|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/17/2025 4:38:15 PM
|
|
Will precast drainage structures be permitted? Specifically, the drop inlets as they are the only structures called out to be cast-in-place.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/21/2025 10:36:55 AM
|
|
Per the VDM Sec 9.4.5.1.2, DI-2 structures under guardrail are to be cast-in-place only in or-der to satisfy the guardrail alignment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/16/2025 5:20:56 PM
|
|
Please clarify the estimated quantity of undercut excavation and backfill of undercuts with 21B aggregate and their associated bid items.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/17/2025 11:39:56 AM
|
|
The undercut excavation quantities are included in the regular excavation quantity total. The #21B aggregate for undercut backfill is included in the current plan quantity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/16/2025 8:43:47 AM
|
|
Is there a bridge inspection report that can be provided?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/16/2025 11:58:14 AM
|
|
Bridge Inspection Reports are considered Critical Infrastructure Information and require CII/SSI Access Approval, including completion of a Criminal History Records Check. Bidders will be required to apply for access using the CII/SSI Policy Guide @ CII-SSI-Policy_Guide_V8_2024Update_acc.docx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/16/2025 1:15:22 PM
|
|
Please advise on the process for applying. It appears a document unsuccessfully attached to the question's answer.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/16/2025 3:29:54 PM
|
|
The following link provides guidance on CII/SII policy: https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/about/divisions/safety/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/15/2025 11:44:34 AM
|
|
It appears the regular excavation quantity is overstated. The cross sections for Fort Lee Road total to approximately half of the 240 CY listed on the proposal. Please identify if there are additional areas on the project to receive reg exc, besides the shoulders/rdway on Ft Lee Rd. If not, please double check reg exc quantities.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/16/2025 11:59:42 AM
|
|
The Regular Excavation quantity includes amounts from the topsoil stripping under the roadway fill areas. This quantity is separate from the roadway cut/fill volumes that are listed on the cross sections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/11/2025 1:26:04 PM
|
|
Item #1050 – Type A Pavement Line Marking, 6” is included with a quantity of 1,860 LF; however, this item does not appear to be shown on the signing and pavement marking plans. Please clarify where this item is needed if at all. Additionally, please clarify how the cost of eradicating existing pavement markings and the eventual removal of the Type D temporary markings will be paid, as no bid item for eradication is currently included.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/15/2025 10:32:45 AM
|
|
Pavement marking types and existing pavement marking eradication revisions have been provided per Addendum Two (2) dated July 14, 2025. The MOT Plan sheet (49 of 77) is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/11/2025 10:17:16 AM
|
|
The local ready mix suppliers will Not supply the Class A4 Modified Lightweight Low Shrink concrete.
Can you please advise an alternative?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/11/2025 6:03:12 PM
|
|
The Department has several producers capable of producing the specified mix in the Richmond District that can supply to the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/18/2025 2:32:21 PM
|
|
We ask that if VDOT knows of a supplier(s) who will provide a quote for this lightweight Concrete MIx that they provide name and contact info. Nothing has changed from all the previous questions that were ask; there are still no suppliers that will quote this material. Without a quote it will be difficult to bid this project. Please advise
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/21/2025 11:33:52 AM
|
|
The Department is aware of a producer that has provided a quote to a contractor. Please reach out again to the suppliers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/16/2025 12:44:30 PM
|
|
This answer is not helpful. If we cannot source the material based on VDOT specifications then we cannot bid the project. Are you able to offer any solutions or alternatives?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/17/2025 11:05:21 AM
|
|
There are multiple producers capable of producing the required mix in the Richmond Dis-trict. The Department is willing to extend the allowable discharge time as long as the mix remains plastic throughout the placement operations. The Contractor and/or Concrete Supplier must make request for additional delivery time from the District Materials Engi-neer. Based on VDOT's advanced recognition of the availability of Class A4 Modified Light-weight Low Shrink Concrete, approval of delivery time will be assured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/16/2025 12:41:25 PM
|
|
With ready mix concrete suppliers in the area that are unwilling to provide the required Class A4 Modified Lightweight Low Shrink mix design and the travel distance too far for those that will, please advise the “plant” certification process for a 1.6CF jobsite mixer.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/17/2025 11:01:54 AM
|
|
The Department will not approve a jobsite mixer for a Class A4 Modified Lightweight Low Shrink concrete placement for a bridge deck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/15/2025 10:19:46 AM
|
|
We have solicited all Ready Mix Concrete Suppliers that can provide concrete within the timeframe required by the Specifications and as of now there are none that are willing to provide this lightweight mix. They may be capable but not willing. If there are producers that VDOT is aware of that are willing to produce this mix please provide names and contact information. Otherwise; as ask in the original question; please provide an alternate mix to replace the lightweight. Please advise
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/16/2025 12:07:57 PM
|
|
The Department has several producers capable of producing the specified mix in the Richmond District that can supply to the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/1/2025 3:36:21 PM
|
|
The existing quantity for the above referenced Bid Item appears to be incorrect; please check and advise.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/3/2025 12:19:51 PM
|
|
The Liquid Asphalt Coating (Rumble Strip) quantity will be revised to 94 SY. Addendum forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/1/2025 3:34:05 PM
|
|
Please provide additional information for the modification and/or partial or total removal of the approach slabs; it is not totally clear what is required. Please advise
|
|
Answer
1 previous answer(s)
|
Date:
|
7/7/2025 2:03:18 PM
|
|
Approach slabs are to be fully removed as part of the excavation behind the backwall. Please advise if this does not address your question or if you have additional concerns. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/15/2025 10:09:25 AM
|
|
Per Q and A response on 7/7/2025, the approach slabs are to be removed. The drawings are not clear whether there is to be a new approach slab or if the full depth paving will run all the way to the new bridge deck. Please confirm.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/16/2025 3:57:10 PM
|
|
The new bridge will not have approach slabs. Paving, consisting of the typical section, will continue to the end of slab at both ends of the bridge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/1/2025 3:28:46 PM
|
|
It appears there is a Lump Sum Bid Item for Asbestos Removal but no information to determine a cost.
Please provide the Asbestos Report and/or additional information so this item can be estimated
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/7/2025 8:44:08 AM
|
|
The Asbestos Report is now available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2025 4:28:16 PM
|
|
The asbestos report posted appears to be the soil report for the project, please double check the file.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/10/2025 10:21:32 AM
|
|
The CORRECT asbestos report is now available. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
6/26/2025 9:19:29 AM
|
|
The demo limits shown on sheets 4/8 for the wingwalls contradict one another. Specifically, the plan and elevation views of the wingwalls show complete demo as marked with the cross hatch pattern while the section views indicate the wingwalls are to have existing rebar remain as marked with the diagonal hatch. Please clarify.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
7/3/2025 7:37:48 AM
|
|
The wingwalls should be removed down to the elevations shown on sheets 6 and 10. The rebar should be cut on the wingwalls to the same height. New RW0401 bars will need to be drilled and grouted into the existing wingwall to anchor the parapet rail-ing. There is insufficient length on the existing reinforcing steel to provide any significant strength, therefore it should be cut off. One of these layers does not match the depth of the projecting steel and therefore can't be extended up. The reinforcing steel in the backwall will provide strength when combined with the new neat concrete in the backwall. The reinforcing steel in the backwall should re-main. The cross hatched overlap in the plan view at the ends is intended to show the existing Safety Walk is to be removed. The depth may be determined from information in the original bridge plans, 197-19, dated 1957.
|
|
|
|
|