|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2015 3:12:56 PM
|
|
The notes on sheet number 8 of plan 296-42 state that the designation of fixed or expansion bearings is located on the elevation view of the front sheet(s). However the front sheet appears to show both bearing assemblies as expansion. Please confirm that the bearing assembles should be fixed on one abutment and expansion on the other.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/17/2015 9:04:31 AM
|
|
Both abutments have expansion bearings. The drawing is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/21/2015 4:22:33 PM
|
|
Plan Sheet 2B section indicates that the outfall ditch is to have riprap. What type of riprap is required and how is it paid for?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/28/2015 9:16:02 AM
|
|
Plan Sheet 2B will be replaced by forthcoming addendum. Call out of “Rip Rap” will be deleted from “Top of Outfall Ditch”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/21/2015 4:18:52 PM
|
|
Sheet 2B Note 7 requires Contractor to certify that the facility has been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's maintenance guidelines. This facility is job built of various products and does not have a manufacturer. Please confirm that this note does not apply on this project.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/1/2015 10:35:14 AM
|
|
The note is going to be revised to read, "The contractor shall be responsible for maintaining the proposed BMP facilities once all connections have been completed, and shall certify that the BMP facilities have been maintained per Minimum Standard 3.13 of the Virginia Stormwater Management Guidelines, and all applicable standards and specifications noted in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, prior to transfer to VDOT.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/15/2015 8:43:45 AM
|
|
The backwall callout on detail F of sheet 9 does not appear to be directed to the correct backwall location. Please confirm if the face of the backwall is indicated corrected or if it should be one line to the right.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/18/2015 10:03:10 AM
|
|
The backwall callout on detail F of sheet 9 (plan sheet 286-69A) is not correct. It should point to the line to the right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/14/2015 4:11:37 PM
|
|
The final remaining steel fabricator that was considering to propose on the rehabilitation of the existing truss is declining to bid the project due to the extremely aggressive schedule. Without a qualified fabricator who can rehab the steel the project is unfeasible in its current form. VDOT should consider revising the schedule to accommodate current fabrication backlogs to allow the project to proceed. Currently the only fabricator who was (and no longer is) considering to bid has indicated that they would need until late 2016 to even consider taking on this project. Request that VDOT postpone the project to the June letting and investigate the schedule issue and revise the completion dates to accommodate current fabrication time frames.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/15/2015 2:20:15 PM
|
|
The department has decided to delay the receipt of bids until June 24th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/4/2015 12:27:22 PM
|
|
By not moving the Substantial Completion Date, which is defined as all work complete except surface asphalt, seeding, and pavement marking you have not given more time for the truss work you have actually shortened it due to the delay in the letting. The schedule was extremely aggressive before the delay and is now almost impossible. Please reconsider the decision to not move the Substantial Completion Date.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/5/2015 10:38:23 AM
|
|
Installation of rehabilitated truss work and re-decking of the existing bridge will not be needed to complete by the Interim Milestone (previously stated Substantial Completion date) but must be completed by Final Completion date. See Special Provision “Interim Completion Incentive/Disincentive (previously called Substantial Completion Incentive/Disincentive)” for details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/2/2015 9:45:57 AM
|
|
Given that the bid was delayed we would request that the Substantial and Final Completion dates be extended a minimum of one month each due to the delay. Letting delay has actually pushed more of the work into the winter and could arguably require more than one month additional time.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/3/2015 8:02:04 AM
|
|
Department will issue an addendum to extended the Final Completion date to October 28, 2016 to accommodate more timing for rehabilitation of the existing truss but keep the Substantial Completion date of May 17, 2016 taking into consideration that Aden Road will be completely closed nine months for construction of the new bridge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/15/2015 12:01:47 PM
|
|
We are prepared to bid the project and request the bid not be postponed.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/15/2015 2:20:35 PM
|
|
The department has decided to delay the receipt of bids until June 24th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/7/2015 10:17:17 AM
|
|
Will the Dept post the As Builts to Falcon?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/7/2015 11:19:00 AM
|
|
The As Builts plans are available at the NOVA district office, a CII form must be filled out prior to the request. The form is available on the Construction Division announcements webpage under the H80 link. Contact Arif Rahman, P.E., Project Manager, 4975 Alliance Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030, Phone:703-259-1940, E-mail: md.rahman@vdot.vriginia.gov
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/30/2015 11:29:01 AM
|
|
Plan Sheet 286-69A 2 of 28 has a note that says:
“Price shall also include straightening, repair or reconstruction of any members not listed in the Member Replacement Schedules.”
We request that this note be removed as the scope of the work is impossible to identify prior to dismantlement of the existing truss.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/1/2015 11:27:42 AM
|
|
Department understand that the actual condition of the members will not be known until they are disassembled, cleaned, and in some cases tested. The note is necessary to allow a method of payment to repair damaged members that are identified after they are cleaned. Also to pay for the replacement of members that are deemed unusable, have more section loss than anticipated or fail the ultrasonic and radiographic testing. Members that are damaged by the Contractor are to be replaced at the Contractor’s expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/7/2015 12:57:46 PM
|
|
The requirement, with no payment, to straighten and repair work that is not identified or quantified in the bid documents and is not able to be determined until the bridge structure has been dismantled is unfair to the Contractor, the Department, and the Taxpayers. We would request that to be fair to all parties the Department establish an allowance item to be used should straightening or repair work be necessary once the bridge has been dismantled and the scope can be determined.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/11/2015 10:03:50 AM
|
|
Please see the Department’s response to similar type of question below (posted 5/7/2015 10:08:52 AM).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/4/2015 8:37:45 AM
|
|
We understand your answer to mean that the Lump Sum Price shall only include the member replacement identified in the three Replacement Schedules on Sheet 18 of 28. We understand that your answer states that the straightening, repair, or reconstruction of any later identified defective/missing members/parts that are determined to not be in accordance with AISC tolerances, fail the ultrasonic/radiographic testing, or are deemed unusable after disassembly will be handled by Work Order. Please confirm that our understanding is correct.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/7/2015 10:08:52 AM
|
|
All work associated with the cleaning, painting, straightening, repair, and/or reconstruction of existing truss members are paid for under Lump Sum “Rehabilitation of Existing Wrought Iron Truss”. In the event additional members, beyond those identified under replacement schedule tables shown on sheet 18 of 28 of Plan No 286-69A, are deemed unusable by the Engineer, and need to be replaced, such items will be addressed in accordance with Section 109.04 and 109.05 of the 2007 Road and Bridge Specifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/30/2015 2:50:16 PM
|
|
Plan Sheet 286-69A Note 2 states that bottom chord eyebars that fail inspection are to be deemed unusable and replaced. There does not appear to be a Pay Item for this work which is also not able to be quantified during the bid process. The scope of this work cannot be determined until after the parts are cleaned of paint and tested which is after disassembly. We request that a note be added that states that any such replacement of members or parts not clearly noted in the replacement schedule will be handled by Work Order if required.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/7/2015 10:09:55 AM
|
|
Please see the response above
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/27/2015 3:49:42 PM
|
|
Can one or both of the permissible field splices be eliminated without redesign of the superstructure being required?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/1/2015 11:28:53 AM
|
|
The permissible field splices may be eliminated. No redesign will be required, however hauling permits may be required
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/23/2015 1:59:49 PM
|
|
Retaining wall details call for 5"x 8" timber lagging to be used at Bridge B649. Lagging for beams spaced at distances less than 8' is usually 3" thick material. Will 3" thick material be allowed?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
4/27/2015 11:07:14 AM
|
|
5”x8” timber lagging is required by design. 3” lagging will not be allowed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/5/2015 10:32:08 AM
|
|
The timber lagging is required to have a Bending value of 1,850. SYP Dense Select Structural has a maximum Bending of 1,750 for 5" and larger material which is reduced 15% after pressure treatment to 1,487.5. Will 5"x 8" Dense Select Structural rated at 1,750 before treatment be acceptable?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/18/2015 9:25:27 AM
|
|
Structural Select Southern Pine with Fb = 1750 psi. is acceptable. A reduction for pressure treatment is not required for timber 5”x5” and larger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/20/2015 2:17:36 PM
|
|
286-69A Sheet 20 of 28 4th note states that all material is to be Southern Pine. Sheet 21 of 28 states that the rail is to be West Coast Douglas Fir. Is this a misprint and should not the rail be Southern Pine also?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
4/22/2015 11:01:59 AM
|
|
The notes on sheet 20 and 21 are VDOT standard drawing notes. It is not a misprint. The intention is to have stronger material for rail.
|
|
|
|
|