Advertisements   Division Home   Bid Results   Bid Tabs   Ad Report   VDOT Forms   ProjectWise
Project Info
Order Number UPC State Project Number Last Date to Post Questions
B41 5542 (NFO) 0622-015-298, C501, B649 8/16/2019
Search Questions
Question Type  
    The last date to post questions has passed. Any questions posed 72 hours before the letting date may not be answered. Export Q&A    
Question List
Subject: Borrow/Excess Sites - Water Quality and Nutrient Credits Type: Other
Question Date: 8/15/2019 8:27:13 AM
1. Do the Nutrient Credits secured by VDOT noted on SWPPP cover the necessary additional land needed for the Project Owner's (VDOT) generated Borrow/Excess? 2. If not, then will VDOT provide the necessary credits on behalf of the Contractor or pay the Contractor by change order to purchase the credits? 3. If so, what is the cost to the contractor? As VDOT has secured much of the Nutrient Credit market it would be reasonable for the bidding contractor to presume the they were obtained to cover all the associated cost of Water Quality for all land necessary to be disturbed by the Project Owner whether on or off right of way 4. If not, what is VDOT’s expectation for the bidding contractor w/r to WQ/Nutrient Credits for Borrow/Excess sites? As the plans and specifications are not clear on this subject, the bidding contractor must assume that this will be addressed by Change Order after award.. Please provide the necessary clarifications.  
Answer   Date: 8/16/2019 4:12:23 PM
The Nutrient Credits previously purchased are for the project area only and do not include any offsite areas. It is the Contractor's responsibility to secure permit coverage for any offsite area that is not located on VDOT rights of way or easements. This includes meeting all stormwater management requirements required to obtain the permits for any offsite area not on VDOT rights of way or easements. Please refer to section 4.2 of IIM-LD-242.7 and Section 107.16 of the 2016 VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications for additional information.  
Subject: Preboring for Piles Type: Other
Question Date: 8/14/2019 11:31:27 AM
The Preboring required for the 12" Piles at Abutment A and the 14" Piles for the Pier on Bridge B649 is very problematic. The average depth of Preboring for the 20 each 2'-0" diameter holes at Abutment A is approximately 66' and the average depth of the 25 each 2'-6" diameter holes at the pier is 26'. Considering the nature of the original ground that must be drilled through and the fact that the water table is so far above the tip elevation, it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to drill and maintain an open hole long enough to place a pile in the hole and pump concrete down to the pile tip which must be kept centered. Temporary casings will be impossible because of their small size and the lengths required. There is not enough room between the piles to even consider full length temporary casings. Using a polymer slurry may be a consideration to keep the holes open, but that creates other installation problems and it would need to be approved by VDOT from an environmental stand point. Can you give us some guidance on this subject as to what was anticipated by VDOT so that this work can be done in a practical way and at a cost that is suitable to the result desired?  
Answer   Date: 8/16/2019 3:59:37 PM
The Means and Methods will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Constructing piles of the type depicted in the plans has been successfully completed on a number of recent bridge projects within the Commonwealth and the Department concludes the work can be successfully completed as designed for this project.  
Question Date: 8/14/2019 3:34:04 PM
Could you maybe explain the need for Preboring the piles at Abutment A and the pier. The geology at Abutment B (no preboring) appears to be similar in nature with the same erratic rock elevations, high water table, and, most likely, the same river jack and quartz floaters. From a benefit to cost ratio, I believe it would be best to find a way to delete the preboring at Abutment A and Pier.  
Answer   Date: 8/16/2019 3:58:43 PM
The requirement for preboring of piles at Abutment A and Pier are due to the given geotechnical site conditions.  
Subject: Asbestos Removal Type: Other
Question Date: 8/9/2019 9:27:02 AM
Can the Department furnish the Asbestos Inspection Report so the contractor can accurately price the Asbestos Removal Bid Items?  
Answer   Date: 8/9/2019 2:00:59 PM
The Asbestos Inspection Report is available on ProjectWise.  
Subject: Geogrid Type: Plan
Question Date: 8/1/2019 1:44:14 PM
Can you confirm that the only locations requiring geogrid are Roadway STA 108+00 to 110+20 (plan sheet 2A) and in the embankment under the bridge abutments and CL II riprap (bridge plan sheet 4). Can you clarify the layers of geogrid in each section and verify the bid quantity for accuracy?  
Answer   Date: 8/6/2019 12:53:35 PM
The only locations requiring geogrid are Roadway STA 108+00 to 110+20 (plan sheet 2A) and in the embankment under the bridge abutments and CL II riprap (bridge plan sheet 4). The layers of geogrid in each section are shown on plan sheet 4 of the bridge plans and quantity has been verified.  
Subject: Streambed Cobble Type: Specifications
Question Date: 7/26/2019 10:39:41 AM
Special Provision for Stream Relocation Section II Materials describes Streambed Cobbles in detail. Does the Department know if this specification can be met and if so, can a list of suppliers be provided?  
Answer   Date: 8/1/2019 3:28:58 PM
Yes, this provision can be met. there are multiple possible suppliers, see Luck Ecosytems and Shenandoah Stone.  
Question Date: 8/16/2019 1:58:17 PM
The only material found from the approved sources is sized 4"-6" in place of 4"-8" as specified on the plans and 8"-12" in place of 10"-14" as specified on plans. Will these gradations be acceptable?  
Answer   Date: 8/20/2019 11:40:25 AM
The Contractor may submit a request for a substitution to gradations for review and approval by the Engineer if the Contractor provides proof the specified gradations can not be obtained from an approved source.  
Subject: Stream Location Excavation Type: Plan
Question Date: 7/26/2019 9:38:00 AM
Plan Sheet 12(4) (Summaries and Quantities) for the Stream relocation lists Total Excavation of 6,911 CY and Total Fill of 4,288 CY. We understand from the Project Special Provision that the excavation is to be stockpiled and utilized to backfill the existing Steam; however, we do not understand how the Surplus Excavation of 4,295 CY (listed in the summary) is generated. Please clarify.  
Answer   Date: 8/1/2019 3:35:11 PM
The 4,295 CY of Surplus Excavation comes from the following: The 1,672 CY of over-excavation required for the Streambed Cobble. The 5,239 CY of cut minus the 2,616 CY of fill for the old channel = 2,623 CY of cut  
Subject: Fertilizer rate Type: Specifications
Question Date: 7/23/2019 11:32:23 AM
On the Roadside Development sheet (2G) Note # 5 reads: regular seeding shall be fertilized at the rates shown in the fertilizer summary table......I cannot find this fertilization table to get the rate of fertilization. I do see total nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium, but not a application rate. Thank you  
Answer   2 previous answer(s) Date: 7/25/2019 2:47:23 PM
The fertilizer application rates are specified in the Construction Nutrient Management Plan and in IIM-2016-8-0_Rev 2 of April 2017, which explains all the policies that drive the Roadside Spreadsheet. For permanent seed, the application rate is 250 lbs/acr of 15-30-15. For temporary seed, the rate is 125 lbs/acr of 15-30-15. For overseeding, the rate is 65 ibs/acre of 46-0-0.  
Subject: Geotechnical Report Type: Other
Question Date: 7/23/2019 8:25:28 AM
Can you post the Geotechnical Report?  
Answer   Date: 7/23/2019 8:32:12 AM
The Geotechnical Report has been posted in ProjectWise.  

Displaying questions 1 - 8 (of 8)
Page: 1 First Previous Next Last