|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2015 1:41:35 PM
|
|
The Special Provision permits polymer coated polyester material; however, suppliers are indicating this material does not appear to be available with 95% UV resistance. Would an increased strength be a sufficient substitute in lieu of the UV rating and if so, what requirement would be acceptable?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
10/23/2015 4:03:01 PM
|
|
The grid strength and spacings recommended will likely leave us with some reserve strength. Coordination between VDOT and contractor will occur on the specific grid the contractor is recommending and VDOT will review based on the products spec sheet to obtain the true UV % coverage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2015 1:59:47 PM
|
|
The drawing (plan sheet 2RR, with a revised date of 7/16/15), indicates a 1.5:1 slope within the area of the geo-grid. Considering the slope will consist of very granular fill (CBR-30) it is unlikely regular excavating equipment will be sufficient for topsoil application, potentially resulting in an unconsolidated position, especially considering the application of a 4" layer of topsoil after the fill is accomplished and subsequent seeding operations, regardless of weather or temperature conditions. Does the department expect special equipment application or some type of slope stabilization to ensure against future slope failure or slippage?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
10/23/2015 4:08:43 PM
|
|
The contractor is to determine the means and methods to accomplish what the plans indicate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2015 1:47:03 PM
|
|
The Special Provision appears to require a 3' overlap for HDPE Uniaxial to each side. Our supplier informs us the material is only manufactured at a width of 4.26'. If that is the intention then two 4.36' wide geo-grids would effectively yield 5.36' widths or approximately a 300% loss factor. Could the department confirm the overlap requirement and make clearer in which direction the overlap of 3' is required - end to end or side to side?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
10/26/2015 3:22:28 PM
|
|
The ends as the lay it on the slope shall be 3’ over lapped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/22/2015 1:42:24 PM
|
|
The Special Provision identifies "HPDE". Is this a typo and should be "HDPE"?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
10/23/2015 11:52:17 AM
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/16/2015 10:48:28 AM
|
|
Storm Structure #5-06 is identified on both Option A & Option B described as an EW-11 Ty I grate 11' Option A and Ty II grate 14' Option B respectively (Plan Sheet 2F(1) / AD2F(1). Both Option A & Option B identify different quantities of concrete and reinforcement steel, and it does not appear that any quantity of concrete has been included for this structure in Option B. Could clarification be provided as to which option it would actually be required (if it's included in option A, base bid then it would also be included in option B, but not quantified twice, since option B adds to option A), and please confirm the quantity of concrete and steel required?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
10/16/2015 2:45:11 PM
|
|
The quantities shown for Option A are incorrect and should be replaced with the quantities for Option B. Since this item stays the same in both designs there are no additional quantities required for Option B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/16/2015 10:22:15 AM
|
|
Revised plan Sheets AD4 & AD5 referenced in the revision issued yesterday do not appear to be up on the Falcon site. When will they be available?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
10/16/2015 2:28:07 PM
|
|
The plan sheets are now available in Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/15/2015 3:40:50 PM
|
|
Can the Department verify that no asbestos or other hazardous material is present in either building please?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/15/2015 2:21:40 PM
|
|
Please refer to Drawing 23, 33 and 36 (attached to the DEQ permit in the revised specifications) which show phasing for construction of box culverts 8-12, 9-17, and 9-20.
Are we required to follow the phasing shown? Or may we use a temp diversion to fully bypass the box culvert work area and construct each location in a single phase?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
10/16/2015 2:06:25 PM
|
|
Alternative methods may be considered. However, environmental permits for the project will need to be revised and are subject to the approval of DEQ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/14/2015 1:45:01 PM
|
|
If we purchased plan & proposal sets, will we receive a printed set of revisions for each set of purchases, when the revisions result in changes to the plans or proposal? and if so when could we expect to receive those changes?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
10/14/2015 2:31:49 PM
|
|
VDOT is sending plan holders revised plan sheets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/14/2015 11:31:53 AM
|
|
There appears to be a discrepancy between the data provided on the revised drainage description sheets and the Bid Quantities.
When the data from the drainage description sheets is used in conjunction with the applied quantities from the latest VDOT Standards, they do not result in the revised bid quantities in the Advertisement, for both the Base and Additive Options.
|
|
Answer
2 previous answer(s)
|
Date:
|
10/16/2015 1:57:37 PM
|
|
Due to the nature of how this project is being bid, certain minor items in the base or additive may be decreased or deleted depending on which option is selected, VDOT believes the quantities are correct based on both designs based on a spot check however the contractor needs to bid the project on the information available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/16/2015 2:30:22 PM
|
|
Please advise if the "Drainage Descriptions" take precedence over the "Drainage Summary"?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/13/2015 5:23:21 PM
|
|
Page 4 (SPCN) 07-17-15 appears to define the total Project as consisting of both the Base Bid & the Additive Bid. If Option "B" is defined as the "Additive" Bid, [albeit a little confusing if the total project is both combined] are the quantities in Option "B" in addition to the base bid, and not a stand alone item or quantity and if the physical description of a material is not identical to a product in Option "A", would it be appropriate to identify the item in Option "B" again?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
10/14/2015 1:51:00 PM
|
|
What is referred to as Option "A" is really the base bid items. Option "B" are the additive items. This provision will be re-issued via addendum to explain that the contract will be awarded to the lowest combined bid. If the combined bid exceeds the available funds, the contract will be awarded to the bidder with the lowest offer for Option "A".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/13/2015 3:19:30 PM
|
|
There seems to be a discrepancy in quantities between the revised Drainage Descriptions, the Proposal and the Drainage Summary's. Could the Department please confirm the Bid Quantities as correct and will a plan and/or Proposal revision be issued to reconcile these quantities? In one case, 24" Pipe, the Drainage Description identifies a quantity and no Bid Item is identified in the Proposal Option "B"?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
10/15/2015 8:43:58 AM
|
|
Due to the nature of how this project is being bid, certain minor items in the base or additive may be decreased or deleted depending on which option is selected. The contractor will be paid for the units installed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/13/2015 5:12:59 PM
|
|
Additionally there are 16 Each DI-5 Drop Inlets Identified in the Bid Proposal. There are 6 Each that appear to be identical shown in Options "B" that are also used in Option "A" and 7 Each that have the same structure number as in option "A" that have different heights than shown in Option "B". There are also 20 DI-5's identified in the Drainage Description instead of the 16 required by the Bid Form. Could the Department please clarify this conflict?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
10/16/2015 2:00:56 PM
|
|
Bid proposals Option A and B are separate plan sets and the structures should be viewed as separate as well. However, DI-5’s are paid for by each. The Option A (or base bid) will have 22 DI-5’s. Option B requires an additional 16 DI-5’s for a total of 38 (as shown in the Option B drainage descriptions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
10/9/2015 10:54:19 AM
|
|
Plan Sheet 2HH - 2JJ subdivides the standard silt fence into two categories - <20' fill height and >20' fill height (Type A & B respectively). There are significant differences in material and installation costs between the two and no identification of the quantities involved between the two descriptions are included the summaries. Further, there is allowance for installing 2 rows of Type A in lieu of Type B. 1-) If the contractor elects to install 2 rows of Type A Silt Fence will payment be made for both rows (1 LF of roadway station = 2 LF of measurement)? 2-) Can a Pay Item be established for the two different Silt Fence Types to avoid combining prices for such different material types?
|
|
Answer
1 previous answer(s)
|
Date:
|
10/15/2015 8:21:44 AM
|
|
1.) Yes. ~~~This will apply to the following station ranges: ~~~Base Bid: RT 138+50 to 140+00 (Rte. 784) RT & LT 11+00 to 13+00 (Rte. 729) ~~~Alterative Bid: RT 127+50 to 131+00 (Rte. 784) RT 138+00 to 140+00 (Rte. 784) RT & LT 11+00 to 13+00 (Rte. 729)
2.) Currently, the Department does not have a pay item for Type B silt fence.
|
|
|
|
|