Advertisements   Division Home   Bid Results   Bid Tabs   Ad Report   VDOT Forms   Login Or Create Account    
Project Info
Order Number UPC State Project Number Last Date to Post Questions
G18 82329 (NFO)0231-056-106, C501, B606 8/22/2014
Search Questions
Search
Question Type  
    The last date to post questions has passed. Any questions posed 72 hours before the letting date may not be answered. Export Q&A    
Question List
Subject: Rock Material Type: Plan
Question Date: 8/21/2014 9:11:04 AM
The grading diagram on plan sheet No. 2F indicates that there is 8,451cy of Rock Material generated from the cut section on Rt. 231. Does VDOT anticipate any rock material in the cut sections associated with the two new entrances? If the contractor encounters more than the 8,451cy of rock indicated on the grading diagram, will there be additional compensation?  
Answer   Date: 8/25/2014 3:32:38 PM
No, the Rock is to be paid for as regular excavation per general note G-8.  
 
Subject: Grading Diagram Questions Type: Plan
Question Date: 8/18/2014 2:33:53 PM
re: Sheet 2F 1) It appears that the calculations show an excess, with the shrink factor applied to the excess material. We believe the excess should be 22,802 using the 12% shrink on the fill only with no swell for the 8451 CY of rock excavation. Please clarify. 2) The borrow (CBR 13) quantity shown on the grading summary is only 11 CY, but the proposal quantity is 1404 CY, which is the entire fill quantity for the project. This implies the onsite material is unsuitable for use as fill and all fill must be made with borrow material. Please clarify if this is the case. 3) If it is not the intent that all the fill be made with the borrow material, it appears that the 11 CY of CBR 13 material is not reflected in the grading summary. Where is this to be used?  
Answer   Date: 8/26/2014 1:55:01 PM
The onsite material will be usable for this project with the exception of the unsuitable material that was specified by Materials. The 11 CY as it pertains to the Grading Diagram was a type error; however, it was a quantity of No. 57 Stone that was set up for the purpose of satisfying a void that occurred as result of the removal of the Existing Bridge Abutment (as indicated in the Schedule of Items). So, in revising some numbers for the Grading Summary it appears that the excess is 20,235 CY (after applying the 12% shrinkage factor to the total Borrow Excavation). The Rock is to be paid for as regular excavation per General Note G-8. Sheet No.2F will be corrected via post-award revision.  
 
Subject: Borrow/Excavation Type: Plan
Question Date: 8/18/2014 9:28:42 AM
Does the -20066 CY of Borrow mean export?  
Answer   Date: 8/25/2014 3:31:16 PM
The -20066 CY Value for Borrow does indicate Surplus material. The equations used to come up with this value can be found on the bottom left hand corner of sheet 2F.  
 
Subject: Temporary Shoring Type: Proposal
Question Date: 8/14/2014 10:01:52 AM
The plans show using sheet piling for the shoring between the phases of work and the bid item is by the square foot. If another means of shoring is used will it still be paid by the square foot?  
Answer   Date: 8/15/2014 7:53:34 AM
•The bid price generated for this pay item should consider the use sheet piling as described in the plans. If an alternative method of shoring is proposed by the Contractor, it should be submitted to the Department to be evaluated and handled as a Potential Value Engineering change.  
 
Subject: Asbestos Inspection Type: Other
Question Date: 8/14/2014 9:59:13 AM
Has an Asbestos Inspection been done for this bridge structure? If so, please provide the results.  
Answer   Date: 8/15/2014 9:31:00 AM
No asbestos inspection has been performed on the existing structure. Our inspectors have identified the potential for asbestos containing materials. You can view that checklist on our website.  
 
Subject: Reinforcing Steel Type: Plan
Question Date: 7/31/2014 7:58:51 AM
The plans call for Class II Corrosion Resistant Reinforcing steel. Since there are no suppliers for the Stainless Clad (Class II CRR), what rebar is recommended for use on this project?  
Answer   Date: 7/31/2014 9:31:24 AM
See the substitution option on the bridge plan cover sheet.  
 
Subject: As-Built Plans Type: Plan
Question Date: 7/28/2014 7:55:46 AM
Will the department please issue the as-built plans for the existing bridge on CABB for Contractor's review?  
Answer   Date: 7/28/2014 11:48:14 AM
The plans are available under Announcements: http://www.virginiadot.org/business/const/default.asp  
 
Subject: Geotechnical Reports Type: Other
Question Date: 7/28/2014 7:54:11 AM
Were any geotechnical inspections performed for this project? If so, will the geotechnical reports be issued on CABB for Contractor's review?  
Answer   Date: 7/28/2014 8:58:52 AM
The report is available under Announcements: http://www.virginiadot.org/business/const/  
 
Subject: Temporary Causeway Type: Proposal
Question Date: 7/18/2014 2:05:58 PM
There is a Temporary Causeway shown in the permit section of the proposal on page 263. This causeway is not addressed in the plans or shown as a bid item in the proposal. Is it to be paid for under a bid item or to be included in other work (any item specifically?)?  
Answer   Date: 7/28/2014 1:51:51 PM
If the contractor deems a causeway is necessary for construction access, the cost for this work shall be included in cost of other pay items.  
 

Displaying questions 1 - 9 (of 9)
Page: 1 First Previous Next Last 

Construction Advertisement Bulletin Board (CABB)
Update Profile
CABB v2.0 © 2008 Virginia Department of Transportation 4/16/2024 7:10:18 AM 2008