Q&A_9-13-18.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