|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/3/2021 3:35:11 PM
|
|
The Special Provision for Controlled Blasting states no blasting is to occur within 100' of important karst features. Please identify the locations of the important karst features. The special provision limits the peak particle velocity to 0.2 ips at the nearest structure or important karst feature. It is generally accepted that the threshold for any damage (minor plaster cracking) to a structure is above 0.5 ips. There are structures close enough to blasting such that the 0.2 ips restriction will add considerable cost and may not be achievable. Considerable costs savings will be realized by raising the limit to 0.5 ips. Please consider consider raising the allowable ppv to 0.5 ips.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/14/2021 2:17:46 PM
|
|
The Special Provision for Controlled Blasting has been revised to allow a peak particle velocity of 0.5 ips per addendum (9/10/21). There are no known important karst features that need protection. There are some caves (147+50 - 150+50), but they are insignificant and will be taken out during construction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2021 11:32:10 AM
|
|
The Maintenance of Traffic plans show the temporary barrier service conc. sitting on the existing shoulder of Rte 58. It appears that in many locations throughout the project the shoulder does not exist or is not in a condition to set the barrier. What improvements will need to be performed in advance of barrier placement and how will they be paid for?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/13/2021 9:24:35 AM
|
|
Where the existing shoulder is not in a condition to set barrier, the contractor shall provide a suitable base in accordance with Road and Bridge Standard Sheets 509.03 when freestanding, or 502.15 when staking is required. The Specification for Measurement and Payment of Traffic Barrier Service may be found in section 512.04 and does not list aggregate or asphalt base as included in the price. Therefore the quantities required for this base were included in the anticipated total quantities required for the project.The barrier wall will have to be level with the driving surface to function properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2021 11:26:07 AM
|
|
Please confirm that there are no work hour restrictions for Route 58 for flagging operations, none are shown in the plans or proposal.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/13/2021 9:23:45 AM
|
|
There are no work hour restrictions for Route 58 for flagging operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/24/2021 8:56:43 AM
|
|
We used the topo included with the plans on Project Wise, and the undercut for the MSE Wall shown in the plans, and with the bottom of undercut elevations shown on the plans, and a 1:1 slope layback, we get over 8,200 cy of undercut and that same amount of #57 backfill for the MSE wall. With quantities this high being a significant part of the MSE Wall, will the state consider making the undercut excavation and stone backfill for the wall separate pay items?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/13/2021 9:23:22 AM
|
|
Pay items for “Retaining Wall MSE Undercut Excavation” (undercut) and “Aggregate Material No. 57 MSE Wall” (replacement) will be added to the bridge quantities so that payment will be separate from “Retaining Structure MSE Wall” (revision pending). It should also be noted that the correct limits of undercut and replacement quantities are shown in the bridge plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2021 11:53:39 AM
|
|
Revised plan sheets 3 & 65 of 69 state the estimated undercut quantity to be 2,952 CY and the estimated replacement quantity to be 4,428 Tons. However, the added bid items have quantities of 2,634 CY and 3,913 Tons respectively. Please review and make changes if needed.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/16/2021 10:58:35 PM
|
|
The proposal quantities will not be changed at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/18/2021 4:08:34 PM
|
|
The notes for the MSE wall undercut and backfill on sheet number 65 of the Bridge drawings gives us substantial quantities for both undercut and #57 stone backfill. Since these quantities are substantial compared to the wall itself, do these items have pay items set up already, or can pay items be set up for them, so this expense is not incidental to the MSE Wall?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/24/2021 11:32:13 AM
|
|
Pay items for “MSE Wall Undercut” and “MSE Wall Undercut Replacement” will be added to the bridge quantities so that payment will be separate from “Retaining Structure MSE Wall” (revision pending).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2021 11:53:39 AM
|
|
Revised plan sheets 3 & 65 of 69 state the estimated undercut quantity to be 2,952 CY and the estimated replacement quantity to be 4,428 Tons. However, the added bid items have quantities of 2,634 CY and 3,913 Tons respectively. Please review and make changes if needed.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/16/2021 10:58:35 PM
|
|
The proposal quantities will not be changed at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/23/2021 1:36:08 PM
|
|
Has something changed with projects that do not have federal money requiring certified payrolls?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/27/2021 11:01:47 AM
|
|
All projects now contain wage rates and require reporting requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/20/2021 10:04:01 AM
|
|
Regarding the exploratory drilling at the pier footings, it would be challenging for a P.E. or P.G. to accurately determine if there are seams, joints, or voids no larger than 2 inch in depth using a 4 inch rock bit. Would VDOT consider allowing a 2.5" core drill for the pier and abutment exploratory drilling?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/24/2021 11:33:27 AM
|
|
The Department does not have an issue with using the 2.5-inch core drill provided the information obtained meets the requirements of the plan drawings. If the Bidder is proposing to evaluate continuous rock via an extracted rock core, that is acceptable, however, it shall be considered supplemental to the use of the feeler rod to be used along the sides of the drilled/cored hole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/20/2021 8:08:18 AM
|
|
The 3 sinkhole details shown on plan sheet 2H are assumed to be used as per field conditions if a sinkhole is encountered and/or at the two locations noted on plans. Plans note that excavation for sinkhole is to be paid for as regular excavation. How will other items for sinkhole treatment such as stone backfill, pipe, fabric, endwall, etc be paid?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/24/2021 11:32:44 AM
|
|
No sinkholes were identified as being impacted during construction. The sinkhole insertable sheet is included in the event they are encountered during construction activities. Should they be encountered and the sinkhole detail utilized, quantities would be paid for as an overrun of other quantities being utilized on the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2021 2:22:45 PM
|
|
Bid Item 1130 Cofferdams in the Base Bid is 4 each and we think it should be 1 each. Bid Item 2790 Cofferdams in the Alternate Bid is 1 each and we think it should be 4 each. Please clarify and change by addendum if required.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/20/2021 10:16:06 AM
|
|
VDOT Road & Bridge Specification 302.04 requires cofferdams to be paid for as work incidental to box culvert construction. The Base Project includes four (4) pipe installations requiring cofferdams that are not paid for as incidental work to pipe installation (Line No. 1130). Similarly, the Additive Project includes one (1) pipe installation requiring a cofferdam that is not paid for as incidental work to pipe installation (Line No. 2790). Plan Sheets 2E(1) through 2E(5) identifies all drainage structures requiring a cofferdam in the drainage description.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2021 10:02:59 AM
|
|
Majority of pipe on project is noted to be "Leak Resistant" rather than "Silt Tight". Since most of pipe is not being installed in berms or large fills will the Leak Resistant still be required as noted?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/20/2021 10:15:32 AM
|
|
The project includes both “Leak Resistant” and “Silt Tight” joint types per VDOT IIM 254. The more stringent “Leak Resistant” joint type is called for in all storm sewer applications and SWM Basin outfall pipes, and will be required as noted on plan sheets 02E(1) through 02E(5).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2021 9:27:18 AM
|
|
In the last revision dated 8/12/2021 it was noted that sheet 2A(3) was updated to remove the requirement for use of onsite material. This sheet has not been uploaded to Project Wise yet as of 8/17/2021. Could this updated plan sheet please be uploaded? Also the answer to the question about the use of the Aggregate Material Ty. 1 noted that the unit of measure would remain as “TONS” but the quantity has not been updated to reflect the amount of material to be paid for under the bid item for Aggregate #1. Could you please advise that this material will be paid for under the bid item for Aggregate #1?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/24/2021 11:34:10 AM
|
|
Revised plan sheet 2A(3) should now be available for viewing. The quantity shown for Aggregate Material #1 is the total anticipated quantity required for the project. This material will be paid for at the bid price per TON placed on the project. The estimated quantity for the off site material would not change as the note on plan sheet 2A(3) to utilize on site material was mistakenly placed.
|
|
|
|
|