Q and A_0003.pdf

ACAD 161676

Presolicition Questions & Answers

# Question

In the definition of CLINS, base, number 13 describes the 100 ft section of the rockslide. Is this a mistake?

2 Same as above, confirm that there is 1 box culvert in the base work

As far as reclaiming limits, where there are coping stones on both sides of the road, just confirm that the reclaiming is going inside of the stones if there were requirements for removing the vegetation on the Carriage Roads in the Contract Documents. He asked if the existing vegetation could just be incorporated into the reclaimed material during the reclaiming operation.

In the plans there are several locations to “Remove & Reset # Coping Stones” Some areas are clear you are doing this to be able to do work such as replacing culverts. In other location the intent is not completely clear, is this just to remove the rocks to regrade where they have settled over the years and to realign rocks better?

Did the Govt intend for the “Reclaim, Regrade and Compact Existing Surface and Middle Course” limits shown in the Carriage Road Typical Sections on sheet C3 to extend under the Coping Stones that are not called out for resetting?

Govt. Response

Yes, the AE will revise and we'll post a revised spec via an amendment That is correct

That is correctThe Govt confirms that the Contract Drawings address the vegetation question in General Note 11 on sheet C1:

“11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE VEGETATION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE

CARRIAGE ROAD AND BETWEEN COPING STONES AROUND THE ENTIRE EAGLE LAKE

CARRIAGE ROAD LOOP.” We do not want the vegetation to be incorporated into the We removed the coping stone from the Superelevated typical section. Reviewing where superelevations are required by the design (as shown in the profiles), there is only one location where coping stones are present where regrading for superelevation is required. That one location is at the culvert at Station 193+40 on sheet C28 where there are four coping stones on the inside of the curve. The plans call for those four coping stones to be removed and reset due to the culvert replacement so the grading limits there will not need to stop at the inside face of those four coping stones.

Reference Sheet C3 dated (07-14-2020). We have revised the Carriage Road Typical Sections on sheet C3 to clarify the design intent. We intended for the “Reclaim, Regrade and Compact Existing Surface and Middle Course” limits to stop at the inside face of the coping stones that are not called out for resetting. The proposed grade is intended (and designed) to match the existing grade at the face of coping stone in all normal crown sections so no work is required behind the coping stones in these areas.

Sheet1