|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/17/2019 2:17:52 PM
|
|
Each of the prospective precast concrete jack and bore pipe suppliers we have contacted concerning the project have indicated that 24-Inch RCP having a smooth outside profile and suitable for jacking stresses is not available. In fact, we have obtained feedback that only standard bell and spigot pipe (not smooth profile outside wall) is available for concrete RCP in sizes 30 inches or smaller. Additionally, each of the prospective jack and bore subcontractors we have contacted have indicated that they plan to jack and bore a larger steel sleeve, push a concrete pipe through the casing using timber blocks and/or railing, then grout the annular space between the inside of the steel casing and the outside of the RCP. Furthermore as boulders are discussed by the geotechnical report, the jack and bore subcontractors prefer to utilize a jacking pipe of at least 42-inches in order to maneuver inside the sleeve in the event an obstruction is encountered 1) Can a product other than concrete pipe be used as the carrier pipe for these jack and bores? 2) Will any special requirements be necessary to implement a steel sleeve with a concrete carrier pipe for the jack and bore items (ie. cathodic protection, casing spacers, end seals)?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/16/2019 3:09:28 PM
|
|
Bid Item Number 1850-54218 is for snow plowable raised pavement markers in hydraulic concrete. Plan Sheet 2C(6) indicates that the quantity of 21 EA are found on Plan Sheet 12(2). Is the intention of this item to sawcut into the proposed bridge deck to install these raised pavement markers?
|
|
Answer
1 previous answer(s)
|
Date:
|
5/20/2019 3:52:53 PM
|
|
It is not the intent of Item No. 1850-54218 to sawcut into the proposed bridge deck to install the raised pavement markers. Raised pavement markers shall be installed in accordance with Section 704.03(d) of the 2016 Road and Bridge Specifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/15/2019 4:55:45 PM
|
|
Should the schedule of bid items include two traffic signal Pay Items, one for the 5/8" Sawcuts (Item No. 1590-51913) and a second for the 3/8" Sawcuts for the loops?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/14/2019 2:20:42 PM
|
|
The plan sheets for the permanent and temporary signals are very confusing. I would suggest a quantity summary be added for the temporary signal that does not include quantities for material that are included in the permanent signal listed on sheet 2C(6). This would be helpful to the contractors and every one would be on the same page. The signal poles, conduit runs, signs, radio equipment, preemption, etc. can be duplicated and do not make sense.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/17/2019 12:08:48 PM
|
|
Temporary signals are quantified as Lump Sum per VDOT practice, and will not be separately quantified. Where the permanent equipment can be installed early (during the temporary signal conditions), it can be utilized both for the permanent and temporary conditions (such as permanent poles, heads, cabling, etc). Where equipment on the temporary signal plans differs from the permanent signal plans, the equipment is temporary and not part of the permanent signal design (such as temporary span wire configurations).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/14/2019 5:18:12 PM
|
|
Upon Overlaying the Temporary (Plan Sheet 1R(2)) and Permanent Traffic Signal Plans (Plan Sheet 14(1)) for Ramp D and Route 11, the design shows the span wire between proposed temporary pole 1 and proposed temporary pole 3 passing directly over the proposed permanent location of Pole 1. Shifting Temporary Pole 1 roughly 15 feet toward the existing bridge should alleviate this apparent conflict.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/16/2019 9:06:45 AM
|
|
If the bidder feels the design poses a constructability challenge, the Department does not oppose to shifting the temporary poles to the west by up to 15’. The proposed 115’ temporary span wire length is still valid, and therefore no plan or quantity change will be made at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/14/2019 2:24:09 PM
|
|
Sheet 1R(2) cable run D includes cable for ethernet antenna. Is this needed since there not a radio on this signal? Per previous question asked.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/16/2019 9:00:57 AM
|
|
The Ethernet communication is required as shown during temporary conditions in order to provide communications, unless the permanent fiber optic cable and conduit to this signal is installed and operational at the time of implementation of the Sheet 1R(2) signal, in which case the Ethernet communication can be omitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/14/2019 2:23:19 PM
|
|
Sheet 1R(2) and 14(1) for Rt. 11 & Ramp D are confusing. Please clarify the pole for the 30' arm. Pole diagram for 1R(2) states Ty II combination luminaire arm 26' which is a Ty E pole. This pole and luminaire arm are not listed on the quantity summary and it does not coincide with the permanent signal poles listed on sheet 14(1). Please clarify.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/8/2019 5:07:34 PM
|
|
The SP indicates that the Jack and Bore pay item scope is to include removal of obstructions, if encountered. The Geotech report provided shows the pipe profile with the note that the fill, where the jack and bore is being done, may contain boulders. Please confirm that the boulders, or other debris is considered an obstruction, or provide a definition for what constitutes an obstruction ? The pipe plan and profile, in the geotech report, shows that the pipe runs to be jack and bored are "above" the bedrock and that we would not encounter bedrock. Please confirm that if bedrock is encountered that this "is not" considered an obstruction as bedrock, or mixed face condition, could preclude the jack and bore method ?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/14/2019 1:26:49 PM
|
|
An obstruction is defined as “a mass within the jack and bore alignment that stops the forward progress of the jacking or boring work for more than 60 minutes, provided the Contractor’s efforts to remove or bore through the obstruction have been unsuccessful though deliberately and diligently pursued (VDOT R&B Section 302.03a1).” Bedrock is not expected, however, if encountered within the alignment bedrock would be considered an obstruction. Section 302.03(a)1 a & b of the 2016 Road and Bridge Specifications outline the procedure to follow should an obstruction be encountered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/8/2019 2:08:10 PM
|
|
For this item how are the quantities captured? I do not see the quantities for this on the bid sheet.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/6/2019 4:38:28 PM
|
|
In the event a recent bridge inspection report is available for the existing structure, can the Department post the document to ProjectWise?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/1/2019 9:59:55 AM
|
|
On sheet 1K, item #35 states that all material and equipment deliveries to the median shall require a lane closure during the allowable nighttime hours. Will pickup trucks be allowed to access the median during the day time?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/29/2019 4:10:45 PM
|
|
Will the department allow the request to pay stored material?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/10/2019 10:02:18 AM
|
|
Payment for Material on Hand will be paid for in accordance with the VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/29/2019 2:48:04 PM
|
|
When a structure is relocated it will require a new foundation which is not included in this pay item. Please add an additional STP-1 Ty B to line item 1350. Please clarify.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/3/2019 2:18:03 PM
|
|
Sign quantified under Item 0910 RELOCATE EXIST. SIGN STRUCTURE TYPE 1 is mislabeled on Sheet 12(3). Sign is currently shown as Type “STP-1”, and should be labeled as Type “1”. Quantities will not be adjusted as Type 1 Signs do not require a concrete foundation.
|
|
|
|
|
Displaying questions 1 - 10 (of 19)
Page:
1 2 First Previous Next Last
|