Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/24/2025 3:19:50 PM
|
There is an item for Concrete Paved Entrance 7" shown on the table on sheet 2F(7) for plan sheet 4 of 27 SY. Could the owner specify where this work is located because we are unable to find it on plan sheet 4?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/24/2025 4:30:01 PM
|
This is Entrance #10, Bailey Bridge Rd East STA 23+40 RT.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/23/2025 9:30:22 AM
|
Reference plan sheet 22 of 42 Cross Frame Section A-A. (Question from Fabricator)
The design shows copes on the channel for the diaphragm's and then bending the channel web. We would typically weld a bent plate to the channel instead of bending the channel itself. Is this something that VDOT would entertain through an RFI if we were successful?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/26/2025 2:13:05 PM
|
Please bid accordingly. The contractor may submit an RFI during construction for the department to review.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2025 3:49:49 PM
|
Please provide the Thermal Integrity Profiling special provision referenced on the bridge plans and Drilled Shaft special provisions
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/24/2025 4:15:02 PM
|
The special provision will be included in next addendum.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/16/2025 3:50:44 PM
|
Will a demonstration shaft be required for the pier drilled shafts?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/24/2025 4:19:29 PM
|
No, a trial shaft is not required for this project.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/13/2025 2:27:44 PM
|
The previous special provision for the Architectural Treatment still remains in addendum #1. Can you confirm that we are to use the Architectural Treatment special provision dated June 2, 2025?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/24/2025 4:18:53 PM
|
Yes, the Architectural Treatment special provision dated June 2, 2025 is to be used.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/13/2025 11:27:23 AM
|
Will blasting within 150-250' of the proposed 30" sanitary sewer be allowed for BMP E?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/24/2025 4:18:17 PM
|
In accordance with 5.3.5 of the Chesterfield County WSSP, blasting may occur if greater than 100’ from any utility line. A blasting permit must be obtained from Chesterfield Fire and EMS. If blasting is done near a utility, precautions shall be taken to minimize earth vibrations and air blast effects. Please reference the rest of 5.3.5 of the Chesterfield County WSSP for other requirements.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/13/2025 11:24:41 AM
|
The EBSX File from Addendum No. 1 still shows 14% DBE Goal; please reconcile
In addition; there seems to be an issue with the very last Bid Item 2080; it will not populate during and IMPORT. We have checked and it seems like everything is correct on our estimating side and also with the quantity and line/sequence number but it will not come over during an Import.
Please check to see if there is anything on VDOT's end in AASHTOWare that is causing this.
Thank you in Advance
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/13/2025 1:29:46 PM
|
The EBSX File has bene rectified. DBE Goal = 11%. Thank you.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/13/2025 11:52:42 AM
|
Please disregard the portion of the question about the last Bid Item 2080; the issue was on our end. Sorry for any inconvenience
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/13/2025 2:47:57 PM
|
Disregarded. Thank you.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/12/2025 2:18:59 PM
|
Please review and confirm pre-boring 30" quantities. Table and Proposal show 742' Total, with 371' at each abutment. Abutment A will have shorter piles than Abutment B based on abutment footer and pile tip elevations provided so abutment totals should be different.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/24/2025 4:17:40 PM
|
Quantity for SUBSTRUCTURE 30 INCH PILE PREBORING revised to 610 LF.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/12/2025 2:19:26 PM
|
Please review and confirm piling quantities. The total pile quantity should match the preboring 24in plus preboring 30in. Table/Proposal quantities have a total piling quantity of 804' and a total pre-boring quantity of 872'.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/24/2025 4:16:41 PM
|
Quantity for STEEL PILES 12” revised to 766 LF. Quantity for SUBSTRUCTURE 30 INCH PILE PREBORING revised to 610 LF
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/10/2025 1:33:01 PM
|
What is the intent for saw cutting? Quantity is representing 1,000 feet or so? Are we not saw cutting for proposed demo and new curb? Or is this saw cutting incidental to another line item?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/12/2025 1:15:21 PM
|
The 1,080 LF for Saw Cut (full depth) is incorrect and will be updated to 2,593 LF in a future addendum.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/9/2025 11:39:02 AM
|
Sheet 2C(5) shows BMP C1 L2 Bioretention as a level 2. The detail is misleading as provided on this sheet it is a level 1 detail. Level 2 detail has different typical section. Please confirm if C1 is level 1 or 2. Thanks
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/10/2025 8:15:55 AM
|
BMP C1 is a Level 2 bioretention. All other aspects of the detail on 2C(5) are correct.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/13/2025 2:34:58 PM
|
Will the 40 Mils liner in the BMP need to booted/sealed to the SWM Structures in the BMP?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/16/2025 1:39:55 PM
|
Yes.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
5/13/2025 2:02:35 PM
|
Will the contractor be paid siltation control excavation for the excavation of the entire BMP profile depth or just existing silt after dewatering prior to conversion of BMP?
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
5/14/2025 1:32:49 PM
|
Siltation Control excavation includes removal of silt which accumulates after initial sediment basin/trap grading operations have concluded. Refer to Grading Summary sheet 2G for quantification of initial BMP grading operations.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/6/2025 12:23:26 PM
|
Please confirm the tonnage of Bid Item #590 Aggr base #21B , we have checked the quantity and have found there is considerably less tonnage for the job than the 19845 tons shown in the bidform.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/9/2025 1:18:10 PM
|
The value has been confirmed and a breakdown is shown in the pavement summary on Sheet 2F(7)
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/17/2025 4:58:52 PM
|
There is currently no bid item for No. 3 or No. 57 stone. Please clarify how the No. 3 or No. 57 stone for undercut in perched water areas is paid for.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/24/2025 4:15:46 PM
|
Line item added to SOI and will be updated in next addendum.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/11/2025 9:25:16 AM
|
The breakdown and bid quantity is not correct unless the undercut remediation are backfilled with 21b. Is that correct? Specifically on bailey bridge connector.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/12/2025 8:11:23 AM
|
Please reference Sheet 2A(1) Inset B and cross section sheets x22 – x92, which show a daylighted 21B aggregate layer. Referencing the detail on Sheet 2A(3), undercut backfill shall consist of CBR 10 embankment and occasionally No. 57 stone depending on the subsurface conditions.
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/10/2025 1:51:36 PM
|
The table on sheet 2F(7) shows 13004 tons for 21 B on the Bailey Bridge Connector. I would request that you re-analyze that quantity for accuracy. If you compare to the corresponding asphalt totals for the Bailey Bridge Connector (by converting the tons to an area this will demonstrate the quantity issue.. The asphalt quantity appears to be correct but the 21B quantity is grossly overstated close to a factor of close to 2 X times actual. The 13004 tons will in actuality closer to 6500 tons.
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
6/12/2025 8:10:54 AM
|
Please reference Sheet 2A(1) Inset B and cross section sheets x22 – x92, which show a daylighted 21B aggregate layer.
|
|
|