|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 4:59:56 PM
|
|
“In regards to VDOT’s August 19, 2016 Answer at 3:13PM regarding Hazardous Substances, we acknowledge that VDOT has no control over EPA’s designations and actions. However, as acknowledged in VDOT’s answer, the EPA prefers that co-generators mutually agree who will perform the duties of the generator on behalf of the other co-generators. Please confirm that VDOT will perform the duties of the generator on behalf of the Contractor for any hazardous substances that the Contractor did not introduce to the project site, including unknown hazardous substances as well as the known asbestos containing materials and the lead paint in the Type B Structures. In addition, please confirm that VDOT will sign any manifests related to the known asbestos despite the Special Provisions language to the contrary.”
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/23/2016 1:27:00 PM
|
|
No, the Responsibilities for each party have already been described in previous responses. VDOT and Contractor will be co-generators for hazardous waste generated from Type B structures and any unknown hazardous materials/waste discovered during construction. Contractor is responsible for managing the waste during construction in accordance with specifications and hazardous waste regulations. Contractor will prepare manifests for signature by the Engineer (VDOT). Asbestos containing materials are addressed below.
~~~ No, per the Special Provision, the contractor is responsible for signing the manifest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/15/2016 3:06:03 PM
|
|
“In regards to VDOT’s August 9, 2016 Answer at 1:32PM regarding Hazardous Substances, thank you for pointing out the Special Provisions sections that touch upon Hazardous Substances. We would like to follow up with VDOT on its answer because we aren’t sure that VDOT appreciates the magnitude of its response. Not only do the specific Special Provisions sections require the Contractor to take on co-generator status for known hazardous substances regardless of Contractor negligence, but VDOT’s answer now requires the Contractor to take on co-generator status for unknown hazardous substances. This new risk on the Contractor is not quantifiable, which means that the bidders will be forced to make a business decision to either not bid the project or bid the project with such a large contingency that the cost to VDOT will skyrocket. We are certain this was not VDOT’s intent, so we are again reaching out to VDOT with the hopes of clarifying this issue. If a Contractor does not bring hazardous substances to the project site and/or does not disturb the hazardous substances already on site through its negligence, asking the Contractor to take on co-generator status for hazardous substances already on site is not reasonable and is against the industry standard throughout the country. At VDOT’s request, we can provide dozens of examples where public owner’s similarly situated to VDOT answered the same question posed to VDOT by stating simply: “yes, Owner will be considered the generator.” VDOT is currently asking its Contractor’s to buy its remediation. Please reconsider your answer and confirm that VDOT, or someone other than the Contractor, will sign all manifests relating to hazardous substances that the Contractor did not introduce to the job site and that VDOT, or someone other than the Contractor, shall be considered the generator of such hazardous substances.”
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 3:13:29 PM
|
|
The EPA will hold the contractor liable under CERCLA for project-related waste they generate, should that waste be mismanaged past the point of generation. EPA will consider the contractor a co-generator.
EPA defines a hazardous waste generator as “any person, by site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste identified or listed in Part 261 of this chapter whose act first causes a hazardous waste to become subject to regulation.” In context of Owner (VDOT) and Contractor relationships, this definition can be applied to the Contractor, and/or its subcontractors, who will be performing the excavation or dewatering activities and to VDOT as the property owner and contractee for the project. In such situations, EPA refers to the contractor, and/or its subcontractors, and VDOT as “co-generators” and thus all are jointly and severably liable for complying with the generator standards. VDOT has no control over EPA’s designation of the Contractor or its subcontractors as a generator(s). It is a legally, not contractually, defined status. EPA prefers that co-generators mutually agree (by contract or other means) who will perform the duties of the generator on behalf of the other co-generator(s). However, EPA reserves the right to hold all parties liable for violation of the regulations.
If the contractor discovers additional hazardous substances, previously unknown, during construction, then VDOT would negotiate a work order with the contractor to remove the substance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/4/2016 1:52:22 PM
|
|
The Contract Documents address the Contractor’s ability to seek an equitable adjustment for differing site conditions. However, the Contract Documents fail to address generator status for pre-existing hazardous substances that the Contractor encounters which the Contractor did not introduce to the project site. Please confirm that the Contractor shall not be responsible for any pre-existing hazardous substances and that the Owner, or someone other than the Contractor, shall sign any required manifests accepting generator status of any hazardous substances that the Contractor did not introduce to the project site.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/9/2016 1:32:28 PM
|
|
A hazardous material site assessment was conducted for the project; and the following pre-existing special solid waste or hazardous material considerations were identified:
(1) Asbestos containing materials (ACM), which are considered a special solid waste, on the Rt. 232 bridge. The ACM will be managed in accordance with the Special Provision for Removal of Asbestos from Bridge Structures that was included in the Contract. The SP places waste shipping manifest signatory responsibility on the Contractor.
(2) The bridges included in this contract are Type B (structures with coatings that may generate hazardous waste). Management of lead paint on those bridges will be handled in accordance with Specification Section 413 which makes reference to 411.08. Those specs address responsibility and require the Contractor to prepare the manifest for signature by the Engineer; and the specs also make it clear that the Contractor is the co-generator of the waste.
Beyond these items, no other hazardous materials were identified or are anticipated during construction.
Should a previously unidentified hazardous material be encountered during construction then the Contractor will be the co-generator along with VDOT, and the Contractor will be responsible for preparing the manifest for the Engineer to sign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 3:14:27 PM
|
|
Section XVII. NONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION of the Drilled Shaft Special Provision states that CSL and TIP (probe method) testing shall be between one hundred sixty eight (168) and one hundred ninety two (192) hours after concrete place. This time frame may be after the shaft concrete reached its peak temperature during concrete hydration. Is this acceptable?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 3:14:51 PM
|
|
The Contractor shall obtain the recommended time of initial CSL and TIP (PROBE METHOD ONLY) testing from his testing firm based on shaft diameter and concrete mix. A new timeframe may be proposed after the time to peak temperature is established from the TIP (THERMAL WIRE METHOD) data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 11:24:01 AM
|
|
Bid Item 2310 Pre-Boring Pile Pre-Bore for 12" Piles
Bid item does not seem to account for the 30 LF added to B608; will this quantity discrepancy be fixed by addendum?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 3:35:17 PM
|
|
Not at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 11:03:50 AM
|
|
Please explain exactly where the 23,549 CY is physically located for Bid Item 3000 Regular Excavation.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 3:22:18 PM
|
|
The 23,549 C.Y. of regular excavation for the Additive Bid is the excavation around the SWM facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 9:58:17 AM
|
|
Due to the late addendum's of 8-9-16 and 8-16-16 along with the number of unanswered questions, we think that strong considerations should be given to delaying receipt of bids.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/23/2016 1:32:33 PM
|
|
VDOT will not be delaying receipt of bids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 9:46:00 AM
|
|
In response to VDOT's answer to the original question, can the height and size of the proposed pipe(s) be provided so that an accurate cost can be provided for the (2) DI-2B L=12' Structures?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 4:07:29 PM
|
|
The St’d. DI-2B’s (H=3.8’ & H=3.9’) will be connected with 15” storm sewer pipes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/18/2016 9:33:22 AM
|
|
Please confirm the I-81 maintenance access road will not be removed from the contract after the bid. If it is removed after the bid then confirm a contract change will be issued for access costs to the west side of the New River for bridge construction.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 1:54:08 PM
|
|
The maintenance access road will not be removed from the contract if the Additive Bid is not approved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/18/2016 9:29:42 AM
|
|
The Base Bid / Additive Bid and Option section in addendum 3 indicates the project will be awarded to the lowest combined and balanced base bid and additive price. Please confirm that any bids that have 2 different unit prices for similar items in the base bid and additive section will be rejected regardless of total bid price.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/18/2016 6:13:31 PM
|
|
No, the unit prices do not have to be consistent between the base bid unit prices and the additive bid unit prices. The following has been removed from the proposal via the last addendum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2016 2:53:20 PM
|
|
Drainage Descriptions & Profile show storm str. 6-10 w/ invert elevation of 1777.2 for the 42" line out to 6-12 and 36" line in to str. 6-10 from 7-5 at invert elevation of 1775.6 which will put it approx. 1.6' BELOW the 42" Out - Are these invert elevations correct?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 1:51:55 PM
|
|
Inverts of the pipe run from Str. 7-5 to Str. 6-10 in the current plans should be revised to be 1781.0’ to 1777.6’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2016 2:30:40 PM
|
|
Plans indicate JB-1 Junction Boxes for str's 3-2, 4-12A, 4-13, 4-14, & 6-12 - All of these can be provided as an MH-2 Precast Manhole design per Road & Bridge Std. Volume 1. Will VDOT allow an alternate design per the Precast Manhole standard 103.09, 103.10, & 103.11?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/19/2016 3:37:01 PM
|
|
Provided that they work with the proposed pipe configurations, standard MH-2’s may be substituted for these at no additional cost to VDOT.
|
|
|
|
|
Displaying questions 1 - 10 (of 53)
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6 First Previous Next Last
|