Q&A_6-13-18.pdf

WA FS ERFO 2016(1)‐22(2)

Cowlitz Valley Road Repairs Phase 2

# General Technical Question Answer Date

1 X

Plan & Profile sheets call out Alum Type 2 which refers to Aluminized Type 2 steel, but the Tabulation of Drainage Quantities calls for Aluminum in the Allowable Pipe Material Column.

The allowable pipe material discrepancies will be addressed in a forthcoming amendment.

6/4/2018

2 X Gage is not referenced on the Plan and Profile so would we choose the minimum gage shown on the 602‐1 Standard Detail.

Yes. 6/4/2018

3 X

A preliminary look at the 24’ tall T‐shaped wing walls on the NW corner of the culvert suggest the footings could be a minimum of 20’ wide and 16” thick. A 5’ section of the wing wall would weigh approximately 42,000lbs.) In short, they would be massive and we are unsure if they can be transported due to their shape.

In addition, the steel reinforcing would be in the neighborhood of #8’ bar – 3” OC.

Thank‐you for the information. Sheets H.11 and H.20 state details are for information only. Submit shop drawings that meet the wall geometry according to Section 104.

6/8/18

Check General or Technical

4 X

The other thing that is confusing on the plan and profile sheets versus the drainage quantities is the bevels.

It appears that the 72, 84, and 96” are showing bevels on both ends but the Tabulation of Drainage Quantities is only calling out the Lt (left side?) as having bevels. RD2900 MP7.6 63+11 camp creek shows bevels in plan view but square ends in profile but Inlet/Outlet footer information calls it out as well.

Pipe bevel discrepancies will be addressed in a forthcoming amendment.

6/11/18

5 X

The bevel detail shows a top and bottom step for anything 48” and larger and those set at 25% of diameter, the detail in the plan and profile only call out the bottom step which matches the 25% but no reference to Top Step. Should we still assume a top step is required and quote both per standard detail?

The pipe bevel detail on Sheet H.16 will be modified in a forthcoming amendment.

6/11/18

6 X

An examination of the work required on the 2324 Rd at MP 0.6 reveals that the site is currently inaccessible due to another washout at approximately MP 0.2 which was part of a previously let contract. When is the repair work at MP 0.2 scheduled to be completed so that work under this solicitation can be accessed?

Work at approximate MP 0.2 should be completed by the end of May 2019. See Subsection 108.01(b).

6/12/18

7 X

Documents list work on 90 Rd at MP 45, however, a site visit reveals that work matching what is detailed in the documents for MP 45 are actually at approx. MP 43. Please confirm that the only work required on the 90 Rd is actually at approx. MP 43.

We cannot confirm the MP reference. The site location is as shown in the photos on Sheet D.10.

6/12/18

8 X

For the RD 2900 MP 10.4 AOP Culvert on Jumbo Creek, I respectfully propose an alternate structure to the 18’ x 18’ reinforced concrete box culvert

After contract award, value engineering change proposal(s) may be submitted according to Subsection 103.03.

6/13/18