QnA 26.07.08.pdf

Questions and Answers during Advertisement for AZ NP GRCA 14(2) Roadway Improvements

July 8, 2026

Questions Answers 1 Can bid bonds be submitted separate from the electronic submission? Yes. Bid bonds must be submitted as originals/hard copy.

2 Can the QCM be a “Triple Hat”? Please see Sections 10 and 11 of the contract requirements for more information.

3 The specifications require an ADOT mix design (batch plant and delivered in a truck) for the concrete foundations for the gate foundations. Would the Government accept a commercially available bag concrete (mixed onsite) in lieu of batched concrete due to the small quantities and remote nature of the project?

A commercially available material (bag concrete) may be used in place of and ADOT or UDOT mix design. This change will be reflected in Amendment A002

4 Guardrail removal and backfill is to be included in the lump sum removal item. The scope requires existing posts to be removed and backfilled. If existing wood posts are in place but below grade do they still need to be dug out and removed, or can they be backfilled to grade?

Please confirm that the Government will accept backfill of sign and guardrail removals by visual inspection and that we will not need to perform compaction testing on every guardrail and signpost hole.

For existing posts below grade, refer to Item 2, Removing Material (b) Partial removal, and Backfilling subsections.

For backfill acceptance, Visual inspection will be performed. Amendment A002 will remove measured or tested for conformance.

5 The plans and specs show u-channel, square and wood post details but do not state which one is to be used. Please confirm the following is the intent of the Government:

a. U-channel post is to be used for all type 2 object markers.

b. 2" square post is to be used for all sign systems.

c. All u-channel or square posts are to be driven (no concrete foundation).

d. If concrete foundations are required, please confirm that bag concrete is acceptable for all sign and object marker foundations.

The three different post types shown are options. The preferred material type for each subsection is below:

a. U-Channel steel post (See ITEMS 16, 17 AND 18

– Permanent Traffic Control Material subsection)

b. 2” square post desired for all sign systems.

c. Refer to ITEMS 16, 17 AND 18 – PERMANENT

TRAFFIC CONTROL, Construction Requirements, Sign Posts subsection.

d. If a concrete backfill/foundation is used, prepackaged concrete may be used. Refer to Amendment A001.

6 The special provisions list 5 EA different types of sheeting but do not specify which is to be used. Please confirm sheeting type for all signs and object markers.

Any of the sheeting types shown are acceptable.

7 Please confirm type 2 object marker dimensions. They are not listed in the sign schedule, and no dimensions were provided.

Refer to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for size requirements.

8 The guardrail item is TYPE 4, CLASS B which is 10 gauge weathering steel

(coreten) material. Coreten material is no longer used for end treatments and the special provisions indicate that Natina stain is to be used. Please confirm if the Government is wanting coreten gut rail sections with galvanized Natina stain end treatments or if the Government is wanting ALL rail to be galvanized with Natina stain.

The desired MGS guardrail System is Type 2, Class A Steel Posts. The Item Description will be changed in Amendment A002.

9 Suppliers are reporting lead times of 6-8 weeks to produce the guardrail material and 7-8 weeks to perform the staining. These lead times would not fit into the proposed project timeline. Would the Government consider allowing a winter shutdown period for the guardrail items due to material procurement? The 7-8 week lead time on the staining is mainly due to the cure period on the staining. This could be reduced to as soon as 4 weeks but would void the warranty and risk the stain bleeding after installation. Would the Government be willing to accept the voided warranty and potential bleeding of the stain to reduce the lead time?

The Government is reviewing this question and will provide an answer soon.

10 Suppliers are reporting lead times of 2-3 weeks to produce the sign post material and 7-8 weeks to perform the staining. These lead times would not fit into the proposed project timeline. Would the Government consider allowing a winter shutdown period for the sign items due to material procurement? The 7-8 week lead time on the staining is mainly due to the cure period on the staining. This could be reduced to as soon as 4 weeks but would void the warranty and risk the stain bleeding after installation. Would the Government be willing to accept the voided warranty and potential bleeding of the stain to reduce the lead time?

The Government is reviewing this question and will provide an answer soon.

11 Would the Government consider providing some additional time? No extension to quote submittal date will be made at this time.