723404-1 Supplemental Ltr 1.pdf
PDF 585 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SRGP Project; Elementary School
- Solicitation number
- S-P20076-00012947
- Issued by
- Lane County, Oregon
About this file
This is a Supplemental Information Letter No. 1 issued by the City of Salem Contracts and Procurement Division Public Works Department on March 20, 2025, addressing clarifying questions for the Athletic Courts Improvements project (Project Number 723404-1; Bid Number 245107). The letter provides official responses to contractor inquiries regarding specification requirements for the court reconstruction project. Key clarifications address two primary concerns: first, the definition of contractor negligence regarding subgrade protection and equipment usage, with guidance that approved subgrade must be determined by the geotechnical engineer and that contractors should minimize heavy equipment use in favor of lighter equipment to avoid negligence determinations; and second, pavement smoothness tolerances and paving application methodology, confirming that the 1/16-inch tolerance specified is consistent with the Tennis Courts Construction & Maintenance Manual 2021 by ASBA and USTA, and addressing a question regarding whether a 2-lift asphalt paving application would be acceptable as an alternative to the single-lift application specified in the plans.
The letter does not contain pricing information, set-aside designations, incumbent contractor details, or funding source information. The responses emphasize that adherence to geotechnical engineer recommendations is mandatory and that proper site conditions management is essential throughout the construction process. The supplemental letter serves to clarify specification ambiguities before bid submission and execution, ensuring all prospective contractors operate under consistent understanding of project requirements and expectations.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Architectural-Services-RFQ-OSD SRGP 2025~1.docx | DOCX document | |
| OSD Seismic Retrofit Report~1.pdf |
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
City of Salem
Contracts and Procurement Division
Public Works Department
Supplemental Information Letter No. 1
Athletic Courts Improvements
PROJECT NUMBER 723404-1; BID NUMBER 245107
March 20, 2025
To whom it may concern:
The City of Salem received the following clarifying questions for the Athletic Courts Improvements project.
Questions from Contractor for Supplemental Letter:
1. Spec section 204.3.12 for over-excavation, “...Contractor will not be responsible for additional over-excavation unless the subgrade has been damaged through the contractor’s negligence in protecting the subgrade. Negligence in this instance may include use of equipment that does not limit impacts to approved subgrade.”
a. Given the conditions of the current courts, there is high likelihood of subgrade issues given the design of completely reconstructing. What does “contractor negligence in use of equipment...” mean specifically?
Response: Approved subgrade would be subgrade that the geotechnical engineer determines is suitable for construction. After the subgrade is approved, the contractor should minimize the use of heavy equipment and instead use lighter equipment/trucks. The geotechnical engineer may provide further recommendations, and if not followed, the contractor’s actions would be considered negligent.
As a reminder, “care” needs to be the operative word when any activity is taking place over the approved (by geotechnical) subgrade.
2. Spec Section 360.60 for pavement smoothness, the specification reads 1/16 of an inch tolerance, rather than ASBA’s guidelines of 1/8".
Response: The specifications read 1/16" because it references Chapter 9 of the Tennis Courts
Construction & Maintenance Manual 2021, which was written by ASBA and USTA. This is consistent with previously delivered court projects.
a. Plans call for 3" of asphalt on the courts and push the paving to be single lift applications, with minimum lift thickness of 2". These need to be a 2-lift paving application, with 3/8" mix, minimum lift thickness is 3x the nominal aggregate size so in this case 1-1/8". Will 2-lift paving be an acceptable means of construction?
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .