|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/14/2020 1:06:49 PM
|
|
Is the asphalt removal in the parking lots paid by Demo of Pavement, or is it included in the lump sum clearing parcel items? The quantity of Demo of Pavement Flexible appears excessive.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
11/16/2020 10:06:13 PM
|
|
The asphalt removal in the parking lots is paid under the Demo of Pavement Flexible pay item.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/13/2020 7:43:50 AM
|
|
The SPCN on Sheet 7 of the proposal for Rock Excavation states that "work shall consist of excavation of solid rock for trenches..". Does this include all of the utility, storm sewer, culvert, and conduit installations?
|
|
Answer
1 previous answer(s)
|
Date:
|
11/17/2020 11:33:58 AM
|
|
Section 302 and Section 520 of the 2020 VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications state that the price of the excavation associated with pipe, water and sewer items, and encasement pipes are included in the cost of the pipe or water and/or sewer items or encasement pipes. Section 302 and Section 520 do not differentiate whether the trench excavation is rock excavation or not. Rock Excavation measurement and payment of trench excavation is limited to signal and lighting conduits and signal and light pole foundations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/16/2020 1:30:35 PM
|
|
So what is the Rock Excavation for Trenches for?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/13/2020 7:34:03 AM
|
|
The following borings appear in the Boring Locations on Sheet 3 and 10 of the geotechnical data but are not found in the Boring Logs: 18OR-04, 18OR-05, 18OR-06. Can all the missing boring logs be provided?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
11/13/2020 2:49:54 PM
|
|
The boring locations have been updated in ProjectWise to include all boring logs and locations. The updated PDF file name is "boring_locations_11_20.pdf" and is in the "Boring Location.Set" folder in ProjectWise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2020 11:04:33 AM
|
|
Sheet 12(3) plan note 3 specifies that the proposed SE-5 will power the ITS camera at the SB Ramp. Please clarify the location of the existing ITS camera on the drawings and how will the contractor be compensated for rewiring this camera to the electrical service?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
11/13/2020 2:08:37 PM
|
|
The approximate location of the ITS camera is N36-41’-59” – W81-58’-30”. Compensation will be made through the ELECTRICAL SERVICE SE-5 pay item
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2020 11:01:11 AM
|
|
Sheet 12(2) specifies a new SE-5 being installed on sheet 12(3) and sheet 12(4). According to the drawings on 12(3) and 12(4) they are existing. The actual intersection at sheet 12(3) has an SE-3 Ty A for the flood lights. Please clarify the new SE-5 and location, the existing SE-3 Ty A that will need to be removed, and an additional pay item for removing the existing electrical services.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
11/13/2020 2:14:21 PM
|
|
The SE-5s on sheets 12(3) and 12(4) are mislabeled existing in the Signal Pole & Controller Cabinet Legend: They are both proposed. The SE-3 Ty. A has been unhooked and not in service. The SE-3 Ty. A is attached to the existing signal pole (which has its own pay item), therefore the cost of removing the existing SE-3 Ty. A is incidental to the cost of removing the existing signal pole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2020 10:18:26 AM
|
|
When comparing the drawings, legends, and quantities they do not match. Please clarify the existing controller locations, removal of controllers and associated line items, new controller foundation-CF-1 vs CF-5, and location of new UPS and controller.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
11/13/2020 2:09:53 PM
|
|
The existing controller location is in the NW quadrant of the I-81 SB ramps intersection (sheet 12(4)), the summary of quantities reflects the removal of the cabinet and foundation on sheet 12(4). The location of the new controller and UPS is shown as item "1" on sheet 12(3), it is a CF-5 foundation, A.T.C controller, and UPS, as shown in the specs, foundation cutsheet, and quantities. The symbol legend on the title page has various VDOT standard symbols, not all were used in this planset.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2020 9:11:43 AM
|
|
Who will be responsible for removing the existing lights (not signal related) at this intersection? Since it is not signal related the spec does not clarify that it is included in the price of other items and how will the contractor be compensated?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
11/13/2020 2:12:16 PM
|
|
The existing flood light(s) are attached to the existing signal pole(s). Therefore by definition removal of the existing signal pole(s) will also accomplish removal of existing flood light(s), thus the cost of flood light(s) removal will be incidental to the cost of signal pole(s) removal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2020 5:07:59 PM
|
|
What is the proposed access to the work area for Phase 1A Stage 1? The layout for the barrier on northbound does not allow access for equipment and trucks from the northbound lanes.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/6/2020 11:54:39 AM
|
|
Is it possible to move the video detection camera in further in order to use a 49' mast arm?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
11/10/2020 9:01:18 PM
|
|
While this question is not specific to any of the poles, it is possible that the contractor may do this on poles A (sheet 12(3)) and B (sheet 12(4)), so long as adequate detection coverage is maintained. Contractor would have to submit to the VDOT Traffic Engineer a proposal that guarantees adequate detection coverage prior to approval.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2020 9:08:24 AM
|
|
Current VDOT specifications do not have a 50' mast arm. The specs have a 49' and then go to a 60' mast arm. Please clarify if the department wants a 49' or a 60' mast arm at each intersection. If the department chooses a 60' mast arm the pole will need to be upgraded.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
11/13/2020 2:10:54 PM
|
|
A 49' mast arm would be acceptable and the camera locations would need to be adjusted based on a 49' mast arm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/6/2020 12:00:17 PM
|
|
Also sheet 12(4)
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
11/10/2020 9:01:29 PM
|
|
While this question is not specific to any of the poles, it is possible that the contractor may do this on poles A (sheet 12(3)) and B (sheet 12(4)), so long as adequate detection coverage is maintained. Contractor would have to submit to the VDOT Traffic Engineer a proposal that guarantees adequate detection coverage prior to approval.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
11/6/2020 7:39:13 AM
|
|
Can the depth of the existing asphalt on the shoulders of I-81 be provided?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
11/10/2020 8:58:20 PM
|
|
The PDF of the asphalt boring logs for the shoulders of I-81 at Exit 17 have been uploaded to the "ProjectWise - Documents - Projects - Bristol - 109419 - Project Documents - Project Management - Advertisement Phase - Forms" folder. Same for 116171.
|
|
|
|
|