Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2014 4:10:31 PM
|
At the pre-bid meeting, the question was posed as to whether pre-splitting is required. The representative from Whitman, Requardt & Associates answered that pre-splitting is not required, that the geotechnical engineer has stamped the plans as such. Addendum #2 contained page 194 of the proposal with no changes to the original page, but did not include page 195 of the original proposal that has language concerning pre-split. The plans do not say the pre-splitting is required. We cannot find where the pre-bid meeting minutes have been posted to VDOT's website and we were told that the minutes would be posted. Please clarify if pre-splitting is required.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
4/21/2014 4:25:25 PM
|
On the website go to D74, then to the showing column and click on the "Yes". On that page see "View Minutes". In the Minutes it says: Randall Phillips with WRA said presplitting will not be required in the big cut.
This was evaluated and determined by the geotechnical engineers based on the
borings. The plans show a rock fall out ditch.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2014 9:08:36 AM
|
Revision 2 stated that updated plansheets could be found on Falcon, however they haven't been posted yet. When can we expect updated plans for download?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
4/16/2014 12:26:05 PM
|
They are now available.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/8/2014 8:51:19 AM
|
Rock slopes greater than 1:1 are to the pre-split from sta. 76+00 to 84+00. The X-Sections show a continuous slope from toe of cut to top of cut; drilling procedures make this impossible to achieve. How is the Contractor to be paid for additional rock to be removed to maintain a pre-split slope?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
4/16/2014 7:52:33 AM
|
VDOT specifications (303.06 page 314) says “When ‘presplitting rock cuts’ is shown on the plans, the work shall be considered incidental to the cost of regular excavation and will not be measured for separate pavement”.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/8/2014 8:50:47 AM
|
Referring to the revised grading summary sheet in the posted in the advertisements, is VDOT going to change the bid quantity for the regular excavation from 368,031 cy to 374,842cy?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
4/16/2014 7:54:04 AM
|
374,924 C.Y. is the correct quantity for Total Regular Excavation.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/8/2014 8:50:44 AM
|
Referring to the revised grading summary sheet in the posted in the advertisements, is VDOT going to change the bid quantity for the regular excavation from 368,031 cy to 374,842cy?
|
Answer
1 previous answer(s)
|
Date:
|
4/16/2014 8:00:13 AM
|
See addendum.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/31/2014 10:56:46 AM
|
After reviewing the geotechnical report and core borings, it appears that the cut from station 64+00 through 75+00 contains material that, according to the report, would be deemed as unsuitable material. Is the geotechnical report considered as an official project document, or is it for information only?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
4/2/2014 4:13:57 PM
|
It is the official soils report, but it is supplied for informational purposes.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/20/2014 8:58:34 AM
|
Are the offsets of the core borings designated with B based off of the centerline of the existing roadway or the proposed roadway? What are the offsets of the borings designated with RW based upon? The elevations of the RW borings do not correspond with the elevations in the cross sections.
|
Answer
1 previous answer(s)
|
Date:
|
3/28/2014 11:01:21 AM
|
It will be added to the geo-tech report in Falcon by tomorrow.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/11/2014 4:28:28 PM
|
Could you please provide the geotech report for this project either on CABB/Falcon or on Consruction Announcements page? Thank you.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/13/2014 10:39:33 AM
|
The report has been placed on CABB/Falcon with the plans.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/31/2014 10:53:22 AM
|
Referring to the previous question regarding traffic maintenance, and reviewing Traffic Management Plans, there is not enough width to construct a 20' wide section of new roadway while maintaining a 20' wide section of existing at the end of the daily shift or at the end of the work week. Stations 14+00 to 20+00 are just one example. While the contractor can flag and maintain one lane during work hours, it is not possible to build a 20' width of new construction and maintain 20' of existing for non-working hours. Either temporary signals would need to be used or the existing pavement would need to be temporarily widened to be able to maintain 20' widths during non-working hours. It seems that additional thought needs to be given as to how the contractor is required to meet the requirements. Will the department please review the Transportation Management Plans and Cross-Sections and advise?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
4/2/2014 4:23:09 PM
|
The Construction and Maintenance of Traffic plans have been reviewed and the project is constructable as presented.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/24/2014 5:06:01 PM
|
The grading diagram does not appear to be correct. None of the waste or borrow quantities work in the information provided. Please provide a corrected email or confirm that the diagram is correct.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
4/2/2014 2:05:58 PM
|
The grading summary has been posted under announcements.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2014 11:41:25 AM
|
Do you have an answer for the above question regarding the cross section discrepancy compared with the total CY of excavation.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2014 4:01:34 PM
|
The grading diagram states in 1 note that 12% shrinkage is used for all fills. Directly below there is a note stating the embankment quantity has not been adjusted for shrinkage or swell factors. Which
one is correct.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
4/2/2014 4:24:23 PM
|
The project is set for borrow not embankment, therefore the embankment note does not apply. The borrow quantity is adjusted for the quantity needed based on a 12% shrinkage. Based on location utilized for the borrow material, the shrinkage factor may change. The surplus quantity is unadjusted.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2014 4:25:01 PM
|
The earthwork quantities shown on the cross sections tabulate to approximately half of the total earthwork quantities shown on the grading diagram. Please provide corrected cross sections or confirm that
the cross section quantities shown are correct.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
4/22/2014 3:11:52 PM
|
Quantities shown on the cross section sheets are square feet not cubic yards. Square feet shown on the cross sections do not include root mat, unsuitable material, SWM, drainage ditches or entrance quantities. Cross sections square feet quantities should not be used to determine the earthwork pay quantities. The earthwork summary and the grading diagram are correct for volumes/pay quantities.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2014 11:50:52 AM
|
It does not appear that a 24' wide section of new roadway can be constructed while maintaining a 22' wide section of existing roadway during various Transportation Management Phases. It appears that either the existing roadway would need to be temporarily widened, temporary traffic signals would need to be utilized, or the use of split lanes (one direction of traffic on newly constructed roadway while the other direction of traffic stays on the existing roadway). Please advise.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/21/2014 6:49:42 AM
|
As per note 3 on sheet 1G(1), “During periods of inactivity, two-way traffic marked by the proper pavement marking shall be maintained on minimum of 10 foot lanes.” The Transportation Management Plan sheets depict the general management of traffic throughout the project during construction. Please refer to sheets 1G(1) thru 1G(23) for the Transportation Management Plan.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/6/2014 9:02:34 AM
|
Advertisement and CABB list bid date as April 23, 2014; however the proposal hardcopy and downloaded copy both have March 26, 2014. Doesn't the proposal cover need to be updated?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/7/2014 8:06:40 AM
|
The proposal has been updated for the April 23, 2014 bid letting.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/6/2014 10:49:29 AM
|
More confused since revision letter ... Revision letter states that date is being moved backwards to March 26th; to update proposal cover which already said March 26th? What is the actual bid date of this project - March 26th or April 23th?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/7/2014 8:07:40 AM
|
The proposal has been updated for the April 23, 2014 bid letting.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2014 9:27:33 AM
|
The VDOT ad and the proposal on Falcon each show call order #D74 - this cabb listing is under D75. FYI
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/5/2014 10:59:12 AM
|
It is correct now.
|
|
|