Bidder_Q_A_Hilea_Ninole_1.31.2018.pdf

DTFH6817B00024

HILEA & NINOLE STREAM BRIDGE

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

12/19/2017 Question 1:

With reference to plan sheet S3.1 (Ninole Bridge Demolition Plan), and S20.1 (Hilea Bridge Demolition Plan), notes indicate that the existing structure may contain the following hazardous materials:

a. Creosote

b. Asbestos

c. Lead Paint

As such we respectfully request the environmental assessment (EA) study for this project to accurately ascertain our demolition waste handling and disposal costs.

If no EA study is currently available for this bid we respectfully suggest that one be prepared so that all bidders are using the same information to prepare their estimates.

If there are time restrictions that prohibit an EA study for this project we would suggest that the cost for handling and disposal of potentially hazardous materials be handled as a force account or an allowance item so all bidders are using the same information to prepare their estimates.

RESPONSE:

For the purposes of bidding on this contract, it is assumed hazardous waste material will not be generated. Please refer to FAR 52.243-4 changes.

Question 2:

With reference to the subject bid grading plans sheets C1 & C2, and T12 thru T15, and the Earthwork Summary sheet B2, please be advised that the grading plan existing contour drawings as copied to file for bidders are not readable, and therefore the section 204 earthwork quantities cannot currently be verified.

As such we respectfully request that the bid plan files be updated to include legible existing contour information.

RESPONSE: Please see amended sheets C1, C2, T12, T13, T14, and T15.

Question 3:

With reference to plan sheet T16 & T17 “Removal and Relocation of Utilities”, and SCR subsection 650.03, request affected utility company/owner agency memorandum of agreements (MOA) for the subject project.

As the contractor will be tasked with the utility company coordination for temporary relocations we respectfully request the subject MOA’s to provide greater understanding (e.g. company contact info, prior notice requirements, approximate work durations) for the task at hand.

Please see subsection 107.02 of the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-14, and subsection 107.02, table 107-1 of the special contract requirements.

Q&A 1/10/2018

Question 4:

As shown on sheet S23.3, the vertical #9/#10 headed bars coming through the footing into the wall do not shown a rebar spacing. Please clarify rebar spacing for #9 headed and #10 headed vertical bars.

RESPONSE: Please refer to sheet S23.4 for further clarification.

Question 5:

Solicitation, Offer, and Award Form 1442 states address offer to FHWA CFLH Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 360, Lakewood, Colorado 80228. CFLH on other Hawaii projects have accepted bids at FHWA Hawaii Division Office 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Suite 3-306, Honolulu, HI 96850-3306. Please amend that bids can be submitted to FHWA Hawaii Division Office since this project is in Hawaii.

RESPONSE: Please submit bids in accordance with solicitation, offer, and award form 1442,to the Lakewood, CO office. Bids do not have to be hand-carried but can be mailed. Amended / modified bids will be accepted up to the time of the bid opening provided an original packet was received with the appropriate documents. Mailing time was considered in the bid date, and the bid opening date was set with that in mind and extra time was provided. A conference call line has been set up for those who would like to hear the bid opening and the bid opening summary will be posted on FBO the day of the bid opening. Bid opening was amended to February 8, 2018 per Amendment A005 posted on 1/9/2018.

Question 6:

Solicitation, Offer, and Award Form 1442 states bid time is 2 PM Denver local time on 1/18/18. CFLH on other Hawaii projects have amended bid time to 2 PM Hawaii Time. Please amend bid time to 2 PM Hawaii Time since this project is in Hawaii.

RESPONSE: Please see amendment number A005 posted 1/9/2018. The revised bid date is 2/8/2018 at 3:00 pm MT.

Question 7:

SCR Section 152.04 states the Government will furnish the following:

(2) Digital Terrain Model (DTM) of the existing ground, which will include the mapped Ordinary High Water Mark feature that defines the limits of the stream channel.

Please provide DTM files and topography mapping.

Response forthcoming.

Question 8:

SCR 203.04(b) does not address hazardous material such as asbestos or lead paint abatement. The railings on both bridges appear to be painted. Please clarify if these materials are present and if so, how the cost for abatement and disposal will be handled per the contract. Otherwise please provide specification and information needed to quantify & price the abatement and disposal work.

For the purposes of bidding on this contract, it is assumed hazardous waste material will not be generated. Please refer to FAR 52.243-4 changes.

Question 9:

Please consider extending bid date by 3 weeks. The additional time will be used to design both bypass roads, incorporate the environmental permitting requirements for the in-water work, and temporary engineering for the Bridge substructure and superstructure i.e. stream diversion, trestle, falsework, etc.

Also given the time period this job is being advertised over the Christmas and New Year's holiday season our personnel have already scheduled taking time off during this time.

RESPONSE: Please see amendment number A005 posted on 1/9/2018, bid date was revised to 2/8/2018.

Question 10:

Precast notes on S10.2 and S27.3 specify; "The concrete shall pass a charge of less than 1000 Coulombs at 90-days from casting as determined by AASHTO T277. ". This low measurement is not achievable with local materials even with the use of fly ash or silica fume. Can this requirement be omitted or specify an alternate method for improving concrete permeability such as adding waterproofing admixtures like Kryton KIM.

RESPONSE: The AASHTO T 277 requirements will not be omitted. The requirement is performance based, and thus the use of the Kryton KIM admixture is not precluded by the contract documents as long as it allows for all the contract requirements to be met

Question 11:

SCR Section 650.08 Restoration & Reclamation states" Restoration of diversions is defined as returning the diversion subgrade to the pre-construction elevation and condition. Submit a final grading plan that returns the disturbed area back to its original condition to CO for approval prior to beginning removal work." It is understood that if the original condition is dirt then a unclassified fill would be used as a restoration material. Please clarify what material shall be used for restoration of solid rock (i.e. Hilea Mauka Berm).

RESPONSE: Please see section 204 of the Special Contract Requirements and the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and bridges on Federal Highway Projects FP-14.

Question 12:

SCR Section 650.08 Restoration & Reclamation states" Restoration of diversions is defined as returning the diversion subgrade to the pre-construction elevation and condition. Submit a final grading plan that returns the disturbed area back to its original condition to CO for approval prior to beginning removal work." Please confirm that restoration to preconstruction condition does not include replanting of trees disposed from bypass clearing and grubbing operation.

RESPONSE: Confirmed.

Question 13:

Please clarify if the rock wall located on the Mauka upstream side of the Ninole bridge is of historical significance. If so, please provide a specification to address this concern.

RESPONSE: Please refer to section 107.02 of the Special Contract Requirements and the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and bridges on Federal Highway Projects FP-14.

Question 14:

After talking to our precast vendor they had mentioned that their forms for the Washington WF36G girder do not match up to what is being called out in the plans. Please confirm that the proposed girder section is an acceptable alternate. See attached proposed section

RESPONSE: Please provide a bid per the contract solicitation. Alternate girders will be evaluated after contract award.

Question 15:

SCR Section 154.03 Sampling states provide for transporting the government verification cylinders to the HDOT materials testing and research branch unless other testing facilities are authorized by the CO. Section 154.04A Field laboratory (Contractor Furnished) furnish a laboratory equipped with all test equipment necessary to satisfy the requirements of the contract. Please clarify that HDOT samples per section 154.03 is to be transported to contractor furnished field laboratory per section 154.04A. If no then please provide address for HDOT materials testing and research branch.

RESPONSE: Contractor furnished laboratory cannot be used for Verification testing. Deliver samples to the HDOT laboratory at:

Address for lab:

Hawaii DOT Materials and Research Testing Branch Attn: Brian Ikehara 2530 Likelike Highway Honolulu, HI 96819

Question 16:

Per Section SCR107.01 please provide copies of the following permits: Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP), Coastal Zone Management Area (CZMA), & Stream Channel Alteration Permit (SCAP). If a permit has not yet been acquired, please provide status of the permit requisition.

RESPONSE: All permits will be provided prior to awardee.

Question 17:

Please provide a copy or status of the Utility Agreements in place for this solicitation

RESPONSE: Utility agreements will be provided following contract award.

Question 18:

The Contractor has no way to control the 3rd party utility companies’ schedule. Please provide minimum notice requirements and durations to complete utility relocations.

RESPONSE: See section 108 of the Special Contract Requirements and the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and bridges on Federal Highway Projects FP-14. Utility Agreements will be provided following contract award.

Question 19:

Please confirm that an equitable adjustment for time & time related impacts will be provided for delays caused by 3rd party utility companies.

RESPONSE: See section 108 of the Special Contract Requirements and the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and bridges on Federal Highway Projects FP-14.

1/9/2018

Question 20:

After reviewing amendment #4 (sheet B1, #20435-2000), and with reference to SCR section 204.16 (g), “Measurement”, is there a bid item for cost of granular backfill for GRS at the abutments?

RESPONSE: GRS backfill is payed according to bid item 20435-2000 for GRS backfill by cubic yards.

1/17/2018

Question 21:

Section 261.04 of the SCR states “Bench cut slope surfaces in 4-foot high increments with bench widths of 8 feet as shown in the plans to key into the existing embankment.” Sheet No. S30.1 and A8 call out for 1 : 0.5 slope for the Grouted rock face. Please clarify if 8 foot bench is required for a 1 : 0.5 slope rock face.

RESPONSE: 8 foot bench is assumed for stability in loose soil conditions. Depending on competency of excavated rock subgrade, benching may be reduced to avoid removal of compentent material. For bidding purposes on this solicitation, assume minimum 8 foot benching (embedment). Following contract award alternative benching plans will be evaluated.

Question 22:

See sheet S30.1. Please provide GRS subgrade elevation along the reinforced soil slopes.

RESPONSE: For purposes of bidding, assume GRS subgrade elevation must start two feet below existing ground elevation. Please refer to sheet 30.1 for two foot embedded requirement.

Question 23:

Please clarify size classification of rock to be used for reinforced soil slopes (rock faced)

RESPONSE: Please refer to Section 705.08 for rock facing classification.

Question 24:

Please provide thickness of grouted rock face for reinforced soil slopes

RESPONSE: For purposes of bidding please refer to Section 705.08 for rock facing size. Grouting is assumed to fill all voids of placed rock.

Question 25:

Please provide updated bid schedule to reflect amendment #4.

RESPONSE: Response forthcoming

Question 26:

With reference to bid items #62510-1000 & 62515-1000, request application method be opened to the hydraulic method for seeding and mulching (FP14 section 625.07 & 625.08). Subcontractors we are in contact with cannot provide price for dry method of installation, and hydraulic method will provide for more competitive pricing.

RESPONSE: Please provide a bid per the contract solicitation. Following contract award, alternate seeding and mulching methods will be evaluated.

Question 27:

With reference to Q&A dated 1/10/18, Question #15 – response indicates that test cylinders must be sent to HDOT lab on Oahu. Respectfully request that an acceptable on-island, third party lab be selected for verification testing. Air freighting that large amount of concrete cylinders would be an extremely cost prohibitive way of transport for job.

RESPONSE: For the purposes of bidding on this contract, please assume all verification samples will be delivered to the HDOT laboratory at:

Address for lab:

Hawaii DOT Materials and Research Testing Branch Attn: Brian Ikehara 2530 Likelike Highway Honolulu, HI 96819

Question 28:

With reference to the subject Q&A response dated 1/17/18 for question #26, please be advised that the specified dry method for MULCHING CANNOT be met as there are no local subcontractors with the equipment to meet specifications. We therefore will be unable to provide a price per contract solicitation, please advise.

RESPONSE: Hydraulic mulching and seeding is a viable alternate method for seeding and mulching.

Please utilize existing dry mulching or dry seeding bid items for capturing cost of hydraulic seeding and mulching methods. See section 625 of the FP-14.

Question 29:

Please confirm that excavation associated with Bid Item, "25120-2100 Riprap Ditch, Method B, Class1" is incidental to this bid item. If not, please provide bid item # and estimated quantity to price excavation into for bid item 25120-1200.

RESPONSE: For purposes of bidding on this contract please refer to Section 109.05(b) for indirect payment.

Question 30:

Please confirm that excavation, GRS material, geotextile material and drainage material associated with bid item, "26101-0000 Reinforced Soil Slope (Rock Faced)" is incidental to this bid item. If not, please provide bid item # and estimated quantity to price excavation, GRS material, geotextile material and drainage material into for bid item 26101-0000.

RESPONSE: For purposed of bidding on this contract please refer to Section 109.05(b) for indirect payment and Plan Sheet S2.2, Estimate Notes, (12)

Question 31:

Sheet A-11 of Amendment A008 states that the # of calendar days reverts back to the original RFP # of calendar. This is in conflict with Amendment A002 that increased the # of calendar days for the project.

Please correct amendment sheet A-11 of bid schedule and resend in a new amendment.

RESPONSE: Amendment A009 reflects the changes that were made on Amendment A002.

Question 32:

Amendment A007 does not have an amendment form, how do we acknowledge Amendment A007 on the SF1442?

RESPONSE: Amendment A007 was supposed to contain what was posted in Amendment A008; therefore, Amendment A007 has no changes to solicitation and does not need to be acknowledged on the SF1442.

Please do not acknowledge Amendment A007.

Question 33:

With reference to the subject Q&A response dated 1/17/18 for question #26, please be advised that the specified dry method for MULCHING CANNOT be met as there are no local subcontractors with the equipment to meet specifications. We therefore will be unable to provide a price per contract solicitation, please advise.

RESPONSE: Either hydraulic or dry seeding and mulching will be acceptable, please use the existing bid sheet items: #62510-1000 & 62515-1000, to enter pricing for either hydraulic or dry.

Question 34:

Amendment 4 sent out a revised sheet S30.1. This amendment changed the backfill material spec of one side of the road from 704.03 (b) to 704.04 (d) but left the other side backfill spec at 704.03(b).

Please confirm that spec 704.04(b) applies to both sides of the road and reissue a new drawing.

RESPONSE: The RSS backfill material is 704.03(b). Sheets 25.1 and 30.1 both have references to this material. Sheet 25.1 is correct as were the original references on Sheet 30.1. However, the reference that was highlighted on sheet 30.1 to show that it was changed in the Amendment 4 (to be 704.04(d)) is incorrect. Both references on sheet 30.1 should be 704.03(b). See amendment A010 dated 1/31/2018 for the latest sheet S30.1 with the correct RSS backfill material reference.

Question 35:

Currently there is no bid item assigned to the work associated with the channel excavation at Hilea Bridge. Please provide a bid item section and estimated quantity for Hilea Stream Channel Excavation.

RESPONSE: For purposed of bidding on this contract please refer to Section 109.05(b) for indirect payment, Section 203 for removal of structures and obstructions, and Section 208 for structure excavation.

Question 36:

With reference to Q&A dated 1/17/2018, Question #24 - response indicates to reference SCR 705.08 for rock facing size. Section 705.08 provides rock gradation but does not specify a minimum thickness for the rock face of the reinforced soil slope. The rock gradation provides rock size to be placed but that does not tell you how thick that rock face section needs to be. A thickness is needed to quantify rock and grout quantity for bidding. Please provide minimum thickness for rock faced section of the reinforced soil slope.

RESPONSE: Please refer to section 705.08(a) for minimum rock breadth and thickness.

Question 37:

Drawing T16 show existing poles to be relocated and new proposed pole locations for Hawaiian Tel Comm Line (HT Line) at Ninole Bridge. Drawing T17 show existing poles to be relocated but does not show new proposed pole locations for HT Line at Hilea Bridge. Please provide a drawing that shows both the existing and new pole locations for HT Line.

RESPONSE: Utility agreements will be provided following contract award.

Question 38:

AASHTO T277 – Below is one of the questions that was asked regarding this requirement. This is currently required for all precast. This has not been a requirement for any of the previous CFL Projects in Hawaii nor is it a requirement for Hanapepe. Kiewit and GPRM, the local pre-caster, has talked to every concrete supplier in Hawaii and not a single producer can met the requirement of less than 1,000 Coulombs.

Currently GPRM, the Hawaii pre-caster has written us a letter stating they cannot meet this specification with any concrete suppliers in Hawaii and therefore will not be bidding the supply of girders or planks for this project. This will be a significant cost impact to the project as they will have to come from the mainland. I know your goal is to design around local materials and locally available products and this response does not meet that goal.

Below is a question that was asked by or on behalf of GPRM, Hawaii Pre-cast supplier, and the response from CFL. Below that is the dimensional comparison of the girder that is specified and the girder forms commercially available in Hawaii. The dimensions are very very close but with a response that only allows for evaluation after award the local pre-cast supplier cannot provide a responsive quote and any reasonable contractor would not take that kind of risk at bid time. This is again going to force bidders to go to the mainland for PC girders. CFL should be able to provide a definitive response to this question, the girder will either work or it will not work.

RESPONSE: The AASHTO T 277 requirements will not be omitted. Please provide a bid per the contract solicitation for girder specifications as well as design dimensions.

Question 39:

Will the contractor be responsible for the special inspections and materials testing or will the State (owner) be contracting out, separate contract the 3rd party inspections and testing?

RESPONSE: Request clarification on what is meant by Special inspections.

Question 40:

Per our precast vendor, "A maximum cement content of 650 lb/CY is specified per Sheet S19.1. We can achieve f’c = 8 ksi with this requirement, however f’ci = 7 ksi will be challenging to achieve within a daily production cycle and will result in increased costs. In addition, the 1,000 Coulomb requirement of note 13 on sheet S27.3 will likely necessitate a higher cement content. We requests that the maximum allowable cement content be increased to 752 pounds."

RESPONSE: To clarify the Materials notes on Sheets S2.1 and S19.1, the maximum cement content listed in 5A means the maximum Portland cement content. The maximum cementitious material content for Class P concrete is 752 lbs/cu yd. In addition, the maximum water/cement ratio in 5A means the maximum water/cementitious material ratio

Question 41:

Per our precast vendor, "In addition to the increased cement content required to achieve the 1,000 Coulomb limit, We believes the use of silica fume is likely required. Please verify that the use of silica fume is acceptable."

RESPONSE: Section 552.03 (g) and Table 552-3 of the FP-14 list the requirements for cement and cementitious material, including the use silica fume to partially replace cement in the mix.

Question 42:

Per our precast vendor, "The span-to-depth ratios of both bridges are relatively high and the contract drawings only provide an upper-bound of expected camber. Our experience is that the measured camber of I-girders (such as Hilea Bridge) will be up to 50% less than the predicted upper-bound. Due to this and the span-to-depth ratio of Hilea Bridge, the dead load deflections may exceed the actual camber. This would result in a sag of the girders at the time of deck placement and therefore additional dead load. It is our experience with slab girders of high span-to-depth ratio (such as Ninole Bridge) that the camber will be significantly less than predicted. The camber at the time of release of prestressing has been zero to negative (sagging). Again this could result in additional dead load being placed on the bridge which may not be included in the design."

RESPONSE: Sheet 10.2 for the Ninole Br lists the estimated theoretical camber of the bridge before placement of the deck as 4” with a dead load deflection due to deck placement of 1 ¼” leaving approximately 3 ¼” remaining gdr camber after deck placement. Sheet 27.3 for the Hilea Br lists the estimated theoretical camber of the bridge before placement of the deck as 6 3/4” with a dead load deflection due to deck placement of 3 1/2” leaving approximately 3 ¼” remaining gdr camber after deck placement. Note 3 also states that the seat elev has been set so that the top of the precast slab is at least 1” below the bottom of the deck. Note 5 requires the Contractor to submit shop drawings with the proposed strand pattern, etc. If the precast vendor chooses a strand pattern that is different than the pattern shown in the plans, the design will be checked to confirm there is no sag. Note that theoretical camber is based on an estimated Modulus of Elasticity which varies with the density and concrete strength. It also varies with the length of time between strand release and deck placement which is dependent on contractor means and methods The process described in the “Deck Form Setting Diagram” requires measuring the camber prior to setting deck forms. At that time, any adjustments to deck grade will be determined