B09_Solicitation_Amend_1_Attachment_12_Questions_and_Answers_10_7_26_3_pgs_0001.pdf

140FC126Q0044

St Marks Aucilla Tram Bridge DB

Attachment 12 Dated 7 October 2026

Question 1: Is any of the following available?

a. Load rating calculations

i) Answer- we do not have the calculations, just the load ratings listed in the bridge inspection reports.

b. Hydraulics - if there are none are we expected to complete any?

i) Answer- Hydraulics studies reports are not available and we do not want or expect to have that done.

c. Geotechnical information or existing foundation information

i) Answer: Geotechnical information is not available. We are not expecting to receive it but its up to the contractor to determine what is appropriate.

Question 2: Do bridge rails need to meet any crash test levels?

Answer: Yes—this project will meet AASHTO MASH Test Level 2 (TL-2). TL-2 corresponds to low-volume/low-speed facilities and uses a 5,000-lb pickup at 44 mph as the governing impact; FHWA’s Federal-Lands guide supports TL-2 selection for extremely low-volume refuge roads like this one.

Question 3: Will we be responsible for assessment/investigation prior to the design work?

Answer: Since the deck is already confirmed in good condition (no spalls or exposed steel), perform a short, common-sense verification before design: one site visit to photograph and measure the deck edge/curb/overhang; confirm low volume to document the MASH TL-2 basis for this employee-only refuge road. Also confirm corner object-marker locations and specify MUTCD Type 3 OM-3L/OM-3R panels with correct stripe orientation and a typical ~4 ft mounting height to the bottom when near the roadway.

Document the observations and these checks in a brief memo; because the deck is sound and the scope does not alter primary load-carrying members or materially increase dead load, no NBIS-level investigation is anticipated beyond this verification, consistent with USFWS policy to apply AASHTO/FHWA (or applicable State) standards for Service bridges.

Question 4: Will we need to prepare and/or update the existing load rating for modifications that may result from any load/configuration changes?

Answer: For this scope—replacing the bridge-mounted rail to MASH TL-2 and attaching a lightweight aluminum water-control unit—updating the bridge’s global load rating is generally not warranted if no primary load-carrying members are altered and the added dead load is negligible. NBIS requires bridges to be load-rated per the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation and updated when changes could reduce capacity; if the configuration and loading are essentially unchanged, a brief memo with local checks is sufficient documentation. FHWA’s guidance on assigned ratings likewise allows relying on the design-based rating when there have been no changes in loading or condition that would affect capacity.

Update the rating only if a trigger is present—for example: cutting the deck/curb or removing reinforcement, adding non-trivial dead load, discovering deterioration that wasn’t previously accounted for, or changing posted/permit loads. FDOT practice calls for performing a new rating when the existing rating no longer reflects the bridge’s condition during rehabilitation/widening.

Question 5: Our team is more experienced in Microstation, can we use this and convert it to AutoCAD? If not, we do have AutoCAD capabilities just not as efficient.

Answer: Yes

Question 6: Is geotechnical services required?

Answer: A geotechnical investigation is not anticipated. If the selected design is determined to require new foundations, changes in foundation loading, or otherwise requires subsurface data, the Design-Builder shall submit written technical justification and obtain Contracting Officer authorization before performing the investigation.

Question 7: Are new log guards intended to be aluminum?

Answer: The intention is for the logs to be aluminum. The guides and other appurtenances can be ASTM 316 stainless steel.

Question 8: Is the structure, foundation, and deck of the bridge to remain?

Answer: Yes. The existing bridge structure, foundations, and deck are intended to remain.

Some cutting, drilling, anchorage, or edge reconstruction of the deck is permitted as necessary to implement the selected design, subject to the requirements of the SOW and design by a Florida-licensed structural engineer. The intent is for a simple water control structure solution.

Question 9: Is the concrete structure that holds the existing log guards to remain?

Answer: The intent is for the existing concrete WCS structure supporting the current stop-log system to remain and be reused where practicable. Removal or modification may be proposed if necessary for the selected design, provided the structural integrity and load-carrying capacity of the bridge and WCS are maintained and the work is supported by the required engineering analysis and details.