Attachment 17-Trurmper Road Site Visit Questions and Goverment Responses.pdf

Page 1 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024

Repair Truemper Street Q&A (Revised 23 JUL 2024)

1. 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: For Bid purpose only, per the Statement of Work, plan for a 3” asphalt layer over an 8” base course, SOW Reference: 1.1.3.1

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

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

4. It is recommended that TXDOT specs be utilized for asphalt pavement for readily available material. We recommend 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: Project SHALL conform with Unified Facilities Guide Specifications / Whole Building Design Guide (UFGS/ WBDG). SOW Reference:1.1.2

5. 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 Permitted disposal location is required for known tested & contaminated spoils that are proposed to be disposed of off-site after being stock-piled during make-ready operations for new work. However, Spoils that are planned to be reincorporated into new work, on-site is not required to be tested. Spoils that are not re-incorporated into the work Shall be tested and manifested before hauled off-site of JBSA.

Non-contaminated soil may be redistributed in another location on JBSA; however, the Contractor SHALL submit a Soil Management Plan that quantifies the volume/ tonnage of soil to be removed, the soil classification, and the proposed disposal location and proposed depths and drainage impact, if any, as part of the Design.

Page 2 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024

If the disposal site is on JBSA (for non-hazardous/ non-contaminated, , area and depth of placement in proposed new location with-in the JBSA complex, relocation and recycling of the soil must be proposed via a Soil Management and Disposal Plan developed by the Contractor/ DOR and APPROVED by the JBSA Soil Management & Disposal Team. The GOVT understands the need to balance off-site soil disposal costs with on-site relocation. It is our goal to make this process efficient and cost effective to both the GOVT and the Contractor, and to minimize soil volumes removed from JBSA and deposited at permitted landfills in, and around, Bexar County.

SOW Reference: 3.1.4.1

6. 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: GOVT has attached a sample Soil Management Guidance with this response.

SOW Reference: 1.2.4

7. 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: GOVT has attached a sample Soil Management Guidance with this response. SOW Reference: 1.2.4 and 01 57 20

8. 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 $115,000.

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

Government Response: GOVT has attached a sample Soil Management Guidance with this response.

SOW Reference: Section 01 7 20

9. 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.

Page 3 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024

10. Please provide GIS utility maps for the overall project area, showing existing known utility and other infrastructure.

Government Response: Note Mill & overlay will not require utility maps, however where the full depth areas (4B,4D, and section 05) map will be provided. .

SOW Reference: See attached Utilities Map

11. For bidding purposes please provide linear footage and widths for sections 04 and 05.

Government Response: Reference Appendix D1 Section plan to compute the approximate Square Footage of these areas. SOW Reference: 1.1.1 Project Description

12. To provide for competitive bidding, representative pavements sections MUST be provided for all replacements. In lieu of representative sections, contractors will have to make assumptions which will be inconsistent. For bidding purposes please provide the mill / overlay depth for section 04.

13. Please provide any available geotechnical reports of the project site that have been done in the past.

Government Response: Current Geo-technical Reports are not available . The intent of the Design portion of this Design- Build proposal is to obtain core samples and additional data to develop an accurate Geotechnical Report. Please include the cost of such report as part of your design proposal.

SOW Reference: SUMMARY OF WORK 1.1.4.1 (Civil) and 1.6 Noteworthy Submittals.

14. Please confirm that all grades for sections 04, 05, and 06 shall match like for like.

Government Response: There is no Section 06 in this SOW (Statement of Work) There was a Section 6 in a previous solicitation version, but that was deleted on subsequent revision.) The Grades for all Sections (4 & 5) will remain the same as existing.

SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.41

15. Please confirm that there are no shallow duct banks within section 04, 05, or 06 that will be encountered during roadway construction.

Government Response: There are no known is no shallow duct bank section for 04 and 05; however, the purpose of the design for this project will be to validate this assumption. SOW Reference: N/A

16. For smaller projects such as these, typically TXDoT mix designs (Type D Asphalt, Type B Asphalt, Flexible Base) are allowed by JBSA as local suppliers do not source small batch UFGS mix designs. Per UFGS tailoring requirements, this is only allowed with govt approval (this is not a DOR decision without govt approval). Recent overlays/reconstructions to Kenley Road, Truemper Section 5, Gary Road, and Carswell Ave used TXDoT mixes. Please advise if TXDOT mixes are acceptable for base and asphalt.

Page 4 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024

Government Response: Contractor to propose using UFGS mix design as per SOW. Unified Facilities Guide Specifications / Whole Building Design Guide (UFGS/ WBDG) mix design to be submitted for Bidding.

SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.2 IFB Execution

17. It appears that a secondary access point, shown below, may allow for full closure of Section 5 in lieu of costly alternate lane closures. Please specify if this detour would be possible instead of alternate lane closures to Section 5.

18. Government Response: There is no approved route as depicted by the red line shown in the graphic above. Please propose the Work as Alternate Lane Closures for purposes of Bidding. Alternate Traffic Control Plans will be reviewed for approval by the GOVT after award, to reduce costs and make traffic flow more efficient for the GOVT; however, approval of any complete roadway closure, should not be assumed as approvable, for purposes of Bidding this work. Detours will be acceptable to maintain two -way traffic on one lane roads.

SOW Reference: 1.4.5.4 Road Closure Approval Requests

19. Per 01 11 00 1.1.4.1, a traffic control plan is required. Please confirm what sections must remain open, partially open, may be closed, how many lanes, detours available, etc.

Government Response: For purposes of bidding, Detours will be acceptable to maintain two way traffic when one lane of traffic will remain open at all times for one -way traffic, and the road will remain open 24/7 for emergency vehicle, that no complete closures will be permitted along this route. Actual Traffic Control plan to be submitted for approval after award. SOW Reference: 01 11 00 1.1.4.1

Page 5 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024

20. For road pavement section design after award, design traffic (usually in ESALS) and design life must be provided by the government for bidding purposes. Please provide so an accurate estimate can be prepared.

Government Response: Traffic Count Data will be attached with this response.

SOW Reference: See ADT report attached

21. No curb, ADA ramp, or sidewalk work is proposed by SOW. Please confirm this is accurate. If any work is required, please identify locations and footages.

Government Response: Existing curbs, gutters, ADA ramp or sidewalks are to remain.

SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.1 Project description

22. Please confirm pavements markings will be replaced in kind. If not, please provide direction for pavement markings.

Government Response: Please follow the SOW. Pavement markings are to remain in kind.

SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.4.1

23. An asphalt cement binder is not specified for this project. Does the government require a specific binder (PG64-22, PG70-22, PG76-22)? If this were a COSA street, it would likely be 70- 22 which we recommend for this application. Please advise if this will be acceptable?

Government Response: Government Response: Project SHALL conform with Unified Facilities Guide Specifications / Whole Building Design Guide (UFGS/ WBDG). SOW Reference:1.1.2

24. If PG76-22 cement binder is required, straight edge testing need to be eliminated or revised.

City of San Antonio does not require straight edge testing when PG76-22 is used. If a PG76-22 binder is required, please eliminate straight edge testing or revise to ½” over 12”. Please advise.

Government Response: Project SHALL conform with Unified Facilities Guide Specifications / Whole Building Design Guide (UFGS/ WBDG). SOW Reference:1.1.2 Government Response: SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10

25. In Section 4, what is the existing pavement section?

Government Response: See Appendix D-1 Section Map SOW Reference: Appendix D-1 Section Map.

26. Please confirm all work can be done during daytime normal working hours.

Government Response: Normal work hours are 0730-1700 Monday-Friday.

SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.4

27. A mill / overlay scope was referenced on the site walk on the West side of Military Drive, adjacent to the Pfingtston Center. The proposed stop point was in the vicinity to the photo below. Per the RFP Attachment 2 Appendix D1 the Mill & Overlay stops before crossing over

Page 6 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024

Military Drive. Please add the scope to the RFP along with details for this section regarding stopping at the light pole in front of the Pfingston Center as shown below.

Government Response: Please follow the Appendix D1, Mill and overlay stop on the other side (East Side) of the Truemper bridge, adjacent to the end point of the guard rail on the East side of the Bridge

SOW Reference: 01 11 00.10 and Appendix D-1

28. Reference 01 11 00.10 1.1.1, please provide Mill / Overlay depth for Sections 4A, 4C, and 4E for bidding purposes. To provide for competitive bidding, representative pavements sections MUST be provided for all replacement. In lieu of representative sections, contractors will have to make assumptions which will be inconsistent. For bidding purposes please provide the mill / overlay depth for section 4A, 4C, and 4E. We recommend 3”.

Government Response: Please follow the Statement of Work in developing your proposal.

SOW Reference: 01 11 00.10

29. Reference 01 11 00.10 1.1.3.1 mentions an 8” sub-base section of native material for bidding purposes. Is this meant to be proof rolled only, moisture conditioned / processed, or stabilized (lime or other)?

Government Response: Assume lime stabilization to be used in full depth replacements.

SOW Reference: 01 11 00.10 1.1.3.1

30. Reference 01 11 00.10 1.1, please confirm limits of replacement at all parking lots and adjoining street intersections. Should this be to the projected gutter line, or curb returns? Many parking lots have conflicting pavement structure such as concrete aprons.

Government Response: The Limits of this project will be up to curb returns and concrete aprons into the parking lots. We will not be doing any work over existing concrete aprons, nor into adjacent parking lots. SOW Reference: 01 11 00.10

31. Reference 01 11 00.10 1.1.4.1 Indicates that existing curb will remain and that current street profiles will be maintained, while also requiring positive drainage. Depending on the results of survey, there may be sections of curb to remain that are contributing to ponding /

Page 7 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024 saturated pavement sections. We advise an estimated LF of curb/gutter replacement be specified in the bid for these areas, or line item in the bid for curb/gutter replacement for bid purposes.

Government Response: Existing Curbs and street profile remain the same. Survey report to be provided, for positive drainage determination. If during design, survey analysis confirms this to be the case, the GOVT will review proposal to correct the deficiency. For Bid Purposes, Curbs, Gutters and Approaches remain the same and are not part of this proposal.

SOW Reference: 01 11 00.10

32. Reference 01 11 00.10 1.4, no phasing requirements are required. Please confirm this will be a full closure of all lanes for the entire 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, and 5 areas. Some parking areas and other facilities could become inaccessible for extended periods of time. On the site walk, it was mentioned that some traffic thoroughfare must be maintained throughout construction.

Please confirm what sections must remain open, partially open, may be closed, how many lanes, detours available.

Government Response: For purposes of bidding, assume that one lane of traffic will remain open at all times for two-way traffic, and the road will remain open 24/7 for emergency vehicles that no complete closures will be permitted along this route. Actual Traffic Control plan to be submitted for approval after award.

SOW Reference: 01 11 00 1.1.4.1

33. Reference 01 33 16.00 10 1.5.2.2.1, suggest removing this requirement. JBSA CAD standards closely mimic AEC Tri-Services with few deviations as the standard for federal projects. Additionally, Appendix B was not included in solicitation documents as directed. Suggest as needed coordination.

Government Response: Concur. Please remove this requirement.

SOW Reference: 01 33 16.00 10 1.5.2.2.1

34. Reference 01 33 16.00 10 3.2.4, holiday periods. With the projected solicitation close, award date, etc, it’s likely that the two weeks during December will happen within the design review period. Suggest adding 2 weeks to the design duration to account for this period. As an example, CLIN 0004 is 14 days total which would constitute this entire holiday period.

Government Response: Concur. Gov. Holidays will be considered for Holiday time extensions.

SOW Reference: 01 33 16.00 10 3.2.4,

35. Reference 01 33 16.00 10 3.6.c.1 and 3.6.c.2, These deliverables do not make sense based on project. What document does the govt want framed and matted behind glass and what image file is requested?

Government Response: Concur. No Framing or matting is required as a deliverable for this project;

however, one printed hard copy of the DRAFT Plans & Specifications, as well as one complete Drawing set, Shall be provided with each Design Submittal. (35%, 65%, 100% and IFC) Intermediate

Page 8 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024 drawings shall be printed on half size (17” X22”) sheets. IFC (Issued for Construction) Drawings shall be on one full sized set @ 24”X36”, and one- half size @ (17” X22”) drawing sheets.

SOW Reference: 01 33 16.00 10 3.6.c.1 and 3.6.c.2

36. Reference 01 33 16.00 10 3.6.3.2, please confirm this project is not subject to ATFP requirements.

Government Response: Confirmed. This project is not governed by ATFP requirements. .

SOW Reference: 01 33 16.00 10 3.6.3.2

37. Reference 01 35 13.10 00 3.1.2, removing requirement for RPLS to attend a survey kickoff meeting and specific the meeting 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: Since it is a repair road project we can eliminate requirement of RPLS surveyor. For bidding purpose.

SOW Reference: 01 35 13.10 00 3.1.2

38. Reference 01 35 13.10 00 3.6.1, 3.6.2, and 3.6.3 requires Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), X-ray, bore scope, or ultrasound for all utilities under impervious surfaces. This would constitute every utility within the limits of our entire project and be very expensive and time consuming. Typically, base personnel locate known utilities to the best of their ability as part of the dig permit as they are required, and the project surveyor will survey marks for inclusion into the plans and care is taken to preserve during construction. Please confirm this is not required.

Government Response: Confirmed, this requirement is non-applicable. With the exception of the visible hand-hold/ valve/ junction boxes and man-hole lids and their stems that are visible from the surface and inset into the pavement structure, all utilities are deeper than 12” below the surface, which we are assuming to be below the depths of required asphalt and base layers; However, JBSA Dig permits are required 30 days prior to full depth replacement sections, and actual section depths must be confirmed during design.

SOW Reference: 01 35 13.10 00

39. Reference 01 33 16.00 10 3.8.1 Please confirm CAD drawings / SEC files can only be required for the IFC Set, and as built at project conclusion. This is typically not required for other design sets which are incomplete.

Government Response: CAD required only for IFC (Issued for Construction) and As-Built Drawings.

PDF copies One half sized drawing set (17”X22”) required for each 35%, 65%, 100% & IFC Design Submittal. In addition, one Full Sized drawing set (24”X36” will also be required with IFC (Issues for Construction) drawings .

Page 9 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024

SOW Reference: 01 33 16.00 10 3.8.1

40. For bidding purposes please provide a construction laydown area location.

Government Response: Location will be just north of Truemper Road. In the open grass area across from the Air Force Lodging Facility.

SOW Reference: Laydown area provided see attached.

41. Please confirm that all grades for sections 04 and 05 shall match like for like.

Government Response: Confirmed. All grades will match, or very closely match, existing.

SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.4.1

42. For smaller projects such as these, typically TXDoT mix designs (Type D Asphalt, Type B Asphalt, Flexible Base) are allowed by JBSA as local sources do not source small batch UFGS mix designs. Per UFGS tailoring requirements, this is only allowed with govt approval (this is not a DOR decision without govt approval). Recent overlays/reconstructions to Kenley Road, Truemper Section 5, Gary Road, and Carswell Ave used TXDoT mixes. Please advise if TXDOT mixes are acceptable?

Government Response: Project SHALL conform with Unified Facilities Guide Specifications / Whole Building Design Guide (UFGS/ WBDG); however, Specifications & Details that are deemed equal or superior to UFGS/ WBDG material and specifications, such as published by TXDOT, Bexar County and City of San Antonio specifications, will be accepted by the GOVT for incorporation into this work.

SOW Reference: 01 11 00.10

43. It was pointed out during the site visit that there were trees in the vicinity of Section 4D and 4E were hanging over the street and would be impacted by paving operations. Please advise if government grounds personnel will perform tree trimming or will the contractor be required to perform?

Government Response: The Government CE Grounds contract does not support construction projects.

Tree trimming will be accomplished by the Contractor. Please factor tree trimming into your proposal price. SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.4.1

44. In Section 5 the road is only two lanes therefore two way traffic will not be possible during construction. Will a detour be acceptable, or will flaggers be required to maintain two way traffic?

Government Response: Detours will be acceptable to maintain two-way traffic on one lane roads.

SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.4.1

45. During the site visit it was mentioned that striping on the concrete over the bridge should also be done. Please confirm that this is required.

Page 10 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024

Government Response: Since the M/O is on east side of the bridge embankment no striping is required on the concrete bridge. Please see Appendix D1.

SOW Reference: See Appendix D1

46. The scope of work or Attachments do not indicate work on existing inlets. Please confirm no inlet repairs are required. If inlet repairs are required please identify locations and specify work required.

Government Response: Inlet repairs are not anticipated to be a part of this contract. The Contractor is responsible for maintaining the current street profiles for runoff to drain to the correct stormwater inlets. location will be provided. Stormwater Protection Plans will be required as part of this Contract.

SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.4.1 Civil

47. Please confirm design deliverables will be 35%, 65%, 100%, and IFC.

Government Response: Yes, confirmed. SOW Reference: SECTION 01 33 16.00 10 3.3.2

48. Please provide required phasing.

Government Response: No phasing required SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.4

49. Is there a preferred laydown area?

Government Response: Siting has been pre-approved, generally across from the Air Force Lodging area adjacent to Truemper. SOW Reference: See Attached Truemper Road Laydown area

50. 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: Only one laydown will be used for this project. Mobilization will not be authorized until Project Design IFC design submittal has been accepted by the GOV.

SOW Reference: See Attached Truemper Road Laydown area

51. Is there a preferred temporary office area?

Government Response: SOW Reference: See Attached Truemper Road Laydown area

52. Are there any permits required to be filled other than for SWPPP?

Government Response: NO. Dig permits are required for all excavation.

SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.8

53. What is the GC to do with spoils, dispose of on-site or off-site? Recycle 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, and base are to be disposed of off-site. Please note that the costs of recycling material on-site far exceed the cost

Page 11 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024 of taking the material off-site and disposing and hauling in new material. Please clarify for all sub-base, base, and asphalt.

Government Response: It is the Contractor’s responsibility locate an acceptable disposal site for removed asphalt millings. There is no on-Site disposal location for asphalt milling disposal site.

Contractor shall submit a detailed Soil Management Plan for GOVT review and approval, as part of Design process. SOW Reference: See attached soil management plan

54. Is there any geotechnical information the Govt. is able to provide to further eliminate any unknowns? i.e. past projects, projects within proximity.

Government Response: It is the GOVT’s intent for the Contractor/ DOR to conduct a geotechnical study with core samples to determine section depths. SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.4.1

55. Please provide any relevant as-builts / GIS for underground utilities.

Government Response: All utilities are below 12” , and below existing subgrade, however dig permit is required 30 days prior to full depth replacement sections.

Is a traffic study required to be completed by the contractor in formulation of the traffic control plan?

Government Response: Traffic study/ counts will be provided by GOVT.

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

Government Response: This is a distinct probability, and the Contractor will be notified by the GOVT when such events arise. GOVT will notify the Contractor. SOW Reference: SECTION 01 30 00

57. Can printing be eliminated from the project requirements? All submissions and all preliminary and final drawing sets will be fully digital. In our experience, these prints are often overlooked due to our digitally advanced society.

Government Response: No, printing cannot be eliminated, but it has been greatly reduced in recent years,. . Please plan to provide One half sized drawing set (17”X22”) required for each 35%, 65%, 100% & IFC (Issued For construction) Design Submittal. In addition, one Full Sized drawing set (24”X36”) will also be required with IFC (Issues for Construction) drawings .

SOW Reference: SECTION 01 45 00.00

58. Are there any noise restrictions with the housing across the street near the golf course?

Government Response: No restriction during regular working hours. There may be noise restrictions for after hours and weekend work. This will be evaluated, case by case, if/when Contractor asks to work outside normal hours. SOW Reference: ECTION 01 11 00.10

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

Page 12 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024

Government Response: Gov. does not suggest using 3064. No specific Software application is required Contractor can present Schedule format for GOVT review and approval, post award.

Contractor Shall develop a Schedule of Values for evaluation of Production progression, during its design process.

SOW Reference: 01 32 01.00 10

60. 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 Primavera 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.

SOW Reference: Section 01 32 01.00 10

Government Response: Contractor Shall submit Scheduling requirements as part of Design process.

software is at Contractor’s discretion. GOVT requires Schedule format that is presented to be clearly legible and easy to read and follow. SOW Reference: Section 01 32 01.00 10

61. Is the width / centerline of the roadway being matched or will it be altered?

Government Response: Contractor will match existing roadway dimensions and markings.

Please detail the limits of demolition and re-construction at intersections. Please consider 15' is required between our fence and the asphalt cut line for machinery passage.

Government Response: Follow Appendix D-1 Section Map Reference SOW Reference: 01 57 20 3.1.2

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

Page 13 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024

Government Response: Government grounds contract does not support construction projects. Tree trimming will have to be accomplished by GC.

SOW Reference: 01 57 20 3.1.2

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

Government Response: Government grounds contract does not support construction projects. Tree trimming will have to be accomplished by GC.

64. If the government is providing their own arborist, who will be responsible for cutting and disposal? Please note, there was nest located in one of these trees in area 4D on the golf-course side.

Government Response: Contractor Shall hire and consult its own Arborist during design and clarify these requirements as part of the Design submittal process for GOVT acceptance.

65. Please clarify the required topsoil depth for revegetating disturbed areas?

Government Response: Minimum 2’’ topsoil. Contractor Shall Develop and incorporate this requirement as part of the project design, for GOVT review and approval.

66. Is sodding and/or seeding acceptable?

Government Response: Sodding and seeding are both acceptable as long as the contractor waters and maintains (mows) the area until established and turned over to grounds maintenance contractor.

67. Please identify useable 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 can be used by nearby hydrants, permission required from GOVT/ Base Fire Chief or Civil Engineer representative. SOW Reference: SECTION 01 14 00

68. Please provide fire stations emergency routes to be incorporated into our traffic control plan.

Government Response: It is mentioned that traffic will not be closed at anytime alternate routes to be provided shall be developed and presented by the Contractor during Design, to be approved by the GOVT and Emergency Services Coordinator. SOW Reference: SECTION 01 14 00

69. It is understood we are not doing any work on the sidewalks, but there is major failure in the expansion joints between the curbs and sidewalk, allowing water to consistently penetrate the sub-base and erode the structural integrity of the road, causing more cracking and

Page 14 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024 potholes. This will cause continue failures if it is not addressed. Would the government consider at-minimum, address the expansion joints to be included in our proposal as an option?

Government Response: NO Sidewalk or Curb work is required for this project.

70. During the site visit, there was a portion of the bridge that is being M/O that is not included on the drawings. Please address this and the biddable quantities.

Government Response: Reference Appendix D1 to develop quantities for bidding purpose.

71. Section 5 appeared to have a new waterline installed recently. The asphalt was cut and patched. The new SOW required in the area is to M/O, but since these two sections were not compacted in unison, the M/O will continue to fail due to differences in settling at the corners and edges. It would be recommended to address this area with full depth replacement.

Government Response: Please propose in Accordance with the solicitation documents. Any repair recommendations made post-award, during design, will be given fair consideration by the GOVT at that time. SOW Reference: SECTION 01 14 00

If section 5 is not modified to a full depth replacement, could it be considered that the opposite lane of the water lane may be M/O and the waterline side gets a full depth replacement?

Government Response: Please propose in Accordance with the solicitation documents. Any repair recommendations made post-award, during design, will be given fair consideration by the GOVT at that time.

72. Confirm if the guardrails on bridge are to be replaced or remain in place?

Government Response: Existing Guard Rails are to remain in place, and not repaired or replaced, for the purposes of this Proposal.

73. Fourth sentence reads: "Section 05 includes full depth replacement/rehabilitation of entire pavement as described on SOW and site map location." Clarify if intent is full depth replacement or mill and overlay. SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.4.1 Civil

Government Response: Please propose in Accordance with the solicitation documents. Any repair recommendations made post-award, during design, will be given fair consideration by the GOVT at that time. SOW Reference:

74. Last sentence reads: "Contractor to assume a 3-inch asphalt section, an 8-inch base section, and an 8-inch subbase section for bidding purposes only." Clarify if the intent of this statement is to define the existing pavement section or describe the proposed pavement section. SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.4.1 Civil

Government Response: GOVT intent is to describe existing pavement section, for Bidding purposes;

however, Contractor/ DOR shall confirm actual section depths during the Design phase of this project.

"Contractor to assume a 3-inch asphalt section, an 8-inch base section, for the full depth replacement

Page 15 of 15 Revised July 22, 2024 sections bidding purposes only." The Full depth areas depicted ar 4B & 4D and all of Section 5. Mill & Overlay are sections 4 A, 4C & 4 El.

75. What is the length & width of each section - 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, & 4E. Also what is the length and width of section 5?

Government Response: Refer to location map for Section 4 and Section 5.

76. How many curbs cut inlets need to be cleared?

Government Response: Contractor to do survey and count. All the curbs’ storms drain inlets in section 04 and 05 to be cleaned /cleared during Design. SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.4.1 Civil

77. Please clarify the scope of work for the storm drain inlets, including locations and sizes.

Government Response: Contractor to do survey and count. All the curbs’ storms drain inlets in section 04 and 05 to be cleaned /cleared during Design. SOW Reference: SECTION 01 11 00.10 1.1.4.1 Civil

************************************LAST QUESTION ******************************