Attachment 6 - QA.pdf

Attachment 6

12805B24R0002 RFI 1 12/14/2023

1. Will pre-cast RCBs be accepted?

a. Precast concrete box sections are acceptable provided they conform to Section

726.01 of ODOT specifications. If precast units are used, an aggregate base a minimum of 12” thick should be provided to ensure precast units are evenly supported.

2. Who takes ownership of the millings?

a. Contractor to take ownership of millings and remove from site upon completion of the project.

3. Will the oversight A&E set their own testing schedule or follow ODOT (Oklahoma

Department of Transportation)?

a. Testing to be performed by contractor according to applicable ODOT standards and submitted to ARS.

4. Will we allow milling in surface cores?

a. ARS does not understand question.

5. New RCB near match-line at Highway? (contractors questioned the necessity of constructing a waterway there, there’s not one currently and our road is the high spot)

a. Contractor to install per drawings. This is needed because water running along the north side of Route66 currently gets trapped at the east side of the drive. This was causing ponding at the NW corner of the roadway entrance.

6. Were there core samples taken during the Geological Survey (no evidence of such).

Cores are important to determine how to propose. (knowledge of existing road materials and depth determines necessary construction needs).

a. No core samples were taken. ARS requests limited core sampling be included in the bidder’s scope and pricing as a confirming means of corroborating their proposed methodology.

7. Please provide core sample reports to confirm asphalt thickness in areas where milling is required.

a. See #6 Answer.

8. Drawings show new RCBs W/O (without) wing walls. What is proposed for erosion control?

a. The RCB call should have been “RCBs W/ODOT wing walls” not “RCBs W/O wing walls” Drawings have the wing walls included in the details and in the quantities page. On Details B and C on Dwg 7, wing walls are shown.

9. Drawings show drainage boxes without wings. Without wings, erosion can be an issue.

Please provide a solution for erosion control or confirm if wings can be added.

a. See #8 Answer above.

Attachment 6

10. Fence repairs. Will the contractor be responsible for repairing fencing removed or cut for construction?

a. Yes, repair / replace fence in kind. Coordinate temporary fence removal or cutting with location ensuring farm animals do not have avenue of escaping fences.

11. The drawing show to only do overlay on a lot of areas that appear the subgrade is compromised. It was stated that if you just overlay on those areas, the problematic issues will return in most cases. (the whole east campus road and lot of Fort Reno Road is shown as overlay only, but shows a lot of signs of compromised subgrade)

a. Drawings are requesting both an overlay and a fabric reinforcement layer on the old pavement. Designer of Record has had good luck in Oklahoma with saving pavement using the fabric. It helps bridge over the compromised subgrade and offers a cost-effective alternative to complete tear outs of pavement section.

Contractor is requested to perform work per drawings.

12. The existing roadways appear to have significant subgrade issues. Should repair be included in this scope of work?

a. See #11 answer.

13. What is in the base bid (Phase 1) vs the two alternates (Phases 2 and 3)?

a. Phases are shown on drawings page 5 through 9.

14. Can ARS confirm contractors are to be working on the east side of the pond bridge?

a. Phases and construction limits are shown on drawings page 5 through 9 per legend on each drawing.

15. Can the Superintendent, QC Manager and SSHO be 1 individual?

a. Yes, as long as individual meets training requirements and can be available as required by contract.

16. Can the government provide load ratings for the existing bridge on drawing number 13?

a. See attached “LR Summary (Ft El Reno Bridge).pdf”

LOAD RATING SUMMARY SHEET

NBI No.:

Year Built:

Type of Overlay:

Struct. No.:

Year Reconst.: Span Type:

Overlay Depth:

Local No.:

Load Rater :

Checked By :

Load Rating Method :

Load Rating Software :

Data File Location :

Reason for Load Rating :

Assumptions :

Date Rated :

Date Checked :

Controlling Span :

Inventory Rating :

Controlling Member : Controlling Force :

H :

H :

HS :

HS :

3-3 :

3-3 :

Load Rating Engineer's Seal :

Load Rating Engineer's Signature :

EV3 :

EV3 :

SHV :

SHV :

Operating Rating :

Page 1 of 15/12/2020OK501_Load Rating Summary Sheet

Brent Bolerjack, PE

Daniel Ashbaugh

December 14, 2023

December 14, 2023

LRFR, HL-93

ODOT Comparison Chart

Requested by owner

Bridge built using 2009 ODOT Standards for County Bridges. Load Ratings based on comparison chart by ODOT. PC Beam Bridge.

100' Span girder (Type IV)

Moment

48.90 49

74.90 75 138 102 106

12/14/2023

61.20 63.60

N/A N/A

95531-Bridge D N/A

N/A N/A Single Span - Prestressed Conc