QA_01-26-22.pdf

MT PRA GLAC 10(45)

Rehabilitate Final 9.3 miles of the Going-to-the-Sun Road & Replace Bridge Over McDonald Creek

# General Technical Question Answer Date

1 X Currently Glacier National Park is ticketed entry before 6:00 A.M. and after 5:00 P.M. Will contractors be granted a pass to enter to view the project or would we need to purchase a pass or enter after gate hours?

Glacier Park Ticketed Entry stopped on Labor Day so ticketed entry is no longer required.

9/7/21

2 X

63621-1000 Utility, Pull Box, (Electrical) We only see a detail for the communications pull box on plan sheet C.4

The preliminary plans posted on Sam.Gov have been posted to aid prospective bidders in identifying the location and type of work for this project. The preliminary plans are only intended to assist in prospective bidders while doing a field review of the project prior to project advertisement period. The preliminary plans are not to be used for bidding purposes

5-Oct-21

3 X Also when is the anticipated bid date? Please monitor the SAM site for actual date of solicitation release (https://sam.gov/). To receive automatic notification through SAM, you must login and select “Follow” feature and follow the steps as indicated.

5-Oct-21

4 X

Thank you for the reply and thank you for advising to view the sites before the weather changes.

We recently visited the sites and will have some electrical questions regarding solicitations 10(44) and 10(45).

Should we submit our questions now or wait until the solicitations are published?

Please wait for the solicitation documents to be posted. Solicitation documents are the officials documents that should be used for questions and bidding purposes. Please monitor (https://sam.gov/) for the official solicitation release. Should you still have questions once the solicitation is released, please do not hesitate to inquire at wfl.plans-spec e-mail address.

5-Oct-21

5 X

Being that this proposed project is located in the State of Montana, on July 1, 2021, Montana passed House Bill 702, which is:

“AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON A PERSON'S VACCINATION STATUS OR POSSESSION OF AN

IMMUNITY PASSPORT.”

This law prohibits “Discrimination based on vaccination status or possession of immunity passport prohibited --definitions. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for: (a) a person or a governmental entity to refuse, withhold from, or deny to a person any local or state services, goods, facilities, advantages, privileges, licensing, educational opportunities, health care access, or employment opportunities based on the person's vaccination status or whether the person has an immunity passport….”

Will the vaccine mandate requirements and enforcement of FAR Clause 52.233-99 and Safer Federal Workforce Task Force be waived for this project?

This will be addressed under Amendment A001 and A002.

10-Dec-21

6 X

I am trying to navigate the sam.gov website and need a little assistance. How do I view and get on the plan holders list for the above-mentioned project?

There is an interested vendors tab on beta.sam. You have to be signed in and have tied your entity to your registration when you signed up. If both of those things don’t happen the interested vendors list tab won’t be visible.

We don’t maintain a separate plan holders list.

You can call the federal service desk if you need further assistance. The number is1-866- 606-7828.

13-Dec-21

7 X It is a little unclear what work is included in Phase 1 bridge work vs. Phase 2 bridge work. Would you please clarify?

Phase I and phase II work is depicted on plan sheets L.1, L.4, L.5, L.7, L.9, & L.15. Also see section 108 of the Special Contract Requirements (SCR’s). Please bid appropriately.

15-Dec-21

Check General or Technical

8 X

What is the load rating of the existing bridge? The posted PUBLIC legal load capacity for the existing timber bridge is 15 tons (1430- 001P Upper McDonald Lake Bridge Safety Inspection 2019.pdf). For Contractor use, use the load rating report found in the Upper McDonald Creed Bridge Constructability Report.pdf from the physical data. Per section 104.05, an oversized and overweight permit request will need to be submitted for approval for any vehicle crossing the bridge that weighs over the posted limit of shown in physical data report Upper McDonald Creed Bridge Constructability Report.pdf. If the existing bridge is used as temporary works per Section 562, submit a plan with supporting calculations for approval per Section 104.05. Please bid accordingly.

17-Dec-21

9 X Would a precast bridge deck be acceptable No. Please bid accordingly 17-Dec-21

10 X Would FHWA consider extending Phase 1 completion deadline 30 days to allow for possible delays in procuring structural steel?

will be addressed under Amendment A003 17-Dec-21

11 X Section 157.04 states to “assume responsibility of maintenance, management, and improvements of the existing erosion control measures on site…..” Can the government provide a list of all existing erosion control measures that Contractor will become responsible for?

fiber rolls, silt fence and check dams. 17-Dec-21

12 X items A0120, A0140, B0120 and B0140 are for silt fence and fiber rolls. If other erosion control devices or action is necessary, how will they be paid?

will be addressed under Amendment A003 and see FAR Clause 52.243-4 Changes (June 2007)

17-Dec-21

13 X

The existing timber bridge has a restricted load capacity and is currently posted for a 15-ton limit. A load rating completed by the Federal Highway Administration in July of 2016 calculated a load capacity ranging from 15 to 29 tons depending on the standard AASTHO legal load vehicle analyzed, controlled by the moment capacity of the 70-ft roadway stringers at mid-span. A refined analysis was completed by Robert Peccia and Associates in June of 2020 increased that load capacity to a range of 19 to 33 tons based on the same design vehicles. Please clarify what the actual load capacity limit will be.

The posted PUBLIC legal load capacity for the existing timber bridge is 15 tons (1430- 001P Upper McDonald Lake Bridge Safety Inspection 2019.pdf). For Contractor use, use the load rating report found in the Upper McDonald Creed Bridge Constructability Report.pdf from the physical data. Per section 104.05, an oversized and overweight permit request will need to be submitted for approval for any vehicle crossing the bridge that weighs over the posted limit of shown in physical data report Upper McDonald Creed Bridge Constructability Report.pdf. If the existing bridge is used as temporary works per Section 562, submit a plan with supporting calculations for approval per Section 104.05

17-Dec-21

14 X The quantities shown in the “end area volume report” for GTSR do not match the quantities shown on sheet D1 for excavation and embankment. Which document is correct?

Quantities on D1 are correct. see question 24 below. Will be Addressed under Amendment A003

17-Dec-21

15 X And, it appears that the project is short material for Unclassified Borrow; how this will be paid? See FP-14 Subsection 204.10 regarding unclassified borrow. Please bid accordingly 17-Dec-21

16 X On Sheet D1, Conserved Topsoil quantity is shown as 1062 CY and Placing Conserved topsoil, 4” depth item shows .2 Acres, based on 4” – these quantities do no match. Please clarify which is correct?

Both are correct. An estimated 1062 CY of topsoil will be excavated, but only 0.2 acres of conserved topsoil is required to be placed. The remainder is covered under the furnishing and placing topsoil item 62402-0300. Please bid Accordingly.

17-Dec-21

17 X After item 41301 and item 30402 are complete, and if the gravel grade is not at the planned elevation, how will the necessary import/or export of base rock, item 30202, Roadway Aggregate, Method 2 be paid for with regard to the GTSR mainline?

Importing and exporting of base rock is not anticipated. Please bid accordingly 17-Dec-21

18 X

After a recent site visit, there is running water in the ditches located along the shoulders of existing PTW where curve enhancements/excavation/embankment is to take place. Would the Government please consider adding a bid item for water management and any necessary bypass pumping that may be required to construct these areas.

No. please bid accordingly 17-Dec-21

19 X After a recent site visit, it was noted that near station 327 there are several large dips in the existing PTW over existing water crossings. How will sub excavation and the necessary grading repair be paid for in this area?

No sub excavation is anticipated, please bid accordingly. 17-Dec-21

20 X Will the Government pay for all necessary traffic control to allow the contractor to setup areas for the safe and efficient turn-around of hauling units, even though they may be outside the immediate construction zone?

The Government has flagging hours and pilot car hours set up in the bid schedule and pays for these items of work under Section 635-Temporary Traffic Control. Please Bid Accordingly

17-Dec-21

21 X

308.03 states to use asphalt concrete millings that have maximum particle size of 1.5.” Generally milling machines won’t produce 100% top size products. Will additional stockpiling, crushing/screening be required to meet the 1.5” maximum size?

For the milling reused as 308 follow the specification of 1.5” max size. Please Bid accordingly

17-Dec-21

22 X Section 413.03 states to use sweeper immediately behind the milling operations. It is our understanding that asphalt will be milled full depth and therefore it won’t be necessary to sweep. Please advise.

Sweeping is required in areas that existing asphalt isn’t removed. Please bid accordingly 17-Dec-21

23 X Per the specs from #9 above, please confirm that a maximum particle size of the millings will not be required for the millings which are to be hauled away to locations per 413.03.b thru 413.03.d.

will be addressed under amendment A003 17-Dec-21

24 X The quantities shown in the “end area volume report” for GTSR do not match the quantities shown on sheet D1 for excavation and embankment. Which document is correct?

The revised response to question 14 is: quantities on D.1 are incorrect and will be addressed under Amendment A003 as well as the End area volume report for GTSR.

21-Dec-21

25 X

The project specifications section 257 – Contractor-Designed Retaining Walls states that, “Only black or black coated wire-faced mechanically-stabilized earth walls are acceptable.” We can offer hot dipped galvanized (typically what is required in FHWA’s standards for permanent MSE walls), commercial galvanized, or non-galvanized wire. Non-galvanized is often referred to as black wire, which is a common industry term, but it is not actually the color black. Galvanized wire will have a zinc coating and metallic look, whereas non-galvanized (aka black) is raw steel and a rusty/weathered look. Would FHWA like a non-galvanized MSE wall for this application? If not, will you please clarify the wire type/coating requirement, desired aesthetics and provide any possible suggestions on how to achieve them?

Please refer to Subsection 720.01(b) of the FP-14 and Special Contract Requirement’s (SCR’s). Please bid accordingly

21-Dec-21

26 X

Thank you for the reply. However, this does not clarify the color requirements noted in the SCR.

Subsection 720.01(b) of the FP-14 requires hot dipped galvanization, which is not the color black as the SCR suggests. These two requirements seem to contradict each other. Does the wall not need to be the color black then?

SCR 720.01(b) revises the requirements of this FP-14 Subsection 720.01(b) to read as follows.

(b) Wire Facing. Fabricate from welded wire fabric conforming to AASHTO M55, except that Subsection 7.4. applies for longitudinal and transverse wire sizes. Provide black wire or black coated wire.

Please bid accordingly.

22-Dec-21

27 X

Could you provide us with the plan holders list for MT PRA GLAC 10(45) Rehabilitate Final 9.3 Miles of the Going-to-the-Sun Road & Replace Bridge over McDonald Creek (Notice ID 69056721B000017), who has downloaded the plans and has shown interest in this project?

Obtain the registered vendors list (aka plan holders 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.

23-Dec-21

28 X

I work for a construction supplies distributor and usually bid on Montana DOT projects. However, this is my first federal DOT project I am quoting and was wondering if you had a list of GCs who will be bidding on this project?

Any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks and have a great day.

Obtain the registered vendors list (aka plan holders 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.

23-Dec-21

29 X Would the government please extend the bid date for the above project by two weeks to cover the difficulty of trying to reach people concerning the above project before and during the Holidays.

This will be addressed under Amendment A004. 29-Dec-21

30 X Based on core depths provided and quantities anticipated to be hauled of millings it appears the entire section of existing plant mix will be milled to the gravel surface. If this is the case does the first paragraph of SCR’s section 413.03 apply?

Sweeping is required in areas that existing asphalt isn’t removed. Please bid accordingly.

Also see QA_12-17-21 question no. 22 posted on sam.gov for this particular project.

7-Jan-22

31 X Plan sheet L.16 “Utility Detail” calls out two runs of 3” Sch. 80 PVC suspended from the new bridge. We do not see a bid item for 3” Sch. 80 PVC. Is this to be considered part of the 3” HDPE bid items A1400 & B1400, or incidental to the bridge construction?

The 3” sch 80pvc shown on plan sheet L.16 is considered incidental to the North McDonald Creek Bridge construction. Please bid accordingly.

7-Jan-22

32 X What is anticipated for communications conduit crossing application at the Lower McDonald Creek bridge on Camas road? See plan page D.13 from station 52+54 to 54+14 will be addressed in forthcoming amendment A005 7-Jan-22

33 X

Is it acceptable to construct a temporary work bridge completely south from the alignment of the existing bridge structure or north of the new bridge structure?

will be addressed under future amendment

Revised response posted 1/14/2022:

No Please bid accordingly. Posted 1/14/2022

7-Jan-22

34 X There are no construction limits to the north or south of the work zone. Please identify these limits will be addressed under future amendment A005 7-Jan-22

35 X Is it acceptable to place temporary fills in the river as a means of providing a construction work platform? Can this platform be within the limits of the OHW?

No 7-Jan-22

37 X

As stated in the constructability report, section 6.2 “It is estimated that if the steel girders are assembled on the existing or Phase 1 section the closure period would be approximately 10 days.” Based on our analysis, to construct the temporary bridge on top of the existing bridge it would take approx. 15 days, for Phase 1 we would need 5 days, and for Phase 2 we would need an additional 5 days to erect the bridge in place. Can we utilize full closures for the full duration of this work?

Clarification statement concerning above question provided to Government as requested:

Our understanding of this portion of the spec was that it indicated that a full closure without reopening in the evening to local and administrative traffic due to the installation and assembly of girders. Our question is if it is acceptable to have additional full closures to the bridge access without reopening for operations outside of what was specifically described in the spec, and in our question we are referring specifically to the installation of a temporary bridge over-top of the existing structure in addition to the installation of the girders in the phased construction will be addressed under future amendment A005 7-Jan-22

38 X Can the contractor utilize stay-in-place metal deck forms as formwork for the bridge deck between the girders No, please bid accordingly 7-Jan-22

39 X The 107.10 of the SCR, the specs require the “Use biodegradable, environmentally-safe oil in any equipment that operates over or reaches into waters of the US.” Does this apply to cranes reaching over the water or working from a temporary work surface

No, please bid accordingly 7-Jan-22

40 X In section 9.1 of the Geotech Reports mention that excavation may be necessary up to 15’ down to allow for the 30” pile to be driven through the soil conditions, it is anticipated that if we dig to this depth, we will be below the OHW mark, is this permitted through the contract

Yes, please bid accordingly 7-Jan-22

41 X

In section 9.1 of the Geotech Report, it states “The contractor should be prepared to encounter riprap boulder obstructions up to 3 feet in diameter”. If this size rock is encountered, would this be considered to be paid under a new pay item, for instance Removal of Obstructions or Pile Predrilling? This is a large risk to the contractor that we would not want to include in our bid proposal.

It is not anticipated that obstructions will be encountered below 15 feet. Please bid accordingly

7-Jan-22

42 X Color has been called out to be added to the concrete deck mix on Plan Sheet RG3184-O. Is this coloring also to be used throughout the diaphragm, wingwall, approach slab, barrier rail curb, & sidewalk curb to be colored as well?

Integrally color concrete as specified in SCR’s Section 552.03. Please bid accordingly 7-Jan-22

43 X Is the UHPC to be integrally colored because of the deck coloring called out on RG3184-O? No, please bid accordingly 7-Jan-22

44 X Are fixed leads required for pile driving? Will be addressed under future amendment A005 7-Jan-22

45 X

There is an incomplete analysis of the existing bridge based upon our review of the plans, specifications, constructability reports & existing bridge load rating reports. Specifically, the piers may need additional piling or support in addition to the strengthening of the superstructure. We request an additional 22 piles for a total of 30 pile required in lieu of the 8 specified in 562.01 of the temporary work will be addressed under a future amendment

Revised Response posted 1/14/2022:

The Gov’t’s concept development of a bridge strengthening scheme can achieve an HS20 load capability for both superstructure and substructure, but without a complete picture of all the live load a particular contractor will select, or scheme of strengthening, we are unable to run a full analysis for all configurations but it is our assumption the bridge can be brought up the HS20 loading without retrofit of the existing substructure units. A total of eight 3’ diameter max temporary piles between the OHW limits is currently allowed. Bid Accordingly

7-Jan-22

46 X We are requesting an extension for the questions window to a week before bid date to allow for additional questions to be submitted as needed

Will be addressed under future amendment A005 7-Jan-22

47 X

The Montana Department of Transportation does not allow liquid antistrip (Type 1 Antistrip), so this contract requires lime (type 3 antistrip) introduced in one of three methods. None of the 3 methods of lime introduction are the same as the Montana Department of Transportation. The Montana Department of Transportation’s Standard and Supplemental Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction states “Introduce dry hydrated lime into drum dryer mixing plants just below the asphalt cement introduction point.”

Will the government allow Type 1 antistrip?

Will the government allow Type 3 antistrip to be introduced into the drum dryer mixing plant just below the asphalt cement introduction point?

Will address under future amendment A005 10-Jan-22

48 X

There is a possibility that the girder deflections between phase 1 and phase 2 could differ by more than 3 inches after both concrete bridge decks have been poured. This can happen because of differences in temperature, bearing rotation, variability in materials, etc.

Note 6 on plan sheet RG3184-N states that the UHPC pour cannot commence until the difference is within ¼ inch between phase 1 & phase 2 decks. Should we include this risk within our proposal to jack or use other methods under the lowest phase girders, as required, to match the bridge deck elevations?

Please bid accordingly 10-Jan-22

49 X

In the load rating calculations, the values for the final capacities have been given but the values used in these calculations have not. Please provide the Live Load effect and the load factor for each controlling rating case and please provide the different condition factors that were used for controlling the load ratings calculations will be addressed under future amendment A005 10-Jan-22

50 X

Will the trench line for the Lake McDonald Utility Relocation project be patch back after pipe installation? If not this would change Milling quantities and affect milling operations.

I am asking about MT PRA GLAC 10(45). If the trench of the utility project is not patched back prior to this project then it will affect how the project is milled and the quantity of millings that are to be expected

All trenching required under contract MT GLAC 10(44) within the existing asphaltic roadway surface will be backfilled with either pavement millings or asphaltic concrete and will not affect the milling quantities established for contract MT GLAC 10(45)

11-Jan-22

51 X After Full Depth Reclamation work is completed and the road is being re-graded and compacted how will FHWA pay for imported base gravel if plan elevations for SG can’t be met? Additionally, how will FHWA pay for material that needs to be exported if there is excess material after SG grading?

will be addressed under Amendment A005 11-Jan-22

52 X

With respect to section 413.03 (d) and (d) two repeat sections, would the Govt please provide more detailed info for these stockpile locations so that we can provide more accurate hauling cost calculations? “Within 20 miles”, etc… does not give us much to go on. Are we going back paved roads or gravel roads, etc..?

will be addressed under Amendment A005 11-Jan-22

53 X

Please provide additional information ( quantities required, etc… ) for items A1340/B140, System Information, Telephone. Section 636.11A does not show any requirements for the system, and drawings D.13 and D.14 only show line diagram locations for bores/pull boxes and do not show cable size/type/splices/connections/etc.

will be addressed under Amendment A005 12-Jan-22

54 X In conjunction with question #10 and Amendment 003 with the probability of delays in procurement of structural steel would FHWA extend the date two months for 108.01(a)(11) Complete all phase 2 bridge work, bridge approach construction, and parking area construction up to top of recycled aggregate base?

will be addressed under Amendment A005 12-Jan-22

55 X Will the Government allow the traffic control items in the bid schedule to also be used for traffic control that will be needed to safely and efficiently get material hauling units through the “stacked-up” traffic waiting line that is always present at the West Glacier Entrance?

Temporary traffic control will be paid according to section 635-Temporary Traffic Control. Please see section 635 for the FP-14 and the SCR’s. Bid accordingly

12-Jan-22

56 X

In the most recent Q&A it stated that question 51 would be addressed in amendment 005. I do not see that Question 51 was addressed in amendment 005. Will this be covered in a future amendment?

#51: After Full Depth Reclamation work is completed and the road is being re-graded and compacted how will FHWA pay for imported base gravel if plan elevations for SG can’t be met? Additionally, how will FHWA pay for material that needs to be exported if there is excess material after SG grading?

Amendment A0005 modified the language in the SCR’s 413 to state that the milling is to be controlled in accordance with Section 152 Construction Survey and Staking. If the milling is controlled in accordance with 152 then the subgrade elevation will be established during Asphaltic milling operation and minimal re-grading of the subgrade will be required. There will not be another Amendment issued. Please bid accordingly.

18-Jan-22

57 X This addendum updated the Notice to Proceed date from March 4th to May 2nd, however there has been no change to the bridge completion date of June 30th, 2023. Can the date for completion of the bridge be moved back in order to account for the delay in the initial Notice to Proceed will be addressed in future Amendment A006 20-Jan-22

58 X Are confidential questions regarding specific means and methods for this project permitted No. please bid accordingly 20-Jan-22

59 X It doesn’t appear amendment 005 addressed question #54 concerning extending date on sheet E-24 for the completion of the phase 2 bridge work.

Will be addressed in future Amendment A006 20-Jan-22

60 X On plan sheet G.4 Note 2 references sheet M.2 for locations and quantities. There is not a plan sheet M.2 will one be issued will be addressed in future Amendment A007 20-Jan-22

61 X Plan Sheet L.22 the rebar list is incomplete will a new plan sheet be issued with a completed rebar list? The bar list is intentionally left blank to provide bidders the bar shapes but the table is to be filled out by the steel supplier. See 554.03, please bid accordingly.

20-Jan-22

62 X In the bid form for item A1380 the quantity is 850 LF. Plan sheet D.14 shows the line graph for the conduit installation. On this plan sheet the graph only shows 2 directional drill locations totaling 400 LF. Which quantity is correct?

will be addressed in future Amendment A007 20-Jan-22

63 X

Originally Lower McDonald Creek fiber conduit was shown in the line graph to be directionally drilled. A recent amendment changed that to hanging the conduit from the bottom of the bridge. Will this quantity be updated to reflect the change

Sheet D.13 directional drilling is prior to and after the bridge structure. Amendment A005 clarified the installation of the conduit crossing the bridge structure. Boring quantities for other works (question 61) is being addressed under future amendment A007

20-Jan-22

64 X

The size of equipment that would be required to plow in the 2” may cause significant disturbance to slopes and possibly damage to the roadway. Would a trencher be an acceptable means of installing the fiber conduit?

yes 20-Jan-22

65 X

Plan sheet L.16 shows a detail for the sidewalk curbs. Is there a specific material FHWA would like those made out? We also can’t find the specific size would a similar size be acceptable?

See sheet L.16, curb Notes 2. Black with reflective markings. Please bid accordingly 20-Jan-22

66 X

Pay Quantity for Bid Items A0700 and B0700 Reinforcing Steel Epoxy Coated seem to be missing the quantity for the epoxy coated rebar required for the approach slabs. Please clarify in which bid item we should include the cost of the rebar for the Approach Slab rebar should be included or adjust the quantity for these rebar items to address these differences in weights.

Quantity is accounted for in line item A0700 and B0700 bid item no. 55401-2000 REINFORCING STEEL, EPOXY COATED. Please Bid accordingly

20-Jan-22

67 X

The rebar specified on the curb for the bridge railing is indicated to be paid as an ancillary item to bid items A0780 and B0780 in the title on Page 22 of the Structure plans, however there is not a similar not identifying the bid item for the moment slab bridge railing. Please clarify what bid items should carry the cost for these rebar quantities please see plan sheet L.2 Item No. 55601-0900 ESTIMATE NOTES: (4). Please bid accordingly.

20-Jan-22

68 X

In reference to question 45, based on our analysis, we agree that the bridge could be strengthened to meet the HS20 bridge capacity or our live load configurations. However, this increase in load capacity may significantly increase the load on the bents and the pile supporting them. Our concern is that there is not an identified capacity for these piles, and if we assume a capacity that differs from what the government will allow, our cost of construction would drastically increase. What is an acceptable service load capacity for the timber piles at each of the bents?

Existing pile capacity is assumed to match bridge as-builts shown in physical data. Please bid accordingly.

24-Jan-22

69 X In the 562 spec section, the language says “A temporary bridge placed above the existing bridge footprint OR up to 8 temporary piles placed...”, please clarify if we can utilize both a temporary work bridge and 8 temporary pile

Yes. In total of any combination (work bridge, strengthening, etc) a maximum of 8 temporary piles are allowed between OHW limits. Please bid accordingly.

24-Jan-22

70 X

Please provide the construction limits for the roadway for 150’ on either side of the bridge on sheet D.2, it only shows the limits offset from the new bridge alignment? We would like to request that the construction limits be extended on either side of the new bridge abutments to include the area 50’ downstream of the centerline from station 6+80 to 11+00.

No, Bid as shown 24-Jan-22

71 X

Addendum 5, section 156.04 (c)(4) allows for the full closure of the bridge, can we use the full closure of the bridge to remove the existing bridge and build a temporary work bridge/local access bridge in its place?

Yes, please bid accordingly. 24-Jan-22

72 X

Is it acceptable to fully remove the existing bridge superstructure, utilize the existing piling that is adequate for reuse, supplement the foundation with new piles, and place a new superstructure as our temporary work bridge/local access bridge?

Yes, with the limitation of 8 new temporary piles btw OHW limits. Please bid accordingly.

24-Jan-22

73 X

The 562 spec currently says that you can use a “temporary bridge placed above the existing bridge footprint”.

Can the temporary work bridge/local access bridge have a wider superstructure & substructure footprint than the existing bridge? If so, can this bridge be offset from the existing footprint and remain within the construction limits identified by Addendum 5 on page D.2?

Yes, please bid accordingly. 24-Jan-22

74 X Please provide a pay item for the temporary support structure/work bridge (under 562 spec section). No, Bid as shown 24-Jan-22

75 X Please provide a pay item for the shoring & bracing of the abutment (under 208 spec section). No, Bid as shown 24-Jan-22

76 X In reference to questions 74 & 75. I have not been able to find a location within the bid documents that defines were this cost should be captured. Could you please identify which bid items should carry the cost to complete this work?

See FP-14 Subsection 109.05 and bid accordingly 25-Jan-22

77 X What end treatment, drive shoe, etc. is requried for the piling? plie shoes have not been specified. See Section 551 of the fp-14 and Bid accordingly 26-Jan-22

78 X Per 551.05 Section (c), part (7) Pile shoes. When specified, provide shoes to protect the pile-tip from damage during driving. Fabricate shoes to snugly fit the pile tip. Are we to assume that since no shoes have been specified, that none are required?

yes, shoes are not specified, so bid accordingly 26-Jan-22