Repair Water Mains and Roads_Questions_Answers_27 Aug 2020.pdf
PDF 66 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Repair Water Mains and Roads
- Solicitation number
- W50S9A-20-B-0001
About this file
This solicitation package describes a requirements contract opportunity for repairing water mains and roads at the 151st Air Refueling Wing, Utah Army National Guard base in Salt Lake City, Utah. The project scope includes constructing roads, curb gutters, sidewalks, replacing water service mains and laterals, fire hydrants, and storm drains. Water meters and detector check valves will also be replaced. The base bid is for work on Mustang Lane and North Loop, with optional work on Patriot Way and Sabre Street. A small business set-aside applies with a NAICS code of 237110 and size standard of $39.5 million. The projected value is between $5-10 million. The response due date is August 31, 2020 and the period of performance is 365 days from notice to proceed.
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
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
1. Question: How do we figure trench and roadway stabilization? The Geotech and specs call out for it but there is no quantity. Can you give a set quantity to bid?
Answer: Bidding contractors should base their estimate based on drawings, specs, geotechnical report, and normally encountered conditions. Government does not have an estimated quantity to provide. See FAR Clause 52.236‐2 and FAR Clause 52.236‐3.
2. Question: Is all the native material to be hauled off and import for the pipe zone and trench zone brought in? It appears that the native material does not meet the pipe or trench zone specs.
Answer: Correct. See Detail C‐2124 and Specification 31 23 00 for proper material to be used.
3. Question: Is the trench zone import to be UTBC spec or the Structural Fill spec?
Answer: The geotechnical report says that either material may be used. We have updated Detail C‐2124 to allow for use of either UTBC or structural fill for the trench zone backfill material.
4. Question: The Geotech report states that the existing ACP is 4”‐5” in depth. The specs also states 7” of striping existing soil below all pavement sections and that equal’s 12” total. And, as per the specifications 4” of ACP on 6” of UTBC goes back. There is a 2” difference in the roadways. What material do you want us to figure here as 2” over the entire roadway section adds up to a significant amount? Or do we just strip down for to get a total depth of 10”?
Answer: Existing surface must be stripped down deep enough to get to 10” below the proposed grade. Thus the amount to be stripped will vary based on the difference between the existing and proposed grades. At the bottom of the new pavement section, the subgrade must be properly prepared as described in the geotechnical report.
5. Question: Can we use the existing base course in the trench zone? And, is it acceptable to mill the existing ACP and mix it in with the existing road base to use as trench zone?
Answer: Yes, that is acceptable as long as the recycled material meets the gradations outlined in the specifications.
6. Question: Can you please elaborate on the contaminated materials. For bidding purposes I view it this way so please clarify:
The contaminated area is around the fire station and bldg. 215 as shown on Figure 2‐1
Answer: Yes. The yellow squares are approximate location of original spill. The dash line on 2‐1 show detected impacts for Site 2/8. There is no area of detected impacts for Site TU011, but it falls mostly within Site 2/8.
We would only figure testing the soil and water for contamination in that area.
Answer: Yes. Special consideration only for this area.
Only this excavated material should we figure to dispose of properly as well as the ground water
Answer: Yes.
Do we need to do any well abandonment as part of the project scope?
Answer: No well abandonment needed. Preserve any existing wells in the disturbed area and notify the government if any unmarked wells are located during construction. See updated IRP Summary (27Aug2020).
7. Question: On areas other than the contaminated area as shown on figure 2‐1, can we discharge ground water into the SD or canals so long as the water is filtered via frac tanks?
Answer: Yes, see updated IRP Summary (27Aug2020).
8. Question: We assume by‐passing of the existing canal to install the water line but do you anticipate any other by‐passing or temp water services on the project?
Answer: We do not anticipate any additional bypass pumping.
9. Question: The specs state that DI pipe wrapped and backfilled with CLSM is required in the contamination area. Should we figure this for the dashed line (Area of Detected Impacts) as shown on figure 2‐1 only?
Answer: CLSM is not required. See General Note 48 on G‐04 of Mustang Lane drawings for pipe protection in contaminated area and applies to all ductile iron pipe lengths shown on drawings C‐04 and C‐06.
10. Question: Similar to question # 1, the specs state that the first 6” of over excavation and stabilization fill is on the contractor and anything below that is on the owner. Do you want us to figure over excavating all ground 6” and bringing stabilization fill and fabric in?
Answer: See answer to question 1.
11. Question: Are we required to use a slipform paver on the PCCP replacement or is hand placement acceptable?
Answer: Hand placement is acceptable.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .