Contractor_Questions_ _Answers.pdf
PDF 12 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- GS-10-P-15-XC-C-7008
About this file
Pre-proposal inquiries and responses.
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
23 July 2015
EQ10PCA-1-15-5002, Repave West Parking Lot
Richland Federal Building.
Pre-Proposal Questions & Answers
1.) Question: At the job walk, it was suggested installing 2” of rock and 2” of asphalt rather than the 1” binder course and 1” topping course that the SOW asks for. The reason, is that we do not know what type of existing base is under the asphalt, or its existing depth. Please advise.
Answer: Install 2” of rock and 2” of asphalt as referenced in revised scope of work, sections 1.1 and 1.3
2.) Question: If we are to stay with the 1” HMA overlay, it will not be possible to accurately determine % of compaction using a nuclear gauge; it’s almost impossible for 95% compaction on HMA, especially on a 1” thick course, WSDOT requires 91%, even that is unlikely given the course depth. Please advise.
Answer: Reference RFI #1 answer. This requirement is governed by WSDOT.
3.) Question: The SOW calls out for 2 separate lifts of asphalt being installed. At the job walk it was suggested that we would be able to install 2” of asphalt in one lift. Please advise
Answer: A 2” asphalt lift is acceptable as referenced in revised scope of work section 1.3.
4.) Question. We noticed on the job walk that the existing asphalt ramp does not appear to be ADA compliant. To install a new ramp being ADA compliant, it would have to extend out into the driveway portion, or sideways to the parking lot and it would take up several parking stalls. Would it be possible to delete the existing ramp and install a concrete step(s) in place of the ramp? Please advise
23 July 2015
Answer: Delete the existing ramp and install a concrete step as referenced in revised scope of work section 1.3.
5.) Question: We noticed the large concrete planters in front of the main entrance to the building, and see moving the planters would probably cause them to break or crack. Please advise if areas underneath the existing planters need to be repaved.
Answer: The area underneath the planters does not need to be repaved.
6.) Question: The existing parking lot spot elevations show that it has minimal to no drainage. Our rough calculations using the spot elevations given on the plans show that we are less than 1% slope on the parking lot. Asphalt requires a minimum of 2% slope to drain. We are being asked to match existing elevations and contours for the repaving, which we know will not drain adequately. Part of the proposal that we are to submit, is a plan for positive drainage. Without changing the existing grades, or installing a storm drainage system, it will be nearly impossible to guarantee positive drainage of the parking lot. Please advise
Answer: Match existing elevations.
7.) Question: We see in the SOW that it’s asking new galvanized 2” posts to be installed for the traffic and directional signs. Would solid, 2” round galvanized posts be acceptable?
Answer: Solid, 2” round galvanized posts are acceptable
8.) Question: If the solid sign posts are accepted, would placing concrete around the base of the post with a broom finish be an acceptable method?
Answer: Broom finish is acceptable.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .