Advertisements   Division Home   Bid Results   Bid Tabs   Ad Report   VDOT Forms
Project Info
Order Number UPC State Project Number Last Date to Post Questions
J67 122017 0395-000-939, B602 4/21/2023
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: Existing Deck Reinforcing Steel Type: Plan
Question Date: 4/20/2023 4:19:41 PM
The As-Built drawings provided by VDOT indicate that the bridge was overlaid in approximately 1994 but do not indicate that the deck reinforcement was ever replaced except in localized Type B patch repairs Please confirm that the existing bridge deck reinforcing steel is black (uncoated) and that replacement reinforcing steel damaged during the hydro-demolition operation shall be black (uncoated) and that epoxy coated reinforcing steel will not be required for replacement of damaged bars.  
Answer   Date: 4/24/2023 10:12:17 AM
Core testing has confirmed that the previous deck overlay did not extend down to the depth of the top mat of reinforcing, indicating that the deck reinforcing matches the original construction. It is important to note that epoxy coating of reinforcing is prohibited as per the Specifications. For repairing and replacement of deteriorated and damaged reinforcement, please refer to the 2020 Road and Bridge Specifications Sections 425.03 and 412.03.  
 
Subject: Elastomeric bearings Type: Plan
Question Date: 4/20/2023 7:57:59 AM
I am reposting my question since it has never appeared. On bearing replacement sheet 18 of 53, span A, pier 1, beam 1 is indicated to require PTFE. Is this correct? No other bearings on pier 1 are shown to require PTFE.  
Answer   1 previous answer(s) Date: 4/24/2023 11:06:08 AM
Bearing replacement on Beam 1 at Pier 1 does not require PTFE sliding surface. Correction will be addressed in the field.  
 
Question Date: 4/20/2023 7:57:54 AM
I am reposting my question since it has never appeared. On bearing replacement sheet 18 of 53, span A, pier 1, beam 1 is indicated to require PTFE. Is this correct? No other bearings on pier 1 are shown to require PTFE.  
Answer   Date:
 
 
Subject: Shoring Loads Type: Plan
Question Date: 4/20/2023 7:36:30 AM
What are required shoring loads at piers 1 & 4? This is necessary for the contractor to design, and install shoring that meets the project requirements.  
Answer   Date: 4/21/2023 2:56:43 PM
Refer to the Jacking and Blocking Data Table in the plans, sheet 21, for information on the superstructure dead load and live load per girder. Note the self-weight of the pier cap is not included in sheet 21. Temporary supports shall be designed and developed by a Professional Engineer registered in the Commonwealth of Virginia as noted on sheet 9 of the plans.  
 
Subject: Clearing and Grubbing Type: Plan
Question Date: 4/20/2023 7:36:04 AM
Please clarify the clearing and grubbing limits.  
Answer   Date: 4/21/2023 2:47:53 PM
Clearing and grubbing is limited to any areas within the Limits of Disturbance where clearing and grubbing may be required, for bridge repairs or for grading of the lay down areas shown on Sheet 42A (E&SC Phase 1A) of the plans.  
 
Subject: Pavement Markings Type: Specifications
Question Date: 4/20/2023 7:35:42 AM
Per spec section 704.03(a)2b – Preformed thermoplastic (Class II) third paragraph, “permanent transverse rumple strips shall be applied using two strips of Type B, Class II material.” There is no class II shown on the plans nor is there a corresponding line item. Please confirm this is not needed.  
Answer   Date: 4/21/2023 2:47:09 PM
The question appears to be in reference to Section 704.03(a)2b of the VDOT Supplemental Specifications for Section 704 – Pavement Markings and Markers (SS704-002020-02) included in the Proposal. VDOT Supplemental Specifications are applicable to all projects and may contain references to pay items that are not included in this project. There are no Class II pavement markings on this project.  
 
Subject: Lead Paint Type: Specifications
Question Date: 4/20/2023 7:35:21 AM
Does the existing bridge have lead paint? And if so, what pay items covered the required handling and disposal.  
Answer   Date: 4/21/2023 2:43:34 PM
The bridge was painted in 2013, and the X-Ray Fluorescence Survey (XRF) of the paint was performed in 2022. The XRF Report dated 9/1/2022 findings did not indicate the presence of lead within the paint. Refer to 2020 Road and Bridge Specifications, Section 411 for Handling and Disposal.  
 
Subject: Request for Bridge Inspection Reports Type: Plan
Question Date: 4/20/2023 7:34:22 AM
Are existing bridge inspection reports available? And if so, can they be provided.  
Answer   Date: 4/21/2023 2:41:38 PM
Bridge Inspection Report is designated as Critical Infrastructure Information/Sensitive Security Information. Once there is a signed Contract, the Contractor will be able to access the Bridge Inspection Report after signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement.  
 
Subject: Existing Deck Conditions Type: Plan
Question Date: 4/20/2023 7:33:49 AM
If unsound concrete is encountered at the hydrodemo depth, will the additional work to remediate be covered under change order?  
Answer   Date: 4/21/2023 2:39:04 PM
Refer to 2020 Road and Bridge Specifications, Section 425.04 – Measurement and Payment on (Type) Hydro-demolition.  
 
Subject: Existing Deck Conditions Type: Other
Question Date: 4/20/2023 7:33:13 AM
Has any bridge deck scans been done to validate/determine depth of top mat of rebar? And if so, can they be provided?  
Answer   Date: 4/21/2023 2:37:38 PM
The bridge deck scans were performed, and the information was reflected on the Plans.  
 
Subject: Requesting clarification on Hydrodemolition depth Type: Plan
Question Date: 4/20/2023 7:32:40 AM
Based on experience with bridges of this age in the corridor, it is likely that the top mat of rebar in the existing bridge deck is lower/at variable depth than what is shown in the as-built plans. Specially the as-built plan sheet dated 9-22-65 sheet no. 9 of 24 shows a 1-1/2” clearance from top of existing deck to top of existing rebar. Bottom of top mat would be theoretically 1-1/2” + 5/8” + 5/8” = 2-3/4” from top of existing deck. Per specification 425.03 section a paragraph 3b Type B Hydro-demolition shall consist of removing concrete 1” below bottom of top mat of reinforcing steel. That would theoretically put the removal limit 3-3/4” from the top of existing deck. Based on the proposal line numbers 0900 Type A milling 1-1/2” and 1000 Type B Hydro-Demolition 3” it appears the total removal would be 1-1/2” (mill) + 3” (hydro) totaling a removal of 4-1/2”. Going 1” below top mat would likely result in variable depth removal (which is hard to assess risk on a square yard item) and variable depth item 0990 Furnish High Early Strength Latex Mod. Conc. 4-1/2”. Is it the project intent to remove a total of 4-1/2” based on proposal line number descriptions or to hydro 1” below bottom of top mat per specifications?  
Answer   Date: 4/21/2023 2:38:24 PM
Refer to 2020 Road and Bridge Specifications, Section 425.03 – Procedures for (a) Deck Surface Preparation on Type A milling and Hydro-demolition.  
 

Displaying questions 1 - 10 (of 27)
Page: 1 2 3 First Previous Next Last