, B608 7/17/2020
Search Questions
Search
Question Type  
    Export Q&A    
Question List
Subject: Concrete Slab @ Abutment and MSE Type: Plan
Question Date: 7/14/2020 3:28:00 PM
Please clarify which pay item captures the 4" concrete slab which sits between MSE Coping and abutments.  
Answer   Date:
 
 
Subject: 12" Water Main Protection Type: Proposal
Question Date: 7/14/2020 9:24:05 AM
Page 7 of the proposal includes "PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR EXISTING 12-INCH WATER MAIN" and states that all costs associated with the shutdown, protection and final startup shall be included in the total cost bid for proposed bridge work. Is the contractor required to shutdown and restart the water main?  
Answer   Date:
 
 
Subject: Roadway Cross-over Aggregates Type: Proposal
Question Date: 7/13/2020 4:48:59 PM
Under which pay item will the removal of the 6” Aggregate Base Material used for the crossovers be paid?  
Answer   Date:
 
 
Subject: MSE Undercut Type: Plan
Question Date: 7/13/2020 9:49:09 AM
It notes on sheet 54 that contractor is to remove unsuitable/unstable material below the bottom of MSE wall and replace with select material. Please clarify if select material for replacing undercut is to follow lightweight aggregate spec.  
Answer   Date: 7/14/2020 9:40:14 AM
Unsuitable/unstable fill removed for MSE wall construction shall be replaced with select material in accordance with Section 207 of the VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications  
 
Subject: MSE Backfill Type: Specifications
Question Date: 7/13/2020 8:23:19 AM
Would the Department consider using an alternative Lightweight Fill, which has been used extensively throughout the state in identical applications? The product has been approved by wall manufacturers, and exceeds the load reduction in the current design. This product is currently being used via a special provision on the Transform I-66 project for the MSE wall backfill.  
Answer   Date: 7/14/2020 9:39:51 AM
Bids must be according to the current contract documents. Alternative backfill may be submitted for review and evaluation after award.  
 
Subject: Sheet Piling Type: Proposal
Question Date: 7/10/2020 2:54:28 PM
Our interpretation of Specification Section 402.04 and the Special Provision measure and payment for ITEM 270, NS RETAINING STRUCTURE (SHEET PILES STEEL) is that the pay quantity will be the total area of the piles driven, is this a correct interpretation?  
Answer   Date: 7/14/2020 9:46:07 AM
That is correct. Pay quantity is for the total area of the permanent piles driven that remain in place.  
 
Question Date: 6/29/2020 11:40:01 AM
Area Bid Items 280 - NS RETAINING STRUCTURE (TEMPORARY SHEET PILING) and 940 - TEMPORARY SHEET PILING duplicated items?  
Answer   Date: 7/8/2020 9:53:26 AM
These bid items are duplicate. An Addendum is forthcoming to clarify this issue  
 
Question Date: 6/29/2020 11:39:36 AM
Are Bid Items 270 - NS RETAINING STRUCTURE (SHEET PILES STEEL) and 930 - SHEET PILES STEEL duplicated items?  
Answer   Date: 7/8/2020 9:53:43 AM
These bid items are duplicate. An Addendum is forthcoming to clarify this issue  
 
Question Date: 6/29/2020 11:34:25 AM
Bid Item 930, SHEET PILE STEEL, is the vertical measurement for this item the actual length of the driving sheet piles?  
Answer   Date: 7/8/2020 9:54:01 AM
An Addendum is forthcoming to clarify this issue.  
 
Question Date: 6/29/2020 11:33:51 AM
Bid Item 930, SHEET PILE STEEL, is this for the sheet piling used to protect the existing water main as detailed on Plan Sheet 4(3)?  
Answer   Date: 7/8/2020 9:54:19 AM
An Addendum is forthcoming to clarify this issue.  
 
Question Date: 6/29/2020 11:33:14 AM
Bridge Plan Sheet No.2, Estimated Quantities – Substructure Only, has a quantity of Sheet Pile Steel 623 SF for both Bridge B607 and B608. Bid Item 930, SHEET PILE STEEL, has a quantity of only 623 SF. Please explain the method of measurement and payment for this item.  
Answer   Date: 7/8/2020 9:54:35 AM
An Addendum is forthcoming to clarify this issue.  
 
Subject: NS Railroad Type: Proposal
Question Date: 7/9/2020 8:02:38 AM
Please confirm the Norfolk Southern will assign a full time flagman and not just a watchman to the project. The contract does not allow for time extensions due to delays incurred due to lack of track time and a watchman is not authorized to provide track time.  
Answer   Date: 7/10/2020 11:15:58 AM
Norfolk Southern will assign a flagman during all critical phases of construction when track time is required. A watchman may be assigned when track time is not required to protect RR interests on site. It is the contractor’s responsibility to communicate, coordinate and schedule work with both the engineer and railroad to avoid unnecessary delays.  
 
Subject: Railroad Protextive Insurance Type: Proposal
Question Date: 7/9/2020 7:57:44 AM
Page 169 of the Proposal indicates railroad protective liability insurance limits of $5.0M / $10.0M.Page 197 of the proposal indicates 4 trains per day and does not indicate any passenger trains. Page 217 of the proposal sets the limits at $2.0M / $6.0M.for freight only tracks. Please confirm the insurance limit requirement.  
Answer   Date: 7/10/2020 11:16:31 AM
The SPCN Section 107.09 states the correct insurance limit requirement of $5,000,000 and $10,000,000. There is no passenger traffic on this line.  
 
Subject: Notice to Proceed Type: Proposal
Question Date: 7/9/2020 7:49:50 AM
Can you explain the reason for the delay in the Notice to Proceed until 1 Feb. 2021? Grading and paving a crossover is the first order of business. Trying to do this in the middle of winter is rather problematic. This also only allows less tan 15 months to complete all work (with a winter start) to obtain the early completion incentive.  
Answer   Date: 7/10/2020 11:17:04 AM
The delayed notice to proceed will be removed from the proposal. Addendum forthcoming with this change.  
 
Question Date: 7/10/2020 9:52:50 AM
The February NTP is an issue as outlined above. Even if the NTP is adjusted, the 17 month timeframe is unrealistic. The NSRR estimate has over 22 months of railroad flagger hours (480 days). This is a much more realistic timefame. Why were 5+ months cut off of the project schedule for a phased bridge replacement (demo, construction, MSE wall with waiting periods) with intermediate crossover construction/removals? Please revisit the contract completion date.  
Answer   1 previous answer(s) Date: 7/14/2020 9:45:10 AM
The delayed notice to proceed has been removed from the contract. Please refer to the latest addendum.  
 
Subject: Traffic Control Type: Proposal
Question Date: 7/8/2020 4:38:48 PM
The proposal includes approximately 28 months of Portable Changeable Message Sign and Electronic Arrow Board for the EB and WB crossovers. This exceeds the allowable contract time for the entire project. Can the bid units be adjusted to reflect the allowable contract time?  
Answer   Date: 7/10/2020 11:18:21 AM
Addendum forthcoming to reduce the PCMS quantity  
 
Question Date: 7/8/2020 4:30:22 PM
The contract provides approximately 50 days of flagging but has 560 days of Portable Temporary Rumble Strip Array. Is the intent to use the Temporary Rumble Strip Array with out flagging? If so, can you identify when and where this will occur? IF not, can you correct the bid quantity?.  
Answer   Date: 7/10/2020 11:18:32 AM
The intent is to use PTRS with flaggers and as directed by the Engineer.  
 

Displaying questions 1 - 10 (of 37)
Page: 1 2 3 4 First Previous Next Last