|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2014 2:25:51 PM
|
|
Where is the bid item and quantity for the Low Permeability Liner? listed the revision
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/23/2014 11:46:00 AM
|
|
Low permeability liner is not required on the project; geotextile fabric is specified in the details. There should be no bid item or quantity for low permeability liner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/18/2014 2:01:52 PM
|
|
The access road from 501 to the proposed bridge is shown at 27% and the access road from 130 to the existing bridge is 25%. These profiles are unrealistic for any type of normal method transportation, ready mix trucks, loaded tri-axles, girder delivery etc. What was the intended use of the roads?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/19/2014 3:10:19 PM
|
|
As is stated in the plans, the proposed access sketches are conceptual in nature and were developed to secure the environmental permits. It is the Contractors responsibility for determining all means and methods, necessary equipment, and materials required for construction access. Due to the site constraints, it is understood that “normal methods” of transportation may not be feasible. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to evaluate and determine the work required for access and the necessary equipment needed for transportation of materials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/18/2014 2:01:09 PM
|
|
Based on the flow data provided in the contract drawings it appears that construction from November until the end of May will be difficult at best. The causeway drawing has a 3’ minimum dimension from OHW to the top of causeway. Was the intention to allow the causeways to be built to an elevation that is higher than the elevations shown?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/19/2014 3:11:13 PM
|
|
As is stated in the plans, the proposed access sketches are conceptual in nature and were developed to secure the environmental permits. It is the Contractors responsibility for determining all means and methods, necessary equipment, and materials required for construction access. Deviations from the proposed causeway sketches are up to the Contractor’s discretion. The top of causeway elevation shown is the minimum elevation required in Section 12.8.3 of VDOT’s Drainage Manual. The Contractor has the option to increase the top of causeway elevation if he so chooses. However, the Department will not be responsible for any delays or costs associated with required permit modifications should the Contractor’s proposed access plans result in increased stream impact quantities. For additional information, please refer to the Special Provision for Temporary Causeways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/18/2014 2:00:04 PM
|
|
Was any type of hydraulic analysis done on the as designed causeway? If so can this information be made available to the bidders?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/19/2014 3:12:04 PM
|
|
Please refer to the H&H report posted under ANNOUNCEMENTS on the construction website. Causeway impacts to the OHW elevation were considered in the hydraulic analysis. The OHW elevation is expected to rise 0.02’ while causeway(s) are in place, see Attachment 6 - Page 3 of 5 of the H&H report. The HEC-RAS files will be posted under ANNOUNCEMENTS on the construction website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/17/2014 4:24:15 PM
|
|
Due to the height of the existing piers, conventional removal is not possible. Would the department consider allowing blasting of the piers? Please advise
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/17/2014 4:23:12 PM
|
|
Would the department consider allowing blasting of the existing superstructure.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/19/2014 3:42:44 PM
|
|
Due to the proximity of the nearby Dominion hydropower dam, CSX Transportation restrictions on blasting over or within their right-of-way, and environmental concerns with debris containment within the river, blasting was not considered as a viable alternative for demolition of the existing bridge (substructure and/or superstructure). Any demolition plan submitted by the Contractor that included blasting would require review and approval by appropriate third party stakeholders including but not limited to the hydropower dam authority, CSX Railway, and environmental permitting agencies. The Department cannot guarantee that these entities will grant approval of a demolition plan involving blasting. Furthermore, the Department will not be held liable for delays and/or additional costs associated with the required third party reviews and coordination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/17/2014 9:30:01 AM
|
|
We need a clarification of which river bed elevation to assume with respect to the new bridge causeway. The permit application (proposal page 337) assumes 617.00’and structure borings (new bridge sheets 74-77) indicate elevations from 616.9’ to 618.9’. The proposed access drawings profile drawing (sheet 6/83) and the cross section at the Proposed Centerline of future Route 501 Bridge over James River model both show an average elevation of 620.00’. There is a drastic quantity difference in the rock quantity using 617’ vs. 620’. Please clarify.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/18/2014 1:33:54 PM
|
|
The permit application riverbed elevation of 617.00 was based on a rough average of the riverbed elevations determined from the boring log information. The riverbed contour elevations shown on Sheet 6 of 83 of the bridge plans are approximate and should not be used for quantity calculations. Contractor is responsible for interpretation of the boring logs and permit requirements in determining the quantity of causeway material required based upon his proposed means and methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/16/2014 4:59:32 PM
|
|
The Contract Plans indicate an Ordinary High Water Elevation of 629.28 at the new bridge location. Please clarify what this elevation actually represents.
In addition; what flow (cfs) does the Top of Causeway Elevation of 632.28 represent; please advise.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/18/2014 1:34:45 PM
|
|
The top of causeway elevation was set 3’ above the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation in accordance with the VDOT Drainage Manual, Section 12.8.3. A HEC-RAS model was developed to determine the OHW as well as the 10-, 50-, 100- and 500-yr water surface elevations and velocities at the proposed bridge site. The OHW elevation shown in the plans represents the water surface elevation for a flow equal to 1.1 times the drainage area in sq. miles, refer to Section 12.4.3 of the VDOT Drainage Manual. Based on the hydraulic analysis, the OHW flow rate and velocity was determined to be 3,600 cfs and 0.76 ft/s, respectively. An increase in the OHW elevation is expected to be in the range of 0.01 to 0.02 feet while causeway(s) are in place. For more information, please refer to the H&H report posted under ANNOUNCEMNETS on the construction website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/12/2014 4:50:16 PM
|
|
The only as-built drawings provided for the removal of the existing bridge structure are from 2 rehabilitation projects, one from 1966 and one from 1978. The limited substructure information on these plans do not allow for a complete material take-off and removal analysis; especially for the existing pier structures. The volume of the piers and web wall cannot be calculated with the information provided. Please provide complete as-builts for the piers and abutments.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/17/2014 12:01:48 PM
|
|
VDOT has uploaded two additional plan sets (Plan No. 014-09 and 014-09A) which contain information on the existing substructure that was built as part of the original structure. Please note that these plans (014-09 and 014-09A) contain a superstructure that is no longer a part of the structure. The original bridge at this location had truss spans however the most current structure has steel plate girders and the superstructure is detailed in plan (206-02 and 206-02A).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/18/2014 9:55:03 AM
|
|
The 10 new existing bridge plan sheets from 9-15-2014 show up on Falcon but cannot be downloded; the is a server error;please check into what the problem is and advise as soon as possible.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/18/2014 9:59:25 AM
|
|
There is a server problem at this time. Please try later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/17/2014 1:21:52 PM
|
|
We do not see where these have been uploaded; looks like original 29 sheets only on Falcon; please advise.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/18/2014 9:42:26 AM
|
|
Sorry, it was not linked to CABB. They should be there now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/21/2014 3:32:27 PM
|
|
Are the existing bridge plans available? Please post on VDOT advertisement page if possible.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/22/2014 2:07:10 PM
|
|
They will be posted on the Construction Website under ANNOUNCEMENTS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/18/2014 9:55:03 AM
|
|
The 10 new existing bridge plan sheets from 9-15-2014 show up on Falcon but cannot be downloded; the is a server error;please check into what the problem is and advise as soon as possible.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/18/2014 9:59:25 AM
|
|
There is a server problem at this time. Please try later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/17/2014 1:21:52 PM
|
|
We do not see where these have been uploaded; looks like original 29 sheets only on Falcon; please advise.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/18/2014 9:42:26 AM
|
|
Sorry, it was not linked to CABB. They should be there now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/12/2014 11:11:41 AM
|
|
Can the final H & H report be made availble to the Contractors prior to bid for this project F50
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/17/2014 11:58:24 AM
|
|
This should be posted by days end under ANNOUNCEMENTS on the construction website.
|
|
|
|
|