|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/20/2019 9:48:14 AM
|
|
When looking for the Merged road plans ( project 0671-087-610 and 0671-087-667), They are not in the file on project wise, Only the 2 bridges, cross sections, an old set of merged road plans, and the revised set of road plans for (project 0671-087-685). I did see that they are still available as individual sheets. Can you please add the merged set?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2019 3:02:55 PM
|
|
The revision of August 14, 2019 removed the Notice to Proceed date of Oct. 23, 2019. The first allowable road closure start date is still January 1, 2020. What does the Department foresee as a new Notice to Proceed date?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/17/2019 9:25:01 AM
|
|
The Notice to Proceed date will be per Section 105.01 of the 2016 Road and Bridge Specifications
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2019 8:32:25 AM
|
|
Reference Special Provision "Concrete Cylinder Piles" dated 8/5/2019, Section VII.L.2.c - Experience
If a Contractor does not have the required experience driving these piles, but employs an individual who does the have the required experience, and the Contractor plans for that employee to be onsite during pile driving, will the Contractor be considered qualified per this Special Provision?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/24/2019 7:57:16 AM
|
|
No, per the special provision the contractor must have the referenced experience in addition to an employee who is on site during installation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/11/2019 1:49:39 PM
|
|
Sheet 3 of 33 on both bridges state to provide permanent sheet piling. Please provide the type of sheet pile section required to be installed.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/17/2019 9:16:29 AM
|
|
Permanent steel sheet pile shall be unpainted, ASTM A572 Grade 60, hot rolled
AZ50 or equivalent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/11/2019 1:56:12 PM
|
|
Will these permanent sheets required a coating? If so, please provide elevations of dimensions of coating and which side of sheet.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/17/2019 9:16:50 AM
|
|
Permanent steel sheet pile shall be unpainted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/11/2019 1:14:47 PM
|
|
The Time of Year Restriction note on plan sheet 2 prohibits work in the Nottoway River (Bridge B666) between February 15 and June 30 of any year. Does this note apply to: 1 - removal of the cofferdams installed to remove the existing piers and install cylinder piles? 2 - installation of the permanent sheet piling? 3 - removal of any temporary sheet piling?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/24/2019 10:18:36 AM
|
|
Cofferdams must be installed prior to TOY restriction and removed after TOY restriction dates. Work may proceed within the cofferdam during the TOY restriction.
Please note the TOY restriction applies to in-water work. This applies to work within limits marked as waters of U.S. (WUS) line on the plans. This should apply only to the main bridge and the Nottoway River. The bridge for the drainage overflow only has impacts to forested wetlands. Therefore, the TOY restriction should not apply to the overflow bridge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/10/2019 1:32:51 PM
|
|
Please specify permanent sheet pile size (PZ-22, PZ-27, etc...) and finish type (bare, galvanized, etc...).
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/24/2019 8:16:07 AM
|
|
Permanent steel sheet pile shall be unpainted, ASTM A572 Grade 60, hot rolled AZ50 or
equivalent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/27/2019 12:57:28 PM
|
|
Can the roadway plans corresponding to the cross sections for 101495 be posted? It appears the the posted roadway plans for 101495 are the same as 113409.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/24/2019 8:14:17 AM
|
|
Looking at the current drawings on the web site. This issue has been resolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/20/2019 12:18:28 PM
|
|
The refenced specification states that "Diesel hammers will not be allowed to drive cylinder piles." The only hammers allowed are air, steam, or hydraulic. These types of hammers have very limited availability and are not guaranteed to be available for this project. Diesel hammers are much more readily available and have been recently utilized on projects to drive concrete cylinder piles. We ask that the owner, please reevaluate the possibility to utilizing diesel hammers to install the concrete cylinder piles.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/24/2019 8:12:44 AM
|
|
The other hammer types, particularly hydraulic, are generally considered to be preferred for
the purposes of driving cylinder piles. The diesel hammers were excluded because they are
general not well suited for driving large cylinder piles due to their light ram weights and long
strokes. To limit the risk of damaging the piles during driving, hammer types other than diesel
are preferred. However, if a contractor feels that they can drive the piles with a diesel hammer,
we will allow it. However, we will consider a diesel hammer for this project, provided a few
important steps are taken: 1) as for all proposed hammers, a Wave Equation (WEAP) with pile
and driving equipment data shall be submitted for review by the Department. The WEAP shall
model the initial drive conditions and the restrike conditions, after soil set-up. The hammer must
be large enough to "prove out" the required nominal axial resistance. 2) the diesel hammer shall
be equipped with a hydraulic fuel pump so that the contractor has complete control over the
stroke at all times. Documentation proving that this device can be used to control the stroke shall
be provided. 3) the hammer shall be equipped with proximity switches for kinetic energy
measurements. It is our understanding that some Berminghammer models are equipped with
these switches. 4) an e-saximeter shall be used to measure stroke and continuously monitor the
energy imparted to the pile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/9/2019 11:27:12 AM
|
|
The amendment was released and stated that smaller cylinder piles could be used as an alternate. The required pile driving resistance is less than the original 54" cylinder piles. Is it the intent of the owner to use the same size hammer to drive the 36" cylinder piles as the 54"?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/24/2019 8:15:05 AM
|
|
The intent of the amendment is to allow the Contractor to use 36” cylinder piles in lieu of 54”
cylinder. We would not anticipate that both would be used. There is no specific requirement in
terms of the hammer selected for installation. However, the Contractor must demonstrate the
selected hammer and corresponding driving system can install the piles to the required depths
and nominal driving resistances without damaging the pile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/1/2019 12:50:26 PM
|
|
We concur with the question asked on 7-8-19. The original plans do not have any cross-section views and the only information are some standard plans from 1957. Without some idea of what the superstructure is and how it was built, it makes it very difficult to determine quantities, pick weights, etc. Could the department please provide some more detail, past inspections, the referenced plans and/or any rehab drawings. Thank You.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/24/2019 8:17:17 AM
|
|
Please find existing standard drawings used for this project in projectwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/29/2019 10:07:07 AM
|
|
Contractor is seeking clarification as to the methodology of establishing quantities and scope within proposal line number 1130 (Temporary Sheet Piling) and 1240 (Cofferdam). Per the ** footnote under each of the "Estimated Quantities - Substructure Only" tables, the cofferdam quantity is to be used for the removal of existing structure. Four cofferdams for this purpose are shown on the succeeding drawing, however these four cofferdams are also labeled as "temporary sheet pile cofferdams typ.". Please clarify where the remaining two cofferdams for removal of existing structure are to be located (for a bid quantity of 6 per bridge), and please clarify if the four cofferdams shown on the drawing are to be included in bid line item 1130 or 1240.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/5/2019 2:39:36 PM
|
|
We have 6 cofferdams per bridge. To remove the existing structure we need 4 and 2 to build new piers. These quantities are shown under line number 1250. To build the riprap we have permanent sheet piles under item no 1130 and temporary sheet piles under item 1140.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/11/2019 3:27:12 PM
|
|
Please verify if the temporary sheets are to be paid for full length in the ground or exposed surface face? If exposed surface face, please confirm the quantities associated with Bridge 666.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/17/2019 9:18:16 AM
|
|
Temporary sheet pile quantities are full depth i.e. above ground and in ground
and are approximate only based on limits shown in the plans. As per contract drawings –
bridge sheet 3, contractor is responsible for the design of any temporary sheet piles.
Quantities of temporary sheet pile may vary from those estimated based on the
contractor’s design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/11/2019 3:22:59 PM
|
|
Please verify that the measure of payment of the permanent sheets is for the full length of sheet left in the ground?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/17/2019 9:17:39 AM
|
|
Yes, the measure payment is for full length of sheet piles
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/10/2019 2:03:21 PM
|
|
Subsequent to VDOT's response, the contractor went back to verify quantities and is still having trouble understanding the design intent. As an example; bridge B666, abutment B shows 3,150 SF of temporary shoring. Scaling the plan view gives us 87.5 total LF of temporary shoring wall at this abutment. 3,150 SF / 87.5 LF => 36' retained wall height. Please describe the method used to arrive at a 36' retained wall height as the base of the rip rap to the OHW is only 11 LF.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/24/2019 8:18:21 AM
|
|
The quantity for temporary steel sheet pile is a conservative estimate. As noted on sheet 3
and 3A, Contractor is responsible for the design of the temporary sheet pile. Using a heavier size
may reduce the height of temporary sheet pile. Seasonal high water level during construction
may affect the height of pile. For bridge B666 Abutment B, the temporary sheet pile is estimated
to be 90’ long and 35’ high, having 13’ above existing ground and 22’ below existing ground.
|
|
|
|
|