|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/21/2017 1:16:47 PM
|
|
The Abutment A MSE wall is taller than what was analyzed in the geotechnical report. As a result, the applied bearing pressure will exceed the allowable bearing capacity provided in the contract plans. The roadway MSE wall was analyzed in the geotechnical report at a height of 6’, however the entire length of the wall is greater than 6’. As a result, the entire roadway MSE wall also exceeds the allowable bearing capacity given in the contract plans. Please advise if External Stability and allowable bearing capacity will be re-evaluated by VDOT's geotechnical engineer for each MSE wall prior to final wall design and if any foundation improvements will be required by the contractor prior to wall construction.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/21/2017 1:11:37 PM
|
|
The contract plans (sheet 30/68 of the bridge plans) state a reinforcement length L/H ratio of 0.7H for the Abutment A and B MSE walls, however the provided geotechnical report states that global stability was checked with 0.85H for these walls. Please confirm which reinforcement length ratio is to be used for these walls, as this has an affect on reinforcement strip lengths and amount of select backfill that will be required for these walls.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/24/2017 11:40:20 AM
|
|
The L/H Ratio shall be 0.85H for both Abutment A and Abutment B MSE Walls. Plan sheet will be revised prior to contract execution, so bid accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/12/2017 8:55:05 AM
|
|
Plan Sheet I(K)2) for Stage 1 MOT shows eleven (11) foot travel lanes and one (1) foot shoulders. Notes on Plan Sheet I(K)3 and the detail on Plan sheet 7 of 68 require twelve foot travel lanes and two (2) foot shoulder at the bridge. This does not provide adequate space to adjust the Stage 1 shoring for Stage 2 construction. We believe the typical MOT Stage 1 section needs to be maintained across the bridge deck and barrier needs to be continuous across the existing north bound bridge deck in order to have adequate room to install and adjust required shoring. Please advise if this is acceptable.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/17/2017 4:09:22 PM
|
|
If the geotech/site conditions requires the Contractor to use shoring materials that encroach upon the roadway, please be guided by the following: Twelve (12) foot lanes and (2) foot shoulders are desirable for as much length as possible and eleven (11) foot lanes and one (1) foot shoulders are a minimum requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2017 9:20:22 AM
|
|
Plan sheet 1K(4) only provides approximately 10' between the face of the MSE wall and the back of the MB-11A barrier. Plan sheet 10(5) shows the limits of excavation as a minimum of 1.4 X wall height plus one (1) foot or approximately 15'. Please clarify limits of traffic shift, allowable lane width reductions and work area for the wall construction. Please also specify method of payment for shoring required for MSE wall and Concrete retaining wall structure excavation.
STAGE 3 MOT plan sheet 1K(11) shows the inside northbound travel lane between STA 129+00 and 132+50 as having been completed in a previous stage. It appears traffic is maintained on the inside northbound travel lane between STA 129+00 and 132+50 during all previous stages. Please clarify
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/17/2017 4:10:15 PM
|
|
There is a forthcoming addendum for the MSE Walls and here will not be a separate payment for shoring required for the MSE wall and concrete retaining wall structure. The VDOT Special Provision for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls states that the shoring, among other items, is included in the price bid for the structure.
Shoring shall be designed to meet the same criteria as in other areas of the project where space is restricted such as the bridge deck. Twelve (12) foot lanes and (2) foot shoulders are desirable for as much length as possible and eleven (11) foot lanes and one (1) foot shoulders are a minimum requirement. The Stage 3 MOT plan sheets do show areas to have been completed in a previous stage, which could include grading, demolition of pavement, milling, and paving at night in order to make changes to the transition within the allowable work hours and before making a traffic switch, or in areas where space is less restrictive work can be done behind barrier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2017 8:27:27 AM
|
|
Please confirm that bid Item # 1470 BRIDGE SUBSTRUCTURE MSE WALL refers to the wall shown on sheets 10(1) and 10(2)
Please confirm that bid item # 1380 CONCRETE CLASS A4 MSA WALL refer to the moment slab for the retaining wall shown on sheets 10 (1) and 10 (2).
Please clarify the method of payment for the reinforcing used in the moment slab for the MSE Wall shown on sheets 10(1) and 10(2).
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/21/2017 8:09:09 AM
|
|
Bid Item 1470 will be changed to Item No. 13570 with an Addendum and a Special Provision for the M.S.E. Walls; The item code 1380 (Concrete Class A4) is for the CIP wall and for moment slab and parapet on the MSE Wall as noted on sheet 10(1) in the general notes section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/21/2017 9:26:07 AM
|
|
It is our understanding that per note on sheet 10(5), moment slabs shall be paid for with the MSE walls. Parapets on MSE walls are paid with parapet bid items. Bid Item #1380 (Concrete Class A4) is for the CIP wall ONLY. Please confirm.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/13/2017 5:11:13 PM
|
|
It appears that the following existing power poles will have conflicts: Station 117+50 RT lands in the paved shoulder, the pole at 115+10 RT will be under cut during grading operations and will be in the clear zone, the pole at 111+75 RT will be in a 10 foot cut, and will be undermined. The pole at 119+45 RT is in direct conflict with the new 72" RCP, and the pole at 111+65 RT has a 16' cut and will be undermined.
Has VDOT coordinated with the power company for relocation of their facilities? We could not find any notes in the plans addressing the overhead utility and pole conflicts.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/15/2017 11:23:10 AM
|
|
Yes it has been coordinated. It is covered in the Utilities Special Provision in the proposal (Page 174 in the Contract).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/13/2017 2:38:22 PM
|
|
I have noticed that there is not a line item for the STP-1 foundations. Does this mean the installation method will be drive in posts with no concrete or bases?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/15/2017 11:25:11 AM
|
|
This project is being delayed until the July 26th Bid Letting. A line item for the STP-1 foundations will be added to the proposal in the forthcoming addendum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/7/2017 2:12:43 PM
|
|
Do you know when the addendum will be put out for the STP-1 foundations?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/10/2017 8:28:20 AM
|
|
It will be issued this week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/13/2017 8:25:15 AM
|
|
Could you identify the locations and quantities of ACM CAT I remaining in building D1 and the locations and quantities of CAT II NF ACM?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/13/2017 3:57:51 PM
|
|
Asbestos info is in a table in the inspection report I sent you and the report is in CEDAR if a contractor wants more detailed info but for CABB purposes below is a summary of the asbestos in D1 and in the shed ruins (no “D” number) behind the garage….....
D1-Dwelling---
1.) Cat I Non-regulated ACM-140 SF-green linoleum (bottom layer) located in the kitchen floor-good condition-NESHAP demo
2.) Cat II Regulated ACM-1,000 SF-Cementitious Siding on exterior of house beneath brick pattern plaster façade-good condition-Abate ~~~
Shed Ruins---
1.) Cat II Regulated ACM-20 SF-Roof roll-like/black-brown silver painted, former shed walls-poor condition-Abate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/12/2017 4:25:56 PM
|
|
Plan sheet 2 of 68 indicates Class A3 concrete qty to be 1844.8. This was verified with takeoff but the Bid item Qty is 1905.3. Can the department show where this additional concrete is located or will be bid item qty be adjusted?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/13/2017 3:54:54 PM
|
|
An additional 60.5 CY of A3 Concrete is for the retaining wall; quantities are listed on Road Plans sheet 2F.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/25/2017 7:02:00 AM
|
|
This question indicates that the CIP retaining wall will be paid as A3 concrete. A question above indicates that the wall will be paid through Biditem 1380. Please confirm through which item the CIP wall will be paid.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/25/2017 1:26:51 PM
|
|
Pay items for Retaining Wall on Sheet 2F of the Road Plans.
All of these items are for the retaining wall between stations 130+25 and 133+75, shown on roadway plan sheets 10(1) thru 10(2) with sections and details provided on sheets 10(3) thru 10(9). - .
~~~Concrete Class A3 60.5 CY is for the cast-in-place retaining wall footing as shown on sheet 10(1) and 10(2).
~~~Concrete Class A4 56.6 CY is for the cast-in-place retaining wall stem as shown on sheet 10(1) and 10(2).
~~~Reinforcing Steel 9097 LB is for the cast-in-place retaining wall footing as shown on sheet 10(1) and 10(2).
~~~Corrosion Resistant Reinforcing Steel 9097 LB is for the cast-in-place retaining wall stem as shown on sheet 10(1) and 10(2).
~~~Concrete Parapet 353 LF is for the parapet on top of retaining wall as shown on sheet 10(1) and 10(2).
~~~NS Retaining Structure (MSE Wall) 2264 SF is for the MSE Wall as shown on sheet 10(1) and 10(2) – See MSE Special Provision for measurement and payment.
~~~Structure Excavation 362 CY is for the cast-in-place retaining wall as shown on sheet 10(1) and 10(2).
~~~Porous Backfill 35 CY is for the cast-in-place retaining wall as shown on sheet 10(1) and 10(2).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/12/2017 1:59:25 PM
|
|
For Line Item #1450 Cofferdams, will the Department consider separating the 4 cofferdams needed for bridge construction from the 5 cofferdams needed for drain pipe construction?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/13/2017 2:32:13 PM
|
|
The Department has decided to keep as one pay item knowing that there are 9 cofferdams on the project – 4 cofferdams for bridge construction listed on sheet 2 of the bridge plans and 5 cofferdams for pipe construction listed on sheet 2I of the road plans.
|
|
|
|
|