FA301622B0001 Repair Schofield Road QA - Govt Response 18May2022.pdf

FA301622B0001 Repair Schofield Road Q&A

1. Section 01 11 00 paragraph 1.3.1 states existing roadway markings contain lead based paint so abatement is required. Appendix D – Environmental includes a report that indicates some positive and some negative tests. There is also a google earth image that appears to indicate that the area of work is from the Schofield Gate to the Binz-Engleman Parking lot. Should the contractor assume the entire project is lead based paint requiring abatement or only the area from the Schofield Gate to Binz-Engleman parking lot indicated in the photo in Appendix D?

Government Response: Assume all pavement markings are positive for lead and must be properly abated. SOW will be updated with this information.

2. Section 01 11 00 paragraph 1.3.1 states existing roadway markings contain lead based paint so abatement is required. Appendix D – Environmental includes a report that indicates some positive and some negative tests. Our understanding is that only the yellow markings are positive for lead and therefore only those would need to be abated. Please confirm whether only yellow markings require abatement?

Government Response: See question #1 response.

3. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1 mentions curb and gutter replacement (as needed). There is no document identifying the areas requiring curb and gutter replacement. We understand that if we damage curb and gutter that we will have to repair however we need something to quantify anything existing the government expects repaired. Please advise on a linear footage quantify that the contractors should include in their bid?

Government Response: For bid purposed, the contractor should account for the replacement of 820 LF of curb and gutter along roadway Section 01. SOW will be updated with this information.

4. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1 states full depth replacement is estimated to be no more than

50% of total roadway area. It is not possible during the bid phase for the contractor to quantify the specific area that will require full depth repair. During the site visit the government stated the bid should include 50% full depth repairs. Will the government include a separate CLIN for pricing the required square footage of full depth repairs?

Government Response: No, the government will not include a separate CLIN for pricing the required square foot depth of full depth repairs. Contractors are to estimate for 50% of the roadway area being a full-depth repair. The total area of roadway for this project is provide in

Section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.1.

Since the true cross-section of the roadway is unknown at this time, the government will provide an assumed cross-section. The roadway cross-section will be assumed to have the following layers and depths:

Surface = 2 in

Binder Course = 3 in

Base Course = 8 in

Sub-Grade = 9 in

This is an assumed cross-section for estimation purposes only. SOW will be updated with this information. Contractor’s DOR to provide final cross-section during the design phase.

5. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1.k states that the contractor coordinate with Texas Railroad

Commission for work within TCR’s Right of Way. It was discussed at the site visit that this permitting typically takes 90-120 days. It is recommended that the road work stop 50’ from the railroad to avoid requiring a permit. Please advise.

Government Response: Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the Union Pacific

Railroad (UPRR) owns the Right-of-Way (ROW) of the railroad track. The government reached out to UPRR’s Real Estate Department and was informed that a Maintenance Consent Letter would be required to perform the roadway repair work within their ROW. The following website was given to start the process:

https://benesch.quickbase.com/db/bpqhu6hqy?a=dbpage&pageid=13

It is estimated to take 60 – 90 days to get an approval. Since the estimated turnaround time is within the design phase timeframe, the contractor must get a permit from UPRR to work within their ROW. SOW will be updated with this information.

6. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1.17 states that the contractor shall replace all pavement markings to match the roadway. During the site visit it appeared that many of the current markings no longer apply based on jersey barrier placement, etc. Some markings also could not be seen. Will the government provide a sketch/exhibit showing the desired pavement markings of completed construction?

Government Response: No, a sketch will not be provided by the government. Contractor can use Google Maps to see the existing pavement markings. The maps show the roadway before the additional barriers were placed so the pavement markings can be seen.

Contractor to estimate replacing all the pavement markings per the SOW.

7. Just outside of the entry control point is a bus station. Is there any coordination necessary for closure of this bus station?

https://benesch.quickbase.com/db/bpqhu6hqy?a=dbpage&pageid=13

Government Response: The coordination necessary is subsequently tied to the TCP and roadway closure. The location being mentioned is used for Ride Share. When the TCP is put into place and the roadway is completely closed, the station will not be accessible anymore.

SOW will be updated to make this clearer.

8. There is a current gate located at the end of Section 4 and start of Section 5. Are we required to either close this gate and lock or install a temporary gate with barbed wire at this location to secure the base? Or is there a gate at the Schofield entry control point that can be closed?

Government Response: The current gate located at the end of Section 4 and start of Section 5 is able to be closed and locked in its current condition. And this is the only access gate at the

Scofield entry that is capable of being closed. SOW will be updated with this information.

As part of the Work Security Plan to be provided by the contractor (Section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.1.9), the contractor must secure the construction site “to not allow unauthorized personal or vehicles to enter the base through the construction site or be on the construction site”. The gate shall be closed and locked in order to accomplish this task, but there is a gap between the bottom of fence and top of roadway that must be properly blocked so people will not try to go underneath. Contractor to block this gap by attaching a temporary fence extension that does not cause damage to the existing gate, when the temp fence is removed. SOW will be updated to make this clearer.

9. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1.14 states contractor to remove the roadway layers down to subgrade and rebuild only those aeras identified for full depth replacement. Within the scope documents areas for full depth replacement were not identified. Will the government please provide an exhibit identifying the areas requiring full depth replacement?

Government Response: The areas of the roadway requiring full depth replacement cannot be identified at this time with 100% certainty without a geotechnical report. Therefore, for estimation purposes and based on the government’s visual observation, the contractor is to estimate that 50% of the roadway area (provided in SOW) will require full-depth replacement.

The SOW will be updated to make this clear. See question #4 response for assumed roadway cross-section.

10. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1.14 states contractor to remove the roadway layers down to subgrade and rebuild only those aeras identified for full depth replacement. Please confirm that no work to existing subgrade is required? If required, what is required?

Government Response: Contractor is required to stabilize the subgrade. The SOW will be updated to make this clear. For estimation purposes, assume lime treatment methods will be used for the soil stabilization.

11. What is the location of the contractor laydown area where we can store entry control tents, etc.

during construction?

Government Response: This will be determined during the design phase as there is a base laydown area approval process (refer to section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.1.1).

The contractor is to use the laydown area to store and protect items that were removed from the roadway and to be re-installed. SOW will be updated to make this clearer.

12. Please define the minimum-security requirements for closing the base and what is the required delineation point?

Government Response: The minimum security requirements can be found in the SOW in section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.1.9- Work Security Plan. Also, refer to the response to question #8.

The delineation point would be JBSA’s fence line for security purposes. SOW will be updated with this information.

13. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.11.f states alternative route signage must be placed at Binz-

Engleman Rd. and I-35. Is the contractor required to have a digital sign at this location stating that the Schofield Road Gate is closed and to alternatively use Walters Street?

Government Response: Government is not requiring the use of a digital sign, but is also not precluding the contractor from utilizing one. Signage type and placement is information to be specified in the Traffic Control Plan (TCP) that must be submitted for review. The TCP must meet the requirements per Section 01 11 00 (paragraphs 1.3.1.11 & 1.3.1.12), Section 01 14 00

(paragraph 1.4.5.4), and Section 01 50 00 (paragraph 3.4). And the contractor will be held accountable to provide all required traffic control devices.

The Walter’s gate will be the alternative entry point during the Schofield Roadway closure.

14. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1.14.c states for full depth replacement to be removal of roadway layers down to subgrade. Nowhere in the bid documents is the existing pavement section provided so that we can estimate the depth of removal to reach subgrade. It is imperative that this assumed depth be given so that all bidding contractors are able to properly estimate the project. Please advise on the existing pavement section to include asphalt and base thickness.

Government Response: See question #4 response.

15. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 3.1 indicates UFGS specifications that shall be modified by the

Design Engineer but cannot be omitted unless approved by the government. This list includes

Section 31 32 19.13 Geogrid Soil Stabilization and Section 32 11 13.13 Lime Treated subgrade.

Our understanding of this project is that no subgrade stabilization is expected. As a result, can these two specifications be admitted?

Government Response: See question #10 response.

16. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1 states existing roadway markings contain lead based paint so abatement is required. As this work is outdoors, is it acceptable to remove via milling provided

8 hours of air monitoring is performed and the operator of the machine has lead awareness training and be fit with a respirator if an open cab or air monitoring only if performed in a closed cab?

Government response: RFI responses cannot validate or approve lead abatement methods. An appropriate abatement plan must be submitted and meet the requirements of Section 01 57

20 – Environmental Protection.

17. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1 states to remove Entry Control Point tents and roadway spikes.

There is no mention of speed bumps which were observed during the site visit. Are we required to remove the speed bumps and re-install?

Government Response: Yes, generally all the speed bumps are to be removed and re-installed as-is. However, Security Forces wants the speed bumps that are missing pieces are to be removed permanently along with any signs pointed to its location. And one of the speed bumps is to be removed and relocated into the adjacent lane. SOW will be updated with this information.

18. Direction received in the field was to remove and reinstall the existing speedbumps. Several speedbumps appear to be missing or in poor condition. Suggest installation of new speedbumps in the existing locations. Please advise.

Government Response: See question #17 response.

19. Several places had pedestrians walking trails along the side of the road indicating regular use directly adjacent to the traveled way. Suggest a proper sidewalk meeting pedestrian standards and ADA grades, at least on one side of the street, for pedestrian safety be added to the project.

Government Response: No new sidewalks will be included as part of this project.

20. Direction in the field indicated the govt would coordinate access to the fire station and if/when the area could be closed. Please provide requirements for this area.

Government Response: The contractor must keep the government PM updated on impacts to the driveway access of the Fire Station, so that the PM can inform the Fire Station of any upcoming impacts at least 2 weeks in advance (refer to the progress meeting’s two-week look ahead requirement per Section 01 32 01.00 10).

Per Section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.1.11.c, the contractor must maintain driveway access for first responder buildings. For this criteria, the expectation is for the contractor to have the roadway, that is in front of the Fire Station driveway, repaired in a way that minimizes accessibility impact as much as physically possible. Similar to what TXDOT does for driveways when they do roadway repairs in front of places with only 1 driveway access. This means that access will not be impeded for the full 90 day roadway closure, and driveway access can be provided for the Fire Station sooner so they can be able to exit the driveway and turn right.

SOW will be updated with this information.

21. It is suggested that concrete pavement be utilized (provide pavement section depths if approved) in front of the fire station to the curb returns to allow fire trucks to exit the facility without damaging pavements. Fire trucks are very heavy and do their most damage on turning movements. Although an asphalt section can be designed to withstand this load, turning movements will still have negative effects in this area and concrete is suggested for long term maintenance. Please advise if concrete will be required in this area?

Government Response: Concrete pavement will not be a part of this project. For estimation purposes, use the assumed roadway cross-section provided in #4.

22. It appeared as if some areas may have some irrigation systems within the areas directly adjacent to the curb. Please confirm these systems, if encountered, are inactive/abandoned and not required to be replaced.

Government Response: Proceed with the assumption that they are abandoned since vegetation in those areas are established. Therefore, they do not need to be replaced and should not have a significant impact on this project, if encountered.

23. 1.3.1.l indicates contractor to coordinate with the City of San Antonio (COSA) for work within their ROW, Binz-Englemen. Bexar County appraisal district maps appear to show the area up to the west of the Railroad to be govt property, not within COSA jurisdiction. Please confirm this coordination effort will not be required.

Government Response: Section of roadway identified in the image is within the Installation’s control.

In Section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.1.l, the work being referred to is the placement of Traffic

Control devised within the COSA’s ROW. SOW will be updated to make this clearer.

Section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.1.11.f, states “When Schofield Road is closed due to construction activities, alternative route signage must be placed starting at the Binz-Engleman

Rd and I-35 Frontage Rd intersection. Contractor shall coordinate with the City of San Antonio

(COSA), no later than 30 calendar days after Design Notice to Proceed, for portion of the TCP that is within the city owned roadway/right-of-way”.

24. Section 01 11 00 1.3.1.l indicates contractor to coordinate with the City of San Antonio (COSA) for work within their ROW, Binz-Englemen. If coordinated under COSA, they will require the road be built to COSA specifications which will require widening, curbs, etc to meet their standards. Please confirm this is not required.

Government Response: See question #23 response.

25. Existing bollards are located throughout the inspection area. Are these to remain, be removed, or be replaced?

Government Response: Bollards are to remain in place as they are not in the way of work to be performed. SOW will be updated with this information.

26. Please confirm no permanent signage is to be effected by this project (removed, replaced, etc).

If signage is to be replaced please indicate quantity and type of signs

Government Response: There may or may not be signs that are in the way of work. Any signs that are in the way of work are to be removed and re-installed as-is. No existing signs need to be replaced with new. SOW will be updated with this information.

27. For pavement design, please provide proposed design life to be used in conjunction with Average Daily Traffic.

Government Response: This information is to be determined during the design phase. For estimation purposes, use the assumed roadway cross-section provided in #4.

28. Recent construction of the adjacent substation has added an adjacent driveway and removed the north roadside ditch. This forces water into the road and prevents positive drainage which is causing pavement failures in the area. We suggest reconstruction of the ditch and addition of a culvert to this drive be added to the scope of work.

Government Response: Section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.1.c states that the contractor is responsible for “Maintaining and/or improving drainage from the roadway into existing inlets and drainage structures, and re-establish earthen swales that drain water from roadway”.

For estimation purposes, contractor is to account and estimate for reconstruction of drainage ditches that are approximately 240 LF and 100 LF (see snippets below), and anticipate using a 30 ft drivable culvert under the driveway shown in the picture above. SOW will be updated with this information.

29. Between the fire station and substation, there is a saturated area indicative of a water main break or leak. Pavement is failing in this area, a metal cover has been added to prevent further rutting. This water infrastructure should be repaired and grading outside the pavement limits updated to allow for positive drainage. Please advise.

Government Response: The cause of the soil saturation can be verified during the design phase. For estimation purposes, contractor to account for repairing the roadway covered by the metal cover and adding 4 ft of curb to close the gap in order to direct the water to drain east along the curb and gutter.

30. 1.3.1.a.2 references drainage into an existing stormwater inlet. None appears to be present, only curb cuts, or rather just the termination of curb. Please confirm we are continue this drainage pattern. 1.3.1.c also makes reference to inlet and structures, but none are present.

Government Response: Section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.1.a.1 states “the Design Engineer is allowed to adjust roadway slopes as needed to ensure proper stormwater drainage, however existing drainage patterns must be maintained”. And the drainage inlet (culvert inlet) mentioned in the SOW is circled below in red, and the assumed drainage pattern is shown with arrows.

31. For bidding purposes, please depths of asphalt, aggregate base, and any subgrade preparation for the full replacement and milling pavement sections. These would be confirmed and/or altered with the results of the traffic study. In lieu of specified depths for bidding, contractors have no basis for their bids and competitive bids will not be possible

Government Response: See question #4 response.

32. What is the current asphalt thickness of the roadway?

Government Response: The asphalt thickness is not known at this time. For estimation purposes, use the assumed roadway cross-section provided in #4.

33. What is the current base thickness of the roadway?

Government Response: The base thickness is not known at this time. For estimation purposes, use the assumed roadway cross-section provided in #4.

34. Hotmix material type is not given. The project ties into COSA street Binz Engleman Rd. COSA spec for this street would call for TXDOT 340 - Type D PG70-22 SAC-B. Can we use this same mix for the project? If not, please provide desired mix type.

Government Response: TXDOT 340 - Type D PG70-22 SAC-B can be used for estimation purposes for this project. However, HMA material will still have to be specified and approved during the design phase.

35. What depth is needed for the mill & overlay portion?

Government Response: Assume the depth needed for mill & overlay is 2”. SOW will be updated with this information.

36. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1.4 requires a traffic study to assist with design efforts.

Obviously, this traffic study will be performed post award which would validate a basis of design pavement section. As this study will be after award, the government needs to provide a basis of design pavement section for bidding purposes. Please advise.

Government Response: See question #4 response.

37. SOW Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1 provides approximate areas of Section 01 (80,987 SF), Section 04 (15,900 SF), and Section 05 (18,086 SF). These square footages are indicated in pink shading below. During the site visit additional areas were noted that are shown in blue. These areas increase the square footage of the project by 16,200 SF. Please advise if the blue areas are to be included or whether we should bid the quantities indicated in paragraph 1.3.1. A drawing such as provided below would be helpful if included.

Government Response: Based on the boundaries that are reflected in the base’s GIS map and roadway section numbers, the roadway SF has been updated. The following SF of roadway is a part of this project. See snippets below for boundaries. There is a total of 122,890 SF of roadway that is to be repaired. SOW will be updated with this information.

Overall View:

Section 01 (83,515 SF): Starts at the curb return and ends at the bridge and will also include the area of the turn lane.

Section 04 (16,840 SF): Starts at bridge and ends at gate.

Section 05 (22,535 SF): Starts at gate and ends at railroad track.

Additionally, the following area of roadway (9,544 SF) is to be demoed, graded, and revegetated in order to promote positive drainage away from the roadway.

38. Provide geotechnical report.

Government Response: No geotechnical report is available at this time. SOW requires a geotechnical report to be created as part of the design phase of the project (section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.1.5).

39. Is existing asphalt known to have petromat?

Government Response: This information is not known at this time. Proceed with the assumption that the existing asphalt does not have petromat.

40. Confirm that the Government will allow proposers a minimum of seven (7) days to respond to the RFP starting from the date that the Government responds to 100% of the RFIs received.

41. Provide sign-in sheets for the pre-bid site walk/meeting.

42. Confirm standard / permissible work hours during construction.

Government Response: The standard duty hours for JBSA are from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday excluding holidays. The lunch period for contractors requiring escorts is from 11:30 am to 1:30 pm. For work other than standard hours the contractor must submit a written request for approval not less than 10 workdays to the contracting officer. SOW will be updated with this information.

43. Provide location for laydown area and field office.

Government Response: See question #11 response.

Government Response: BID Due Date will be extended, please refer to the Amendment 0001 posted.

Government Response: Pre-Bid Site Visit sign in sheet will be added to the solicitation at Contract Opportunities website.