|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/10/2025 11:53:30 AM
|
|
Changes made to the Grading Summary on Sheet 2C(8) changed the borrow quantity from 5,179 CY to 3,588 CY. Those changes are not reflected in the updated Schedule of Items. Should we just keep the borrow item at 5,179 CY?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/12/2025 10:13:37 AM
|
|
Addendum forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/9/2025 4:02:00 PM
|
|
How are the light pole removals to be paid for?
|
|
Answer
1 previous answer(s)
|
Date:
|
9/12/2025 2:43:15 PM
|
|
Cost for the removal of the existing light poles and foundations shall be incidental to the proposed light pole installation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
9/3/2025 12:52:44 PM
|
|
Bid Item 1160 states (6) 60' mast arms but the plans show various sizes. Plan Sheet 40(5) shows (2) of the Type A poles with 12' luminaire arms in the legend. Should they be Type D poles? Pole E doesn't appear to have a luminaire arm but it is listed in the legend.
|
|
Answer
1 previous answer(s)
|
Date:
|
9/8/2025 9:38:28 AM
|
|
Mast arm lengths and MP-3 types will be revised in the plans and in the quantities summary. Pole E has a luminaire so it will be designated as MP-3 Type D. An addendum is forthcoming to address these discrepancies. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/29/2025 9:45:22 AM
|
|
Is there a geotechnical report for this project?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/29/2025 3:51:57 PM
|
|
The Geotechnical report has been posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/29/2025 9:43:43 AM
|
|
Are there any specific insurance needs or builders risk required for this project?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/2/2025 4:07:40 PM
|
|
Please see requirements listed in VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications - 103.06 (d) & 103.06 (f).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/29/2025 9:40:00 AM
|
|
Bid Items 350 and 360 are both "basin excavation" with the same quantity of 1037 CY. Please specify which is to be used.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
9/2/2025 2:24:07 PM
|
|
Both Items 350 and 360 should be used. 0350 is for the temporary sediment basin excavation and 0360 is for the permanent storm water management basin excavation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/13/2025 3:29:11 PM
|
|
Based on the typical sections in the roadway drawings, series 2A, should the aggregate material No. 25 or 26 bid items be combined to reach the total for Type 1 entrances?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/18/2025 9:03:08 AM
|
|
The No. 25 or 26 Bid Items 0700 and 0710 were broken out based on the quantities required for the SWM Facility and Type 1 Entrances accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/13/2025 3:31:15 PM
|
|
In following the grading diagram and summary on sheet 2C(7) and 2C(8), what unit of measure does the cut and fill quantities represent on the grading diagram, as it is clear that the summary is the CY? The legend at the top expresses most of items with units in CY; however, the fill and cut values are "quantity from computer listings and/or manual cross sections,” but does not state what the units of measure are.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/18/2025 9:00:18 AM
|
|
The unit of measure for the cut and fill values on the grading diagram has been converted to CY to be consistent with the summary table. This change will be reflected in plan revisions in an upcoming addendum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/13/2025 3:31:44 PM
|
|
Sheet 2C(8) earthwork summary has blanks in the total fill column. Based on the formula provided, total fill value is incorrect. Please fill in the total fill column. What is generating additional fill volume in this summary?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/18/2025 9:00:44 AM
|
|
The total fill column has been updated, and the revised total fill value is 6,359 CY. This change will be reflected in plan revisions in an upcoming addendum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/13/2025 3:31:29 PM
|
|
On sheet 2C(7), the roadway cut and roadway fill quantities for Gravel Road, Public Connector, and Ramp 1, in the grading diagrams appear to be measured by the CF and if converted to the CY they will match the values in the summary. On sheet 2C(8) the values stated on the grading diagrams again appear to be measured by the CF for Ramps 2 & 3. When the values are summed up for each Ramp they match the values in the summary; however, they are by the CF not the CY. The summary shows all values are to be measured by the CY; therefore, please confirm that all of the values stated in the the grading diagram have been properly converted to the values provided in the summary.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/18/2025 9:01:09 AM
|
|
The cut and fill values are in CY in the sheet 2C(8) grading diagram to be consistent with the summary table. This change will be reflected in plan revisions in an upcoming addendum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/13/2025 3:30:31 PM
|
|
Bid item 0450 curb asphalt MC-3B typically has a counterpart bid item, 315SD20-0018 MC-4, to account for the asphalt backup material as shown in the standard drawing for MC-3B. How will the asphalt backup material be paid for if we don't have this particular item in the proposal?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/18/2025 10:53:35 AM
|
|
This will be addressed via a forthcoming addendum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/13/2025 3:29:57 PM
|
|
The summary of pavement marking quantities on sheet 20(2A) only shows the value of 557 LF for eradicating existing pavement markings (Bid Item 0790). Does this mean that bid item 0780 is the eradication of temporary pavement markings?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/18/2025 9:02:28 AM
|
|
Yes, Bid Item 0780 is the eradication of temporary pavement markings.
|
|
|
|
|