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
B22 105190 0211-069-801, M501, B613 9/20/2019
Search Questions
Search
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: Detour Borrow Material Type: Plan
Question Date: 9/19/2019 10:20:06 AM
When the detours are removed , does the borrow material need to be removed from the median crossovers or stay in place?  
Answer   Date: 9/20/2019 1:14:45 PM
The borrow material can remain in place after the detours are removed.  
 
Subject: Tooth Dam Coatings Type: Specifications
Question Date: 9/18/2019 11:14:26 AM
Would the state consider changing the coatings on the tooth dam? I would like to propose metalizing or painting the tooth dam, or fabricating it from 50W material. I am concerned with Hot Dip Galvanizing due to it causing the finger joint to warp, leading to fit up and straightness issues.  
Answer   Date: 9/20/2019 1:15:45 PM
The structural steel in the tooth expansion joint is ASTM A36 as specified on drawing 45 of 64. Metalizing/thermal spray coating in accordance with Section 411 of the specifications shall be acceptable in lieu of hot dip galvanizing. If the alternative is chosen, all costs shall remain included in the item Tooth Expansion Joint Assembly, 2".  
 
Subject: Temporary Detour - Demo of Pavement & Obscuring Type: Plan
Question Date: 9/17/2019 10:27:55 AM
On plan sheets 3 & 5, there is a note stating that the Temporary Pavement is to be Obscured but the legend denotes that area as Demolition of Pavement. Which item will be required for the temporary detour? The quantities shown on sheet 2B(2) for both items (if converted to equivalent units) are coming out pretty close to the same. If both are required, please define each item of work and clarify what is to be included in each item.  
Answer   Date: 9/20/2019 10:09:27 AM
The temporary detour pavement on sheets 3 and 5 is to be obscured, not demolished. The Obscuring Roadway pay item quantity is for the temporary detours only. The Demolition of Pavement pay item includes the WB roadway, the entrance to Kauffman’s Mill Road, and a portion of the existing crossover.  
 
Subject: Type B Patching and Epoxy Overlay on EBL Bridge Type: Plan
Question Date: 9/10/2019 4:02:53 PM
How many days after the Type B patching has been performed can the Epoxy Overlay be applied?  
Answer   Date: 9/13/2019 11:35:03 AM
In accordance with the Road and Bridge specifications section 431.03, epoxy overlay shall not be placed on hydraulic cement concrete that is less than 28 days old. Therefore, 28 days after the Type B patching has been performed epoxy overlay can be applied.  
 
Subject: Lane Closures Type: Specifications
Question Date: 9/4/2019 10:39:17 AM
Are there any time restrictions for the lane & shoulder closures required for the shoulder strengthening on Route 211 EB?  
Answer   Date: 9/11/2019 9:34:09 AM
No there are no lane and shoulder closure allowable work hour restrictions on this project.  
 
Question Date: 9/4/2019 10:34:17 AM
Are there any time restrictions for the lane & shoulder closures required for the mill and epoxy overlay on the existing EBL bridge?  
Answer   Date: 9/11/2019 9:36:56 AM
No there are no lane and shoulder closure allowable work hour restrictions on this project.  
 
Subject: Line Item Borrow Excavation (Min CBR-10) Type: Specifications
Question Date: 9/3/2019 3:53:09 PM
Please verify whether or not a CBR-10 (min) material is ONLY REQUIRED in the top 3 ft of fills as defined by Specification 303.04 (b): "CBR values stipulated for borrow excavation shall apply to the uppermost three feet of fill below the top of earthwork, as defined in Section 101. Borrow excavation installed below the top three feet shall consist of suitable fill material, available from regular excavation or borrow excavation, as defined and of a quality consistent with Contract requirements." General Note G-5 on plan sheet 2 may lead the bidding contractor to believe all 39,952 CY of Borrow must meet CBR-10 min. requirements. Thank you.  
Answer   Date: 9/11/2019 9:35:02 AM
As stipulated in Note G-6, which supersedes the specification referenced, all embankment and subgrade material shall have a minimum CBR value of 10 - not just the upper 3 feet.  
 
Subject: Access Road Type: Plan
Question Date: 8/29/2019 10:45:52 AM
Will the access road on the west side of the bridge beyond the temporary boat ramp parking area need to remain open during the project?  
Answer   Date: 9/5/2019 2:58:45 PM
Yes, the access road will remain open.  
 
Subject: Gaging Station Type: Other
Question Date: 8/28/2019 2:54:24 PM
Please provide the following gaging station information: USGS Gage Station Number, Hyrdograph information (gage height and volumes over time) utilized in preparing the plans, WQ permits, and design. Please provide the design/plan elevation equivalent to gage height also. This information is necessary to properly evaluate and estimate the Temporary Causeway, Cofferdams, and Risk for this project.  
Answer   Date: 9/5/2019 2:58:21 PM
Hydrograph information is available on the USGS WaterWatch website by location. https://waterwatch.usgs.gov/ VDOT elevations are based on NAVD 88 vertical datum - see sheet 1E(2).  
 
Subject: Streambed Profile Type: Other
Question Date: 8/28/2019 2:40:28 PM
Bridge Plan Sheet 1 indicates that at OHWM of 725.04, the typical water depth shown is only about 1 ft. The Permit Sketches in all depictions (whether to scale or not) appear to affirm Plan Sheet 1 condition. The borings (4 ea) indicate the average water depth at OHWM varies from about 3 ft to 6 ft. Our observation would be the WQ Permit sketches (volume and area calculations) were based upon the former condition, and not the latter. This would cause a significant limitation on constructability within the limitations of the WQ permit as approved. Please verify the actual conditions present on the river bed. It is our understanding that VDOT bridge inspections normally include soundings of the river bottom which may allow for a more accurate depiction of the river bed and actual typical flow depth at OHWM. Would VDOT consider providing that information to the bidding contractor? Also, would VDOT confirm the basis (what was the water depth used at OHWM) to calculate the volumes and areas provided in the approved WQ permit sketches.  
Answer   Date: 9/5/2019 2:57:43 PM
VDOT bridge safety inspections do not include soundings of the river bottom. See bridge sheet 3 of 64 note: “The Environmental Permit sketches were developed by the Department solely to acquire the necessary project permits. They are conceptual sketches only. They are not to be used for Contract items, Contract quantities or Contract volume estimates. The conceptual illustrations and site conditions shown on the sketches must be verified by the Contractor prior to bid submission by a site investigation per Section 102.04 of the current Road and Bridge Specifications. ….” OHW used to calculate volumes and areas in the Environmental Permit sketches is determined during field assessment by VDOT Environmental Section Natural Resource Specialists.  
 
Question Date: 9/10/2019 10:13:53 AM
By contract, the Contractor must comply with the terms of the Permit Sketches which strictly prohibits the use of additional disturbance area or temporary fill without an amendment to the permit being applied for. The Department notes this could take up to six months, and puts all responsibility upon the contractor. The Department has consistently stated in the past the "concept" provided in the permit sketches is to ensure a buildable plan (with flexibility) for the contractor. If this is so, then the permit sketches need to reflect the actual conditions present for the concept to be workable. It is our understanding that bridge inspection with a channel profile was performed that confirmed an average river depth on the order of 5 ft at OHWM. The existing bridge plans also affirm a river depth on the order of 5ft at OHWM. The permit sketches confirm by their dimensions shown and verification of calculation, a river depth on the order of 2 ft at OHWM was used to obtain the permit. Three feet is a significant and costly difference. In addition, to work within the "concept" provided by VDOT, considerable additional temporary disturbance (area and fill) is needed. As this information was available to the design team. Can the Department please explain why this information was not utilized to accurately depict the conditions present in the permit sketches? In addition, please clarify your expectation of what a bidding contractor is to do with this knowledge that the permit sketches as provided do not reflect the actual conditions present. Thank you.  
Answer   Date: 9/13/2019 11:34:43 AM
The permit sketches do reflect the best assessment for a buildable plan and estimate of the actual conditions present. The permit sketches do not indicate a river depth on the order of 2 ft. Plate 11 of 11 notes that on average the depth to bottom is 6.4 feet. The most current bridge inspection report was performed during high channel flow and not an Ordinary High Water condition. The existing bridge plans indicate a normal high water within a half foot to the Ordinary High Water noted on the permit sketches. Remember when referencing the permit sketches, “The Environmental Permit sketches were developed by the Department solely to acquire the necessary project permits… The conceptual illustrations and site conditions shown on the sketches must be verified by the Contractor prior to bid submission by a site investigation per Section 102.04 of the current Road and Bridge Specifications. …  
 
Subject: CD-2 Type: Plan
Question Date: 8/27/2019 4:22:37 PM
Plan sheet 4 shows a CD-2 to be installed on 211EB at station 519+00. Does this CD-2 need to be installed in a mill and overlay section, and if it needs to be installed, the location of the CD-2 is not within an undervertical. Should the location of the EB CD-2 be shifted west in order to be closer to the bridge? Same question about location of the CD-2 in regards to 211WB at station 509+00 and the CD-2 to be installed on 211EB at station 510+00 in regards to the mill & overlay section.  
Answer   Date: 9/5/2019 2:53:34 PM
The locations of CD-2 are correct as shown on sheet 4.  
 

Displaying questions 1 - 10 (of 17)
Page: 1 2 First Previous Next Last