QA_04-18-2022.pdf

ID FS ERFO 2017(1)‐29(1)

Stoddard Bridge

# General Technical Question Answer Date

1 X

We have been going through the pre‐ solicitation plans on the Stoddard Bridge. We see there is a highline system in place for construction of the bridge. In order to get drilling equipment in place on the south side of the river as well as other construction materials, will a temporary work bridge be allowed (Contractor Designed) for this job?

The Government does not intend to obtain a permit for a temporary work bridge on this project.

8/2/2021

2 X

Is there an in‐water permit that has been secured for this project? Use of a temporary work bridge would also allow for use of a crane in lieu of the highline system if acceptable.

The Government does not intend to obtain an in‐water permit for this project.

8/2/2021

3 X Is the existing bridge usable for walking across?

No. The previous bridge shown on the plans has been removed.

4/4/2022

4 X

Page E‐10 of the Solicitation Document reads:

Contractor shall have access to Ebenezer

Campground facility (river side of Salmon River

Road) and is responsible for coordinating access to the north side of the road with the

Forest service. Contractor will be responsible for personal/business equipment and items. A fence will be allowed at open area located at

SW corner of campground. Does this paragraph indicate that construction personnel will be permitted to camp at the Ebenezer campground? If so, is there a fee for use of the campground?

This will be addressed under Amendment

A001.

4/12/2022

5 X

I am inquiring about the bore holes 01 through

06 shown on sheet j.09. Where can I find the records/information/results of those bore holes

(BH18‐01 through BH18‐06)? It also appears that the file “GR 06‐21 ID FS ERFO 2017(1)‐29(1)

Final” is not posted with the solicitation. Please make this available (or let me know if I missed it).

The information for BH18‐01 through BH18‐

06 is in the Boring Log within the physical data file “GR 06‐21 ID FS ERFO 2017(1)‐

29(1) Final.pdf”, and we have posted this physical data file on sam.gov as this file is listed under FAR Clause 52.236‐4.

4/12/2022

6 X

How was the equipment used to drill the test holes for the geotechnical report moved to the

West side of the river?

See Subsection 3.2 of Geotechnical Report

No. GR 06‐21, dated May 2021.

4/13/2022

Check General or Technical

7 X

What is the reasoning for the requirement to have an 8,000psi grout strength for the micropile grout? A 4,000 to 5,000 psi grout mix is much more common and achievable in the field plus running an LRFD design using a

4,000psi grout mix satisfies the 400kip DL. We have been talking to suppliers and we are not even sure an 8,000psi grout that is fluid enough to be pumped down a tremie pipe is possible.

Please revise the strength of the micropile grout.

The Government will not be revising these requirements. Please submit bids according to the solicitation documents.

4/14/2022

8 X

What is the reasoning for an 8,000psi grout mix for the ground anchors? Typically is it recommended to be between 4,000 to 5,000 psi and this is enough strength to bond between the reinforcing and the grouted hole.

We have been talking to suppliers and we are not even sure an 8,000psi grout that is fluid enough to be pumped down a tremie pipe is possible. Please revise the required grout strength to be in alignment with FHWA and

PTI’s recommendations.

The Government will not be revising these requirements. Please submit bids according to the solicitation documents.

4/14/2022

9 X What is the required wall thickness of the 8‐

5/8” micropile casing?

This will be addressed under Amendment

A002.

4/14/2022

10 X What is the required corrosion protection of the micropile and soil nail reinforcing?

The required corrosion protection of the micropiles is the encasement required in the solicitation documents; and the corrosion protection of the soil nail reinforcing is specified under FP‐14

Subsections 722.04(c) and 722.04(d).

4/14/2022

11 X What is the minimum ground anchor bond zone length?

See Section 256 and the Notes on Sheet

J.33; and please bid accordingly.

4/14/2022

12 X What is the ground anchor unbonded length?

See Section 256 and the Notes on Sheet

J.33; and please bid accordingly.

4/14/2022

13 X

What are the details of the ground anchor trumpets (size, length, wall thickness, plate size, coating, etc.)?

See Section 256 and the Notes on Sheet

J.33; and please bid accordingly.

4/14/2022

14 X

Is micropile verification and proof testing allowed to be conducted in tension? Will a bigger bar be allowed in the verification and proof test micropiles if tension testing is allowed to allow for the micropiles to be pulled to the correct loads without failing the reinforcing bar?

Comply with the requirements of

Subsection 567.06, and bid according to the solicitation documents.

4/14/2022

15 X

It appears the micropiles are designed right to the limits of the allowable elongation per the specifications. Running an elongation calculation the theoretical elongation at 75% of

DL is 0.36 inches and we are only allowed 0.375 inches. Please consider allowing an elongation of 0.5‐inches at 75% of DL.

The Government will not be changing this requirement. Please submit bids according to the solicitation documents.

4/14/2022

16 X

Sheet No. J‐22 shows a 9 1/8” drilled hole with a 8‐5/8” OD micropile casing. The area between the drilled hole and the casing is to be filled with lean concrete backfill. Filling this annual space with lean concrete backfill is not possible and unpractical especially considering the space between the theoretical drilled hole and the casing is a quarter of an inch on each side.

How would this even be placed? Typical industry practice follows FHWA recommendations for micropile cased length design and construction which would be to not have anything around the outside of the casing to allow the cased length to act as a bond breaker to transfer the design loads from the footing down to the bond zone. The cased length also provides hole stability and therefore typically any additional hole diameter drilled will just collapse on itself and therefore nothing is needed between the outside of the casing and drilled hole for the cased length. Please remove the requirement for the lean concrete backfill on the micropiles.

The Government will not be removing this requirement. Please bid according to the solicitation documents.

4/14/2022

17 X

Please confirm the contractor is only designing the bond zone length for the micropiles and not the structural aspect of the pile.

See Subsection 567.04 and Sheet J.22; and submit bids according to the solicitation documents.

4/14/2022

18 X

What is the point of the double micropile plate on top of the micropiles? The 12”x12” plate that sits on top of the casing is for compression punch out and typically a top plate is to handle the tension punch out. There appears to only be a compression load in these micropiles therefore the top plate of the micropiles is not doing anything. Please remove the upper suspended plate and just have the micropile plate resting on the casing to transfer the compression loads from the footing to the micropile.

The Government will not be making this change. Please bid according to the solicitation documents.

4/14/2022

19 X

The geotechnical report did not appear to be in the bid documents. Please provide the geotechnical report along with borings.

The Geotech report has been posted to sam.gov on 4/12/2022, and the boring log is within the Geotech report.

4/14/2022

20 X

In regards to amendment 1 and coordination with the Forest service, can you provide a contact person/phone/email? The local district telephone number leads to a recording saying the office is closed, with no additional contact information.

This will be addressed under Amendment

A002.

4/14/2022

21 X

Is there a reconciliation for the timbers associated with item A0540? Rough/Round numbers, there is 275 sf on abutment 1, 17 sf on abutment 2, and 2273 sf on the bridge proper, for a total of +/‐2565 sf. Roughly 7695 board ft at 3”, or +/‐7.7 MFBM. This is only about 16% of the listed bid qty. This is a

‘Contract Quantity” pay item, but this is a rather large discrepancy.

This will be addressed under Amendment

A002.

4/14/2022

22 X

Are there prequalified products, or additional details for the “8” square floor drain” and associated 3 & 4” drain pipes shown on J.12 and J.14?

This will be addressed under Amendment

A002.

4/14/2022

23 X

In regards to the USCG Bridge Permit, what will be considered unreasonable interference with free navigation of the waterway?

This will be addressed under Amendment

A002.

4/14/2022

24 X

What allowances will be made for accessing the south abutment via water crossing? Ie boat/”barge” for personnel/materials/equipment will require some level of disturbance to the existing channel embankment. Or will the

Administration only allow helicopter access for heavy lift items required on the south abutment?

Please submit bids according to the solicitation documents.

4/14/2022

25 X

Sheet J.52 shows a chord splice detail associated with top and bottom chords however locations are not defined in the framing plans. Are we to assume locations are at the option of the contractor? It appears they need to occur mid‐panel to avoid conflict with other gussets plates? Please clarify.

Your assumption is correct since gussets and handrails need to be accounted for when determining where splice locations will be in the field.

4/18/2022