Amendment 001 S34 12FPC322B0002 Questions and Answers.docx

1. Referencing the Little Bertha Site, due to power lines and other considerations in the work area, it may be necessary to access the drainageway from the Church’s side, will that be allowed?

1. Yes And, assuming yes, it would seem to follow that the contractor would be responsible for any grounds repairs that would be incurred. Please confirm that the cost of these repairs would be included in the line item for “Protective Cover”

1. Yes, repairs would be included in the line item for “Protective Cover”

1. Referencing the Little bertha Site, an active exposed gas line runs through the work area and appears to be in distress due to the ongoing erosion issues. Will the gas company be addressing the distress issues and or provide temporary protection/stabilization measures?

1. The City of Waynesboro Road Department will coordinate with contractor and utility companies to secure/relocate lines as needed.

1. Referencing The Little Bertha Site, there are multiple residual pilings in the work area. Are the pilings to be removed? If yes, are they to be removed entirely or sawn off or broken off below the Geotextile Fabric finish elevation within area affected?

1. Structures within the footprint of rock installation can be sawn off below slope elevation.

1. Referencing Little Bertha Site, there are what appears to be underground AT&T lines marked appropriately on either side of the drainage way running parallel to Hwy 63 and perpendicular to the drainage way. We were not able to determine if the line was actually running underneath the drainage way or if it was redirected to run overhead across the drainage way. Please confirm which way the line has been run. And if run underground, how deep below the drainageway?

1. Lines will be officially located once contractor initiates 811 call for utility markings.

1. Referencing the Little Bertha Site, once again due to overhead lines, etc. within the work area, we believe it would be necessary to work partially from Hwy 63. Providing basic traffic control measures, would it be acceptable to close one lane temporarily while work is performed?

1. Yes, upon approval of traffic control plan in conjunction with the City of Waynesboro.

1. Referencing the Spring Street Site, one of the work areas is adjacent to a building where a concrete structure has collapsed and will need to be removed from the work area along with other concrete and debris. The structure and debris to be removed is in very close proximity to what appears to be a failing foundation for the building itself. Removing the structure and/or debris could directly affect the foundation in question. Is it the intent of the project to provide foundation repairs? And if so, to what line item would the cost be attributable?

1. No; foundation repairs are not intended. However, the contractor will be responsible for any additional foundation damages created during construction.

1. Reference Specifications, CS 23 (Page 23-7) Item 10.a.3 indicates a Class C Compaction Method which includes compaction methods involving tracking equipment over work area or other methods as approved by COR. Given the nature of the finished slope, would compaction by use of the surface of a non-vibratory track hoe bucket be an acceptable means?

1. Yes.

1. Specifications and drawings indicate that certain quantities for excavation and earth fill will be required. There is no bid line item specifically for these items, where are they to be included for the bid and how are they to be paid?

1. Refer to CS 21.10.a.4 and CS.23.a.6 for needed information.

1. The specifications (CS 61) indicate that there is no stockpiling of rock on site and that the rock can not be dumped onto the ground. It also indicates that a Rock Box could be used. Given the delivery methods of trucks/trailers it would not be feasible to dump directly into the box. Would it be possible to dump to the ground and remove and haul off residual rock contamination after the project is over?

1. Yes 1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1. Are any permits required for the excavation and bypass work required for the channel repair? If so, has the USDA started the application process and has the review period been factored into the 90 day project completion requirement?

1. Required permits have been obtained.

1. Is any information available on the expected bypass pump sizing to redirect runoff from the channel during the reconstruction efforts? CS 11 notes requirements but nothing in the way or anticipated flows min or max flows

1. No. The ownness is on the contractor to determine needed pump size based on the flow at time of construction.

1. Is there a maximum duration the bypass can be left in place?

1. No. Duration will be based on feasibility.

1. CS 9 indicates that no equipment or material can be stored on public streets or roads. Please confirm that that excavated material and stone can be placed on either side of the trenches or within public easements/work areas limits noted on Sheet 2

1. Approved materials can be stored within the identified work limits.

1. Are we required to provide a surveyed as-built?

1. No.

1. It appears that based on the rehabilitation work there will be displaced soils to handle. CS 21, Section 5 indicates preferred methods and Section 10.3 indicates that Method 2 will apply. However, there is no information in the design drawings of how much material is to be reused, and how much disposed of. Can a line item be added for anticipated volume to dispose of so that all bidders are using the same anticipated quantity.

1. The difference between estimated excavation and earthfill quantities identified on each site will require disposal. An additional line item has been determined unnecessary at this time.

1. Please confirm the Engineer or USDA is responsible for any QA/QC testing mentioned in CS 23 and CS 94, Section 10.

1. Refer to CS 94.a.2 for needed information.

1. Section CS 61, Section 8, notes a list of riprap suppliers is attached. There is an MS 523 that provides additional technical specifications for the rip rap but not the approved suppliers noted. We did not find the noted attachment in the specifications or RFP. Could you provide this list?

1. The list of suppliers was determined to be outdated and subsequently removed. Any supplier providing certification of materials meeting our quality and gradation requirements will be accepted.

1. Please confirm that CS 95, Method 1 is acceptable for sewing geofabric overlaps in using this material as slope protection (as that seems to be the primary use). CS 95 Section 7 indicated placement that Method 2 would apply, but that does not seem to match the use for this geofabric.

1. Method 2 is correct as stated.

1. There are a couple notes on Sheet 2 of 4 stating:

“Final placement, elevations, and slopes of all grouted rock inlets shall be determined in the field by the COR” For the purposes of bidding, our estimate would use the quantities in the tables provided, and would follow the design per the plans. Where the Hwy 63 inlet empties into the V-ditch, we would assume the final placement/slope would be blended/transitioned to meet/mate to the curtain walls and inlet discharge (concrete base of Hwy 63 underpass) as appropriate for positive flow/drainage. Though elevations and slope details are provided, final slopes at the inlet transition may vary as necessary. For bidding purposes please confirm this is correct. COR directed field changes to the design would be discussed and reviewed to determine any +/- to the contract value.

1. That is correct. However, quantities are estimated and can vary 15% before contract changes are considered.

“A solid grout curtain or wall shall be installed in the upstream inverts of each grouted rock inlet” We believe these curtain walls should be installed where the leaders on the plan view detail on Sheet 2 of 4 point to elevations 95.6 and 96.7 at the inlet near Hwy 63. Please confirm the curtain walls are only intended to be at these two locations for the Little Bertha site and would not be required immediately adjacent and on either side of the inlet/underpass headwall (i.e. where elevations 92.12 and 91.99 are noted)

1. The solid grout curtain will only be installed on the downstream end of the structure (Elevation leaders 98.0 & 88.0).

On Sheet 3 of 4:

“Final alignments, elevations and placement of rock and grout and tie-ins of ditch inlets shall be determined in the field by the COR” Please clarify if this note essentially matches the note from sheet 2 of 4, and that our assumptions/comments above are also carry-over applicable – that the statement may be mostly applicable to transition areas where the new drain ditch slopes would be blended to mate to the existing inlet pipe headwall.

1. The location of the structure will be basically as drawn. The final alignment statement is to compensate for any changes in site conditions between time of design and construction commencement.

There are some crossing lines shown where the new drain ditches will be constructed/restored. Are these cross lines indicating the crossing pipes shown in the photos? If not, can you clarify these lines? (perpendicular to the centerline of the ditches – qty 2 in the southern ditch, and qty 1 in the northern ditch --- Spring Street site)

1. The lines are just identifying the slope direction.

Please clarify how the new rip rap/grout should be placed around the pipes shown in the photos. Please also clarify what size, materials of construction, status (active vs. inactive), and type (water, conduit, other) the pipes are. Please confirm any special needs/efforts/installation/modification/support etc. may be necessary for the pipes.

1. The ownness is on the contractor to choose method of rock/grout placement. We recommend a site visit if details of exact size, materials, etc. will help formulate your individual bid. The ownness is on the contractor to determine if special efforts are needed to install the structure as designed.

On Sheet 4 of 4:

There is no geotextile fabric shown beneath the small section detail (Sta. 1+00 to Sta. 1+46) whereas geotextile is shown for all other details. Please confirm if geotextile fabric is required here and if this should be adjusted/accounted for in the quantities provided.

1. Geotextile will be placed under all rock rip rap. The fabric for Sta. 1+00 to Sta. 1+46 is accounted for.

From the photos There appears to be damaged concrete pads/structures adjacent to the buildings which are lying in/across the drain ditch. Please confirm how this should be addressed – i.e. will these be cleared by others prior to contractor mobilization? Should they be cleared by the contractor and disposed of? Should they be stockpiled onsite/adjacent to the work area for disposal by others? If contractor is to handle, can you provide an approximate tonnage/weight of material to be demo’d/removed/disposed of? Is any restoration required for the brick shown in the photos which also appears to have failed?

1. Refer to CS 3.7 for needed information. It’s the ownness of the contractor to estimate tonnage/weight for disposal. Brick restoration is not required.

There are other concrete features shown in some of the photos in the same photo set showing the building and damaged brick/concrete pad failure. One of the photos shows what appears to be a concrete pad or sidewalk that is partially obscured with leaves and vegetation and has a small bush growing from it. The other photo is of a small concrete feature in the middle of a grass area. Please clarify what these photos are of and what if any work is to be performed in association with them.

1. The photo with the bush is a closeup of the broken concrete channel to be removed. The small concrete feature is the upstream inlet that the North channel will tie into.