PROSEPECTIVE BIDDER S INQUIRIES

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "PROSEPECTIVE BIDDER S INQUIRIES"

Transcription

1 CSJ: Bid Opening Date: April 3, 2019 No. QUESTION DATE QUESTION RECEIVED 1 Can you please provide the cross sections, XSR Files, Geotechnical Report, and construction schedule? 2 Can you provide the.pdf cross sections, the.xsr earthwork files, the time determination schedule, and the geotechnical report for the Kendall IH 10 project? 3 On the Lane Closure Assessment Fee Table (Plan Sheet 65), do the lane closure fees apply during the hours of Allowable Lane Closure or during the hours of No Lane Closure? Will the lane closure fee be assessed during the hours of Allowable Lane Closure? 4 This project is a 6 Day Workweek project, however a note on the Lane Closure Assessment Fee Table states Contractor will not work during Saturday & Sunday peak hours as shown above, unless otherwise directed by the Engineer. Will weekend work be allowed on this project if it does not require a lane closure? 5 Are the specifications for the Embankment (Ty C) to be as shown on the Pavement Design Report (maximum liquid limit (LL) of 45, maximum plasticity index (PI) of 20, sulfate content < or = to 500 ppm)? 6 Is it the Engineer s intention for all of the Excavation (Item 110) to be hauled off and all of the Embankment Ty C (Item 132) to be imported select fill, or can the on-site excavated RESPONSE 3/8/2019 Thank you for this question. We will look into this question. This information has been placed on the web site. 03/14/2019 3/14/2019 This information has been placed on the web site. 3/14/2019 The lane closure fees apply when a lane is closed during the No Lane Closure hours. 3/14/2019 Thank you for this question. We will look into this question. The Lane Closure Assessment Fee Table sheet has been modified to allow lane closures on Saturdays. Addendum No. 1, 3/27/19 3/20/2019 The specifications for the embankment are shown on the Proposed Typical Sections sheets (PS 18-24). 3/20/2019 The on-site excavated material can be used for embankment as long as it meets the embankment specifications shown in the plans.

2 material (PI > 20) be used in the embankment? 7 Item Casing Pipe (Open Cut)(16 STL 3/8 ): Bid item is in CY. Should be in LF. Please advise. 8 Item RC Pipe (Ellip)(CL 3)(Des 6): After speaking with our suppliers they told us that This should be quoted as arch pipe and not elliptical. It is not prevalent in the market and will be very hard to move from another region in the US. Can we change this item to Arch Pipe? 9 The removal summary has a note that indicates that rip rap removal is subsidiary to prep right-of-way, however there is a rip rap removal bid item included in the Estimate & Quantity Sheets. Will the rip rap removal item be deleted from the bid item list prior to the bid date? 10 No temporary special shoring is shown for the MSE walls. Will some quantity of temporary special shoring be added for the MSE walls which have structural excavation that creates a vertical cut greater than 5 feet tall, or will the temporary shoring that is required for the MSE walls be subsidiary to the walls? 11 In regards to bid item temporary attenuators, crash cushion summary sheet on page 63 details units to be required of the reusable category however plans include standard sheets presented of the sacrificial category. Can you please advise on the discrepancy? If indeed reusable units are required for tcp locations we request sacrificial standards to be deleted to reduce confusion? If sacrificial units are 3/20/2019 Thank you for this question. We will look into this question. The unit of measure for this item has been modified to LF per Addendum No. 1, 3/27/19 3/20/2019 Thank you for this question. We will look into this question. This item has been removed and replaced per Addendum No. 1, 3/27/19 3/22/2019 The only riprap removal that was paid for directly is on the 3 Culvert Layouts. All other riprap removal will be considered subsidiary to Prep ROW. Bid per plan 3/22/2019 Bid per plan. Refer to typical section on PS 362 for retaining wall backfill details 3/22/2019 Thank you for this question. We will look into this question. The ABSORB- 16 & ACZ(350)-16 sacrificial temporary crash cushion attenuator details have been removed per Addendum No. 1, 3/27/19

3 allowed for TCP locations, we would like to request that the SLED unit to be allowed as an alternative. 12 Could you please verify that the quantities for item 6002 RIPRAP (CONC)(5 IN) are right? We are only able to find 11 CY, but the proposal shows 317 CY. 13 There is 58,090 SY of Removing Stab Base & Asph Pav (0-10 ) that is subsidiary the Prep Right of Way. Since this is a large quantity, can this be made into a bid item? 14 Bid Item Headwall (CH- PW-0)(DIA=24 )- Bid Quantity is 2 EA. The summary sheet shows 2 on page 411. However, looking at the plans there is only 1 EA. Please advise. 15 Related to Question & Answer #10, the typical section shown on Plan Sheet 362 for retaining wall backfill details indicates that this typical section is for rapid drawdown conditions. The only MSE wall requiring a rapid drawdown analysis is wall #8. Will the typical section for retaining wall backfill shown on Plan Sheet 362 (for rapid drawdown conditions) apply to all of the MSE retaining walls, or only to MSE wall #8? If this detail applies only to RW- 8, will the temporary special shoring required for the other MSE walls be subsidiary to the MSE wall bid item, or will the quantity of temporary special shoring (Bid Item ) be extended to pay for the MSE temporary special shoring? 16 The General Note for Item 512 clearly states that new or pre-used F- Shape CTB, as well as pre-used New-Jersey barrier, may be used in areas other than the inside 3/22/ CY is correct. The additional quantity is on the ESTIMATED QUANTITIES AND BEARING SEAT ELEVATION sheets for the WBFR & EBFR bridges (PS 515 & 530) at 153 CY/ea. 3/22/2019 Bid per plans. 3/22/2019 Thank you for this question. We will look into this question. This quantity has been reduced to 1 EA per Addendum No. 1, 3/27/19 3/26/2019 Plan sheet 362 will apply to all MSE walls. 3/26/2019 The general note allowing jersey on right mainlane shoulder only will be the defining note.

4 shoulder/inside median of the Interstate Main Lane. However, a note on Plan Sheet 28 states: All PCTB barrier shall be SSTR; F shape or Jersey barrier shall not be permitted for use. Refer to General Notes Item 512 for additional information regarding portable CTB. Will F-Shape CTB and Jersey barrier be allowed (as stated in the General Notes) or will only SSTR be allowed (as stated in Note 1 on Plan Sheet 28)? 17 Can you please check your quantities for Retaining wall #6? The quantity shown is 5,291 SF but my takeoff is 2,920 SF. Please advise. 18 Can you please double check Excavation and Embankment quantities? They seem to be off quite a bit. 19 Can you please provide the retaining wall alignment? 20 Can excavation and embankment quantities (earthwork volumes) be provided for the temporary construction detour item? 21 Bore logs show that the onsite material does not meet specs for ty c embankment. Is it the intent of TxDOT for contractor to import new low PI/LL material? 22 Please provide details for Retaining Wall #2. It is mentioned in phase 4. Shown in plan layout a few time but not details provided. Also not seen in MSE breakdown. Please provide clarification. 23 We have found conflicting information in the plans relating to the substitution of asphalt binder. 3/29/2019 Quantity shown on plans is correct. 3/29/2019 Excavation and Embankment quantities have been verified. Bid per plan. 3/29/2019 Retaining Wall alignments can be provided at conclusion of bid. Any info needed for the wall alignments can be deduced from plans as they are all parallel to roadway alignments. 3/29/2019 Earthwork quantities have not been established for Item 508. It will be up to the contractor to quantify the materials not otherwise shown in the plans prior to letting. 3/29/2019 See answers to questions 5 & 6. 4/1/2019 Retaining Wall No. 2 is replaced with a split barrier rail. See PS 224 for rail limits and PS 346 & 347 for details. 4/1/2019 Substitute Binder will not be allowed for surface mixture. Intermediate and Base course substitute binder shall be

5 There is a single note on sheet 25 that reads substitute binder is not allowed for 2 HMA surface mixture. This is in conflict with general notes on sheet 26E & Table 1 on sheet 26F under substitute binder for Item 341 & 344. Please clarify the conflicting information so that we may bid accordingly 24 The 95% XSR data provided for the WBFR Existing Ground only gives Surface data from Sta to , but the proposed improvements extend to Sta Please provide the additional XSR data to fill this missing 2000 feet of Existing Ground Data. 25 The 95% XSR data provided for the Proposed Surfaces only Encompasses portions of the Work zone and does not cover the entire work area, please provide the additional area to ensure proper tieins. 26 Please verify whether to the Proposed XSR Data is to Final Proposed Grade 27 Please consider providing the Microstation / AutoCAD Alignment / Linework Files/Layers for Alignment. 28 Will everything on the bridges (rail, overhang, etc) require painting? 29 Has the Rem Base & Asph (0-10 ) been removed before you calculated your excavation and embankment quantities? 30 Please re-submit Retaining Wall 1 finish grade at face of wall elevations. The numbers on profile at the bottom of the page are unreadable in accordance with the General Notes. 4/1/2019 Revised files have been posted. 4/1/2019 XSR files follow the XS. This covers the limits of proposed work. 4/1/2019 XSR data is to final proposed grade. 4/1/2019 DGNs are not typically provided prior to bid. Please bid per the available information. 4/1/2019 Yes. 4/1/2019 No. 4/1/2019 See Retaining Wall No. 1 strip grade elevations below: STA = STA = STA = STA = STA = STA =

6 31 Please provide Proposed XSR which includes all paving, sidewalk, and ROW areas that have Proposed Improvements. There are Blank, or missing, Sections of the Proposed XSR data which do not provide Elevation Data even though there are Paving, Sidewalk, Wall, and other Improvements within these zones 32 Bid Item RC Pipe (CL 3)(36 )- Bid Quantity is 1,102 LF. I m coming up with 1,012 LF in my takeoff. Please advise. 33 Bid Item Inlet (Compl)(PSL)(RC)(5 x5 )-Bid Quantity is 2 EA. I m only coming up with 1 in my takeoff. Sheet 418 shows 1 not On 4/1/ Existing Ground XSR Data was provide for the WBFR but did not address the missing Proposed Data. STA = STA = STA = STA = STA = STA = STA = STA = STA = STA = Finish Grade elevations can also be measured from the plans. 4/1/2019 Revised files have been posted. 4/1/2019 Bid per plan. 4/1/2019 Bid per plan. 4/2/2019 Thank you for the comment. We will review the items. Please refer to the cross sections for the missing data. 4/2/2019 Please provide Proposed XSR which includes all paving, sidewalk, and ROW areas that have Proposed Improvements. There are Blank, or missing, Sections of the Proposed XSR data which do not provide Elevation Data even though there are Paving, Sidewalk, Wall, and other Improvements within these zones.

7 In Example: EBFR Stations Provide a total of 6 10 Width of Proposed Surface Area to Cover the Access Roadway, Sidewalks, and ROW Grading, versus other adjacent stations which cover a 100 Feet in Width. EBFR Stations (5 13 Width of Proposed Given) WBFR Stations ( Width of Proposed Given) WBFR Stations (35 40 Width of Proposed Given, but Improvements Extend over 100 Width) These are just a few of the Areas which show the lack of Design Surface information. Please review and advise