Attachment 13- RFI Questions and Goverment Response Hardee Road.pdf

REPAIR HARDE ROAD SITE VISIT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.4.1.i.a, the below pavement section is proposed.

Asphalt Concrete Surface Course TXDOT Type ‘D’: 1.5 in Asphalt Concrete Base Course TXDOT Type ‘B’: 3 in Aggregate Base Course: 9 in Lime Stabilizer Subgrade: 8 in Include a Surface Tack Coat and Prime Coat

As this is a Design Build project, we suggest allowing alternate sections that achieve the same structural number. This can allow safer and faster construction, minimize tra ic impact to the base, provide better pavement performance both in the immediate and long terms and/or provide a better wearing course while achieving the same structural integrity specified in this representative section. Please advise if a comparable section can be designed as long as it achieves the same structural number as the section referenced above?

Government Response: Spec 01 11 00, para 1.4.1.i.a) states “for estimating/bid purposes only, the contractor shall assume/account for the following layers and depths for the proposed roadway full depth repair”. The purpose of providing this cross-section is to allow all contractors to bid the same. However, after contract award, a pavement design is still to be provided per Spec 01 11 00, section 1.4.1.i.b). This cross-section is not set in stone and still has to be designed by a licensed engineer.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.4.1.i.a & 1.4.1.i.b

2. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.4.1.i.a, a lime stabilized section is proposed. This process is both costly and requires a significant cure time while exposed to weather elements. We suggest allowing stabilizing alternatives such as geogrid / geotextiles and other industry standards. As this is a Design Build project, please advise if uses of alternative subgrade stabilization methods are acceptable?

Government Response: Contractor to account for lime stabilization for bidding purposes per the SOW. However, the Design Engineer can propose a stabilizing alternative in design, but it will be subjected to Government Approval.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.4.1.i.c

3. Please provide a laydown and staging area for this project as none was noted. We would suggest the large open area in Phase 3 across from the tennis courts and turf field

Government Response: Contractor to submit Laydown Area request per SOW.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.2 Submittals – Contractor Laydown Area Request. Additional verbiage about the request is in paragraph 1.4.3.

Attachment 13 RFI Questions and Goverment ResponsesFA301624B0001 15 JUL 2024

4. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.4.1.i.h, a tra ic control plan is required. Please provide more guidance on what will be required as this information is not provided within the guidance of the “Tra ic Controls for Street and Highway Construction and Maintenance Operations”. Does this consist of proper road closed barricades only, or is more required such as detour signs, advance warning signs, flagmen, digital signs, etc?

Government Response: Tra ic Control requirements are found in specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.4.1.3.3.4. Additional verbiage is also in Specification 01 14 00 & Specification 01 50 00.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.4.1.3.3.4, Specification 01 14 00, & Specification 01 50 00.

5. SOW Paragraph 1.4.14 states contractor to abate yellow pavement markings. Although the entire project area consists of yellow pavement markings, Appendix C Page 1 of 10 indicates a test on 4/13/2023 which states William Hardee Road from Winfield Scott to Forage Ave. are positive for lead based paint. Winfield Scott to Forage only encompasses Phases 2 and 3 of this project. Please confirm there is no lead based paint abatement in Phase 1 as it is not indicated in the report.

Government Response: Contractor to abate lead based yellow pavement markings. This requirement is for the entire project, all phases.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.4.1.3.2

6. Can the government provide as built drawings of the existing roadway so we can evaluate what type of material will be removed to properly account for expected disposal costs? What is the asphalt thickness? Base thickness? Etc.?

Government Response: Existing cross-section is provided in SOW.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 00 00, paragraph 1.4.1.i.l

7. Related to the previous question, if As-Builts are not available, what thickness of asphalt should the contractor assume for removal purposes?

Government Response: See response to #6

SOW Reference: See response to #6

8. If As-Builts are not available, what thickness of base should the contractor assume for removal purposes?

9. SOW states to use “TXDOT” Type D and “TXDOT” Type B. What TXDOT spec are we talking about? TXDOT 340 Dense Graded Mix or TXDOT 344 Superpave Mix. My recommendation would be TXDOT 340 for Type B and TXDOT 344 for Type D. Please confirm that TXDOT guidance should be utilized for asphalt versus UFGS mix design requirements.

Government Response: The type is provided in SOW for estimating purposes.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.4.1.i.a.

10. During the site walk a 6’ tall construction fence was discussed on the neighborhood side of the road during construction. Is this required during all phases or just specific phases?

Government Response: Per SOW, “Contractor shall include a six (6) feet fence between the sidewalk and the housing neighborhood during each phase of construction.”

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.4.1.i.h.

11. 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: Contractor must submit a Lead Abatement Plan per the Enviromental

Specification that will be reviewed by Environmental for approval.

SOW Reference: JBSA Enviromental Specification 01 57 20.

12. Can milling of lead markings be performed provided trucks are lined properly and lead is disposed of in accordance with state regula ons? This is recommended as manual means of removal is very costly and will extend the length of the project.

Government Response: See response #11

SOW Reference: See response #11

13. If milling of markings is not acceptable what does the base require for removal of the lead paint pavement markings?

Government Response: See response #11

SOW Reference: See response #11

14. Section 01 57 20 paragraph 3.1.4.1 states that soil must be transported to an approved TCEQ permitted disposal location approved by 802 CES/CEIE. TCEQ permitted disposal facilities classify soil as Class II special waste even when testing shows the soil is clean of any contaminants. Please confirm that disposal at a TCEQ permitted disposal location is required and that recycling the soil is not permitted.

Government Response:

a. Disposal is required at an approved TCEQ landfill. Tesseman Landfill or Covel Garden are the only JBSA approved landfills.

b. Lab analysis will be required in accordance with 01 57 20, paragraph 3.1.4.1

c. Results shall be provided to Hazardous Waste Manager for review and approval.

d. A waste profile will have to be established.

f. Waste profiles shall be submitted, and Manifests shall be generated. Only the JBSA Environmental Office will sign as the generator for the profile sheets and manifest.

g. This is required for all waste generated at JBSA, Haz, Non-Haz, Special, and recycling.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 57 20

15. Section 01 57 20 references a JBSA Soil Management Plan. A JBSA Soil Management Plan was not included in the bidding documents. If this is required to be followed can the government provide bidders with the Soil Management Plan.

Government Response: Soil Management Plan will be provided in Appendix I.

SOW Reference:

16. The cost to dispose of soil as Class II Non Hazardous waste at a landfill typically cost in excess of $50/ton so can be a major cost item for this type of project without bringing specific value to the project. Please confirm whether this is the expected requirement for soil disposal on this project?

Government Response: Yes, assume it is Non-Hazardous. See response #14 for additional requirements. See response #14.

17. Please confirm that aggregate base is considered a recyclable material and does not require disposal as Class II Non Hazardous waste at a TCEQ permitted facility as it is not soil. If aggregate base must be disposed as Class II waste versus recycled, at approximately 2304 tons of material at a disposal of $50/ton, disposal of aggregate would cost in excess of $115,200.

We need to clearly identify aggregate base as not soil to avoid this unnecessary cost to the project and risk to the contractor. Please advise.

Government Response: Clean aggregate material can be recycled. The recycling facility has to provide a certificate of recycling, sign a manifest, and provide weight tickets. We would need to know the name of the recycling facility.

18. A previous question requested information on the current thickness of asphalt and base.

Without this information we cannot properly determine the quantity of material that may be required to be disposed at a TCEQ licensed landfill which could lead to a conservative estimate by contractors that could create budget issues for the project. Please advise what the current pavement section is so we know at what depth we should assume soil may be hit that would require TCEQ disposal.

19. Phase 1 CLIN 5 requires Mill & Overlay on William Hardee to Koehler Road. The SOW does not indicate the pavement section for the Mill & Overlay section. We would recommend that the mill & overlay section be no less than 3” Please advise if 3” is an acceptable basis of bid for Mill & Overlay.

Government Response: Per SOW, “Contractor shall mill the existing asphalt pavement down to a depth specified by the Design Engineer.” The existing pavement section is provided in spec 01 11 00, paragraph 1.4.1.i.l.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.i.l & paragraph 1.4.1.2.5

20. Based on the site walk, the limits of Phase 1 Mill / Overlay and Phase 1 Full reconstruc on were amended to align with an exis ng light pole just passed Garden Avenue, please confirm.

Government Response: Appendix C of SOW has been updated with new phase 1 limits.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 – Appendix C

21. As curbs on both sides of the street will be reconstructed, excavated overcut in order to form and pour the new curbs will require encroachment approximately 2’ beyond the exis ng back of curb. This will impact exis ng trees very close to the curb in some areas. While great care will be given to the trees in these areas, the contractor cannot guarantee that large roots and tree damage will not occur. Please confirm the long term health of these exis ng trees within this required construc on zone is not the contractors responsibility. Alterna vely, suggest removal of these trees in close proximity to the road as they are contribu ng to pavement failures.

Government Response: Contractor must plan to protect trees in place per the Environmental Spec. Removal or trimming of trees must be approved by Environmental.

22. Please confirm that the Op on CLIN will be awarded with the base bid, if at all. Staggered award will result in addi onal mobiliza on costs of geotechnical and survey crews, and an addi onal design package. Please confirm all awards will be simultaneous, or if contractor should assume a later award of the Op on CLIN, and price accordingly.

Government Response: CLIN 5 will be awarded with the base bid if enough funds are available.

There is no intent to stagger the award of CLIN 5.

23. It is recommended that the design associated with the Op on CLIN be included in the Base Bid cost since design will start immediately to allow addi onal me for the Op on to be awarded. Please advise.

Government Response: The design on CLIN 5 is to be included within the design phase (CLIN 1

– Full Design). Even if CLIN 5 is not awarded, the design can still used in a follow-on project as long as it is broken out as such.

24. Reference Appendix A Site Maps: Confirm limits of replacement at all parking lots and adjoining street intersec ons. Should this be to the projected gu er line, or curb returns? Appendix A indicates replacement to the gu er line, please confirm. Many parking lots have conflic ng pavement structure such as concrete aprons?

Government Response: Appendix C – Site Maps will be updated to show this additional information.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 – Appendix C

25. Reference 01 11 00 1.3.1 requires Traffic Counts in the 65% deliverable. Please confirm need for this as pavement design criteria is based on other informa on.

Government Response: A Tra ic Study is required for pavement design e ort. SOW will be updated.

SOW Reference: Specification 0 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.i.b.

26. Reference 01 11 00 1.3.1b, 1.3.2.c, and 1.3.3.c, suggest not issuing CAD files in the interim submi als. CAD files at IFC and asbuilt submi als are more appropriate, similar to .SEC files for specifica ons. Also referenced in 01 33 16.00 10 1.6

Government Response: CAD files are required at each review iteration per SOW for file concurrence reviews, no exceptions.

SOW Reference: Specification 0 11 00

27. Reference 01 11 00 1.3.4 references a TCEQ permit, can you please specify which permit(s) is(are) intended?

Government Response: Permitting required is based on the size of the total project site, per TCEQ requirements. All applicable permitting and notifications shall be provided by the contractor based on the total project area.

28. Reference 01 11 00 1.4.1.i.b specifies comple on of Traffic counts. Where should this be completed? When will this be completed? Traffic counts typically need to be done during periods when school is in session to be valid. Most importantly, what is the traffic count for? Traffic counts will tell you how much exis ng traffic and type of traffic is on a street, but do not dictate what they should be designed to and what growth rates should be applied. In order for the D.O.R. to provide a design, traffic escala on and service life must also be specified. Regarding traffic count report, UFC 3-201-01 does not provide this informa on. It does reference SDDCTEA Pamphlet 55-17 and 55-8 which provide useful informa on on street design, but not informa on needed to complete this project. As a minimum, the govt will need to specify design life and requirements for trips. Example:

design to current traffic as determined by school day counts with a 20 year design life. It is recommended that Traffic Counts not be required and instead the government provide a design life.

Please advise.

Government Response: A Tra ic Study is required for pavement design e ort. SOW has been

SOW Reference: Specification 0 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.i.b

29. Reference 01 11 00 1.4.1.i.g, replace two storm water inlets. Confirm we are just replacing the top por on of the inlet that is damaged, not the whole junc on box / reconnec ng exis ng storm drain pipes.

Government Response: Contractor to replacing storm water inlet (i.e. the structure) per the

SOW.

SOW Reference: Specification 0 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.i.g

30. Reference 01 11 00 1.4.1.i.j requires a minimum 1% crowned roadway. Not all areas will be able to maintain a crown as por ons of the street “washout” to allow for drainage to reach an inlet on one side of the street. Please confirm that excep ons to the crowned road are acceptable as applicable to maintain posi ve drainage.

Government Response: Yes, exceptions can be made per the SOW. Refer to Specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.4.1.ii.1 and paragraph 1.4.1.ii.c

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.4.1.ii.1 and paragraph 1.4.1.ii.c

31. Reference 01 11 00 1.4.5 Noteworthy Submi al require a Fire Protec on Design Analysis. This does not seem applicable to this project. Please confirm this is N/A.

Government Response: It is not applicable and will be removed.

32. Reference 01 11 00 1.5, design kick off mee ng is noted as 1 calendar day a er NTP. In order for this to be possible with coordinate govt personnel schedules, advance no ce of NTP date must be specified, preferably 14 days prior to NTP. This appears to be consistent with the issuance coordinated in the Post Award Conference under 01 33 16.00 10 1.4.2.

Government Response: The NTP date will be discussed and established at the Contracting Kick-O meeting. This typically provided enough time to lead-time to have both side coordinate on schedules.

SOW Reference: n/a

33. Reference 01 33 16.00 10 1.3.1 Under TBPE rules, only plans issued as “for construc on” should be signed and sealed. Please confirm.

Government Response: Yes, that is correct. Only the IFC package needs to be signed and sealed per the SOW.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 00 00, paragraph 1.3.7

34. Reference 01 33 16.00 10 1.6, The 65% design submi al is not defined as it is throughout other parts of the RFP. Confirm submi al.

Government Response: The 65% design submittal is defined in specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.4

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.3.4

35. Reference 01 33 16.00 3.5.3 Confirm project is not subject to ATFP requirements.

Government Response: DOR to evaluate if there are any applicable ATFP requirements.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 33 16.00 10

36. Reference 01 35 13.10 00 3.1.2, removing requirement for RPLS to a end a survey kickoff mee ng and specific the mee ng to take place on site at start of survey. Most field crew are not RPLS. RPLS are typically necessary for boundary and easement analysis, which is not within the scope of this effort.

Government Response: Contractor must comply with this requirement as outlined in referenced specification.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 35 13.10 00

37. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.4.1.i.a, a lime stabilized section is proposed. This process is both costly, and requires a significant cure time while exposed to weather elements. We suggest allowing stabilizing alternatives such as geogrid / geotextiles, deeper base sections, and other industry standards.

Government Response: See response to #2

SOW Reference: See response to #2

38. Per 01 35 13.10 00 Special Procedures – Surveying 3.3.4, field books shall be provided. Suggest removing this requirement for this type of project.

Government Response: This requirement will be removed.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 33 13.10 00, paragraph 3.3.4

39. Please provide GIS u lity maps for the overall project area, showing exis ng known u lity and other infrastructure.

Government Response: GIS data to be provided after contract award. Utility maps for refence are provided in Appendix G

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 – Appendix G

40. Please provide As-Built Record Drawings for the project area.

Government Response: There are no as-built records available.

SOW Reference: n/a

41. For bidding purposes please provide a construc on laydown area loca on.

Government Response: Contractor may propose their ideal location(s) for laydown areas.

Final location will be determined after review by Government’s Community Planning team and approval by the BCE.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 paragraph 1.4.3

42. Please provide any available geotechnical reports of the project site.

Government Response: The Government does not have geotechnical reports for the project site. That is why a geotechnical report is being required as part of this project.

SOW Reference: Specifications 01 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.3.3.1

43. Please confirm that there are no shallow duct banks or u li es within sec on 04 or 05 that will be encountered during roadway construc on requiring reloca on.

Government Response: Available utility location data does not appear to show shallow utilities within the project area. If encountered during the project, it would be considered an unforeseen condition.

44. For smaller projects such as these, typically TXDoT mix designs (Type D Asphalt, Type B Asphalt, Flexible Base) are typically allowed by JBSA as local sources do not source small batch UFGS mix designs (which as also much more expensive to batch, when they are available). Per UFGS tailoring requirements, this is only allowed with govt approval (this is not a DOR decision without govt approval). Recent overlays/reconstruc ons to Nursery Road and Schofield Road used TXDoT mixes as is standard prac ce.

Government Response: Use of TXDoT mix designs is allowed. DOR shall determine the appropriate mix designs to utilize for new work.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00, paragraph 1.4.1.i.a.

45. Confirm pavements markings will be replaced in kind.

Government Response: Refer to SOW-specs for requirement.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.2.7.

46. Confirm requirements of exis ng crosswalks. Are they to be replaced in kind? Specifically, Hardee and Garden Ave intersec on, Hardee and Patch Road Intersec on, Hardee and Winfield Sco Intersec on within repavement limits.

Government Response: Unsure what is being referenced as replace in-kind. New sidewalks shall have width that is in compliance with the requirements of Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), via U.S.

Access Board.

47. On the area of Mill and overlay, there are several areas that the curb have broken areas. Should replacement of curb in the mill & overlay be included for Phase 1 CLIN 5.

Government Response: Yes, include replacement of the curb and gutter in the mill/overlay section.

48. On Phase 1 ramps, when removing existing curb to build new ramps for ADA, existing driveways are cracked in several areas. Do we repair existing driveways?

Government Response: Contractor to repair portions as outline within he project limits unless approved otherwise.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 - Appendix C

49. On the 2 inlets that are supposed to be reconstructed. Do you know what size of existing RCP that will have to be removed? Also, can this inlets be Cast in Place?

Government Response: Size of existing RCP is not known. Inlet structure type to be determined by the design specifications provided by the DOR.

50. During the site visit it was indicated that three (3) separate tra ic control plans would be required for submission. Is it acceptable to submit a single tra ic control plan that indicates the plan for each phase of work along with a schedule of that work?

Government Response: As long as each phase clearly and correctly shows the tra ic control measures to be taken in each phase, a combined TCP can be submitted.

51. It was indicated during the site walk that an existing bus ramp near building 899 was not included in this project. Please confirm.

Government Response: Confirmed the concrete bus ramp is not in-scope for this project.

52. Is there a prefered laydown area?

Government Response: Contractor may propose their ideal location(s) for laydown areas.

Final location will be determined after review by Government’s Community Planning team and approval by the BCE.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 paragraph 1.4.3.

53. Will a laydown area be needed for each phase, or is it expected the contractor will utilize the same laydown area for all phases?

Government Response: Contractor shall determine if a single laydown area will su ice, or if it will need to adjust during the project. Keep in mind timeline for laydown area approval indicated in the SOW-specs and TCEQ rules for SWPPP.

54. Is there a prefered temporary o ice area?

Government Response: Refer to RFI response for question #51.

55. Are there any permits required to be filed other than for SWPPP?

Government Response: Permitting required is based on the size of the total project site, per TCEQ requirements. All applicable permitting and notifications shall be provided by the contractor based on the total project area.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 57 20.

56. What is the GC to do with spoils, dispose of on-site or o -site? Recyle material? Please clarify for all of the demolished items. It is our understanding that only the asphalt can be recycled and would be used as black fill in our new typical section. All sub-base, base and concrete are to be disposed of o -site. Please note that the costs of recycling material on-site far exceed the cost of taking the material o -site and disposing, and hauling in new material.

Government Response: Soils not capable of being reused with the limits of the project shall be removed from the Installation and tested, profiled, and manifested directly to an approved landfill.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.2.2 & 01 57 20 paragraph 3.6.

57. Is there any geotechnical information the Govt. is able to provide to further eliminate any unknowns? I.e. past projects, projects within proximty.

Government Response: There is no relevant geotechnical information to provide. SOW-specs require this investigation as part of the design.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.3.3.1 & 01 33 16.00 10 paragraph 3.6.1.

58. Please provide any relavent as-builts / GIS for underground utilities.

Government Response: Any available GIS data will be provided after award. For the time being, reference solicitation attachment showing utility maps.

SOW Reference: Attachment G

59. Can phasing be reconsidered in design?

Government Response: No large-scale changes to phasing are allowed. Minor adjustments to the phase limits are allowed.

60. Is a tra ic study required to be completed by the contractor in formulation of the tra ic control plan?

Government Response: Yes, a Tra ic Study is required.

SOW Reference: Specification 0 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.b.

61. Are there any base-wide events that would impact the tra ic control plan or scheduling over the next fiscal year?

Government Response: No known events on FSH would be detrimentally impacted by the Phasing requirements currently outlined. The requirements outlined for the TCP shall su ice.

SOW Reference: Specification 0 11 00.

62. Can printing be eliminated from the project requirements? All submissions and all preliminary and final drawing sets will be fully digital. In our expereince, these prints are often overlooked / never used due to our digitally advanced society.

Government Response: Government still requires hard-copy submission where indicated in the SOW-specs, in addition to the electronic files needed for all submissions.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00.

63. Are there any noise restrictions with the housing across the street from the construction site?

Government Response: Noise levels shall be monitored and mitigated per requirements outlined in the latest version of EM385-1-1.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 35 26.

64. What scheduling software is to be utilized by the Govt.? The suggested 3064 is not compatable with the required reports being requested.

1. Specification section 01 32 01.00 10 outlines the requirements for a critical path method (CPM) schedule utilizing the The AF Form 3064 as a scheduling method. It is not compatible with scheduling programs like Microsoft Project (or Primivera based on previous questions answer) . It would be our recommendation for the government to select an option that best accomplishes the requirement.

a. Option 1: Provide a detailed Microsoft Project Schedule that produces the content, or “supplemental data” for the 3065. The supplemental data reports that will be included will be Summary Sheets with the Line Items direct from the 3065. There will also be a detailed Task Sheet that explains how the Summary was organized. Lastly, there will also be a Gantt Chart that is organized by the Start Date that visually revels the Critical Path Method. The supplemental data will be provided weekly with the 3065 Progress Report only, eliminating the use for the 3064 entirely. The Approved 3065 will be utilized to bill at the end of each month.

b. Option 2: Only utilize the Microsoft Project Schedule. This will allow the owner to request Microsoft Compatible Reports if necessary. This eliminates all requirements for the 3064 / 3065. Signature blocks can be added at the bottom of the Microsoft project Schedule Reports for government and contractor concurrence.

c. Option 3: No Microsoft Project Schedule, utilizing only the 3064 and 3065 for Scheduling, Progress Reporting and Billing requirements.

Please select an acceptable option that will be utilized for scheduling purposes or outline detailed requirements that should be considered. It wouldbe recommend Option 2 as the paperwork load will be reduced, in-turn reducing manhours on both the General Contractor and the Inspector or Review.

Government Response: Referenced specification does not specify the use of an AF3064.

CONS shall direct if an AF3064 is required. 802 CES is okay with using the detailed schedule in place of the AF3064. Scheduling software utilized by the contractor shall meet all requirements of the referenced specification. All deliverables identified by that specification shall be delivered at the frequency outlined within it. CONS requires use of the AF3065 for progress payment requests. Line items shown on the AF3065 shall be reviewed and approved by the Government, and shall represent a condensed version of the full schedule. This response appears to mirror Option 1 shown in the RFI, however Government’s response is the final compliance requirement. 502CONS Input: The contractor’s scheduling reports are acceptable as long as the documentation is similar and provides readily readable elements similar to the IMT AF3064 elements. If not the IMT AF3064 will be required.

65. Is the width / centerline of the roadway being matched or will it be altered? It appeared that when larger vehicles were utilizing the roadway, they often crossed over the centerline, particularly around curves.

Government Response: Government is not requiring changes to roadway width.

66. Is tensar geogrid stablization acceptable in lieu of the lime stabilization? Tensar geogrid provides cost saving through both material cost & instalation timelines, Government Response: See response to RFI #2.

67. Please confirm if the bus ramp is to remain in place.

Government Response: Concrete bus ramp shall remain in place. Design shall take this into account in determining new work details for the road, curb, and gutter.

68. While on the site visit, there was an active project o Koehler, is there an estimated completion to that project? This information needs to be coordinated with our TCP.

Government Response: Timeline for that construction e ort will be shared during TCP development. However, Phase 1 of the work will likely finish before the adjacent construction site and construction is completed.

69. Durring the site visit, it was discussed that an ADA ramp was not on the drawings, but needed to

be. Please add the ADA ramp to the site drawings or confirm the previous drawing set depicted all required ramps.

Government Response: Sow-specs and attachments will be updated to show all locations.

SOW Reference: Appendix C

70. Please detail the cut lines for demolition and for the re-construction at intersections. Please consider that an additional 10-15' is required between our fence and the asphalt cut-line for machinary passage for site area.

Government Response: Overhead view attachment (Appendix C) will be revised to further clarify cut line between each Phase of construction.

71. If the Mill/Overlay option was approved / funded, our intent would be to FULLY design the mill/overlay in the 65% package to allow for construction to begin on that portion prior to the full approval in packages 95% thru IFC. Is this acceptable?

Government Response: Construction cannot start until all design work and Tra ic Control Plans have been completed and approved. Phase 1 includes both the full-depth and mill/overlay features of work.

72. There are a lot of trees overhanging the project site. All milling equipment will hit multiple trees along the roadway. Please clarify if the GC is to provide an arborist or if this will be at the cost of the government.

Government Response: Contractor shall provide its own arborist.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 57 20 paragraph 3.1.1.2.

73. If the government is providing their own arborist, please provide their detailed SOW in order to understand what costs the GC will have. i.e. cutting & disposal.

Government Response: Government will not provide its own arborist. Any tree trimming required is the responsibility of the contractor.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 57 20 paragraph 3.1.1.2.

74. Are new sidewalks to match widths? Or is a new width required.

Government Response: New sidewalks shall be the minimum required width as directed by ABA requirements. ABA is referenced by UFC 1-200-01 and its applicable sub-referenced UFCs.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.3.1.d.

75. Please clarify the required topsoil depth for revegitating disturbed areas?

Government Response: For bidding purposes, contractor to assume 4 inches of topsoil.

However, DOR to provide final approvable topsoil depth in design specification. SOW will be

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00

76. Is sodding and/or seeding acceptable? Please clarify allowable types of sod/seed.

Government Response: Either method is acceptable as long landscaping is re-established. All new landscape plant species must be regionally native. Follow the restrictions identified by the SOW-specs referenced.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.3.3.5 & 01 57 20 paragraph 3.7.

77. Please identify usuable water source(s) for establishment, or if water will need to be imported.

If we are to use nearby hydrants, are there any restrictions to be made aware of?

Government Response: Water shall be sourced from hydrants. Coordination with American Water will be required to operate selected hydrants. Applicable Water Usage Restriction Stage as it changes shall be followed. SOW-spec package will be updated to state this.

78. A Fire Protection Design Analysis is referenced as part of the 65%, 95%, and 100% Design Documents. Is this applicable?

Government Response: It is not applicable and will be removed.

79. Clarify the number of allowable days for Government review of dig permits.

Government Response: Please read the provided Government specifications.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 14 00 paragraph 1.3.6.1.

80. Does the sawcutting of ashphalt or concrete require a hot work permit?

Government Response: Contractor should already be aware of the situations that require a hot work permit. Situations were needed are governed by NFPA 51B, as stated in the Government issued specifications.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 14 00 paragraph 1.3.6.3 & 01 35 26 paragraph 1.13.

81. UFGS 32 16 19 does not require reinforcing steel in Concrete Curbs & Gutters. Given the soil conditions, should reinforcing steel included in the SOW for bid purposes?

Government Response: Yes, steel reinforcement should be estimated as part of the replacement for curbs & gutters. It should be noted that since this requirement is a design-build requirement, UFGS 32 16 19 has not been created and tailored for this project. As mentioned in the SOW-spec package, design is required so details for curb and gutter construction are for a DOR to determine. It should be noted that the default, un-tailored version of UFGS 32 16 19 gives material requirements for reinforcing steel. It does not state what this RFI is claiming.

SOW Reference: Specification 01 11 00 paragraph 1.4.1.

82. The opposite side of the road where the sidewalks are to remain in place have a couple of concrete blocks behind the curbs. Are these to be removed or remain in place?

Government Response: Comment does not give a clear indication of the exact location being referenced. During the site walk, Government reps did give direction that miscellaneous deadend concrete walkways found on the Northside of Hardee Rd. Will add clarifying details to the SOW-spec package to outline the areas were found.

83. What type / size of Storm Inlet are being replaced?

Government Response: Type is not known and shall be determined by the DOR. Size of the inlets should have been measured during the site walk.