VA69D-17-B-1632-00006001.pdf

Solicitation VA69D-17-B-1632 November 14, 2017

1 | P a g e

Project 695-15-115

CORRECT FCA SANITARY DEFICIENCIES GROUNDS - PHASE 1

Milwaukee VAMC

41. Regarding plan sheet CU101:

a. Section between 7009 – 7009A has it listed as having 6 laterals in just a 78’ length while running under a building while also not any shown on the plans. Is this accurate and this many laterals connected directly into the building while passing under it?

Response: CCTV reports indicate 5 laterals connected directly underneath the building. All laterals will need to be cut in after lining or reconnected after sewer replacement, but only laterals shown on the plans/schedule to be worked on will need to be lined or replaced themselves.

42. Regarding plan sheet CU102:

a. Is there any depth/elevation information available for MH# SS-7011? This manhole was not accessible during site visits due to continues traffic there but it is expected to have a drastic depth increase compared to the upstream manhole of that same section (MH#

SS-7012)

Response: Yes, see manhole schedule GC003.

b. Is there depth/elevation for either end of the 10” section (between MH#s 7086 – 7087) as this would help with design calculations for 3 separate liners to be installed there?

Response: Invert elevations are not available, see GC003 for manhole depth.

c. The list has that same 10” section (between MH#s 7086 – 7087) as having 1 lateral connection but the only possible ones shown on the plans seems to be aligned with manholes. Is this were it is or is there one between the manholes not shown?

Response: There is a lateral entering the manhole. However, there also is a lateral connecting directly to the main 46 feet upstream of MH 7087.

43. Regarding plan sheet CU105:

a. The section between MH#s 7044A – M2822 has 2 things in question:

i. Plans seem to show the downstream end connecting to an unknown diameter pipe without the manhole lined up where the work is intended to end?

2 | P a g e

Response: The contractor shall only clean this sewer line, see revised table on GC001 and CU105.

ii. This section, although not mentioned on list of work intended, has dotted lines shown on the plans which seems to imply there is some excavation work to happen prior to lining? Would this also be providing an additional manhole where the pipes intersect?

Response: Refer to sheet GI001. The dashed linetype is for unconfirmed sanitary sewers where portions of the sewer(s) couldn’t be televised due to obstructions. A manhole is not required, see response to 43.a.i.

44. Regarding plan sheet CU106:

a. The section between MH#s 7080 – 7053 also shows dotted lines by upstream manhole that implies there is also intended excavation work here prior to lining not seeming to be mentioned on the list?

Response: Refer to response 43.a.ii.

45. Regarding plan sheet CU106:

a. The section between MH#s 7076 – 7075 (starts on plan sheet CU05) lists this as changing from 8” to 10” at 234.8’ but also shows the whole length to be 234.8’. Is it known how much of the pipe is 10”? Is it just right by the downstream manhole connection?

Response: The actual length is 240 feet. The size change occurred 5 feet from

MH7076, see revised table on GC001 and CU106. Also, see response to 45.b.

b. The section between MH#s 7069 – 7068 is expected to only have ~3’ of 10” at the end of the 8” section. Will it be allowed to line this with an 8” liner and just seal of the liner where it leaves a small void between liner and manhole wall? (This would also apply for previous question too assuming the length of 10” is minimal)

Response: Yes, an 8” liner is acceptable.

c. List shows an 8” section to line that is 186.5 between MH#s 7068 - ? that is not found on the plans. Is this the section going from MH# 7068 off to the North East? If so, this section on the plans is marked “ABANDON PIPE”.

Response: This section is to be abandoned, see revised table on GC001.

3 | P a g e

46. Regarding multiple locations with similar conditions. These are sections currently on the Sanitary

Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Schedule list that seem like they are intended for the Sanitary Lateral

Rehabilitation Schedule list due to the type of lining required to install towards buildings with no known upstream manhole or connection point? These locations are:

a. Sheet CU101 Unknown – 7081 (coming from west)

b. Sheet CU101 Unknown – 7081 (coming from east)

c. Sheet CU101 Unknown – 7018 (coming from east)

d. Sheet CU102 Unknown – 7087 (coming from southwest)

e. Sheet CU108 Unknown – 7041 (coming from southeast)

Response: Contractor to line lateral from main connection to first joint, typical 5 feet, see revised plans.

47. VA response 15 called out "See revised schedule on drawing GC003" We do not find revised drawing GC003 on Amendment 3.

Response: revised drawing GC003 is now provided.

48. VA response 37 depicted "See revised specification 01 45 29" We noticed several spec sections revised or deleted. VA haven't provided schedule with number of tests required.

Response: The contractor shall determine the number of test required in accordance with the frequency provided in the specifications.

49. VA response 40 depicted "Bids shall include lining the pipe or replacing as directed. However, for these few lines the contractor shall determine if the line is active. If not then abandon as directed and provide a credit to the VA." However, we required length of the pipes for bidding purpose.

Please provide length of pipes for the last 8 items (marked as UNKNOWN on UPSTREAM MANHOLE) on the schedule of Dwg GC001.

Response: For bidding purposes the contractor to assume they are to be capped and abandoned in place.

50. There are numerous existing pipes shown either to abandon or cap and abandon on Dwg GC001 (sanitary sewer pipe rehabilitation schedule) and Dwg GC002 (sanitary lateral rehabilitation schedule). Do we need to abandon in place or fill with flowable fill? If we need to fill with flowable fill, do we need to fill the entire length of the pipe? Please clarify.

Response: Refer to specification 33 30 00, article 3.9 the added flowable fill specification is unrelated.

4 | P a g e

51. The plumbing work for building 111 as shown on plumbing work will require shut down of the system. Do we need to work after hours or are we allowed to work during regular working hours?

Response: Any work that requires an outage shall be completed off hours.

52. Response to question #15 states “See revised schedule on drawing GC003.” Drawing GC003 was not included with the revised plan sheets.

Response: See response to question 7.

53. Question #16a, “Is granular backfill allowed in trenches under pavement?” – Response “Yes. See revised specification section 31 20 00.” In my mind, they are saying “Yes, you can use granular backfill for trenches under pavement.” However, included with this amendment is a specification section for flowable fill, 31 23 23.33, which was not included in the original documents. Also, on revised drawing CU501, detail 4, Utility Trench – Paved Areas, they show the trench backfill as flowable fill, not granular backfill. I believe that this detail contradicts the response to question #16a, and should be further clarified.

Response: Granular fill is defined in 31 20 00 Article 2.1.F.2. It is allowable as pipe bedding, but trench cut above the pipe bedding must be filled with flowable fill to the bottom of the asphalt section, see detail 4 on CU501.