QA_10.14.2026.pdf
PDF 188 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 69056726B000009
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document for a federal construction project solicitation. The document addresses technical inquiries submitted by potential bidders regarding the Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail project (Project No. OR FLAP DOT CRGNSA 100(7)), which involves construction from Mitchell Point Drive to Ruthton Trailhead.
The Q&A addresses five technical questions related to project design and scope. Key clarifications include: the full geotechnical report is available on SAM.gov in the Physical Data.zip folder; tunnel illumination is not included in the project scope; foundation bottom elevations are determined by applying a minimum 1-foot cover requirement between the trail finish grade and the top of the footing, with final footing design at the contractor's discretion; and all footings must maintain minimum cover with strip footings below the arch culvert controlled by the finish grade of the top of pavement within the culvert, while footings below wingwalls are determined by the lowest finish grade along the wall face. A discrepancy identified in Question 5 regarding headwall elevation differences between drawing sheets (0.62-foot difference for the south headwall and 0.51-foot difference for the north headwall) was scheduled for resolution through Amendment A001. All answers were provided on 10/8/26 except Question 5, which was answered on 10/13/26.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment A001.pdf | ||
| QA_10.8.2026.pdf | ||
| ora-dot-crgnsa100-7_plans.pdf | ||
| WFLHD Construction Contract Administration_FY 23 V2.pdf | ||
| IFB_69056726B000009_OR FLAP DOT CRGNSA 100(7).pdf | ||
| Physical Data.zip | ZIP file |
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
Project No. OR FLAP DOT CRGNSA 100(7)
Project Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail, Mitchell Point Dr. to Ruthton Trailhead
# General Technical Question Answer Date
1 X Can the full geotechnical report be provided pre bid?
The full geotechnical report, ora-dot-crgnsa100-
7_WFLHD GR 1225.pdf, is posted with the solicitation on SAM.gov in the Physical Data.zip folder.
10/8/26
2 X Is tunnel illumination part of the scope of this project?
No 10/8/26
3 X
Can the bottom of foundations be called out in the Developed Elevation Exhibits on Drawing
No. RG3268-M and RG 3268-I (Bridge Drawings
8 and 9 or 12)?
See the Typical Section on Sheet H.7 (Bridge
Drawing 07 of 12). The footing elevations are determined by subtracting the minimum 1-foot of cover between the trail finish grade and the top of the footing. The final footing design and dimensions are at the contractor's discretion;
therefore, the final footing thickness is not shown.
10/8/26
4 X
Please provide clarification on the apparent difference in bottom of foundation elevations of the Large Precast Arch Culvert and Wingwall on
Drawing No. RG3268-I (Bridge Drawings 9 of 12)
All footings are required to have a minimum of 1-foot cover between the top of the footing and the finish grade. Strip footings below the arch culvert are controlled by the finish grade of the top of pavement within the culvert. Footings below the wingwalls are determined by the lowest finish grade along the face of the wall.
10/8/26
5 X
The Elevation section on Sheet 1 shows the top of the south and north headwalls (HW) at elevations 209.35 and 208.35, respectively.
However, Sheet 8 shows the top of the south headwall at elevation 209.97 (0.62’ difference), while Sheet 9 shows the top of the north headwall at elevation 208.86 (0.51’ difference).
Also, the same Elevation on sheet 1 is the only place where top of trail elevations are shown, but not sure if there is a bust on these as well.
This will be addressed by Amendment A001. 10/13/26
Check General or Technical
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .