2026_09-03_Q&A_Glenwood Springs SFU Wall.pdf
PDF 150 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- DQ1 PMAA 2027000061 2
- Issued by
- Mesa County, Colorado
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers addendum for a Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Invitation for Bid (IFB1-2027*061) concerning the Glenwood Springs SFU Retaining Wall project, issued by CPW's Northwest Region Office in Grand Junction, Colorado on September 3, 2026. The project involves the construction of a retaining wall at the Glenwood Springs facility, with key considerations including asphalt removal and replacement along Mitchell Creek Road, drainage management through a subdrain piping system, and potential field adjustments to wall location and termination points based on discovered conditions. The document addresses site access logistics, including contractor flexibility for semi-truck and trailer access, with the hatchery staff available to assist in accommodating larger vehicles through designated turn-around areas.
The Q&A clarifies critical technical specifications and project constraints, particularly regarding material sourcing and weather-dependent scheduling. For asphalt work, the contractor may substitute road base as an interim surface if asphalt is unavailable due to seasonal plant closures, subject to CPW Project Manager approval. Subgrade preparation requires scarification and recompaction of existing native soil rather than replacement with two feet of class 2 materials, with a leveling pad constructed of No. 57 crushed stone per AASHTO M43 standards to support wall stability and drainage accommodation. The document emphasizes that all field adjustments, including potential wall relocation toward Mitchell Creek Road, concrete wall removal, and drainage control measures such as a concrete V-pan installation, require advance review and approval from the CPW Project Manager.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Northwest Region Office 711 Independent Ave Grand Junction, CO 81505 cpw.state.co.us
Project Questions and Answers – 9/3/2026 Glenwood Springs SFU – Retaining Wall
IFB1 – 2027*061 Page 1 of 2 S25WAQ-9774
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED WITH THE BID DOCUMENTS
1. Question: Removal of asphalt along Mitchell Creek Rd is to be removed as needed? If possible, clean saw cut line along face of wall would eliminate need for paving.
A concern with paving is that the batch plant closes mid-October, weather permitting.
Answer: Any field adjustments during construction shall be reviewed and approved by the CPW Project Manager. If asphalt is unavailable, then the possibility of replacing the asphalt with road base for an interim surface until asphalt is available could be explored if reviewed and approved by the CPW Project Manager.
2. Question: After the onsite visit the outlet of the retaining wall’s drain pours out onto the roadway between the CPW lot and Mitchell Creek Rd. To control the flow of any water from the drainpipe, perhaps a concrete V-pan could be installed to divert water across the driveway into the ditch. Funds from the asphalt removal could cover the concrete V-pan. Thoughts?
Answer: Any field adjustments during construction shall be reviewed and approved by the CPW Project Manager.
3. Question: Due to the discovery of a concrete wall behind the existing retaining wall, we may need to slightly move the wall towards Mitchell Creek Rd. This adjustment would allow us to backfill/install the wall per specification. What is the ROW restriction in that area?
Answer: The new wall location could be moved towards Mitchell Creek Road if required to allow for the backfill per specifications as the ROW would not restrict this.
Any field adjustments during construction shall be reviewed and approved by the CPW Project Manager.
4. Question: The termination location of the retaining wall has a concrete wall; after onsite visit it might be better to remove it completely and rework that corner. Small adjustment to plans; thoughts?
Answer: Any field adjustments during construction shall be reviewed and approved by the CPW Project Manager.
Northwest Region Office 711 Independent Ave Grand Junction, CO 81505 cpw.state.co.us
Project Questions and Answers – 9/3/2026 Glenwood Springs SFU – Retaining Wall
IFB1 – 2027*061 Page 2 of 2 S25WAQ-9774
5. Question: Please confirm the job requirements for asphalt testing and compaction.
Asphalt providers are seasonal and may not be able to provide material for this project. What options are there if asphalt is unavailable when needed for this job? Please explain how a semi with a trailer would enter and turn around on the jobsite.
Answer: Please see specifications section 02513 testing and for asphalt testing and compaction requirements. If asphalt is unavailable, then the possibility of replacing the asphalt with road base for an interim surface until asphalt is available could be explored if reviewed and approved by the CPW Project Manager.
In reference to the semi with a trailer, the Contractor shall determine the means and methods used to safely and effectively achieve the project. The Hatchery staff mentioned with adequate notice they can cone off the northern turn around for larger trailers. They have also said that 53’ trucks are able to turn around at the ranch entrance below the property and back up to the project site.
6. Question: Do we need to cut and remove as much asphalt as shown on the drawings or is it possible to remove less and replace less?
Answer: Any field adjustments during construction shall be reviewed and approved by the CPW Project Manager.
7. Question: Outside of over excavation it mentions in section 02276 subpart D that 2ft of soil shall be replaced by class 2 soils. In the drawing it does not make any remark of that and rather shows a scarify recompact of existing. Is the native ground to be assumed suitable? Will the leveling pad just contain the drain material Class 2 ¾” clean crushed?
Answer: The wall will not require 2 feet of soil to be replaced with class 2 soils. The subgrade will be required to be scarified and recompacted as shown on Detail B on sheet 4 of 4 in the plan set. The leveling pad shall be constructed with No.
57 crushed stone as specified.
8. Question: Is the #57 clean crushed suitable drain material or would you like a ¾” washed, non-crushed spherical stone to better accommodate drainage?
Answer: A durable crushed stone conforming to No. 57 size per AASHTO M43 shall be used as specified. The material below the wall is designed for wall stability, any drainage will be accommodated through the subdrain piping.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .