|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/15/2019 9:20:05 AM
|
|
Given the existing water main's age and condition, if leaks develop in the existing water main due to construction activities that induce vibration, who is responsible for the repairs?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/15/2019 3:24:58 PM
|
|
Per the 2016 Road and Bridge Specifications, “The Contractor shall protect existing, adjusted, or new utilities that are shown on the plans, marked by Miss Utility, or otherwise known to the Contractor that are to remain within the right of way so as to prevent disturbance or damage resulting from construction operations.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/15/2019 8:57:11 AM
|
|
The poured in place pier footing will require a cofferdam. The drilled shaft option as shown will require a cofferdam also. We do not see a pay item for this work. Can you add a pay item for a cofferdam in Alternate A and Alternate B and confirm that extending the permanent casing to OHW and widening the stem diameter below OHW to 6'6" is an acceptable cofferdam for Alternate B?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/15/2019 2:06:03 PM
|
|
The cost of the cofferdams are to be included in the Construction Access pay item, as per the special provision on page 115. When a drilled shaft extends through a body of water, the SP for Drilled Shafts allows the Contractor to use a removable casing. A temporary casing is not a cofferdam. The pier must be built per the plans unless the Contractor submits an alternative as part of the VE option. If, for example, the Contractor would prefer to use a permanent casing extending above OHW in lieu of a temporary casing, the Contractor would need to submit that as a VE option for approval. The VE option would need to be at no additional cost to the Department.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/15/2019 11:51:44 AM
|
|
Usually cofferdams is a pay item. However there is only the cofferdam for the slope stabilization. Will this be rectified with an addendum or are they incidental?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/15/2019 2:06:59 PM
|
|
The cost of the cofferdams are to be included in the Construction Access pay item, as per the special provision on page 115.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/12/2019 1:08:03 PM
|
|
Can the contractor chose to mix the Alternate A and B in his bid? For example choose alternate A for the Abutment and Alternate B for the Pier.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/14/2019 9:45:50 AM
|
|
Per the included Special Provision, the contractor must bid on either Alternate A or B. After award if the contractor wishes to mix Alternate A and Alternate B as described in the question, they are welcome to submit a Value Engineering proposal for consideration as per section 104 of the 2016 Road and Bridge Specifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/12/2019 10:29:10 AM
|
|
Is the as needed use or rebar couplers fir the PV09 series bars permissible?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/13/2019 9:38:08 AM
|
|
Per VDOT 2016 Specifications section 406.03(e) couplers are allowable but the mechanical coupler needs to meet the requirements of the previously mentioned specification at no extra cost to the Department because the designer has shown a bar splice not a coupler splice on the plans. The coupler needs to be sized so concrete can consolidate around the coupler and the other reinforcement. The contractor will need to submit a cut sheet of the proposed coupler to be reviewed by the Engineer of Record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/12/2019 10:20:38 AM
|
|
Note 10 on plan sheet 3 of 10 of the permit states ":Selection of the drilled shaft option would eliminate the need for a temporary cofferdam for construction of the new pier". The bridge plans do not show the casing or 6'6" diameter shaft extending above the water surface elevation and imply the pier stem below water level is formed concrete. Is it permissible to extend the permanent casing to OHW? Will a plan revision be issued to show the casing and 6'6" diameter shaft extending to OHW?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/14/2019 3:40:29 PM
|
|
The pier must be built per the plans unless the Contractor submits an alternative as part of the VE option. If, for example, the Contractor would prefer to use a permanent casing extending above OHW in lieu of a temporary casing, the Contractor would need to submit that as a VE option for approval. The VE option would need to be at no additional cost to the Department.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/15/2019 8:49:44 AM
|
|
The proposal includes 113.7 cy of NEAT concrete for the poured in place pier footing option and only 89.4 cy of NEAT concrete for the drilled shaft option. 89.4 cy of concrete is the approximate volume of concrete in the pier above OHW. It appears the intent of the designer was to install the shaft to OHW and therefore avoid the need for a cofferdam. It appears this information did not make it to the draftsman. We also believe the intent of the permanent casing was for use from OHW to the rock socket and not within the rock socket itself (see previous question). Can you verify the quantities and advise how we will be paid for the pier stem concrete below OHW.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/15/2019 2:07:34 PM
|
|
The intent of the permanent casing is for use in the rock socket and a relatively thin layer of silt just above the rock socket. The quantity for pier concrete for the drilled shaft option from the top of the drilled shaft (the rock socket) is 89.4 CY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/12/2019 8:03:05 AM
|
|
Considering the fact that the existing water line must stay in service at its present location until it is permanently relocated, and there is only 17' +/- of headroom between the OHW and the bottom of the existing bridge superstructure, and the new bridge pier foundation must be install in 20' +/- of water depth, this bridge, as designed, is not constructible with either of the options presented.
Will the Department accept alternative options? And how does the Department intend to deal with the awarded contractor if the Department presented options are deemed not constructible?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/15/2019 10:12:44 AM
|
|
VDOT disagrees that the bridge is not constructible as designed. Both options may require some modifications to normal practices, but both are constructible. The pier must be built per the plans unless the Contractor submits an alternative as a Value Engineering proposal after award. If, for example, the Contractor would prefer to use an alternative construction method or sequence in lieu of what is shown on the plans, the Contractor would need to submit the alternative as a VE option for approval. The VE option would need to be at no additional cost to the Department. VDOT suggests that any contractor who thinks the bridge is not constructible exercise their right not to bid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/11/2019 10:44:31 AM
|
|
The Special Provision "Cofferdams for Slope Stabilization" on Pages 150 and 151 of the Bid Proposal is written to cover bridge foundations in deep water. It talks about a concrete foundation seal as if we are installing a concrete footing for a bridge. The wording needs to be changed so that this slope stabilization benching and riprap can be done in a practical manner, without the need for a totally enclosed cofferdam.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/15/2019 1:42:09 PM
|
|
The water depth in some of this area is 12 ’ – 14 ‘. The SP does not require the use of a concrete foundation seal. “If conditions are encountered that make it impracticable to dewater the slope stabilization construction area, the Engineer may require the Contractor to construct a concrete foundation seal of the dimensions necessary to ensure that the balance of the concrete can be placed in the dry.” To clarify the last part of the above sentence the intent is “that the balance of the rip-rap can be placed in the dry.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2019 3:13:24 PM
|
|
Can the Department provide the asbestos inspection report?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/12/2019 10:56:47 AM
|
|
This is available in ProjectWise currently
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2019 3:04:23 PM
|
|
Is the completion date correct on this project? Water work requirements limit work in the water because of the presence of mussels until August 1. In addition bat restrictions limit the clearing to start September 16th. If the clearing for access to install the causeway in the water cannot be started until September 16th this will make it tough to complete the project by the completion date with normal crew hours as some concrete work pushes into the winter months.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/12/2019 11:00:01 AM
|
|
The November 2020 completion date is correct. VDOT is working to have the trees cut prior to April 15th, so the bat time of year restriction for clearing should not be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2019 11:18:15 AM
|
|
In order to minimize the overhead obstructions during pier construction, is it permissible during Phase 1 to remove all superstructure that is not required for support of the existing water line?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
3/15/2019 10:50:25 AM
|
|
It appears it would be feasible to remove downstream Beam 4, the downstream railing, and the adjacent downstream section of deck during Phase 1. There is an existing W-beam waterline restraint/support at the south abutment from the waterline to the bottom of Beam 4 approx. 5-8 feet from the abutment. The contractor would need to replace the restraint/support until the waterline can be replaced in manner that would need to be approved by the Pulaski Co PSA. A safety barrier would need to be installed over Beam 3 before the demolition takes place.
|
|
|
|
|