Parkers River Bridge Addendum No 6.docx
DOCX document 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Parkers River Bridge
- Solicitation number
- BD-19-1355-TYARM-YADPW-40968
- Issued by
- Barnstable County, Massachusetts
About this file
This document is Addendum No. 6 related to the Parkers River Bridge Complete Replacement and Widening project in Massachusetts. The addendum clarifies the deadline for submitting addenda, provides responses to several contractor questions, and approves certain field adjustments requested by the contractor. The questions cover the use of specific bid items, conflicts between the sheeting plan and the precast abutment units, concerns about the integral abutment detail, and requests to adjust coupler placement. The state has agreed to consider alternative options for the soil and erosion control, and to allow adjustments to the threaded dowels and couplers as needed.
The addendum does not include any information about pricing, set-asides, incumbents, funding sources, or contract terms. It focuses solely on technical clarifications and adjustments to the project specifications and requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
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
Parkers River Bridge- Addendum #6
1. Invitation to Bid (00020)/Introduction to Invitation for Bids (1.0). Page 3, 2. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION AND CALENDAR, DELETE information in ‘Addenda’ ‘up to 5 days prior.’ under DATE column and REPLACE with the following ‘up to 1 day prior’.
· Q&As
· Question #1: Can you please clarify where the following Bid Items are to be used?
806.3 3” Electrical Conduit Galvanized 120 FT
808.3 3” Electrical Conduit – Plastic Coated 110 FT
· Answer #1: 806.3 is used for the two conduit runs across the roadway. The remainder 3 inches correspond to the Type RM- Galvanized Steel.
· Question #2: Sheet 36 of 65 the Pile Layout, Sheeting and Foundation Plan shows the proposed sheeting lines at the center of the roadway in direct conflict with the Phase 1 Precast Abutment Units. It seems like a smaller profile system will be required at these locations to maintain the required traffic lanes for phased construction. Can you please confirm that alternative options for SOE/Water Control will be considered at these conflict locations?
· Answer #2: If different site conditions are encountered, we will consider alternative options consistent with the permits in place.
· Question #3: On the typical integral abutment detail (below) there are a couple of concerns. Sometimes these connections fall in a block out in the abutment cap or in a joint so no 6” sleeve (void) can be placed in the abutment cap at these locations. If the location happens to be as shown on the detail then erection tolerances may come into play due to the threaded bar coupler will have to be placed in between prestressing strands (see bottom threaded coupler in detail below) in the form so that location is fixed and the erection tolerances of the abutment walls and deck beams will vary due to site conditions. Can we cast in a sleeve at the approximate locations (missing joints, abutment cap voids, etc..) and a pin can be placed in the field?
· Answer #3: Yes, field adjustments to threaded dowels are acceptable.
· Question #4: Can we cast the #6 couplers flush with surface of the beam and bend the anchor portion to get the required development (sheet 26 of 33)
· Answer #3: Yes. Adjustments will be considered.
· Question #5: On a similar note we would have to cast these flush for beams 3 & 4 to accommodate possible future sidewalk expansion for safety reasons regardless.
· Answer #5: Yes. Adjustments will be considered.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .