Q&A_April_14.pdf

Project No.: AK TTP CHICK 2013(1) Project: Dene Tene Pedestrian Bridge

# General Technical Question Answer Date

1 X Q1: Government contracts sometimes require the testing laboratory be AASHTO accredited. Is that a requirement for this project?

Q2: Sheet J.3 the foundation plan says to provide temporary shoring and bracing. Is this something that needs to be designed by an engineer?

Q3. Do we need to have a engineered stream diversion plan?

A1: No. Test according to Sections 106, 153 and 154.

A2: Yes. See Subsection 574.04.

A.3. No. Design the stream diversion according to Subsection 157.09. Structures requiring the seal and signature of a professional engineer are described in Subsection 104.03.

4/4/17

2 X Looking for a detail on the poured concrete abutment and reinforcing steel for the abutment.

The abutment plan sheets are J.4 and J.5.

The contractor is required to produce their own bar list (See FP 554.03). A blank copy is included on sheet J.10 for reference.

4/4/17

Check General or

3 X It appears that the requirements for this project is 50% of the labor needs to be performed by a HUBZone contractor. Reading FAR Clause 52.219‐3 #4 it references Construction by Special Trade Contractors which says that 25% of the cost of contract performance to be incurred for HUBZone personnel. This project appears to require multiple specialty trade contractor, so does this contract fall under the 50% or 25%?

The work identified in this solicitation is primarily for general construction.

Therefore, “52.219‐3(d)(3) of 52.219‐3 Notice of HUBZone Set‐Aside or Sole Source Award” would apply. (4/4/17) In addition to our previous response, we offer the following additional information: for General Construction, 50% is required.

(4/5/17)

4/5/17

4 X Upon award of contract, will notice to proceed be issued before May 1st 2017? Due to the Migratory Bird Act?

The notice to proceed will not be issued before May 1, 2017 see FAR Clause 52.211‐

10. Regarding the Migratory Bird Treaty Act please see SCR Subsection 107.10(c)(2) and

201.03 for direction regarding clearing and grubbing and other compliance requirements.

4/5/17

5 X

Spec 725.09A GRS‐IBS Concrete Masonry Units is asking that the block meets a Freeze‐Thaw durability of a 150 cycles. The two block suppliers in Alaska have not completed this test.

One of the suppliers has passed one at 83 cycles with 0 percent loss. This same supplier has no trouble completing this test and actually has started on it just for this project, but will not have results until July. Contacted a big block supplier in Washington who had not completed this test either. Any suggestions to where we might find a block supplier that has completed the test would be great. Or maybe it will be accepted using fewer cycles because seems like waiting until July to build the Abutments is not going to work.

See Amendment A001. See also SCR

574.03. Segmental retaining wall units

(SRWUs) meeting the requirements of Subsection 725.09B may be substituted for solid and hollow core concrete masonry units (CMUs).

4/11/2017

6 X

Line Item A0500. No supplier on the Northwest Coast has block already tested to meet ASTM 1262 Specifications. Its the 150 freeze thaw cycles that are making it difficult to find materials. The only local block supplier interested in the project begun the 150 freeze/ thaw cycle testing process 2 weeks ago and testing will not be complete til mid July of 2017.Which will not allow for time to complete the project. The local block manufacturer has provided their current test results for the material to be used on the project. They have tested for 80 freeze/thaw cycles with almost 0% loss. See attachment. Without a source for the block I am not sure if many contractors will be comfortable to turn in a bid.

See Amendment A001. See also SCR

574.03. Segmental retaining wall units

(SRWUs) meeting the requirements of Subsection 725.09B may be substituted for solid and hollow core concrete masonry units (CMUs).

4/11/2017

7 X

Do you have a packing list for the materials for the Prefabricated Steel Bridge that you are supplying that you could share with us?

Yes. It will be provided in a forthcoming amendment, A003.

4/14/2017

8 X

We are preparing a bid for this project and have contacted concrete suppliers. All have told us they will not give us a quote for the concrete on this project because of the concrete specifications. A supplier says that your aggregate spec of 1 1/2" is not reasonable for Alaska; all Alaska aggregate is 3/4". Can you change your concrete specifications to reflect an Alaska spec?

See SCR Subsection 703.02 and AASHTO M

43. The aggregate cannot exceed the nominal maximum aggregate size for the specified class of concrete. Aggregate size ¾”(‐) is allowed by AASHTO M 43 as modified by SCR 703.02.

4/14/2017