80GSFC19B0001_Industry_Questions.pdf

WALLOPS AIRFIELD REPAIR FCLP PHASE 6, IFB 80GSFC19B0001

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS

Is the option work the same as on prior phases?

NASA RESPONSE: NASA can only comment on the FCLP Phase 6 Plans and Specifications.

Repair schedules for the options are listed on CS601 and CS602.

What is the completion date for this project?

NASA RESPONSE: As stated in clause H.11 of the invitation for bids, paving of the basic requirement and a minimum of a “half-shot” of pavement marking shall be completed by July 31, 2019. Weekend work will be permitted to accomplish the schedule. Option work (if exercised) extending beyond July 31, 2019, may proceed any time after approval with Air Ops.

How should the crack seal quantities be bid?

NASA RESPONSE: Both an AC Crack Seal Schedule AND AC Partial Depth Patch Schedule (see Detail C on CS502 for AC partial depth patch) shall be bid for the project. Both schedules are on

CS601.

Besides the initial concrete testing on the mix design, will there be any field testing for concrete used in full depth repairs and full slab replacements?

NASA RESPONSE: Provide testing per SECTION 32 13 11 2.1.4.1 on a daily basis.

Is 650 Flex an acceptable mix for full depth repairs, partial depth repairs and full slab replacement?

NASA RESPONSE: The requirements for partial depth repairs are covered in SECTION 32 01

29.61. Full depth repairs and full slab replacement requirements are in SECTION 32 13 11.

Are there any E&S requirements?

NASA RESPONSE: No permit is required, however BMP’s shall be used as needed to protect areas at risk (silt fence if disturbance of soils occurs, storm drain protection if a risk of sediment/debris transport to the drain).

Does the concrete plant required to be onsite? If so what are the regulations?

NASA RESPONSE: The concrete plant is not required to be onsite.

Is RAP allowed in the P403 base coarse?

NASA RESPONSE: Yes, however it is prohibited in the 2.25” Surface P401 course.

For CG303 & CG304, Stations 68+25 and 68+50, the proposed elevations are listed as 7.8” to 10” higher than the existing elevations and additionally, proposed elevations are not shown on the plan right of the centerline. Are these the elevations desired?

NASA RESPONSE: Revised drawings are being issued.

For CG303 & CG304, Stations 68+25 and 68+50, is a crown desired in the center for drainage?

NASA RESPONSE: Revised drawings are being issued.

For CG304, Stations 68+75 and 69+00 show existing elevations as the same as proposed elevations in the area of the full depth repair. Are existing elevations available for purposes of estimating milled quantities?

NASA RESPONSE: Revised drawings are being issued.

For CG304, Station 69+25, there are no proposed elevations right of the centerline.

NASA RESPONSE: Revised drawings are being issued.

For CG305, Station 69+50 and 69+75, the proposed elevations are over a foot higher than the listed existing elevations. Proposed elevations are missing right of the centerlines and on some edges.

NASA RESPONSE: Revised drawings are being issued.

Sheet CS902 shows a 6” PCC slab extending underneath the asphalt/concrete interface and towards the project area. Detail “G” on Sheet CS502 doesn’t show an existing PCC slab being encountered for the full depth repair. Is there a potential to hit a concrete slab and what would the full depth repair consist of?

NASA RESPONSE: Detail G has not been revised. Though it depicts stone below new asphalt, for purposes of this contract, assume only asphalt will be encountered during the milling and no new base course will be required.

Relating to the above questions, proposed elevations from the sections on the plans shall be adhered to, and some milling in excess of 4” and just shy of 4” will be required to achieve those elevations.

The bid bond for phase 6 has the original bid date of 4/16/19 instead of the new date. Is this acceptable or do we need a revised bond?

NASA Response: The bid bond shall have the same date as the bid date of 04/25/19.