RFI_-2.pdf

Holy Jim Crossing Replacement 2018

5/8/2018

RFI #2

1. Sheet 11 also has the WW angles listed, so it appears just the table on Sheet 10 is out of sorts.

While adjusting the skew angles (refer to RFI #1) there were some inconsistencies with the wing walls and the inconsistencies were corrected as well.

2. The foundation typical section is specific to the patented O-Series shape. For the non-patented arch shape, we’d design a two-sided keyway similar to the following:

I asked about eliminating the pedestal wall from the foundation and just pouring a strip foundation and lengthening the arch leg by 17”. I believe she may keep the detail as-is for the bid, which I understand for simplicity. Removing the pedestal wall would be a cost-savings opportunity IF you want to take advantage of that during the bid.

As for the pedestal, this is something that could potentially be approached after the award but that we were not going to change anything now.

3. Finally, in the meeting yesterday, Michelle told the contractors that an “or-equal” option like the

Contech B-Series would be allowed. I want to make it clear that Contech is a brand for a specific company, so my hope is that the RFI response references something generic like “bottomless, three-sided precast arch” with whatever design details are critical to the project.

The Forest Service expressed concerns with structure size and weight. Some of the contractors had a similar concern when looking at crane access and size. If the bidder wants to reduce the cost of the poured concrete and increase the pre-fab costs and access expenses, that is

Holy Jim Crossing Replacement 2018 something we can talk about during the post award. To make it clear, the or equal needs to be or equal (including concrete headwall designed for impact resistance) and that any additional costs incurred including placing are on the contractor.