Questions-Clarifcations_Amendment_2.pdf

Amendment 2

Questions-Clarifications Page 1 of 3

Questions / Clarifications

Bidders can send written questions or inquiries for clarification to: eflhd.contracts@dot.gov.

Questions can be submitted at any time, but questions submitted within 7 days of the bid opening may not be answered in time for the bidder to properly incorporate the responses into their bids.

The following questions and issues were submitted via email. The Government response or clarification is provided. Due to the repetitive nature of several questions and issues, the wording of the questions may have been revised and some questions have not been included.

The Government’s direct response to the sender may also have been updated below for better clarity.

1. Our electrician is looking at the National Park Service (NPS) owned relocation utility sheet and it states that the Contractor should install 95 feet of 480-volt service line with a pull box. It doesn’t state the wire size or any details if it connects to anything? I am assuming that it gets installed in a 4-inch conduit based on the note.

Response: Yes, 480-volt electrical line will be installed in a 4-inch conduit. Please refer to plan sheets C04 and E02 in Amendment 2.

2. While reviewing the plans for Project NP-OZAR 10(2) I came across an area where I require clarification. The Sanitary Force Main Manholes shown in the utility plans on sheet E04 do not have any details called out. My precast manhole supplier requires Top (or Rim) and Flowline elevations along with detailed drawings of each Sanitary Sewer Force Main Manhole in order to accurately quote a price. Please reply with a rough time frame of when this information will be made available.

Response: A note has been added to plan sheet E04 in Amendment 2 for clarification. The top (rim) elevation for the new sanitary force main manhole location shown on the plan sheet E04 is at the existing ground elevation, and is approximate. The Contractor will need to adjust the proposed top (rim) elevation in the field based on field conditions and industry standards. The proposed sewer line must be below the frost line, which is 3.5 feet or deeper below the ground elevation for the project area. Please refer to plan sheet E04 for more information.

3. We would like to propose to do the Horizontal Directional Drilling for the waterline and the sewer line under the creek in a high-density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) Casing Pipe and then install an HDPE Carrier Pipe inside the casing pipe. Due to the rock conditions this will provide the carrier pipe with protection.

Response: The Contractor can submit the proposed horizontal directional drilling method to the CO for approval as required on the Special Contract Requirements Subsection

630.04 during construction.

The current plans and specifications for the casing pipe will not be changed. Any proposed changes will not be considered during advertisement - any change of this order would

Questions-Clarifications Page 2 of 3 occur after contract award. It is the obligation of the Prime Contractor to submit shop drawings for any product they use that are in general conformity to the plans and specifications established for the contract, therefore, it is the obligation of any supplier to contact the Prime Contractor. If an alternative system is proposed by the Contractor, shop drawings are to be submitted according to Subsection 104.03 Specifications and Drawings. If shop drawings are significantly different than the details in the plans, it would most likely need to be submitted under Subsection 103.03 Value Engineering. Any change to the details in the plans would have to be evaluated and approved by the CO (and the owner) during construction.

4. Additionally, the sewer line relocation calls for Ductile Iron Pipe. Due to the radius under the creek bed for the bore, it is not possible to do that with Ductile Iron. We would propose to install HDPE under the creek bed and then transition to Ductile Iron outside of the bore casing.

Response: Revisions to Subsection 612.03 requirements have been included in Amendment 2.

5. While my supplier for the Precast Concrete Beam and End Bent Sections was reviewing the plans and specs for Project NP-OZAR 10(2) they found an area where they would like to propose an alternate solution and would like to see if it will be acceptable. They want to know if instead of using colored concrete in the precast members if it is acceptable to field stain the precast members after they have been cast. It will make for much easier construction of the beams and end bents and likely lower costs while still providing an adequate finish on the precast members to meet the coloring requirements called out in the specs.

Response: The Contractor has the option to propose a different solution, subject to the review and approval of the CO. Any proposed changes will not be considered during advertisement - any alternative proposal can be submitted to the CO for approval during construction.

6. Please see the below questions in regards to the specification and design requirements for the micropiles and micropiles proof test loads.

‐ Please clearly state what the unfactored design load per pile is? The unfactored design load is used to determine what the required maximum test loads will be, which will dictate the size of the testing equipment.

Response: Please use 725 kips per micropiles.

‐ Section 567 of the Government standard specification is to be followed for micropiles. No supplemental specifications are available for this project relating to the micropiles. Please confirm that there are no supplemental specifications other than what is contained in the soils and foundations report.

Response: No Supplemental Specifications will be used.

Questions-Clarifications Page 3 of 3

‐ Is a compression proof load test with reaction piles required, or will a tension proof load test be allowed?

Response: Only compression test will be allowed.

‐ Is there any anticipated conflict between the location of the proposed micropiles and any existing bridge foundation structure (i.e. existing timber piles to be cut off at grade)?

Response: There are no anticipated conflict.

7. Regarding this project, is there any circumstances in which the Government would consider the following:

- Cast-in-place concrete for end abutments in lieu of precast

Response: Cast in place concrete abutment are allowed if the Contractor is able to meet the scheduled construction time.

- Staining of concrete in lieu of integral color.

Response: No. Only integral color will be allowed as specified in the contract documents.

Also, was there a specific precast company’s end bent design used as the basis for design? If so, could you please provide their contact information?

Response: No. The pier was designed as per bridge owner preferences.

8. On Bridge plan sheet 4 of 29 dated December 2017, BRP-1185 Section A-A shows a micropile casing of 12 inches in diameter and a min 0.75 wall thickness. The geotechnical report shows a 11.875 inches casing with a 0.582 wall thickness, which is common size. Which is correct?

Response: The casing size from the Geotechnical report supersedes. Revision of plan sheet R04 has been included in Amendment 2 conform to soil report values.

9. Does the micropile casing have to have a mill certification to satisfy the Buy American clause or can it be mill secondary 80 casing (less expensive) with a letter stating its origins?

Response: Mill secondary casing can be used for micropiles, and the Contractor must provide sample testing to verify yielding strength of 80 ksi. Revision of plan sheet R04 has been included in Amendment 2 to revise casing requirements.