QA_11-13-2024.pdf

MT FLAP BOR 2980(1)

Sun River Bridge Replacement

# General Technical Question Answer

Date

1 X

I see the preliminary plans have been posted and have reviewed them.

Would cast in place bridge deck be acceptable in lieu of the prestressed deck panels in the plans?

The preliminary documents posted on sam.gov have been posted to aid prospective bidders in identifying the location and type of work for this project. Please monitor the SAM site for the actual date of solicitation release

(https://sam.gov/), and the duration of the advertisement period; and submit your questions during the advertisement period for the project. To receive automatic notification through SAM, you must login and select “Follow” feature and follow the steps as indicated.

8/15/2024

2 X

I’m having a hard time finding the construction specifications. Can you point me to the right direction for sun river road replacement.

Please see page A‐1 Notice to bidders of the IFB. You will find a link to the FP‐14. see below:

THIS PROJECT IS BEING SOLICITED AND AWARDED UNDER FP‐14.

The FP‐14 is FLH’s Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects. To view the FP‐14 electronically go to: https://highways.dot.gov/federal‐lands/specs.

10/18/2024

3 X

Is there a Geotech report for this project? Yes, go to https://sam.gov/opp/44a9c9db98dc4caabf4f6507242c87d3/view

SAM: Update 10/18/2024: Due to technical error, some physical data files did not upload when the solicitation was initially posted. The remaining physical data files are available under Physical Data_2.zip.

10/18/2024

4 X

I had a question regarding project MT FLAP BOR 2980(1). Attached is a kml file of the corner turn of the roadway to the existing bridge that’s outside the construction limits. Would we be able to disturb an area and add gravel for a turn‐around for semi‐trucks beginning at option X? The turn currently is too tight for equipment to turn around.

This will be addressed under Amendment A002

10/18/2024

5 X

SCR 104.03(s) states “Optional cast‐in‐place concrete deck plan details and design calculations”.

Will there be a bid item added for this option?

Bid as shown. No bid item will be added for this options. If a Cast‐in‐Place deck alternative is proposed this would be evalutated under FP‐14 SubSection 103.03 10/22/2024

6 X

Given the logistical complexity and remote location of the project, we respectfully request a one‐ month extension to the bid.

The Government will not be extending the Bid Opening date.

10/22/2024

7 X

The solicitation number on most of the project documents is 69056724B000016; however, the SF

1442 shows the solicitation number as 69056724B000014.

this will be addressed under Amendment A004

10/24/2024

8 X

On sheet F.2 a temporary bridge area is shown. For the temporary work bridge is there a minimum span length and vertical clearance above OHW that needs to be met?

No there is not, but there is a specified timeframe the river can be closed to recreational traffic see subsection 156.04

Accommodating Traffic During Work of the SCR’s. Outside of this window, raft and drift boat requirements for navigation have not been assessed. Please bid according to the solicitation documents 10/31/2024

9 X

On sheet F.2 a temporary bridge area is shown. Can the work bridge remain in place during the winter shut down period if minimum span and height requirements are met?

See Subsection 107.10(e)(1) of the SCR’s. Please bid according to the solicitation documents.

10/31/2024

Will the contractor be responsible for dust control on access road from Choteau or Augusta during construction?

See FP‐14 Section 158 Watering for dust control, Subsection 158.03(b) other dust control.

10/31/2024

11 X

I was instructed by Lisa Scheirer ‐ Realty Specialist with the Bureau of Land Management to follow up with this email address on my question regarding access to the Sun River Bridge Replacement

Project. My question is as follows:

Attached is a map depicting our preliminary plan for accessing the work for the Sun River Bridge

Replacement MT FLAP BOR 2980(1) Project. The Notice to Proceed for the Project is 1‐23‐25 and work for the access road would commence after all environmental permit authorizations were obtained (anticipated to be around 3‐15‐25). Work would conclude with the cleanup and reclamation of all disturbed areas associated with construction on 10‐31‐26.

I’m interested in understanding the process (i.e., time and effort) associated with utilizing the areas of BLM outside the construction limits, defined by the bid documents, to the approximate limits need to construction the access shown in the schematic attached so we can prepare an appropriate bid by 11‐12‐24. Please provide any information you see relevant to the temporary use and reclamation of the adjacent BLM property.

Additional access points outside the construction limits require:

1. Submission under Subsection 103.03 Value Engineering of the FP‐14

2.Comprehensive regulatory updates, including:

a. Amended resource reports(BA, BE, Wetlands)

b. 106 pedestrian archaeological scans, with amended report

c. Tribal consultation

d. Revised environmental assessment (EA)

e. Updated 404/401/318 permits

f. Securing additional temporary right‐of‐way (R/W) from Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Estimated Timeline: 3‐6 months, contingent on ground accessibility for critical resource report updates.

10/31/2024

12 X

Note 1 on drawing RG3296‐E calls for abutment piles installed per Section 551. FP‐14 section 551

– Driven Piles, references section 725.13 for Grout. That section is for neat cement grout applications. Since the abutment HP piles are to be pre‐bored with 2‐ft shafts, please confirm that concrete for drilled shafts per section 565.08 can be used in the pre‐bored abutment shaft holes.

Concrete for drilled shafts is acceptable for placement in pre‐bored pile holes in lieu of grout (725.13(a)(2)).

10/31/2024

13 X What pay item will the drilled shaft concrete be paid under? Bid Item 56501‐0000, Drilled Shaft (120‐inch Diameter), 53 lnft.

10/31/2024

14 X Just to confirm, the drilled shaft concrete will be paid under this bid item, not 55201‐0200

Structural Concrete, Class A. Is that correct?

Yes, the drilled shaft item is for all work under 565. See Measurement clause in 565.11 11/1/2024

15 X Can a permanent casing shoring be left in place from existing grade to 2‐feet below the shaft construction joint?

Yes for the Drilled Shafts are piers 2 and 3, but no to the abutment piles.

11/1/2024

16 X

Sheet A‐1 of the IFB document states this contract will be solicited and awarded under FP‐14.

Item No. A0620 Pay Item No. 57502‐0000 for Temporary Bridge 1 LS references Standard

Specification 575, but no Section 575 exists for FP‐14 found at this website

(https://highways.dot.gov/federal‐lands/specs/fp‐14 ) and no Section 575 exists in the Special

Contract Requirements (SCR) Table of Contents. Will the government please provide a specification or direct contractors where the appropriate referenced standard specification can be found/downloaded for this Item?

will be addressed under Amendment A005

11/1/2024

17 X

Would FHWA consider expanding the construction limits downstream of the new structure? The Government will not be evaluating proposed design changes before contract award. Please submit bids according to the solicitation documents. 11/4/2024

18 X

SCR section 203 discusses the importance of not damaging the Siphon during demolition of the existing bridge. There will need to be significant amount earthwork on the outlet side of the siphon for access to the bottom.

Question 1: Is there a known depth to the top of the conduit?

Question 2: Is there a required minimum of cover that needs to be left on the Siphon during construction?

Question 3: Is there restrictions on weight of loads or equipment that can cross the siphon?

Response1: See Pages from D‐1771‐D0000 Construction Documents 1944.pdf provided with Amendment A005.

Response 2: See minimum cover shown in Pages from D‐1771‐D0000 Construction Documents 1944.pdf provided under

Amendment A005.

Response 3: No, as long as you don’t damage the syphon.

11/5/2024

19 X

Does the reinforcement steel for piers 2 & 3 need to be epoxy coated? No

11/6/2024

Check General or Technical

20 X

Subsection 107.10(e)(6) prohibits “clearing operations between April 1 and July 15”. Because clearing and grubbing is considered a necessary first activity at the new bridge site, will clearing and grubbing be allowed prior to April 1 to prevent delaying the start of construction until after

July 15, or is it your intent to start construction after July 15?

SCR 107.10(e)(6) states: Do not conduct clearing operations between April 1 and July 15 (dates inclusive) to avoid impacting nesting birds, unless approved by the CO.

Response Part 1: The CO can request a nesting bird survey from FS and BLM biologists, if no nesting is found, clearing can commence. If nesting birds are found, no clearing can occur inside the window stated above.

Part 2: or is it your intent to start construction after July 15?

Response Part 2: Yes, clearing and grubbing can occur prior to April 1. Please note, e (6) is only referencing clearing, if cleared prior to April 1, grubbing has no restrictions.

11/6/2024

21 X

Subsection 107.10(e)(1) notes that “temporary diversion structures below elevation 4365.48 must be removed prior to October 1, and all temporary diversion structures must be removed prior to winter shutdown.” Are temporary work bridge pilings considered “temporary division structures” as referred to in Subsection 107.10?

yes, Revised response: this will be addressed under Amendment A006

11/6/2024

22 X

Regarding the wildlife friendly fencing:

Attached is detail drawing MDT 607‐01 wildlife friendly fence [F4M‐SBBS‐16] and detail drawing

MDT 607‐05 of single and double steel braces and steel posts that are used by the dept of transportation in the state of Montana. Would this fence design be acceptable for this project?

The Government will not evaluate proposed materials before contract award. Please submit bids according to the solicitation documents.

11/6/2024

23 X

Regarding the Double Swing “Forest Service” Gate:

It’s noted that the gov’t wants to be able to remove the gate as well as the gate posts. Would the attached gate detail with the describe sealed bearing hinges be acceptable? There would be no maintenance and the gate arm would still be removeable.

The Government will not evaluate proposed materials before contract award. Please submit bids according to the solicitation documents.

11/6/2024

24 X

The girder schedule on sheet RG3296‐Y shows minimum concrete strengths of 18 KSI at Release and 10 KSI at final.

The release strength seems to be incorrect as it is higher than the final strength and cannot be met with standard design mixes.

Please verify the correct concrete strength requirements.

will be addressed under Amendment A006

11/6/2024

25 X

Thank you for your response to my question below. Please consider the resulting follow‐up question noted below.

Per your clarifications on Subsection 107.10(e)(1) designating the temporary work bridge as a

“temporary diversion structure”, the work access to the drilled shafts, intermediate piers and mid‐ span superstructure is limited to the period between July 15 and October 1 (2.5 months) during season 1 and June 15 and October 1 (3.5 months) during season 2, less the time required to install/remove the temporary bridge each season. We do not feel there is enough time on the contract to complete the work required within these work windows. Please note the action of installing and removing the temporary work bridge it is likely more environmentally impactful than leaving the temporary bridge in‐place during winter shutdown. Given the restrictive work windows and impacts to remove and reinstall the temporary bridge, would the Government allow the temporary bridge to remain in place during winter shutdown if the low beam elevation was at least 6’ above the defined Q100 elevation and the temporary work bridge bents were positioned parallel to river flows?

will be addressed under Amendment A006

11/6/2024

26 X

Is it possible to extend the contract for another season? Per the scheduling requirements that were revised in Amendment 06 that leaves 7 months to construct the majority of this project. It is likely the contractor will lose 8 months of contract time between seasons. 7 months is insufficient time to install and remove these temporary facilities twice and complete the work safely, to a high standard in such a remote location. A third season would allow this contract to be performed to design appropriately, but will also allow time for inevitable VE solutions that will be presented.

The Government will not be extending the contract Fixed Completion date. Bid according to solicitation documents.

11/7/2024

27 X

In the FP‐14 spec section 565.07 – Reinforcing Steel and Crosshole Sonic Logging, it states:

“Do not proceed with installation of subsequent shafts until CSL testing has been completed on the first drilled shaft and the results have been approved in writing by the CO. Approval to proceed with the construction of subsequent shafts, before receiving approval of the first shaft will be based on observations of workmanship during construction of the first shaft and the following:

(a) Contractor's conformance with the approved shaft installation plan;

(b) Contractor's daily reports and inspector's daily logs of excavation, rebar, and concrete placement;

and

(c) Concrete placement logs and volume curves.”

For clarification, as long as a, b & c are followed adequately, the contractor does not have to wait for the CSL results to come back before starting the second shaft. Is this correct?

Yes, as long as you receive written notification from the CO prior to proceeding on the second shaft.

11/7/2024

28 X

In our discussions with Dywidag regarding girder post tensioning they have brought up a couple items of concern. We realize that November 6th was the cut‐off date for questions, but felt we should pass along for your review.

1.Post‐tensioning duct area to strand area ra o: PTI M50.3‐19 4.3.5 states “For mul ‐strand tendons, provide ducts with a minimum cross‐sectional area two‐and‐a‐half times the cross‐ sectional area of the prestressing steel based on the inside diameter of the duct.” The design plans call for 4” max O.D. duct, in which a standard available duct that meets this requirement has an I.D. of 3 11/16”. In addition, the design parameters will necessitate 21 strands per duct in certain tendons. These design plan requirements are not compliant with the aforementioned PTI clause. Please advise whether we should proceed with the as‐designed duct and strand configuration.

2.The design plans call for 4” max O.D. duct. The standard available duct that meets this requirement has a 3 13/16” O.D. However, the girder width, clear cover and reinforcement details do not appear to accommodate the required duct width. Please advise.

will be addressed under Amendment A007

11/7/2024

29 X

We realize that the technical question are acceptance period expired on 11/6/24 but we felt that these questions that we just received from our post‐tensioning subcontractor and wanted to give the Government a chance to address a potential issue prior to awarding this contract.

1.Post‐tensioning duct area to strand area ra o: PTI M50.3‐19 4.3.5 states “For mul ‐strand tendons, provide ducts with a minimum cross‐sectional area two‐and‐a‐half times the cross‐ sectional area of the prestressing steel based on the inside diameter of the duct.” The design plans call for 4” max O.D. duct, in which a standard available duct that meets this requirement has an I.D. of 3 11/16”. In addition, the design parameters will necessitate 21 strands per duct in certain tendons. These design plan requirements are not compliant with the aforementioned PTI clause. Please advise whether we should proceed with the as‐designed duct and strand configuration.

2.The design plans call for 4” max O.D. duct. The standard available duct that meets this requirement has a 3 13/16” O.D. However, the girder width, clear cover and reinforcement details do not appear to accommodate the required duct width. Please advise.

will be addressed under Amendment A007

11/8/2024

30 X

SCR 552.03 states the following “Add a coloring agent to provide integrally colored concrete for pay items 55201‐0200, Structural Concrete, Class A(AE), 55302‐2100, Precast, Prestressed

Concrete Bulb Tee Girder, 74‐Inch, and 55301‐3500, Precast, Prestressed Concrete Slab. Add enough agent to match the Standard Color Chart Number #10059 of Federal Specification 595B once concrete has cured.” This will be extremely difficult to match the color on 3 different structural elements. How close to the colors have to be to be accepted? Would FHWA consider staining all elements after installation? I do not see a color requirement for the UHPC is coloring required for that work?

This will be addressed under Amendment A008

11/8/2024

X

Is excavation to get to MSE wall SG included in Roadway Excavation 20401‐0000 or is this excavation incidental to MSE wall 25501‐1000? Excavation is not mentioned SCR 255 or FP‐14 255 and Structure Excavation 20801‐0000 only shows structure excavation for the bridge in the summary table.

See FP‐14 subsection 255.03 second paragraph and Section 209 Structural excavation and backfill. Bid accordingly.

11/13/2024