QA_09-02-21.pdf

OR TILLAMOOK B780(1)

Cape Meares Road Relocation

# General Technical Question Answer Date

1 X Has this job been staked either centerline or any right‐of‐way?

No 7/20/21

2 X Hi, is there a publicized list of qualified bidders for the OR Tillamook B780(1), Cape Meares Road Relocation RFQ?

Obtain the registered vendors list (aka planholders list) for this project as follows.

Register in sam.gov and link your entity to your registration. After doing this, log into sam.gov to find the interested vendors list under this announcement. Contact the Federal Service Help Desk if you experience further issues.

8/9/21

3 X

Upon reviewing the specifications and plans for the Cape Meares Project it was identified that geofoam was to be used in a section of the roadway over a culvert as show on sheet G8 and G9 and is called out within section 257 and 275 of the specifications. Within section 257 on page F‐14 a maximum density is called out at

3.0 pounds per cubic foot. Is the specific geofoam type called out to be 3.0 pounds per cubic foot geofoam designation ASTM D6817, EPS46 or is the awarded contractor to specify the type within their design?

Subsection 257.05(a) specifies geofoam blocks with a maximum unit weight of 3 lbs/cuft; Subsection 714.06 specifies EPS Geofoam conforming to ASTM D6817; and ASTM D6817 lists 7 EPS Type Geofoams that are less than 3 lbs/cuft. The contractor awarded this contract will be required to submit documents according to Subsection 257.04.

8/12/21

Check General or Technical

4 X

Is this project at Small Business or HUB‐Zone set aside. The web page does not show a status but the documents have language regarding evaluation criteria.

No. This project is a Full and Open solicitation as indicated on the Pre‐ Solicitation of this Project, and the top right box on Page 1 of the Invitation for Bids.

8/30/21

5 X

Summary of Quantities (drawing sheets B.1, B.2, B.3) list certain Line Item Numbers as being ‘Contract Quantities’. Please explain what is meant by ‘Contract Quantities’. Will these be measured for payment or treated similar to a lump sum item (but paid at the quantity listed)?

See FP‐14 Subsection 109.02(b). 8/30/21

6 X Item 63610‐2200 3” PVC Conduit – Is the conduit to be installed by an electrician?

Install conduit according to Section 636. 8/30/21

7 X Item 63610‐2200 3" PVC Conduit – Are there vaults for hand holes required at the ends of the conduit runs?

This will be addressed under Amendment A003.

8/30/21

8 X

On plan sheet number R.4, Section B‐B the lagging height is shown as 11‐1/2”. Is that required or can other heights be used (i.e. 6”) provided the minimum nominal design strength conform to the plans? Please confirm 6” tall lagging boards or other heights can be used provided the minimum nominal design strength shown under the General Notes for Timber Lagging are met.

This will be addressed under Amendment A003.

8/30/21

9 X

The Anchor Detail and Section C‐C on Plan Sheet R.5; and Subsection 565.04(i)(4)(e) call for the installation of the ground anchor bearing assembly to H‐piles after installation of the H‐ piles. Would shop welding of the anchor pocket be acceptable, and if so, can the specified construction sequence under Subsection 565.04(i)(4)(e) be eliminated?

This will be addressed under Amendment A003.

8/30/21

10 X

Are wide flange beams an acceptable soldier pile alternative to the HP16x141? The mill rolling dates for HP16x141 are far less common than WF beam alternates, and they are subject to accumulation, meaning they will only happen if there is a high enough demand for the rolling to actually happen. Please confirm whether or not WF beams are an acceptable alternative to the HP16x141 soldier piles. If WF beam alternates are acceptable, please provide the designers preferred WF size.

No. Please submit bids according to the solicitation documents.

8/30/21

11 X

Standard specification section 725.13(a)(1), as referenced in standard specification section 256.02, refers to neat hydraulic cement grout as being a mixture of cement, sand, water and admixtures. Is it acceptable use actual neat cement grout without any sand in it provided the strength meets the requirement of 3,500 PSI at 7 days? Please confirm.

This will be addressed under Amendment A003.

8/30/21

12 X

Sheet NO R.5: Note 1 states that 10 strand ground anchors are required for all ground anchors. The anchor loads provided on sheet R.3 do not require a 10 strand anchor to be used. We request that the requirement to use 10 strand anchors for each ground anchor be removed.

This will be addressed under Amendment A003.

8/30/21

13 X

Sheet NO R.4 calls out using 6”x12” timber for the lagging. Per FHWA Lateral Support Systems and Underpinning manual – Table 4 “Recommended Thickness of Wood Lagging” it appears that 4” thick lagging would be appropriate for the wall height, soil conditions and clear spans. To make lagging installation safer and reduce costs, we request that the lagging thickness requirement be reduced to 4” thick.

We do not intend to reduce the lagging thickness requirements. Please submit bids according to the solicitation documents.

8/30/21

14 X Regarding the subject proposal, will Contractor be allowed to close the road to traffic for the duration of the contract?

See Subsections 156.04, 156.07(i), and 156.07(m).

9/2/21

15 X

Reference Drawing Nos. RG3210‐B & RG3210‐E, FP‐14 Sections 256.02 Permanent Ground Anchors and 722.02 Anchor Materials – The drawings seem to limit the tiebacks to strand only and the specs seem to allow strand and bar. Which is correct?

We don’t modify FP‐14 requirements for every situation. Please see FP‐14 Subsection

104.04 and bid accordingly.

9/2/21

16 X

Reference Drawing Nos. RG3210‐B & RG3210‐E, FP‐14 Sections 256.02 Permanent Ground Anchors and 722.02 Anchor Materials – The drawings indicate that the strand material must comply with ASTM 416 and the specifications indicate AASHTO M 203 and ASTM A779. Which is correct?

This will be addressed under Amendment A003.

9/2/21

17 X

Ref Drawing No. RG3210‐B, Timber Lagging Notes and FP‐14 Section 716 Material for Timber Structures – The drawing indicates that the timber lagging should be graded according to Western Wood Products Association Standards and the specifications indicate that the timber lagging is to be certified by an agency accredited by the American Lumber Standards Committee. Is this a conflict?

No. In accordance with FP‐14 Subsection 104.04, the Plans override the Standard Specifications.

9/2/21

18 X

Ref Drawing No. RG3210‐B, Structural Steel Notes and FP‐14 Section 715.06 Steel H‐Piles – The drawing indicates that the soldier piles must conform to ASTM A572, Grade 50 and the specifications indicate that the H‐Piles can conform to ASTM A572, ASTM A588 or ASTM A690. Are ASTM A588 or ASTM A690 options?

No, see Subsection 104.04. 9/2/21

19 X

Reference Drawing Nos. RG3210‐C, FP‐14 Section 256.05(b) – The tieback bond lengths in the table on the drawing are less than 15‐feet required in soil per Section 256.05(b). Which is correct?

Both are correct. FP‐14 Subsection 256.05(b) specifies minimum bond lengths for both rock (10’) and soil (15’). See information in the “GR 13‐19 Cape Meares Final Geotech Report.pdf” Physical Data file and bid according to the solicitation documents.

20 X

Ref Drawing No. RG3210‐E, Note 1 – Please confirm that we are to provide 10‐strands for all anchors, regardless of the actual loads as indicated on Drawing No. RF3210‐C.

This will be addressed under Amendment A003.

9/2/21

21 X Ref Drawing No. RG3210‐E, Note 2 – For bidding purposes, do we use the tieback bond lengths indicated in the table on Drawing No. RF3210‐C?

Bid the quantities shown on the plans. 9/2/21

22 X

Ref Drawing No. RG3210‐E, Anchor Detail – There is no size indicated for the Bearing Plate.

Is this a Contractor design item? Or will the Owner be providing this information?

See Section C‐C on Plan Sheet R.5. 9/2/21

23 X

Ref Drawing No. RG3210‐E, Anchor Detail – There is no detail and no callout for the material to be used for the Anchor Head Cover. Please provide the information needed to fabricate this item.

See FP‐14 Subsection 256.04(e) and bid accordingly.

9/2/21

24 X

Ref Drawing No. RG3210‐E, Notes 2 and 3 – Note 2 seems to imply that the bond lengths in the table on Drawing RG3210‐C should be used for bidding purposes and then Note 3 indicates that the selection of bond lengths and hole size are the Contractor’s responsibility. Hole size of 6‐ inches is shown in Sections A‐A and B‐B on RG3210‐E. Please clarify.

Submit bids according to the plans. 9/2/21

25 X

Ref Drawing No. RG3210‐B, Timber Lagging Notes and FP‐14 Section 716 Material for Timber Structures – Is the timber lagging untreated or treated?

See Description for Bid Item No. 55701‐ 1000 shown on the Bid Schedule and the Plans.

26 X Request the latest planholder list or please provide a link where the planholder list may be found online.

Obtain the registered vendors list (aka planholders list) for this project as follows.

Register in sam.gov and link your entity to your registration. After doing this, log into sam.gov to find the interested vendors list under this announcement. Contact the Federal Service Help Desk if you experience further issues.

9/2/21

27 X

On plan sheet R.5, note 1 states that 10 strands are required for each anchor. Based on the specifications and the anchor design loads on plan sheet R.3 the number of strands required to meet the testing criteria and design loads varies from 2 strands to a maximum of 9 strands. 10 strand anchors don’t seem necessary. In addition to the 10 strands being unnecessary, using too many strands makes extremely difficult to lock off the ground anchors, particularly at such low loads. If needed, please see attached file named “Cape Meares ‐ Q&A #5 Info” for clarification.

This will be addressed under Amendment A003.