QnA_4.10.19.pdf
PDF 55 KB Posted
- Attached to
- WY TIGER US212(9) Beartooth Roadway Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 6982AF19B000008
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a federal contract opportunity to reconstruct a portion of the Beartooth Highway in Wyoming. The opportunity involves realignment and reconstruction of 2.61 kilometers of roadway and construction of a new 600-foot steel bridge on US Route 212. Work will include roadway excavation, structural backfill, construction of mechanically stabilized earth walls, placement of aggregate base and asphalt paving, pulverization, structural concrete, structural steel for the bridge, culvert placement, hydraulic seeding, and pavement markings. The project has one base schedule and four options relating to additional roadway work, plantings, stone masonry, and guide signage. The anticipated construction period is from June 2019 to October 2020, with an estimated total cost of $14-17 million. The document addresses questions on wall reinforcement spacing, material types, and minimum reinforcement lengths for design.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
WY TIGER US212(9) Beartooth Roadway has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions and Answers during Advertisement for WY TIG US212(9) Beartooth Highway
April 10, 2019
Questions Answers
1 Plan sheets H15 and H16 call out 18” max vertical spacing between reinforcements. Will CFL accept 24” lifts for the MSE wall on the referenced project?
The preliminary design is based on the GRS concept presented in FHWA- HRT-17-080 “Design and Construction Guideline for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Abutments and Integrated Bridge Systems”, which employs closer reinforcement spacing than is typical for MSE walls. The spacing depicted on sheets H15 and H16 is 225 mm (9-inch) to meet the GRS requirements. A spacing of 205 mm (8-inch or 3 reinforcements per basket) will likely be suitable. The contractor should evaluate the internal stability for this spacing and submit with the shop drawings in accordance with Section 257.
2 Plan sheets H15 and H16 call out reinforcements as geogrid or geotextile. With the ‘Contractor-Designed Retaining Walls’ section included in the spec, will CFL accept inextensible, steel soil reinforcements per 720.01(h) for the MSE wall on this project?
The GRS concept is based on the use of extensible reinforcements to form a composite material. Metallic reinforcements have not be studied for this application, and therefore, are excluded from this application.
3 Plan sheet H15 notes a 62% base to height ratio for the reinforcement lengths. We typically don’t supply anything less than 70% B/H, per AASHTO design standards. Is the 62% base to height ratio for the MSE wall on this project correct?
The GRS design methodology does not require the typical 70% minimum base width. The minimum base width provided in the plans is based on preliminary external analysis. Per subsection 257.04(k), the contractor provides final design analysis of the walls, including minimum reinforcement lengths. We recommend that the contractor review the GRS guidelines referenced previously prior to developing their design.
Contractor analysis may determine that additional reinforcement lengths are required. If this is the case, additional shoring may also be required, and should be discussed between the contractor and appropriate sub-contractors.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .