|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2016 3:47:34 PM
|
|
Paving under guardrail is not listed in the description of work in the back of the proposal and SM-9.5A which is normally used is not a bid item. Will there be any paving under guardrail on this project?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/18/2016 9:46:56 AM
|
|
There will be no paving under the guardrail on this project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/11/2016 10:48:35 AM
|
|
The Construction Signs bid item 24160 shows a quantity of 444 SF, does this quantity only apply to signs that are post mounted or does the quantity include rollups used for temporary lane closures?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/11/2016 1:46:36 PM
|
|
This pays for all signs necessary to construct the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/10/2016 11:28:28 AM
|
|
On page 57 – Miscellaneous Notes it states: “…..IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSTANTLY MONITOR AND CONTROL THE STABILIZING OPERATION TO MAKE SURE EXCESSIVE RAISING OF THE SLABS DOES NOT OCCUR. WHERE SUCH DOES HAPPEN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANNING THE EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE, AT THE ENGINEER’S DISCRETION, A SUITABLE RIDING SURFACE PRIOR TO THE FINAL PAVEMENT OVERLAYMENT.”
What criteria and procedures will be put in place to determine what constitutes “EXCESSIVE RAISING” and a "SUITABLE RIDING SURFACE"?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/11/2016 11:14:46 AM
|
|
Individual areas raised a 0.5-inch or greater; sections with International Roughness Index (IRI) values exceeding 170; and areas determined by the Engineer to be a threat to public safety shall be remediated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2016 12:05:43 PM
|
|
The roadway, particularly in the travel lane, currently rides rough; does VDOT have baseline IRI and elevation readings, and will they post the readings in advance of the bid date? Will VDOT change the IRI requirements to a percentage increase limit, such as "no greater than 20% increase" if the IRI baseline is 150 or higher (if a section has a reading of 150, it can't go higher than 180). Will the increase in IRI levels and and lifting of the roadway be acceptable if it is no greater than that which was done on the previous two projects - (FO) 0081-001-736, P401 and (FO) 0081-011-728, N501?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/18/2016 6:22:17 PM
|
|
The average IRI for the entire section from county relative MP 2.27 – 4.35 was 148 as measured at the end of 2015. Intermediary remediation shall be required at the contractor’s expense if the IRI for the entire section becomes greater than 170; or if an individual 0.1-mile section increases in IRI by more than 15% from what was measured in 2015; or if an individual location rises a 0.5-inch or more as a direct result of the polyurethane injection process. Lifting should not exceed what was experienced on the last two projects. Any areas determined by the Engineer to be a threat to public safety shall be remediated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/10/2016 11:25:42 AM
|
|
The specification – “SPECIAL PROVISION FOR STABILIZING ROADWAY SUBGRADE” on pages 18, 19, and 20 with language that includes subgrade stabilization by injecting through multiple holes to depths into the subgrade, a material that expands to strengthen the subgrade so it can support the roadway, while monitoring at the surface to detect when the subgrade strength has been increased to a degree that it supports the load. This describes the tenants of US Patent #6,634,831. The specification is essentially the same as the specifications used in 2012; ORDER NO: H72 CONTRACT ID. NO. C00098757N01- CHEMICALLY STABILIZING ROADWAY SUBGRADE AND CONCRETE SLABS dated January 20, 2012. When questioned about those specifications VDOT responded with the following answers:
“VDOT does not wish to rewrite the specification at this time and does not believe that any other process that does not inject material to the depths not covered by the current specification will provide a satisfactory result.”
“VDOT wants the polymer injection at depth, through tubes (the patented process) and do not wish to change to other types of stabilization specifications.”
VDOT now states it “maintains that the methods as specified in this Special Provision do not infringe the subject patent”. As this statement could cause confusion for Prime Contractors, will VDOT remove this statement?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/23/2016 2:52:33 PM
|
|
VDOT does not wish to change the spec on this project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/10/2016 10:58:23 AM
|
|
The cover page states “DESCRIPTION: SGR: I-81 NB CONCRETE UNDERSEALING (VOLUME 1 OF 2)”; however, there is no specification describing undersealing of concrete. The specification – “SPECIAL PROVISION FOR STABILIZING ROADWAY SUBGRADE” on pages 18, 19, and 20 appears to match the Proposal Line Item 0070 (Pavement Stabilizing Hydraulic Cement Concrete Roadway Subgrade – 83,000 LB). Would VDOT confirm Item 0070 is for the subgrade stabilization specification on pages 18-20 and there is no Concrete Undersealing as listed on the cover page? Or if not, would VDOT please clarify the language?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/10/2016 4:21:12 PM
|
|
Item 0070 is for the subgrade stabilization specification on pages 18-20.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/4/2016 8:14:53 AM
|
|
The Bidx file does not include a DBE folder, will this be corrected?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/3/2016 3:05:29 PM
|
|
Can the number of 16 hour lane closures allowed for Slab Removals and asphalt patching be changed from 8 maximum to 12 maximum? If the number of closures needed exceeds the maximum, will User Fees or Damages be assessed and what is the dollar amount?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/5/2016 4:09:09 PM
|
|
Eight (8) 16 hour lane closures are allowed by the Proposal to perform the Slab Removals and asphalt patching. The number of allowable 16 hour closures can not be changed at this time. User fees do not go into effect until after 11:00 am, as detailed in the Proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/3/2016 2:49:58 PM
|
|
If the existing underdrain is damaged in minor locations during slab removal, will select sections be replaced or the entire length be replaced as shown in the Bid Item quantities?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/11/2016 10:11:48 AM
|
|
The entire length shall be replaced as shown in the Bid Item quantities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/3/2016 2:41:32 PM
|
|
Since this contract contains Specialty Items (Slab Stabilization, Underdrain, Slab Removal, Extra Excavation, etc.) not normally associated with Plant Mix Schedules, would the department consider adding a Mobilization Bid Item?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/5/2016 4:10:46 PM
|
|
This will be added via addendum.
|
|
|
|
|
Displaying questions 1 - 9 (of 9)
Page:
1 First Previous Next Last
|