QA_06-04-2021_2.pdf
PDF 99 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 69056721B000007
About this file
This document contains technical questions and answers related to Oregon Department of Transportation solicitation number 69056721B000007 for the US 20 Upper Sunken Grade Slide Repair project. The questions and answers provide clarification on issues such as the treatment of unsuitable excavated material, compaction testing requirements, the classification and handling of thick asphalt layers encountered, and whether structural excavation and backfill is incidental to other bid items. Specification sections and subsections are referenced in the answers as the source for requirements. One answer indicates an issue will be addressed in amendment A002. Another confirms five additional ground anchors are part of the performance test anchors covered by a bid item.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| OR DOT 20(3).pdf | ||
| BidSum OR DOT 20(3).pdf | ||
| QA_06-04-2021.pdf | ||
| Amendment A002.pdf | ||
| Amendment A001.pdf | ||
| OR DOT 20(3)_XS_USG.pdf | ||
| OR DOT 20(3)_Earthwork_VolRpt_USG.PDF | ||
| OR DOT 20(3)_XS_LSG.pdf | ||
| OR DOT 20(3)_Earthwork_VolRpt_LSG.PDF | ||
| IFB OR DOT 20(3).pdf | ||
| OR_DOT_20(3)_Plans.pdf | ||
| OR DOT 20(3)_Compiled_ESCP_Final.pdf | ||
| DXF and XML files.zip | ZIP file | |
| OR DOT 20(3)_Survey_Control_USG.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| OR_DOT_20(3)_SUP_USG.PDF | ||
| OR DOT 20(3)XS_DRAINAGE.PDF | ||
| OR DOT 20(3)_USG Final Geotech Report GR 22-20 Rev 2 signed.pdf | ||
| OR_DOT_20(3)_SUP_LSG.PDF | ||
| OR DOT 20(3)_Survey_Control_LSG.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 19
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
OR DOT 20(3)
US 20 Upper Sunken Grade Slide Repair
# General Technical Question Answer Date
1 X
If the material that is generated from the wall excavation (As shown on sheet F.6) is saturated or found to be unsuitable, is it allowed to be placed back in its original position for the wall backfill since it is out of the roadway prizm?
Unsuitable material is not allowed for embankment construction or structural backfill. See FP‐14 Subsections 204.10 and 208.03.
6/4/21
2 X
The Specs (204.13 (e)) read to only remove material larger than 12 inches but nothing about unsuitable material being hauled off. Will there be compaction testing requirements for this item as well?
This will be addressed under Amendment A002. Also see FP‐14 Subsection 204.14.
6/4/21
3 X
From years of continuous AC patching for the sinking roadway, there is a high probability that the roadway AC may be 2 to 10 feet thick.
(Locals say there may be as much as 20 feet of
ac) If this is the case, does the Federal Highway department view the ac as suitable materials as specified in section 101, therefore it can remain in place at the subrade. Or is it deemed unsuitable and all the asphalt needs to be removed and replaced?
See FP‐14 Subsection 203.04(b). 6/4/21
Check General or Technical
4 X
What item is the wall excavation and wall backfill (Structural Excavation/Structural Backfill) incidental to? There is approx 12,000 cubic yards and does not appear to be covered in the roadway excavation item.
This will be addressed under Amendment A002. Also see SCR Subsection 263.10, and FP‐14 Subsection 109.05.
6/4/21
5 X
Bid Item A1500 states 87 ground anchors, but there are only 82 on the Soldier Pile Schedule.
Are the other 5 paid as part of the performance test anchors?
Yes, see FP‐14 Subsection 256.08(b)(1). 6/4/21
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .