Q&A_10-19-17.pdf
PDF 78 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MT FLATHEAD 917(2), Blacktail Road Surface Improvement Phase 2 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- DTFH7017B00004
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Q&A_10-25-17.pdf | ||
| A001_Blacktail.pdf | ||
| Q&A_10-5-17.pdf | ||
| IFB_Blacktail.pdf | ||
| Blacktail_XS_100_.pdf | ||
| Blacktail_100__Plan_Set.pdf | ||
| Blacktail_Earthwork.pdf | ||
| SWPPP_MT_FLATHEAD_917(2)_Blacktail_Rd_Surface_.pdf | ||
| Blacktail_Mt._Road_Final_Geotechnical_Memorandum_GM37-16_Final.pdf | ||
| Plan_Request_form_Blacktail_Rd.pdf | ||
| PROJECT_DESCRIPTION.pdf |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Project No. MT FLATHEAD 917(2) Project Blacktail Road Surface Improvements Phase 2
# General Technical Question Answer Date 1 x
Regarding the above project and the bid item for “Turf Establishment” ( 62501‐0000 ) and quantity of 8 Acre, which according to the specs ( Section 625 and pages F‐24 to F‐25 ) requires the placement of 4” of topsoil. Since there is very little excavation or clearing ( 0.6 Acre ), please clarify the need for the 4” of topsoil or add a bid item for topsoil import since you will be looking at over 5,000 of topsoil needed for this item.
The 4” of furnished topsoil is subsidiary to the Turf Establishment pay item as outlined in Section 625. Please bid accordingly.
9/28/17
2 X
Regarding the above project with reference to the 180” and the 216” Structural Plate Pipe Culverts. Will it be allowable to close the road in order to construct both of these crossings due to their depth and pipe size?
A road closure is not available. Please refer to Section 156.‐ PUBLIC TRAFFIC for contract requirements.
10/19/17
Check General or Technical
3 X
I have a question in regards to 713.17 (k) Type 4 erosion blanket spec. In terms of the 1” x 1” x 12” wood stakes that are specified with “follow manufacturers spacing and trenching recommendations”, our manufacturer Western Excelsior has mentioned that wood stakes are not the preferred method of securing. They have stated that the fastener has to provide minimum pullout. A 6” u‐shaped staple, or any other type fastener for that matter, they feel, would be better. In addition, the fastening recommendation is 2 each per SY. This would mean around 40,000 wood stakes to place on this project. Could a standard 6” staple be used in lieu of wood stakes on this project, both for time savings on site and a better fastening system as well?
Please bid according to the specification using 1” x 1” x 12” wood stakes.
10/19/17
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .