Q&A_11-14-18.pdf

Questions and Answers during Advertisement for AZ FLAP 237(1), Mormon Lake Road

October 30, 2018

Questions Answers 1 Can the bid date be extended for one week? With the

Thanksgiving Holiday, we anticipate vacations starting sooner than the holiday for primes, subs, and suppliers. To provide the most competitive pricing to the Government, the extension would be beneficial to all parties.

The bid due date has been extended, see Amendment A001

2 We do not see a bid item for the Material Transfer Vehicle. Will a bid item be added?

No, a MTV is required and subsidiary to the 401 item, per the SCRs.

3 Will Government consider changing the 401 to a local specification mix? ADOT?

No.

November 6, 2018

Questions Answers 1 How is/was the waste quantity quantified? The soils report nor do the plans decipher quantities of waste and/or unsuitable material.

Where and what is considered waste? Please clarify.

Waste quantity is an excess volume of material not required for the project, not necessarily unsuitable material.

2 Erosion control BMP quantities. The erosion control plan sheets do not quantify the BMP’s required for the project. Please clarify.

Temporary BMPs and required quantities are the responsibility of contractor.

3 Where does one find “The Stormwater Practitioners Guide by the FHWA, CFL Highway Division” manual. Please clarify.

Please see attached SWPPP manual.

4 Does the “Roadway Excavation” bid item include the quantity of pulverized asphalt, and is the pulverizing assumed to be incidental to this item?

The existing asphalt volume is included in the excavation volume;

however, pending contractor discretion on use of that material, i.e. in the structural section, it may not be available for embankment. The use of the existing asphalt is at the discretion of the contractor and consider subsidiary to the contract.

5 On plan sheet A6, it states that material to meet the profile raise shown in the plans is 3 inches of (material needed), and on plan sheet B5, (Note 1) is states that “The grading summary assumes a 2 inch profile raise”. Please clarify if the bid quantities in the bid schedule are assuming a 3” or 2” profile raise.

The grading plan and designed profile assume a 2-inch profile raise. The 3-inch (material needed) note is in reference to import roadway aggregate materials needed if existing roadway was pulverized. Refer to SCR Section 302 for additional information.

6 Please explain if we elect to go with the 1” profile raise option, why is the waste quantity assumed to be at 18,199 CY’s?

A 1-inch profile raise is assumed to effect the overall earthwork mass-haul, resulting in an estimated increase to excess or waste material. As noted in SCR Section 152, adjusting the profile is a contractor option and further design effort is required to finalize any adjustments. The design and subsequent quantity adjustments are an assumed risk of the contractor.

7 On plan sheet B6, (Note 2) it states that “Pay Item 30206-0500, Roadway Aggregate Shoulder Finishing assumes the triangle area shown in the typical sections of the foreslope and shouldering up.” This bid item does not exist in the bid schedule. Please clarify.

The shouldering scope is subsidiary to 30203-2000. The note on B6 will be corrected. See Amendment A001

8 Is the aggregate base course for the approach roads included in the 214,000 SY quantity of bid item 30203-2000? Please clarify.

Yes.