Q&A_10-1-18.pdf

WA RRP RIDG 100(2)

River S Bridge Replacement

# General Technical Question Answer Date

1 X

The three files listed below were provided for download on the FBO Website as part of this IFB. They appear to have previously been excel files but were converted to xml files when posted so they open as a text file and are unusable. Can these be reposted to FBO as excel spreadsheets?

These files are not Microsoft Excel Files.

They are LandXML files with alignment data for construction.

8/30/18

2 X

Several files posted on FBO.gov for the subject project appear to be corrupt, and will not open or download correctly. The problem files are as follows: 20c_GR14‐15_Geotech_Report;

20d_GR14‐ 15_River_S_Bridge_Replacement_Final_Geotch _Report_Aug_2016; and 21b_Bridge_Inspection_Report. Is it possible to upload correct and complete files?

We successfully opened (online) each of the files you referenced; and after saving these files to a computer hard drive, we successfully opened each of these files again; therefore, we are not planning to reupload the files.

9/4/18

Check General or Technical

3 X

Are 20c_GR14‐15 Geotech Report.pdf and 20d_GR14‐15 River S Bridge Replacement, Final Geotech Report, Aug 2016.pdf the same document? They appear to be the exact same geotech report (dated August 2016, with 343 pages), but have different file names.

The document 20c_GR14‐15 Geotech Report.pdf is a duplicate of the document 20d_GR14‐15 River S Bridge Replacement, Final Geotech Report, Aug 2016.pdf; hence we recommend downloading the file 20c_GR14‐15 Geotech Report.pdf.

In addition, the document 20a_GM 08‐12 Geotech Memo.pdf is a duplicate of the document 20b_GM 08‐12 Ridgefield Existing Condition Assessment.pdf; hence we recommend downloading the file 20a_GM 08‐12 Geotech Memo.pdf.

A forthcoming amendment will address the physical data listing.

9/5/18

4 X

The 7th paragraph of Subsection 257.03 says to “Overlap the reinforcement for the full design length separated by a minimum 6 inches of backfill material.” The 6” fill separation requirement is assumed to be for a geogrid design. Welded wire steel reinforcements are commonly overlapped for back‐to‐back wall applications, and for mat splicing situations to achieve greater reinforcements lengths. 6” fill separation between reinforcements would create construction issues, and we’ve never seen this as a requirement for inextensible steel designs.

This will be addressed under a forthcoming amendment.

9/12/18

5 X

Where is states SUBCONTRACTING PLAN it states to see page A‐6a (page 22 of the IFB and it states to NOT submit w/bid) then below on the checklist it reads “Did I include the completed subcontractor plan?” Please confirm whether we do include the plan in the bid or wait to see if we are the lowest bidder.

A subcontracting plan is not due at bid opening. In accordance with FAR Clause 52.219‐9, a subcontracting plan will be required to be submitted upon request by the Contracting Officer; hence, the Contracting Officer will require a subcontracting plan to be submitted from the successful bidder/offeror, if not a small business, after receipt of proposals and before contract award.

9/13/18

6 X

What is the bid bond percentage that is required? The bid bond didn’t mention the percent but gave an example of 20% of the bid amount.

See FAR Clause 52.228‐1 on Page C‐68 of the Solicitation.

9/13/18

7 X

On the Bidder Submittal Checklist in the Representations & Certifications & Far Clause section is reads, “Did I include the completed clause 1252.228‐73 Notification of Miller Act Payment Bond Protection See page C‐118.”

There isn’t a page C‐118 in the attached IFB.

What is this piece and does it need to be included in the proposal submittal?

The page number being referenced on the Bidder Submittal Checklist for TAR Clause 1252.228‐73 should be C‐104 instead of C‐118. This page of the solicitation will not be replaced.

9/13/18

8 X

Section 276 ‐ Ground Improvement page F‐15, Article 276.03 (c) addresses Modulus Test procedures. However, loading conditions are not published and the specification appears to otherwise be a procedural based specification based on minimum area replacement ratio.

Please confirm that a modulus test is not part of the required work scope.

A modulus test is not required. This will be addressed in a forthcoming amendment.

9/13/18

9 X

Section 276 ‐ Ground Improvement page F‐17, Article 276.07 references a Verification Program. There is no reference to a Verification Program elsewhere within the specification.

Please clarify what the Verification Program is or if it is not required.

The requirements for a Verification Program are shown near the top of Page F‐

14. The outlining errors under Subsection

276.03 will be addressed in a forthcoming amendment.

9/13/18

10 X

Please confirm that the intent of Subsection

565.06 is specific to the Drilled Shaft Subcontractor, not the General Contractor.

Subsection 565.03 only applies to work under Section 565 – Drilled Shafts, and the General Contractor is responsible for all contract requirements, even if portions of the work are performed by Subcontractors. See Sections 153 and 565 for additional requirements related to work under Section 565 – Drilled Shafts.

9/13/18

11 X

I’m looking for your insurance requirements and can’t find it. On the notice to bidders page you have III. Post award information; insurance.

This section states insurance requirements are described in subsection 107.05. You do not have a subsection 107.05 in the documents.

The subsections jump from 107.04 to 107.08.

Can you please tell me what your insurance requirements will be for the project.

See Subsection 107.05 of FP‐14. Obtain a copy of FP‐14 from the following website:

https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/specs/

9/14/18

12 X

Is the guardrail on this project intended to be corten or Nitina stained? Are all of the steel posts for the guardrail to be painted galvanized posts? Looking for a little clarification. I see a note for Nitina but not sure what it is referring to.

Guardrail requirement is corten. Steel posts requirements for guardrail is also corten and will be addressed in a forthcoming amendment. Regarding Natina or equal products, see options for finishing terminal section components under Subsection 617.06.

9/14/18

13 X

The geotech report and specification states a minimum 20% ARR is necessary. Based on the borings available, the sand becomes denser with depth which we anticipate may prove difficult to install piers at the 20% ARR required. Is it possible to base the performance on the results of pre/post treatment CPTs to determine the improved soil matrix properties instead of requiring a 20% ARR?

No, the CPT testing will be performed for information only and not used for acceptance. Acceptance will be based on verifying the 20% area replacement ratio has been achieved. Per 276.03(d) page F‐ 13, pre‐drilling may be required if early refusal is encountered within soil layers.

9/17/18

14 X

The specification states that cement‐treated aggregate piers are to be installed to avoid detrimental impact to the element. This is the only mention of cement treated stone columns in the contract documents. Can you clarify if a cement treated aggregate column is actually required?

This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment.

9/17/18

15 X

Although the specifications state “Make the inside diameter of the casing no greater than the specified diameter of the shaft plus 6 inches”, is it acceptable to construct these shafts using 3.0M/9.84’ OD temporary casing?

No. A 9.84‐foot OD casing is not acceptable for the 10’‐0” diameter drilled shafts.

Subsection 565.06 states, ‘Make the outside diameter of the casing no less than the specified size of the shaft.’

9/17/18

16 X RE: Subsection 565.03, can the spec section be revised so that the requirements are for the drilled shaft contractor?

No. The Contractor is responsible for the performance of the contract. See Subsection 101.01.

9/18/2018

17 X

Natina is called out as a weathering agent on this job. I find no list in the specs of what items this should be applied to although the specs do reference rock, concrete, and metal surfaces.

The plans also do not say to apply weathering agent to anything specifically. Can you identify what surfaces are to receive weathering agent?

See Subsections 255.03 and 563.01.

9/18/2018

18 X

But under 563.07 it says “Add the following to paragraph (b)(3): Apply weathering agent according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Control or modify weathering agent finishes for rock and concrete by custom blending the specified ingredients;

modifying application techniques; diluting with water; or a combination thereof. Finish rock and concrete surfaces according to the approved, applicable test panel.” But where in the plans does it say what rock and concrete needs to be treated? Section 255.03 says all galvanized material in this section (I assume the metal gabion structure) are to be treated with weathering agent but says nothing of rock and concrete. Is there any rock and concrete that gets treated on this job or is that just a boilerplate spec?

Weathering agent is required for galvanized material under Subsection 255.03.

Weathering agent is not required for rock or concrete. Weathering agent is an optional treatment for Gabion Facing Rock under Subsection 257.03, and for Guardrail Terminals under Subsection 617.06.

9/18/2018

19 X

Would WFL please add a pay item for work bridge or barge access? Most of the bid items are unit priced and the cost of the work bridge is a lot of money to spread into measured items that could over or under run planned quantities, creating the potential for either the contractor or the owner to lose a lot of money or pay a lot of money more than needed. A single lump sum item for work bridges / barges would eliminate this problem.

We prefer to keep the bridge access incidental to the work.

9/18/2018

20 X

I’m writing to inquire if there is any heavy moving or heavy lifting involved in the scope of the project above.

You can review the scope of work posted at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOT/FHWA/WFL /DTFH7017B00007/listing.html

9/18/2018

21 X

Bid Item 57501‐0000 Minor Bridge Work. Spec Section 575.01 Calls Out. This work consists of furnishing and erecting utility hanger, conduit, vertical clearance gauges, marine fenders, and casing covers. Should the vertical clearance gauges be paid for in Bid Item 63301‐000 Sign System 2 Each?

Yes. This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment.

9/19/2018

22 X

Division 700 Section 725. – Miscellaneous Materials/725.19 Weathering Agent. Natina Steel. Where exactly is this product to be used.

Is it just on the bridge railing?. Can you please clarify?

Required under Subsections 255.03.

Optional for MSE Facing Rock under Subsection 257.03 and Guardrail Terminals under Subsection 617.06.

9/19/2018

23 X Can the scheduled bid date be pushed 1 week? This will be addressed in a forthcoming

Amendment.

9/19/2018

24 X Is there a weight limit of the existing bridge for hauling equipment over it? If so, what is it?

See Subsection 104.05 9/19/2018

25 X

Specification 52.236‐1 Performance of Work by the Contractor (Apr 1984), page C‐85. This specification states “…work equivalent to at least fifty (25) percent…”. Please clarify if prime contractor is required to perform 25% or 50% of the work with its own organization.

Clause 52.236‐1 should read 25%. An amendment will follow to correct the error.

9/19/2018

26 X

Specification 107.04 Railroad Protection, page E‐

18. The government is responsible for up to $350,634 worth of flagger services. The contractor is responsible for costs in excess of this. The amount comes from sheet K‐64 of Exhibit D and is outlined by 3,120 manhours and 260 days of work. The math works out where the manhours / days is equivalent to 260 day at 12‐hour shifts for flagger services. Please confirm the following: a) Is this correct, the government is expecting 12‐hour shifts? b) What shifts are covered in this agreement, i.e.

M‐F x 40‐hour weeks, start/end times, etc?

Earlier sections of the specifications state No weekend work, and 10‐hour shift maximums.

Please clarify. c) How will the government address Overtime with the BNSF while within this budget? d) Are the 3,120 manhour based off one, two, three, or more flaggers per shift?

FHWA developed a CPM for the construction of the project with the assumption of 5‐day work week 10‐hour shifts per day. This schedule was provided to BNSF and they based on the work items developed what they feel would be a high‐ end range of hours needed with associated costs. This was the basis of the BNSF flagger hours estimate shown in Exhibit D of the Section K. BNSF will work with the awarded contractor to provide flaggers based on the contractor’s schedule and how they are propose to schedule the work.

9/19/2018

27 X

Specification 203.05 (d) Hazardous Material.

The inspection report did not detect asbestos materials. No other hazardous materials have been identified by the government. If hazardous materials are encountered, will the contractor be compensated under the Changes clauses?

No. See FAR Clause 52.236‐2, Differing Site Conditions. This answer is revised to "Yes."

28 X

The terminology “design timber piles” used in item 276.04(g) on page F‐16 of the IFB is confusing because it seems that the plans and specifications already specify maximum rigid inclusion (timber pile) spacing, layout grid type, horizontal extents, and vertical extents of the rigid inclusion ground improvement. Please clarify what is meant by “design timber piles.” Is additional engineering required to show that the ground improvement design meets seismic performance requirements?

There are no seismic performance requirements. The “design” is providing the drawings and descriptions submittals per subsection 276.03 that meet the requirements of subsection 276.04.

9/19/2018

29 X

With respect to section 276 .04 of the IFB, please clarify the required spacing of prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) for the scenario where PVDs are not installed attached to the timber piles. If PVDs are installed separately from timber piles, does installation sequence matter (i.e., do piles or drains need to be installed first)?

This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment.

9/19/2018

30 X

The Geotech Report page 30 paragraph 7.2 recommends for the West embankment filling to elevation 31.68 prior to installation of drilled shafts. This is to allow for approx. 1 month of settlement to occur. Is this a contract requirement? Per the plans I see the preload (with settlement plates) required for the East side MSE wall but find no requirement on the West Side.

See subsection 621.03A for settlement plate and monitoring requirements, including settlement plate locations (East Side only). Per 621.03A (b) (3), take readings “…until the monitoring is deemed complete by the CO.” An estimate of time is discussed in the Geotech report, but the time period is not set in the Contact.

31 X

The Geotech Report page 32 paragraph 8 recommends excavation to elevation 19 for installation of the ground improvements the fill to elev 24 for installation of the drilled shafts. Is this required to be done after the 1 month waiting period on for the preload referenced in the last question?

There are no preload, waiting period, or settlement plate requirements on the West Side.

9/19/2018

32 X

Plan Sheet D.3 The existing contour lines immediately south of the new road alignment and west of the BNSF line are clearly incorrect.

The contour lines appear to be the existing lines before the Railroad fill was constructed. Please provide actual grades for the project.

This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment.

9/19/2018

33 X

In File 21c_Hydraulics_Report.pdf on the last page it indicates that Appendix A‐F are attachments referred to in the report. Where can we find the attachments?

This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment.

9/19/2018

34 X

In the IFB file Section D‐1 the General Wage Decision – the Wages referenced are all very outdated for example: CARP0003‐006 is from 10/01/2011, ENGI0101‐0002 is from 01/01/2018, IRON0029‐002 is from 07/01/2015, PLAS0555‐002 is from 06/01/2017. Will the Wage Decision be updated for this solicitation?

See Amendment A003

9/19/2018

35 X

Addendum 3 did not address the wage rates [from a previous question]. The wages are still severely lagging what the current wages are for the classifications [that were] listed.

Amendment A003 incorporated the current Wage Rate Determination for Washington State that is issued by the US Department of Labor (General Decision Number: WA180001 09/14/2018 WA1).

See FAR Clause 52.222‐6 Construction Wage Rate Requirements (May 2014).

36 X

Plan sheet set, Sheet B.1, D.1 Pay item 21101‐ 1000 is listed as “Roadway Obliteration, Method 1”. Sheet C‐1, Detail “S Refuge Rd Typical Section 4+00 to 8+02.16. Callout is for “Roadway Obliteration, Method 2”. Which is the correct method?

This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment.

9/20/2018

IFB, Bid Schedule, page A‐10, lists bid item line item A0920, 63301‐0000, Sign System, 2 ea.

This is also shown on the summary table on sheet B.2, and the call‐out for the sign system installation on Piers 2 and 3 are shown on sheet D.3. The details for the sign system are shown on sheet E.33. However, IFB, Special Contract Requirements, Section 575 – Minor Bridge Work (added section), page F‐38‐F39, notes in 575.01, “This work consists of furnishing and erecting utility hangers, conduit, VERTICAL CLEARANCE GAUGES, marine fenders, and casing covers.”, and is further identified in 575.07 Acceptance.

There is also a bid item on the Bid Schedule, page A‐9, line item A0600, 57501‐0000, Minor Bridge Work, Lump Sum. Should the vertical clearance gauges, also identified as the sign system in the plans, be bid as 63301‐0000 or 57501‐0000 ?

This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment.

9/20/2018

38 X

Special Contract Requirements, Section 563‐ Painting. There are multiple references to applying weathering agent to non‐metalic surfaces in this section. Is this to be understood as applying weather agent exposed concrete surfaces? If so, are there limits as to the treatment of the weather agent (deck surface, interior girder faces and deck underside, etc.)?

Would the weathering agent be applied to any surface receiving a Class 2 rubbed finish? For the MSE wall, dark colored facing rock is to be used (257.03). Is the facing rock for the MSE wall also to receive weathering agent?

Weathering agent is required for galvanized material under Subsection 255.03.

Weathering agent is not required for rock or concrete. Weathering agent is an optional treatment for Gabion Facing Rock under Subsection 257.03, and for Guardrail Terminals under Subsection 617.06.

9/20/2018

39 X

Special Contract Requirements, Section 570 – Optional Work Platform (page F‐34) – section

570.01 notes that “Limits of optional work platforms are shown on the plans.” With exception of the temporary structures/falsework drawing as part of the U.S.

Coast guard permit on page H‐9, and two drawings as part of the Draft WQMPP Plan, there does not appear to be any sheet in the project plans indicating limits of the optional work platform. Please confirm?

This will be addressed in a forthcoming

40 X

Temporary Construction Easement – On plan sheet A.4 and A.5, the plans indicate a Ridgefield NWR air and ground easement with WGS in the vicinity of Pier 3 west of the BNSF tracks, as well as an air easement with WGS for the area covered by the new bridge. Has there been a Temporary Construction Easement obtained from WGS for access to the optional work platform as shown on page H‐9 of the U.S. Coast Guard permit?

Access needs to stay on the ground to the toe of fill (existing ground easement covers abutment and abutment fill limits), or be at a height allowed by the new airspace limits.

The existing ground easement also extends into the air. The WGS parcel stops at OHW elevation.

9/20/2018

41 X

Marine Fenders – Plan sheet E.1 calls out Marine Fenders to be installed on piers 1 and 2;

plan sheet E.6 details the Fender attachment to the permanent casing, and calls for a “”D‐ shaped rubber marine fender” and “10’‐0” Maine fender length”. Section 575 –Minor Bridge Work (added section of the specifications) is described as covering furnishing and installing the marine fenders;

section 575.07‐Acceptance calls for acceptance of marine fenders under 106.02 and 106.03.

Any criteria as to materials, inner void (none, O or D) shape, prescriptive or performance criteria does not appear to in the FP‐14 or project specifications. In lieu of any other specific requirements or specs, or are standard commercial D‐shaped fenders acceptable?

This will be addressed in a forthcoming

42 X

Vertical Clearance Gauge Details, sheet E.33 Notes – 3rd note states, “Provide clearance gauge sign with a minimum thickness of 0.08 inches, made of plastic, and conforming to Sections 633 and 718.” In FP‐14, page 713, section 718.03 (d) Plastic (1) Non‐reinforced plastic, 2nd paragraph, states, “Fabricate panels smaller or equal to 24” by 24” (600 by 600 millimeters) from 0.08‐inch (2‐millimetter) thick plastic blanks. Fabricate larger panels from 0.125‐inch (3‐millimeter) thick plastic blanks.”

Please confirm that the sign panels, being larger than 2’x2’, shall be made from 0.125 inch thick material?

This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment.

9/20/2018

43 X

Specification Section 565.05 states a trial drilled shaft is required. Test shafts are not normally required on projects of this type and size. Please consider eliminating the test shaft requirement.

The requirement only applies when a test shaft is specified, and there are not any on this project. 9/20/2018

44 X

Specification Section 565.03 states that the Contractor shall provide a professional geotechnical engineer or professional engineering geologist to log all shaft excavations. This is normally provided by the Owner and would be redundant if the Contractor also had a professional geotechnical engineer. Please consider eliminating this requirement or allowing a competent person to log the shaft excavations.

Bid as specified.

45 X

Specification Section 565.06 (a) states that additional drilled shafts within 15’ or three shaft diameters on a newly constructed shaft for at least 20 hours. Please confirm the distance requirement is from shaft centerline to shaft centerline and not from edge of shaft to edge of shaft.

“within 15 feet or 3 diameters” is measured from the outside edge of the shaft.

9/20/2018

46 X Is the permanent casing for the drilled shafts at Piers 1 and 2 a fracture critical member?

No they are not fracture critical.

9/20/2018

47 X Is the permanent casing for the drilled shafts at Piers 1 and 2 required to be galvanized?

No.

9/20/2018

48 X

Please confirm using 3 meter outside diameter temporary casing for the drilled shafts at Piers 1, 2, and 3 is acceptable. This will result in a final shaft diameter of 9.84’.

See Subsection 565.06.

9/20/2018

49 X

Please confirm using 1.5 meter outside diameter temporary casing for the drilled shafts at the abutment shafts is acceptable. This will result in a final shaft diameter of 4.92’.

No. See Subsection 565.06.

9/20/2018

50 X

Once the MSE construction starts the footprint of the existing Refuge Rd will be covered. Since there are no temporary traffic control drawings, where do you see public access via Refuge Rd being constructed to get around the MSE Walls?

Do you anticipate using the new Access road on the south side of the MSE wall for temporary public access and then make 90 degree turn at Abutment 2 and another 90 turn to cross the public grade crossing over the tracks? If not, do you expect a temporary road be made on the North side of the MSE wall?

Access needs to be maintained for public traffic on weekends, and during the week for administrative and hunter traffic. This can either be access along the north edge of the construction as space permits, or utilizing the new access road area and making a 90 degree turn around Abutment 2 columns and a 90 degree turn back across the existing RR crossing.

9/21/2018

51 X Is 400+ TV line resolution sufficient to meet the required “high‐resolution” video camera for SID testing per section 565.06?

Yes. This is sufficient. 9/21/2018

52 X Is there a minimum thickness required for the drilled shaft permanent casing for Piers 2 and 3?

No.

9/21/2018

53 X

We respectfully submit that the Bridge finish date be extended the 4th quarter no work amount making May 31, 2020 the bridge completion date and July 16, 2020 the overall completion date.

Thank you for your comments. We believe the project is constructible in the time allowed. Please bid as specified.

9/21/2018

The specifications section 255 – Mechanically‐ Stabilized Earth Walls, 255.03 4th paragraph states that, “All galvanized materials used for the work under this Section is to be treated with weathering agent according to Section 563.”

For steel soil reinforcements that will be buried within layers of backfill, it doesn’t make sense to apply a weathering agent to a portion of material that will not be exposed or visible after installation. Is it acceptable to apply the weathering agent to only the visible wall face portion of the galvanized material?

We will address this in an Amendment to the solicitation.

9/22/2018

Typically we would only apply weathering agent to the portions of the galvanized materials that will be visible after installation. Treating all of the galvanized metal, per the current specs, would be a big and unnecessary expense. After all, why put color on something that no one will ever see. I am hoping you see the logic as I do not want WFLHD to spend unnecessary money in treating materials that will not be visible after installation. Please let me know if treating the visible portions only will be acceptable.

We will address this in an amendment to the solicitation.

9/24/2018

Ref Sheet D.3 approx STA 13+60 there is a 24” Pipe Culvert to be installed under the MSE wall.

This MSE wall has an anticipated settlement of 2”‐7” per the Geotech report page 30‐31. How is this pipe supposed to be installed to the lines and grades required with settlement happening after installation?

Install the culvert to the line and grade shown on the plans. Potential settlement has been accounted for in the design.

9/24/2018

57 X Please confirm it is acceptable to use 10.5’ ID temporary casing for installation of the 10’ drilled shafts at pier 1, 2 and 3.

Yes. The size of this casing meets the contract requirements. 9/25/2018

58 X Please confirm it is acceptable to use 5.57’ ID temporary casing for installation of the 5’ drilled shafts at abutments 1 and 2.

Yes. The size of this casing will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment. 9/25/2018

59 X

Reference: Bid item 30202‐2000 Roadway Aggregate, Method 2. This bid item number references Section 302 – Treated Aggregate Courses. “Method 2” is only referenced in Section 308 – Minor Crushed Aggregate. Is this Roadway Aggregate, to be “treated”?

No. This solicitation references the Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP‐ 14 . See Notice to Bidders Page A‐1. See also Subsection 302.05(a)(2).

9/25/2018

60 X

Are there any restrictions present that would prohibit the contractor from placing temporary fill in the water below ordinary high water yet outside the navigable channel?

This is not covered under the existing permit. This would require consultation on the BA. Re‐consultation would be allowed by the contractor directly with the resource agency or FHWA could assist. Then an updated 404/401 permit would need to occur. We briefly checked in with the resource agencies they agreed it would be a minor modification but given work load they would not be able to review for an extended period of time.

9/25/2018

61 X

Will dredging to afford temporary access to the worksite be allowed?

Limited dredging was identified & permitted as part of bridge demo to remove existing bridge timber piles (<5 yd³ per location), but you could push or pull barges in low water area without triggering any permit modifications.

9/25/2018

62 X

Existing Refuse Rd. between S. Hillhurst Rd. and the worksite may not allow sufficient over road access to the worksite. Does the Agency have any provisions to improve this section of road as part of this contract?

Need to understand what improvements.

The design team did run an auto‐turn analysis on truck and trailer for delivery of girders. The analysis for the truck and trailer found the existing route could be managed.

9/25/2018

63 X

The contract documents do not provide loading information for the existing bridge that allow the contractor to accurately determine if various loads will be accepted by the bridge.

For example, the girders would be delivered on a vehicle with as many as 12 axles. Please provide information to determine the suitability of this operation and others.

See 104.05 and the load report in physical data

64 X

Will the contractor be allowed to remove obstructions such as logs, trees, boulders, etc.

from below ordinary high water line that are in the way of a temporary work platform? YES

9/25/2018

65 X

Special Contract Requirement 156.04A provides a web address for a sample work plan that is inoperable. Please provide an updated web address for this document.

This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment

9/25/2018

66 X

Have any discussions been had with the USCG regarding temporary closures of the navigable channel? If so, please define an acceptable duration and frequency for such closures.

FHWA has discussed this with the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard informed FHWA that if we showed a impact to current navigation channel, then the coast guard considers this a “work bridge” vs a “work platform”. For a work platform we were allow to permit an area without have to provide specific spacing and size of piling.

For a work bridge, the Coast Guard wanted to know exact timing, size and spacing of piles, vertical and horizontal clearances.

Since FHWA could not forecast pile spacing and type for work bridge ( CG wanted exact spacing and size), we permitted the Work Platform. We don’t have a timeline or height the coast guard may or may not accept.

67 X

Have any discussions been held with BNSF regarding temporary closures of the railroad? If so, please define an acceptable duration and frequency for such closures.

The RR has committed verbally to working with the awarded contractor to find a closure. On a bridge project on the refuge two years ago which required the same permit, the RR worked with the contractor to provide a window for the closure. For that project is was 2am to 5 am window.

So for this project, BNSF is committed to work with the awarded contractor to find a date and time, but would not commit to one until they understand who the contractor is and what their timing and needs are.

9/25/2018

68 X

Given the following... the girders in span 4 need to be set before October 1 and pour #2 in superstructure sequence bridge drawing 3 of 33 needs to be done before Oct 1 in order to satisfy 78 day diaphragm pour (i.e. if span 4 girders not set and span 3 are, then no diaphragm pour.

Perhaps you will give relief? There is not enough time to wait to set all girders, pour deck, rail curb, rail and finish between January 1 and February 28.

You are not required to set all girders in all spans before casting the diaphragms. The requirement on note 2 of Sheet E.3 requires that the designated portions of the diaphragms be cast at least 78 days after fabrication/casting of the girders. The diaphragms must be cast per the details on Sheet E.14 with only one horizontal construction joint and with both spans of beams set on the pier.

9/26/2018

69 X Please provide thickness of “EMBEDDED PLATE” on Sheet RG3072‐T.

This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment. 9/26/2018

70 X Please provide connection detail of “Top Plate” to “Bevel Plate” on Sheet RG3072‐T.

This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment. 9/26/2018

71 X

The plans do not show the amount of conduit across the bridge for power and telephone. It does show the conduits leading up to the bridge. Also, the amount of conduit to provide pricing in the bid schedule 63610‐1600 does not take into account this conduit. Please clarify.

This will be addressed in a forthcoming Amendment.

9/26/2018

72 x

Please confirm that Elevation C, shown on Drawing RG3072‐F (Sheet E.6), reflects a minimum depth and that additional permanent casing may be installed to a lower elevation and left in place.

The bottom of permanent casing is a set elevation, not a minimum.

9/26/2018

73 x Please confirm that temporary casing utilized during construction for contractors means and methods may be left in place.

Temporary casing must be removed. See requirements of Subsections 565.04(c) and 565.06(c).

9/26/2018

74 x

Regarding Amendment #5 has a total of 4 files (Amendment A005, Revised RiverS APP C, Revised RiverS APP D & Revised RiverS APP E).

Appendix C pdf ‐ has Appendix C divider page along with a plan & profile sheet, which in my opinion isn't the Proposed Bridge / RipRap Layout. Please clarify!

Appendix D pdf ‐ has Appendix C divider page along with the Plan & Profile sheet (pages 1 & 2), Appendix D (pages 3‐24) & Appendix E Flood Insurance Study Volumes 1 & 2 (pages 25‐226)

Appendix E pdf ‐ has Appendix C divider page along with the Plan & Profile sheet (pages 1 & 2), Appendix D (pages 3‐24) & Appendix E Flood Insurance Study Volumes 1 & 2 (pages 25‐226)

With what I have observed Appendix E's Water Quality Report is still missing, Appendix C is triplicated, Appendix D & E are duplicated. Can you please clarify?

You are correct. Multiple copies were inadvertently included in the attachments.

The water quality report you refer to was included as (6)_Ridgefield_WQDataTracker_FINAL_081 815_ToClient in Amendment 7.

9/26/2018

75 x

As a follow up to questions 48 and 49 answered on 9/20/18, would an increase in shaft length be allowed to compensate the reduced shaft diameter (4.92’ instead of 5’ and 9.84’ instead of 10’)?

Bid as shown. A request for change can be submitted after contract award according to SCR subsection 103.03 Value Engineering.

76 x

Regarding 156.04 (b)‐‐‐Will the Administrative staff open/close the entry gate themselves upon entering and leaving during their time blocks or is the Contractor expected to have a “entry gate access person” manning the gate to control entry?

Administrative staff will open/close the entry gates themselves.

9/26/2018

77 X

I am just wondering. After looking at the addendums and such. Does this project still have mse walls? If so what kind. I am just a little lost after reading section 257 saying it deletes items off the material list.

Yes. MSE walls are contractor designed.

See Sections 255 and 257.

78 x

I have a few questions in regards to the guardrail.

Section 563 refers to applying a weathering agent to galvanized surfaces but does not state what galvanized surfaces this is to be applied?

Are we to apply it to the Guardrail? Section 617 states that the End Terminals, Transition Rail and Steel Posts are to be painted or powder coated to match the rail. The bid item for Guardrail is for Type IV rail which is Corrosion Resistant (weathering) steel or corten rail that is not galvanized. Or is it to be galvanized then a weathering agent applied?

What are we doing with the steel posts?

Amendment 2 states that the steel posts are to be ASTM A709(AASHTO M270), Grade 50W, which I believe means they are weathering steel as well, but Section 617 states the steel posts are to be painted or powder coated. We would have to galvanize the posts first prior to painting of powder coating.

Weathering agent is only to be applied to the work described in section 255‐ MSE walls.

Corrosion Resistant (weathering) steel or corten rail does not require to be galvanized or have weathering agent applied.

End Terminals, Transition Rail and Steel Posts that are designated not to be weathering or corten are to be painted or powder coated to match the weathering or corten rail. 9/27/2018