Ohio Department of Transportation

Transcription

Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Project No. 140535
FAI-76938 - -US 33-05.60(Carroll Area)
Question Submitted:
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
12/1/2014 11:13:26 AM
RE: 203 Roadway Misc – Sand Blanket.
Most local natural sand has carbonate content much greater than 10%. We would expect to have to get natural sand from the northeast
corner of Ohio to meet the <10% requirement. Will the department either just leave the specification to simply say “natural sand”, or
specify a set Carbonate content and also the test method that we would need to follow for approval.
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 11:13:21 AM
RE: Supplemental Spec 840 Date.
Sheet 770/1003 references Supplemental Spec 840 dated 04/20/2012. Could this be updated to the 07/18/2014 spec?
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 11:13:16 AM
RE: CR-34/Carroll Southern Rd. Structure removal.
Will the Department please make the plans for the existing CR-34 / Carroll Southern Road over Gillette Run structure available online? For
reference, these plans are for the removal of the structure paid for by Reference Item 500.
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 11:13:10 AM
RE: Bridge No. FAI-33-0656A – Crushed Aggregate Slope Protection.
Plan sheet 922 details a 6” layer of crushed aggregate slope protection at each abutment. The sub-summary calculation on sheet 925 use a
12” layer of crushed aggregate slope protection at each abutment. Please confirm the correct thickness of the crushed aggregate slope
protection at this bridge.
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 11:13:04 AM
RE: Bridge No. FAI-33-0637A – Crushed Aggregate Slope Protection.
Plan sheet 862 details a 6” layer of crushed aggregate slope protection at each abutment. The sub-summary calculations on sheet 865 use
a 12” layer of crushed aggregate slope protection at each abutment. Please confirm the correct thickness of the crushed aggregate slope
protection at this bridge.
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 11:13:00 AM
RE: Bridge No. FAI-33-0656A – Pile Lengths.
Plan sheet 922 details pile furnish lengths for the piles at the Rear Abutment, Pier 1, Pier 2, and the Forward Abutment. The notes for the
pile design loads on plan sheet 924 list pile order lengths for these piles at the same locations. The lengths detailed on sheet 922 do not
correspond to the lengths listed on sheet 924. Please review.
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 11:12:54 AM
RE: Bridge No. FAI-33-0656A - Pile Driving Constraints.
The pile driving constraint notes, found on plan sheet 924, state that prior to driving piles, the contractor is to construct the spill through
slopes and the bridge approach embankment up to the level of the subgrade elevation for a minimum distance of 200 ft. behind each
abutment. The note then states that abutment excavation and the installation of the abutment and pier piles shall not occur until a
minimum of 30 days to 60 days maximum after the required embankment has been constructed to allow proper settlement. To ensure
that all contractors are preparing their pre-bid schedules with the same constraints, please specify a single duration to assume for the
waiting periods at the abutments of the FAI-33-0656A bridge.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Monday, December 01, 2014
3:11:47 PM
Page 1
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 10:44:41 AM
Please specify the reinforcing steel required inside the 12" and 16" C.I.P. concrete pilings, specifically at the Carroll Southern Connector
Wall, the 3 slab bridge foundations and Bridge FAI-33-0637. Also please specify how the rebar in the pilings are to be connected to the
concrete foundations. Is the intent to have rebar hooks protruding from the tops of the C.I.P. piles?
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 9:26:04 AM
REF # 438 is called out as 1/2" x 8" x 60 FT bearing in the EBS and proposal for bridge FAI-33-0637A. The plans call this out as 1 1/2" thick.
What thickness is correct, 1/2" or 1 1/2"?
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 9:24:11 AM
Please clarify the bearings on Bridge FAI-33-0656. The EBS and proposal call out REF #465 & #466 to be 1/2" x 8" x 56 (57) FT. The plans
call these bearings out as 1 1/2" thick. Are the bearings to be 1/2" thick or 1 1/2" thick?
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 9:18:04 AM
Plan sheets 894 and 896 show footer details on the foundation sheet for bridge FAI-33-0656 with rebar in the 16" pile. They are detailed as
8-RA601 & 8-FA601. There is no detail for this and no listing in the bar schedule for these bars. We believe these bars are not needed as
the 16" pile are in abutments with no exposed length. Can ODOT please clarify? If the bars are required can ODOT please provided more
detail with dimensions as well as where these bars are to be paid?
Question Submitted:
11/26/2014 8:38:10 AM
Per SCD I-2.1, I-2.2, and I-2.3, an expansion joint is required at each end of the 20' inlet barrier section. Per RM-4.3 and RM-4.5, a
reinforced end anchorage is required at interruptions in barrier caused by expansion joints. Will reinforced end anchorages be required
adjacent to the inlet barrier expansion joints? They do not appear to be included in the plan quantity.
Reinforced end anchorages will be required adjacent to the inlet barrier expansion joints. Please see forthcoming addendum with
revised sheets and quantities.
Question Submitted:
11/25/2014 10:06:19 AM
RE: 203 Roadway Misc – Sand Blanket.
The material requirements listed on sheet 766 of the plans state that the sand shall be
natural, non-carbonate material, generally conforming to Item 203 granular material type B (703.16) with no more than 5 percent passing
the #200 sieve.
What is meant by the term “non-carbonate material”? All natural sands have some limestone in them that is calcium or
magnesium carbonate based. Is the department asking for silica sand?
We don’t necessarily need silica sand. Most natural sands in this area have small carbonate percentages. The intent is to prevent a
crushed limestone product from being used. It is not necessary to specify silica sand as long as the carbonate fraction is minimal
(say less than ~10%) Most locally quarried sands do not have a high carbonate fraction and would be considered acceptable for our
purposes and will provide the Contractor some flexibility.
Question Submitted:
11/25/2014 10:04:49 AM
RE: Topsoil Quantity.
Plan sheet 782 shows topsoil to be placed around MSE Wall E with a thickness of 2 feet. Plan Quantity is 1,118
cy. Is the thickness and quantity correct?
Yes, both thickness and quantity are correct.
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 2:29:43 PM
The plan note for Item 203 Roadway Misc.: Sand Blanket on sheet 766 calls for material conforming to item 203 granular material type B
(703.16). Is this referring to 703.16 B Granular Embankment Materials or 703.16 C. Granular Material Type B? If I you are calling for
material per 703.16 B Granular Embankment Materials please provide a gradation for this material. If you are calling for 703.16 C Granular
Material Type B the material gradations that are specified per this item are not “sand” materials. It is assumed that the intent is for the
placement of a 2’ blanket of natural sand. If this is the case please provide a gradation for the natural sand to meet.
Sand blanket material should conform to 703.16 B. Granular Embankment Materials. Provide gradation as per 703.02 A. Fine
Aggregate. See forth coming Addendum for revised sheet.
3:11:47 PM
Page 2
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 3:20:37 PM
The SS840 Foundation Preparation quantity of 48,897 appears to be closer to the estimated square footage of the area. Please check to see
if this quantity needs to be converted to square yards to coincide with the pay item unit of measure.
Please see forthcoming addendum for a quantity revision.
Question Submitted:
11/20/2014 3:45:32 PM
RE: Cement Stabilization.
Does the department really intend to cement stabilize the following areas?-Bridge Approach Slabs
(backfilled with Type B Granular).
-Select Granular Embankment (MSE backfill).
-Embankment with fills greater than 5 feet in
thickness. -Road Closure areas with A+B bidding.
The areas indicated in the question will be adjusted during the construction phase. The bridge approach slabs area and the MSE
backfill area are excluded from the cement stabilization. Please bid the item quantities related to cement stabilization as it is in the
proposal.
Question Submitted:
11/20/2014 3:45:29 PM
RE: Bridge No. FAI-33-0637A - Pile Lengths.
Plan sheet 862 details pile furnish lengths for the piles at the Rear Abutment, Pier 1, Pier
2, and the Forward Abutment. The notes for the pile design loads on plan sheet 864 list pile order lengths for the piles at these same
locations. The lengths detailed on sheet 862 do not correspond to the lengths listed on sheet 864. Please review.
See forth coming addendum. Plan sheet 864 will be revised to match plan sheet 862.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 10:47:16 AM
Is the section of Ramp B from station 315+50 to 317+00 to receive the wick drains and preload or is the overexcavation and refill the only
remediation to be performed in this section?
**This answer superses the first answer to the same question submitted on 11/14/14 10:15am** The section of Ramp B from
station 315+50 to 317+00 will not receive the wick drains but will require pre-loading. Please see forthcoming addendum for revised
sheets and quantities.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 8:50:56 AM
Please consider allowing a maximum of 30 days for the closure and detour of the Winchester Road, Connector West, Carroll Southern
Connector, Carroll Southern Road and Ramp D A+B segment. The amount of work and wait periods for stabilization and concrete
pavement will make it difficult to complete these areas in the allotted time especially with the construction of the box culvert at Carroll
Southern Road.
The closures will remain 20 days. However, the closure of Winchester and Carroll Southern will be separated into two segments for
A+B bidding purposes and to allow for the closure to be performed together or separate. This will be revised with a forthcoming
addendum.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 7:38:17 AM
The quantity for item 840 Foundation Preparation appears to be overstated, please verify this quantity. Is the area under the soil
embankment, paid under the MSE wall items, included is the foundation preparation quantity? Will the 1’ of granular material type C
placed on the subgrade of the wall excavation area be paid under the pay item for 203 Granular Material Type C or is it incidental to the
840 Foundation Preparation?
In sections where the soil embankment is islanded by MSE wall embankments, the items under the soil embankment are carried
with MSE wall items. In sections where the soil embankment is bounded only on either the left or right side by MSE wall
embankment, the items under the soil embankment are carried with roadway items. The 1 foot of granular material type C placed
on the subgrade of the wall excavation areas, where shown, is carried for payment under the item for 203 - Granular Material, Type
C. This material shall be installed/placed according to SS840, which references C.M.S. section 204. The placement requirements, as
described by SS840, are incidental to Item 840 – Foundation Preparation. Please see forthcoming addendum for item 840
Foundation Preparation quantity modification and sheet revisions relating to this prebid question.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 1:53:02 PM
RE: Oil Spill Kit.
What is to be included in the oil spill kit? Is the contractor responsible to perform oil spill cleanup if
required? Where should the Oil spill kits be located? Does ODOT intend to have 4 oil spill kits on-site at one-time?
The note on sheet 43 and the line item for Oil Spill Kit on sheet 99 will be removed with a forthcoming addendum. Refer to the
Waterway Permits Conditions Special Provision dated 8/05/14 for requirements.
3:11:47 PM
Page 3
Question Submitted:
RE: SIP Metal Decking.
11/18/2014 1:52:57 PM
Will the Department allow the use of SIP metal decking at Bridge No. FAI-33-0637?
No, SIP forms will NOT be allow for this project.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 1:52:55 PM
RE: Winchester Road, Connector East, Carroll Southern Connector and Ramp D Intersection Closure.
In some places
the Maintenance of Traffic notes on p. 54 state that Winchester Rd and Carroll Southern will be detoured for 30 days, but within the same
note it also states that the detours will be for a period of 20 days. Should the note list the same number of days throughout with the
intent to close/detour the Winchester Rd intersection and the Carroll Southern Intersection at the same time? Or, can the Winchester
Road intersection and Carroll Southern Road intersection closures/detour occur independent of each other? If the Winchester Rd
intersection and Carroll Southern Rd intersection are closed at separate times, should there be 2 separate A+B tables; one for Winchester
Rd and one for Carroll Southern? Please Clarify.
The notes on sheet 54 with respect to the A+B bidding for Winchester and Carroll Southern will be revised with a forthcoming
addendum to be 20 days. Also, separate tables for each intersection will be provided on sheet 54 with the intent that these closures
can occur together or separate.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 1:52:50 PM
RE: Final Completion Date Requirements.
The final completion date requirement note on p. 55 states that extensions of time
will be… in accordance with C&MS 108.06 except; No extensions will be granted for material delays, labor strikes, and inclement weather
except in extreme situations. Does this mean that C&MS 108.06C including Table 108.06-1 does not apply?
The note on sheet 55 regarding extensions of time will be removed with a forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 1:52:41 PM
RE: CPM Schedule and Earthwork Waiting Periods.
The pile driving constraint notes, found on plan sheet 830, state
that abutment piles may not be driven to the Ultimate Bearing Value until the required MSE walls and embankments have been
constructed and a minimum of 30 days to 60 days maximum waiting period has elapsed. The notes go on to further state that the Engineer
may adjust the length of the waiting periods based on settlement platform readings. To ensure that all contractors are preparing their bids
with the same CPM schedule constraints, please specify a single duration to assume for the waiting periods at the abutments of the FAI-330637 bridge.
See forth coming addendum for prebid meeting notes.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 1:52:04 PM
RE: Bridge No. FAI-33-0637 – Abutment Piles.
The notes for the abutment piles on plan sheet 830 reference 12 each piles
at the Rear Abutment and 14 each piles at the Forward Abutment. The piling layout, found on plan sheet 834, details 28 each piles at the
Rear Abutment and 26 each piles at the Forward Abutment. Additionally, the quantities set up for Reference Items 395 and 396 support
the number of piles shown in the piling layout on sheet 834. Please revise the notes on plan sheet 830 accordingly.
See forth coming addendum for sheet 830 revision.
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 3:55:14 PM
Can ODOT provide addtional geotechnical information for the preloading and special construction area at Ramp B/Connector West? Is
there a report detailing the findings and conclusions used to design this existing soil remediation?
See forth coming addendum for; web link to geotechnical reports for preloading and special construction area at Ramp B/Connector
West.
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 11:19:56 AM
Item 136 - 9" Non-Reinforced Concrete Pavement, Class QC1, includes quantity underneath the C1 wall located throughout the project. The
typical sections do not show the low side pavement shoulder extending underneath the barrier wall. Is the intent for this concrete to be
paid for as 9" pavement or Type C1 barrier wall?
The typical sections show the placement of the concrete pavement correctly. The quantity for the Item 136 - 9" Non-Reinforced
Concrete Pavement, Class QC1 will be revised to deduct the concrete calculated underneath the barrier with a forthcoming
addendum.
3:11:47 PM
Page 4
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 10:15:26 AM
Is the section of Ramp B from station 315+50 to 317+00 to receive the wick drains and preload or is the overexcavation and refill the only
remediation to be performed in this section? The proposed 24” conduit type B installed from U.S.R. 33 station 5+00 to 8+26 in the
median is to be placed under the existing asphalt shoulder; however there is no detail for pavement replacement. What is the pavement
section for this trench replacement and how will it be paid?
Yes, this section is to receive wick drains and the quantity will be revised with a forthcoming addendum.
See pavement restoration note for pipe installations and/or removals on sheet 42 for payment. However, the quantity provided is
low. This quantity will be increased with a forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
11/11/2014 4:18:19 PM
Please verify the quantity for Item 0012 Cement. The quantity provided does not compute with the ODOT Standard 206 calculation of 6%
110.0 PCF. It appears the State calculated the tonnage based on a stabilization depth of 12". Item 0014 calls for a 14" treatment depth.
The quantity for 0012 Cement will be adjusted for a depth of 14" with a forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 4:16:00 PM
Is there any geotechnical information for this project?? If so, how can I attain those??
Yes, There is 114 soil profile sheets for this project. ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/FAI-76938/Reference%20Files/
Project No. 140536
LUC-76032 - IR 75-6.70
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 1:58:42 PM
Sheet 667 of 883 provides the specifications for the Vandal Protection Fence and it calls for Grade 50 steel to be used for the base plates.
Being that this is a 607 item, is a fence, and is not a structural bridge member of any type, can we use Grade 36 steel for the base plates?
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 11:34:34 AM
The "Work Zone Pavement Wedge" note on Plan Sheet 19 needs to be more definitive. The plans do not provide enough information for
the contractors to determine the quantity in question. ODOT provided a quantity to be used as wedging in project 485(14). Please provide
info.
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 11:07:44 AM
Bid item #24- Borrow: no plan details and provisions are shown as to how the borrow site on plan sheet 4 is to be left when work is
completed. Please provide details in an addendum.
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 11:06:38 AM
Bid item #24- Borrow: it is unclear on plan sheet 4 if the “potential borrow site area” is or isn’t on ODOT right-of-way. In order to confirm
suitability or non-suitability per the plan sheet 16 note, will ODOT confirm ROW status and allow contractors an opportunity to dig test
holes to determine this?
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 11:05:17 AM
Bid item #24- Borrow: if the contractor chooses to use a site other than that on plan sheet 4, will the material still be paid for under this bid
item?
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 10:54:49 AM
Reference Note #2 on plan sheet 670/883. How is the contractor to know what costs to include in the estimate if resolutions to a piling
conflict are unknown at this time. Please revise or remove the note in an addendum.
3:11:47 PM
Page 5
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 10:47:48 AM
The notes on page 489/883 call for the 152 ft of concrete barrier through the sign support transition to be paid by the linear foot under
ITEM 622 – BARRIER, MISC.: CONCRETE BARRIER, SINGLE SLOPE, (BY TYPE), TRANSITION FOR SIGN SUPPORT FOUNDATION. Please add this
biditem for both the Type B1 and Type C1 Concrete Barrier.
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 10:26:40 AM
Std. Drg. NBS-1-09 sht. 13/13 show a underdrain at the noisewalls. Is the underdrain required at the drilled shaft sections only or at all
locations of the noisewalls.
Question Submitted:
11/26/2014 1:18:16 PM
Reference Number 53, Reference Monuments are listed on page 16/883 as monument assemblies. All of these are located on centerline in
the concrete barrier. There needs to be a plan of how this will be done. The normal thing is a pin in the top of the barrier.
Question Submitted:
11/26/2014 10:43:10 AM
In looking at the existing plans for the NB-75 bridge over Ramp D and NB-75 over Ramp B that were provided, they only show 4 beams
lines on each structure. However,two more beam lines have been added and the structures re-decked under another project. Our main
concern is whether shear studs were added to the beams prior to the new deck being placed. Please advise if shear studs were added and
make the revised drawings available.
Please see the sheets at: ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/LUC-76032/Reference%20Files/02c3260.zip
Question Submitted:
11/26/2014 8:52:22 AM
MSE Wall select backfill, a large portion of the Select Granular Backfill is a lightweight material as noted on plan sheet 567/883. The
material specified is Expanded Lightweight Shale Aggregate (ELSA). Does ODOT have approved suppliers for this material which meets all
specifications for Select Granular Backfill per the plan note and SS-840?
Question Submitted:
11/25/2014 1:30:02 PM
#1. Plan Sheet 98 calls out Work Zone Pavement area PA18, but PA18 is not listed in the MOT Subsummary. Please clarify.
#2 See Plan Sheet 27, 3rd column, last paragraph: "In order to place WZ pavement...the next morning. Mill the existing pavement, where
required...."
There is no pay item for planing pavement. Please advise
Question Submitted:
11/25/2014 11:12:07 AM
When will ODOT answer the noise barrier questions submitted on 11/6/2014? These answers are critical for us to start the
design/estimating process to complete the proposal in time for the bid date posted.
Question Submitted:
11/25/2014 11:06:49 AM
There are not pay items for 614E12470 - Work Zone Speed Limit Sign; 614E12484 - Work Zone Increased Penalties Sign; 614E12599 Replacement Sign; 614E12600 - Replacement Drum.
All of the other recent projects sold along the IR 75 corridor have had bid items for these items of work. Will ODOT consider adding these
bid items to the proposal?
3:11:47 PM
Page 6
Question Submitted:
11/25/2014 7:54:03 AM
Page 27/883 under Phase 1A construction of the IR 75 ramps at north/south Expressway Drives allows one (1) week to complete the
roadway work at ramp 7-BA. This time includes pavement removals, earthwork, stabilization, underdrains, 304 and paving. Cure time
alone on stabilization forces the ramp to remain idle for 5 days. Please consider revising this ramp closure duration.
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 4:34:47 PM
On Sheets 796 & 843 for the temporary shoring details, do the W33 and W24 extend from the top of the LMS backfill to the bottom of the
drilled shafts? Do the #9 bars & #4 hoop bars extend the entire length of the drilled shafts?
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 4:34:45 PM
Bid item 303, Work Zone Crossover Lighting is set up for a quantity of 2 each. It seems as though this quantity is set up for MOT Option A
for asphalt and that the quantity should increase for MOT Option B for concrete. Should the quantity be adjusted?
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 4:33:42 PM
MOT Option B for concrete pavement shows traffic in a contra-flow and face on face situation during various phases. Will the portable
concrete barrier separating this traffic be required to be 50” APP PCB? If so, will the department create a bid item and adjust the quantities
accordingly.
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 2:38:25 PM
1. Where is the removal of the work zone trench drain paid for?
2. What is the backfill detail for the 50 feet of 4" Type F pipe that connects the trench drain to the drainage structure?
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 9:57:49 AM
Could the Bridge concrete quantity calculation be provided for all of the structures for this project
Will be posted with the next addenda
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 3:40:36 PM
2.
Plan sheet 19/883, General Notes, second column, last paragraph, states “The contractor for the LUC-75-6.70 Project shall have M.O.T.
Phase 2 open to traffic by November 15, 2016 construction year.”
Plan sheet 24/883, General Notes, second column, Project Completion Date states, “The Contractor shall complete the Asphalt Pavement
for the LUC-75-6.70 Project on September 15, 2016 and all lanes shall be open to thru traffic.”
Plan sheet 24 note does not address the Concrete Paving Option and is in conflict with the plan note on sheet 19. Will ODOT remove plan
sheet 24 note?
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 3:38:58 PM
Will this project be required to meet the Maintenance of Traffic phasing dates defined for Project 140485 in 2015 at station 363+27.58?
If so, due to the significant amount of work at bridges 0807L (Ramp D) and 0817L (Ramp B) in phase 1 the continuous completion of phase
1 work cannot be completed in 2015. Will ODOT allow a mid phase shift into phase 2 to accommodate the adjacent project phased traffic
switch in 2015 and still provide for the completion of phases 1 and 2 by November 15, 2016?
3:11:48 PM
Page 7
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 2:12:50 PM
Sheet 61 of 62 shows shotcrete to be placed between the proposed piers and br. footing. Sheet 62 shows the same area to be filled with
QC2. The pay item for both areas is QC1 concrete.Could this item be explained?Sheet 61 bottom of sheet groundline profile refers to
notes #1 & #8 there isn't a #8. could this be explained?
BASED ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE QUESTION, THIS QUESTION APPEARS TO BE FOR A DIFFERENT PROJECT. CAN NOT MATCH THE PAGE
NUMBERS OR THE SITUATION DESCRIBED.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 1:43:56 PM
Detail "A" on Plan Sheet 3o shows the milling and filling of the existing rumble strips in the Pre-Phase. Please provide pay items for
Pavement Planing, Asphalt Concrete and the 12.5 mm Asphalt Surface Course. Also, please consider changing the 12.5 mm Surface Course
to 448 Ty 1 Surface Course for this work.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 12:21:56 PM
Bridge #0724, 0807, & 0817 all include notes that require additional shear studs in the field splice splice locations if the field splices are
eliminated. Will there be a similar requirement on Br 0762? If so, what is the required spacing?
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 10:02:31 AM
Taking off of the work zone trench drain quantity in the MOT plans I came up with the same amount as the bid quantity. There is a detail
for the trench drain on sheet 30 that shows 50' of 4" Type F pipe to connect the trench drain to an existing structure. Which is correct, the
plan quantity or what is shown in the MOT plans?
Question Submitted:
11/20/2014 3:28:04 PM
Please provide a detail for the conduit encasement of the proposed drainage.
THIS WILLL BE ADDRESSED IN A FUTURE ADDENDA.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 4:00:12 PM
WZ Sheet Piling: The majority sheet piling shown on sheets 83-121 is detailed in other sections of the plan set and have bid items
associated with them. There is sheet piling shown in the MOT plan which does not have a bid item (i.e. WZ sheeting along NB 75 STA
422+25 LT to STA 429+80 LT). Since this sheeting is for MOT purposes, is it to be paid in the LS MOT item or should a new bid item be
added?
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 8:13:59 AM
The plan notes for Bridges LUC-75-0724, LUC-75-0807L/R, and LUC-75-0817L/R indicate that the pipe piling is to be ASTM A572. This is not
a grade of steel for pipe. Normally A252 material is used. Please clarify.
ASTM A 252, type 2 should be furnished for steel pipe piles (per CMS 711.03). will be addressed in a future addenda
Question Submitted:
11/17/2014 11:04:53 AM
Plan sheet 28/883 has a note stating that "The decision to remove or leave in place the WZ sheet piling shall be approved by the engineer,
in writing." This note appears in 4 locations on this plan sheet. The contractor has to either include the cost of leaving the sheet piling in
place or remove the sheet piling. What is the intent of this note? If the intent is to leave the sheet piling in place a bid item should be
added by addendum. The notes should also be revised.
3:11:48 PM
Page 8
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 4:31:43 PM
WZ Sheet Piling: MOT Plan Sheets 84, 85 & 86 beginning at Sta. 422+50 and ending at Sta. 430+00 is WZ Sheet piling. There are also several
locations called out at Bridges 0807 and 0817. On Sheets 109 & 110 from Sta. 422+50 to 430+00 there appears to be a second run of WZ
Sheet Piling. Other than the sheet piling being shown on the MOT Plans and two plan notes on Sheet 27 there is not any other information
given for these piling locations. Would ODOT please give additional information regarding the WZ Sheet Piling by identifying each location,
possibly show on x-section or add plan sheet with details.
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 8:15:02 AM
There is a traffic message board and foundation that has been recently installed at the northeast corner of the Polish Village Bridge. This
foundation is in the area of the MSE wall undercut and granular fill. Please provide information on the foundation size and whether it is to
be removed or modified to fit into the new embankments
The foundation shall be removed as called out on sheet 517/883. A detail from the ITS project 120086 PID 76049 will be attached
to the next addenda
Question Submitted:
11/13/2014 10:19:51 AM
Please define "vicinity of" for the environmental note on sheet 17 regarding the sewer work near the Textile Leather site. Does it mean any
work north of the North Expressway Drive?
Any sewer work north of the north curb line of North Expressway Drive.
Question Submitted:
11/12/2014 1:55:22 PM
Please clarify the requirements of soundwall on pg 645 (80/84) "Post Mounting Detail, See Note 1". Note 1 states an acrylic wall but not if
it is required to meet NCHRP 350 Test Level 4 as required in Note 2 sheet 652.
All barrier mounted noise walls are to be acrylic. On sheet 652 the note that corresponds to barrier mounted noise barrier is note 4.
Question Submitted:
11/12/2014 10:33:55 AM
CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE THE ELECTRONIC CAD FILES FOR THIS PROJECT?
Please see 76032,zip posted at ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/LUC-76032/Reference%20Files/
Question Submitted:
11/12/2014 9:19:57 AM
Plan page 437/883 shows a note heading for the "OVERHEAD SIGN SUPPORT, TYPE TC-7.65, AS PER PLAN (NOT INCLUDED - TRUSS AT STA.
482.52).Can additional details and/or clarifications be provided for this APP note?
Will be addressed in future addenda.
Question Submitted:
11/11/2014 10:11:51 AM
The retaining walls have a quantity of Granular Material, Type C shown in the typical sections. Will a pay item be added for this work?
A pay item will not be added. The Granular Material, Type C is paid for with Item 840, Foundation Preparation, As Per Plan. As
directed per Supplemental Specification 840, the pay item was made As Per Plan to account for the additional depth needed to
remove the unsuitable soils.
Question Submitted:
11/11/2014 10:09:29 AM
There seems to be some variance in the MSE wall quantities. Will the calculation sheets for the retaining walls be provided?
Will be posted in a future addenda
Question Submitted:
11/11/2014 8:45:02 AM
In the pre-bid question asked on 11/7/2014 1:59:43 PM the Department was asked to provide digital CAD information and a link to the
existing plan sheets was provided instead of CAD data so I ask the question again. Will the department be providing digital CAD
information (i.e. CAD, DGN,or DWG format) as has been done for the other I-75 work being sold?
See the 76032.zip: ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/LUC-76032/Reference%20Files/
3:11:48 PM
Page 9
Question Submitted:
11/11/2014 8:38:05 AM
Bridge # 0724 Plan Sheet 667/883 under Design Loading has included loading for SIP forms with styroform fill. On Plan Sheet 668/883
under Class QC2 Concrete paragraph-1 states the contractor will have to redesign the superstructure and make any changes required for
SIP forms. These note are included in all bridges. Please clarify what will be required from the contractor if they choose to use SIP forms, if
SIP forms are used is styrofoam fill required as stated under Design Loading. Also if SIP form loading is included in the design and SIP forms
are not used will a redesign of the superstructure be required?
IF SIP FORMS ARE USED, THEN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE STYROFOAM IN THE FLUTES. IF CONVENTIONAL DECK FORMING
METHODS ARE USED, THEN REDESIGN OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE IS NOT REQUIRED.
Question Submitted:
11/7/2014 1:59:43 PM
Would the department please consider providing digital CAD data for the project?
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/LUC-76032/Reference%20Files/Existing%20Plans/
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 4:45:19 PM
Will ODOT assume the "Generator" status for any and all contaminated or hazardous materials encountered? Will ODOT sign the
transportation manifests for hazardous materials?
The manifest will be prepared by the contractor and signed by ODOT. Yes, ODOT will be the generator if any waste is generated
including drums.
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 4:20:29 PM
Is it acceptable to change the post spacing shown for the absorptive noise wall to suit our approved system, ie., up to 24' max?
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 4:17:00 PM
Is there any geotechnical information for this project?, If so, how can I attain those reports?
There are 246 geo sheets in the planset in addition to the geo information zip file posted at:
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/LUC-76032/Reference%20Files/
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 4:16:28 PM
Please clarify type of noise barrier required and aesthetic details for noise barrier on top of retaining wall C, as shown on sheet 652/883
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 4:12:26 PM
Please clarify Note 3 on sheet 3/16 that states "all vertical support posts and plate assemblies shall be coated..." The crash-tested noise
barrier has horizontal rails and horizontal clamping angles, are these to be coated as well or only the vertical posts and plates?
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 4:08:06 PM
Will HDG hardware (no coating) be acceptable for the noisewalls
Standard drawing TL-4-11-14-08n the ODOT accepted system drawings for the Paraglas Soundstop TL-4 Noise Barrier. The General
Notes on sheet 1 of 5 specifies the use of galvanized hardware which I assume is what the HDG reference in the prebid question is
regarding. The wall provided for PID 76032 shall be in accordance with these ODOT accepted drawings.
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 4:02:33 PM
Please provide aesthetic detail plan sheets for absorptive noise barriers
Question Submitted:
11/5/2014 3:26:39 PM
This project has 12 MSE walls and each wall has its own set of bid items. In total this comes out to 190 bid items. Would the Department
consider consolidating these into one set of bid items? There would be about 20 items instead of 190. This could simplify the bid process
and quantity tracking on the project.
The walls are tracked individually in State Assets system cannot be combined.
3:11:48 PM
Page 10
Question Submitted:
11/5/2014 2:37:20 PM
Plan sheet 693/883 shows Item 502, Structures for Maintaining traffic to include the temporary structural support items as shown on plan
sheet 701, 702 and 703/883. There is no bid item setup for this. Please setup a bid item.
Will be addressed in a future addenda
Question Submitted:
11/5/2014 2:08:01 PM
The adjoining project 140485 requires anti graffiti coating on most of the bridges and walls. Will it be required on any bridges or walls on
this project? If so please provide bid items and quantities.
Will be added in a future addenda
Question Submitted:
11/5/2014 1:56:33 PM
Should Bid item 717 Field office be deleted since Project 140485 will be carrying the cost?
Will be deleted in a future addenda
Question Submitted:
10/31/2014 1:55:32 PM
Under Option A and Option B, the proposal calls out Cement Stabilization, Cement, and Curing Coat. Will the contractor be required to
Proof Roll these areas? If so, please provide bid items.Will a Mix Design be required for the Cement stabilization on this project?If so,
please provide bid items.Thank you.
Response: Item 206E30000 Mixture Design for Chemically Stabilized Soil, Quantity 1 Lump Sum will be added to each pavement
option. Revised general summary sheets will be provided in a future addendum.
Question Submitted:
10/29/2014 10:16:30 AM
Can the existing bridge drawings be made available on at ftp site?
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/LUC-76032/Reference%20Files/
Question Submitted:
10/16/2014 11:17:55 AM
Please provide bid items and quantities for the drainage related items used to maintain drainage during construction and remove the note
that it is to be included in the lump sum maintenance of traffic item. The adjoining project, (14)0485 has bid items setup for this work.
This will be revised in a future addenda
Project No. 140543
ERI-84556 - US 250-01.14
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 8:53:06 AM
Should the (13) mast arm sign hanger supports(included in reference number 107) associated with the new TC-16.21 sign structures, be
included with References 105 and 106?
The plans are correct as shown. On plan sheet 101 we have notes for an alternate bid item for the street name signs which are
internally lighted. The sign hanger assembly, mast arm, as per plan for both the standard and alternate bid items of 4 each require
totally different sign hanger assemblies and had to be set up in the plans as shown.
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 4:07:04 PM
Is vehicle detection going to be required during the temporary signal operation or is pre-timed operation going to be utilized?
Vehicle detection will be required. We will include this clarification in Addendum No. 2.
Question Submitted:
11/11/2014 4:11:23 PM
Is the Sidewalk measured through the Curb Ramps? Also is it the same for the Ramps at the Islands?
We will update and will be revising the curb ramp pay item from each to sq ft to match the spec book and the standard drawing BP7.1. A forthcoming addendum will separate the payment for the curb ramps and sidewalks and islands. Per the current standard
drawing BP-7.1 the curb ramp is paid for separate and the other items should not include the same area.
Addendum number 2 will clarify and address this work.
3:11:48 PM
Page 11
Question Submitted:
11/10/2014 1:54:40 PM
The 301 and 304 quantity setup for “C” street (under Pavement Calculations) seem to be high. Using the cad measurement 274 sy the
301 quantity (5”) should be 38 cy instead of 342 cy and the 304 quantity (6”) should be 46 cy instead of 421 cy. Please verify.
In response
to ODOT’s pre bid answer; “The Sequence of construction notes on plan sheet 14 answers your question regarding the planning and
intermediate courses.” I see where it mentions to pave up to the intermediate course in the widening areas in each Stage / Phase, but
nowhere has it mentioned to mill 3.25” / place 1.75” intermediate course over the non-widening areas. Is the intent to complete this work
along with the surface course in Stage 4? If not stage 4, when?
We will include the quantity revisions in Addendum No. 2.
We will also include a clarification to the MOT question in Addendum No. 2.
Question Submitted:
11/10/2014 12:25:24 PM
Please clarify the pavement replacement required at the Type 6 Curb shown behind the sidewalk. The typical sections on page 4 do not
show any pavement repairs. The cross sections and plan pages illustrate approx. 2.5’ of removal at the face of curb. If this will follow the
commercial drive build-up then please clarify if it will be paid under driveway quantities, it does not appear that the quantities are
included. Further, please clarify how sawing, removal, etc. will be paid for this work as well.
The strips of "2' pavement replacement with type 6 curb" identified in the plans was quantified with the driveways and is to be
constructed per the asphalt driveway section.
Question Submitted:
11/10/2014 11:55:48 AM
Please clarify the pavement replacement required at the Type 6 Curb shown behind the sidewalk. The typical sections on page 4 does not
show any pavement repair. The cross sections and plan pages illustrate approx. 2.5’ of removal at the face of curb. If this will follow the
commercial drive build-up then please clarify how it will be paid. If it is included under driveway ref.it does not appear that the quantities
are included. Further, please clarify how sawing, removal, etc. will be paid for this work as well.
The strips of "2' pavement replacement with type 6 curb" identified in the plans was quantified with the driveways and is to be
constructed per the asphalt driveway section.
Question Submitted:
11/10/2014 11:37:40 AM
Where is item 72 railing to be placed?
Item 72 Railing is to be utilized at each of the locations marked "Reconstruct Steps and walk to front of BLDG." in the plans per the
standard construction drawing RM-2.1 for Concrete Steps.
Question Submitted:
11/10/2014 11:30:46 AM
Looking at the phases of asphalt widening, 3 1/4" drop-offs at drives, MOT changes and structures. A significant amount of wedging will
need to be performed throughout the project. Could ODOT add a Ref 614 Asphalt for Maintaining Traffic item for this additional work?
Item 410 Traffic Compacted Surface has been included for maintaining access to driveways. Asphalt for Maintaining Traffic, if
required for MOT wedging is to be included in the Lump Sum unit price for Maintaining Traffic.
Question Submitted:
10/29/2014 3:18:02 PM
Could the office calcs be provided for 254, 301, 407, 442 pavement items? Is the intent to use 441 19mm and 441 12.5mm for the
driveways? Usually, 448 TY 2 and 448 TY 1 is used. In which Stage / Phase does the pavement planning / intermediate course in the nonwidening areas (existing Perkins Ave/ US 250) supposed to be completed?
The office calcs are at ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/ERI-84556/Reference%20Files/84556-ReferenceFiles/
The driveway material is item 442 as shown in the plans. We used to call out item 448 which is now 441 but 100% of the time we
were writing permissive change orders to use the same material as the main line pavement.
The sequence of construction notes on plan sheet 14 answers your questions regarding the planning and intermediate courses.
3:11:48 PM
Page 12
Question Submitted:
10/13/2014 5:16:23 PM
Page 11/145 indicates rock excavation of 180 CY as needed for waterline repair. Please clarify that rock excavation will also be paid if
encountered during 204 Excavation, 605 Underdrain and 611 items as well.
It is not expected to get into rock, but if rock is encountered during the excavation operations of these items, the additional cost of
excavating the rock will be done by change order.
Question Submitted:
10/13/2014 4:58:43 PM
Looking at the schedule for the waterline phasing and the interim completion dates. Would ODOT consider the trench repair to be
completed with 255 concrete repair rather than asphalt given the time this work could be performed and decrease the impact on the
traveling public? Same question applies to the Pavement for Maintaining Traffic APP. Page 12/145 shows the course make-up but this
could delay the possible start time of the project if asphalt must be used.
The contractor will be allowed to use concrete in leiu of asphalt, however, the subsequent additional costs of milling of this concrete
will be at the contractor's expense. An addendum will be processed to allow this varience in the specification item.
See Addendum No. 1.
Question Submitted:
10/13/2014 4:48:58 PM
Page 9/145 discusses proof rolling the stabilized areas per 204.06. Given the width and length of the apparatus conforming to 204.06, it
will not be possible in many of the widening areas to be used. Add in the drive access to be maintained constantly and the phasing of each
area that must be brought up to 5” drop off each day. Not to mention the shallow utilities that will be exposed at this excavation depth
with the weight of this unit, would ODOT consider waving the 204.06 spec on the project?
The Engineer will review the areas in question and non-perform areas that are not feasible to proof roll.
Project No. 140554
ASD-93864 - Mohican SP Campground
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 5:00:54 PM
With the change in pavement repair quantity in addendum #3 the contractor will not be able to supply the department with the amount of
asphalt grindings app as required per the contract documents. please review this item.
The intent of this pay item was for the contractor to deliver any/all asphalt grindings generated by the project up to a maximum of
1000 cy to a location specified by ODNR. The amount of asphalt grindings generated by the project will vary from plan quantity due
to normal differences between actual and field measurements. If the 1000 cy runs under, the contractor will be paid for this
difference per the requirements of C&MS 104.02.
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 2:58:32 PM
On Page 7, Picnic Area – 442 Asphalt Surface 9.5 MM, Type A has a quantity of 678 CY. The total area is approximately 4400 SY. Quantity
appears to be incorrect, please check and revise quantity if needed.
On Page 8, Main Road – 253 Pavement Repair, Misc.: Partial Depth
(max. 4”) has a quantity of 1809 CY. The total area of the Main Road is approximately 9300 SY. Quantity appears to be incorrect, please
check and revise quantity if needed.
An addendum has been posted addressing these questions. Clouded and clean plans sheets have also been developed for these
changes.
Question Submitted:
11/13/2014 2:50:18 PM
On Page 2 typical sections the Roadway Typical shows 1.5' of berm and the Campsite & Parking Lot Typical show 6" berm. Do the
Campsite and Picnic Area Roadways get 1.5' of 617 Berm?Do the 10' x 50' trailers pads get 6" of 617 berm around them?
All roadways throughout the campground are to receive a 2' wide 617 berm. All campsite trailer pads and parking lots without curb
are to receive a 6" wide 617 berm.
3:11:48 PM
Page 13
Question Submitted:
11/13/2014 11:12:27 AM
Per the notes on page 3 of the plans it states:--That two way traffic shall be maintained at all times except for various culvert replacement
locations. -
-Work hours are Mon. – Thurs. 6:30am to 9:30pm and Friday 6:30am to 1pm.
Will the entire areas of work be open and free
of campers and trailers to the contractors during these hours?
Yes. There are no permanent campers at the state park. The project intent is to construct this project prior to the campground
opening for business in calendar year 2015.
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 4:48:07 PM
With 4 days before bid and the addendum adding and changing a good portion of the project which will require the a re-revisit the job to
check out work and flow lines for drainage work not shown on plans, is ODOT going to change the bid date?
Sale delayed to 11/26/14.
Project No. 140556
BUT-75625 - Bridge Maintenance FY2015
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 9:20:35 AM
Plan sheet 4 states a mussel survey will be required at bridge BUT SR 73 16.82. Is the department completing this survey? If not, what pay
item does this work apply to?
ODOT is paying for the mussel relocation and the funds have already been encumbered. The Davey Resource Group will be
completing the relocation.
There is an in stream work restriction date from 4-15 to 6-30 for BUT 73 16.82 as well as BUT 4 14.80L.
ODOT plans on relocating the mussels beginning 5-1-2015 as per the ODNR Ohio Mussel Survey Protocol.
Project No. 140557
ERI-88764 - US 6-11.25
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 3:06:57 PM
Edge Line Rumble Stripe on US 6 (plan sheet 11) is 8.30 miles? And Edge Line on US 6 (plan sheet 20) is 7.98 miles? Is it the intent to
perform Edge Line Rumble Stripe where there will be no painted Edge Line?
Project No. 140558
FRA-90649 - SR 3-24.47
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 5:45:51 PM
Please provide the manufacturer of the bubble plate for the exfiltration trench
The bubble plates were manufactured by Ohio University as part of a research pilot project. ODOT will provide these to the project.
The bidder/contractor should not charge for the bubble plates.
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 3:20:27 PM
The A588 option would be muck less expensive, and makes much more sense.Can A588 steel (which is used on the structure) be used
instead of the metallized A572 steel?
Either material may be used.
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 9:07:27 AM
The expansion joint references EXJ-4-87, which requires A-572 steel and metallizing.The structure is A-588 steel.Should the joint be A588 also?
A572 steel with metallizing is adequate.
3:11:48 PM
Page 14
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 2:42:29 PM
Regarding the Item Special – Structure. Misc.: Moisture Release Deck Coating and Slip Resistant Deck Coating page 168/201 - the material
suppliers for the 2x8 IPE Wood decking do not recommend a moisture release coating to be applied to this type of wood material. Due to
the nature of the hard dense material properties of the IPE wood the moisture release coatings do not adhere to the decking well and will
have a tendency to peel off. The plans also call out for a slip resistant coating to be applied to the decking surface once the moisture
release coating is applied. If you put moisture release coating on the deck the concern is the slip resistant coating will not adhere to the
sealer making the slip resistant coating an ongoing maintenance issue. Will you eliminate the moisture release coating portion of the note
in consideration of these concerns?
A forthcoming addenda will address this prebid.
Item 530E00800 - STRUCTURE, MISC.: MOISTURE RELEASE DECK COATING will be eliminated.
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 8:46:28 AM
On P-168/201, Item 513 Structural Steel paragraph 1.6 indicates an AISC certified steel erector (CSE) to be used for the erection of the
structure. According to our information, there are only 3 ODOT qualified Ohio contractors qualified as a CSE. Is Level 2 bridge construction
qualification enough to meet this requirement? If not, could this requirement be waived and Level 2 approved for steel structure erection?
A Level 2 bridge qualification is adequate for the erection of the prefabricated truss.
Project No. 140560
HAM-82972 - IR 275-16.19
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 7:53:49 AM
Would the department review and reconsider the response to the previously submitted question regarding the completion date? Given
the original scope and information released by addendum #1, there does not appear to be sufficient time to complete the contract work.
See forthcoming addendum.The completion date will be revised to 9/30/15.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 7:47:46 AM
With the replacement of the pavement removal and asphalt concrete base items with 253 pavement repair, should the pavement repair
item include the 16.5" full depth repair with replacement by 13.25" of 301, 1.75" 19mm, 1.5" 12.5mm? Would the department consider
16.5" of 301 base to be placed in 3 lifts? Removal of concrete and asphalt and replacement with 5 compacted lifts severely limits
production given the permitted lane closure times.
The pavement repair is to include 16.5" of item 301 per the Addendum 1 revised pavement repair detail on sheet 5. Tag 24 states to
install 16.5" of item 301 in 3 lifts.
Question Submitted:
11/20/2014 3:47:25 PM
Our question for the jacking item was in error. Please add a jacking item for Bridge 275-1819 Pippin Road for the abutment bearing
replacement. We had called out the wrong bridge in our previous question.
See forthcoming addendum.A pay item and As Per Plan note for jacking and temporary support for structure HAM-275-1819 will
be added.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 4:08:59 PM
Page 10 of the plans includes a lane closure table that is not consistent with ODOT’s Permitted Lane Closure times on ODOT’s website.
Which table will take precedence?
See forthcoming addendum.The lane value contract table will be revised as follows:I-275 lanes shall follow the PLCM. Ramps
shall have all lanes open from 6:00AM to 9:00PM. Ramps shall have one lane open at all times. Single lane ramps are permitted to
be closed from 10:00PM to 6:00AM, a maximum of 3 times per ramp.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 8:24:40 AM
Bid items 93 and 126 Sealing of concrete surfaces(non epoxy)have quantities of 418sy and 559sy. If this is for deck sealing the quantities do
not seem to be correct. Please clarify
See forthcoming addendum.Bid items for Sealing of Concrete Surfaces (Non-Epoxy) for structures HAM-275-1684 and HAM-2751819 will be deleted.Also note a forthcoming addendum will be adding 1530 feet of cable median barrier along I-275.
3:11:48 PM
Page 15
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 4:22:15 PM
Please add a jacking item for the HAM-275-1684 bridge Struble Road for the bearing removal/replacement.
A jacking pay item is already included in the plans and proposal. See proposal reference number 0107.
Question Submitted:
11/17/2014 4:08:14 PM
For structure HAM-275-2016 Mill Road, there is an item for Patching Concrete Bridge Deck Overlay with Micro-silica Modified Concrete.
Typically curing times for a micro-overlay is 72 hours. This bridge is supposed to have one lane of traffic maintained at all times using
flaggers. Will ODOT allow a 1 week closure of this bridge to facilitate this work, or will another material such as Type B bridge deck
patching be specified with a rapid set bag mix material?
See forthcoming addendum.The Item 519 Special - Patching Concrete Bridge Deck Overlay with Micro Silica Modified Concrete
pay items for structures HAM-275-2016 and HAM-275-2027 will be replaced with Item 519 Special - Patching Concrete Bridge Deck Type B.
Question Submitted:
11/17/2014 3:53:09 PM
For the HAM-275-1684 structure the removal will consist of all end cross-frames which we agree with as stated on the note on sheet 65.
Additionally we think that a few intermediate cross-frames may need removed due to the large skew angle and these cross-frames attach
to the beam on one end inside of the area that would be encapsulated the new diaphragm concrete. Is ODOT ok with this removal as it
will be necessary for concrete formwork and placement. We don't think this will happen in every bay, but will occur in at one or two
locations.
See forthcoming addendum.The note with heading "Item 202 - Portions of Structure Removed, Over 20 Foot Span, As Per Plan"
will be revised by adding the text "intermediate crossframes that conflict with abutment diaphragms" to the first sentence of the
first paragraph. See addendum for details.
Question Submitted:
11/17/2014 2:52:57 PM
Will ODOT please consider a 90 day closure for the re-deck bridge. This bridge is long with a large skew over top of 275. This will require
night time demolition work that cannot be double shifted or pick up any time to meet such a tight schedule. Additionally the skew will
create extra days of work with demolition. Furthermore, the bridge requires a deck pour with the diaphragms at the same time. Curing
must take place before backfilling the abutments can take place. This means the approach slabs cannot be poured for at least 5 to 10 days
after the deck. After the approach slabs are poured you must have cure on them, sidewalk pours, then railing pours, then install metal
railing and vandal fence. You have 28 days of cure in the job with working time in between. To build and open this bridge with the extra
sidewalk/railing pours, railing and vandal fence and still meet curing strengths and requirements is not feasible. Please consider a 90 day
closure.Additionally please consider extending the completion date to sometime in October of 2015. This job will require lots of lane
closures/traffic zones for asphalt as well as bridge work. The asphalt resurfacing will be going on at the same time as the bridge work;
however, when bridge striping and painting are happening zones will have to be coordinated and could take additional days as both bridge
painting and asphalt paving cannot happen at the same location during the same time frames. For this scheduling issue will ODOT allow
more time for this contract.
See forthcoming addendum.The project completion date will be revised to 8/15/15.The 60 day closure will not be revised.
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 3:54:16 PM
Will the existing bridge drawings be made available?
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/HAM-82972/Reference%20Files/
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 2:15:57 PM
The department's response to the question submitted 11/11/14 9:53:48AM indicates that the 3.25" of item 448 are calculated on sheet 39
of the plans. This sheet only includes item 442 mixes. If 442 mixes are to be used, does the calculated total account for double the
quantity for the repair area of 18,860? The 3.25" as installed during pavement repairs will be removed as part of the pavement planning
operation and replaced permanently a second time as part of the intermediate and surface course installations.
The Item 442 Intermediate and Surface courses were calculated once. The previous prebid question (11/11/14 @ 9:53:48 AM)
response incorrectly stated Item 448 instead of Item 442.
3:11:48 PM
Page 16
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 2:06:46 PM
Would the department review the possibility of 302 asphalt base to be used in lieu of 301 base for the pavement repair? At 16.5" depth to
be put back under running traffic each day, the use of 302 may help alleviate some of the anticipated occurrences of this issue.
The Department has considered the use of Item 302 in lieu of Item 301 and determined there will be no change from the plan
requirement to use Item 301. No addendum necessary.
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 1:25:09 PM
The 80 hours for Law Enforcement Officer seems very low for this project. Could the department review this quantity?
See forthcoming addendum.The quantity for Law Enforcement Officer will be increased to 600 hours.
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 1:23:33 PM
Can traffic run on the milled surface?
See forthcoming addendum.A note will be added by addendum stating traffic will not be allowed to run on the milled surface.
Also all pavement markings will be placed prior to opening to traffic.
Question Submitted:
11/11/2014 10:24:51 AM
There are not any pay items for work zone pavement markings. How will work zone pavement markings be paid for?
See forthcoming addendum. Work zone pavement marking quantities will be provided.
Question Submitted:
11/11/2014 9:56:52 AM
How will the tack of the vertical surfaces be paid for in the areas of pavement repair? Tack is not incidental to either pavement removal or
301 base.
See forthcoming addendum.The 202 Pavement Removed and 301 Base Course pay items for I-275 full depth pavement repair
work will be deleted and replaced with a 253 Pavement Repair pay item. The application of tack to the vertical surfaces is covered
in the 253 pay item.
Question Submitted:
11/11/2014 9:53:48 AM
The plan note for full depth pavement repair states to remove 16.5” of existing pavement and replace it with full depth flexible pavement.
The calculations on sheets 23-38 show placing 13.25” of asphalt. The plan note states full depth four times, but the calculations only have
the contractor replacing partial depth (13.25” of 16.5” of depth). Is the contractor to place full depth flexible pavement as stated in the
plan note?
Yes. The contractor is required to place full depth pavement of 16.5”.
The I-275 pavement repair includes 1.50” of Item 448 surface course and 1.75” of Item 448 Intermediate course over the length of
the I-275 project. This quantity is quantified in the pavement calculations sheet 39 in the MAINLINE I.R. 275 row. The calculations
on sheet 23-38 tabulate the quantities (pavement removal and 13.25” of Item 301) in the full depth pavement repair locations
beyond the standard 3.25” of Item 448. The I.R 275 Full Depth Pavement Repair Detail on sheet 5 shows the required buildup in the
full depth sections and is consistent with the General Note on sheet 9 and the pavement calculations.
Question Submitted:
10/30/2014 10:45:00 AM
Regarding the asbestos bid item, how is the contractor to reasonably bid an item that was inaccessible and unforeseen? There may be no
asbestos present or every inch of the bridge may contain asbestos. If there is no asbestos and the contractor bids $10,000 the contractor is
entitled to that money as they handled anything that may have been present and ODOT is paying for a service never received. If the bridge
is covered with asbestos then the contractor will loose lots of money. Being that this is completely an unforeseen item that has no
reasonable ground for bidding would ODOT please consider this work as extra work to create an even bidding playing field as well as a fair
way of being compensated for the work. I.E. no one's bids are distorted and ODOT only compensates the contractor for actual amounts of
work done.
See forthcoming addendum.The Asbestos Abatement Lump Sum pay item will be deleted. The note will be modified similar to the
following (see addendum for exact wording): Per an asbestos survey, the District has no indication that asbestos contaminated
material (ACM) is present. Should the Contractor encounter ACM that was not found due to limitations in survey conditions, the
handling and disposal of said ACM will be covered under CMS 202.04, even if it is not Asbestos Waterline, with payment in
accordance with CMS 109.05.
3:11:48 PM
Page 17
Question Submitted:
10/29/2014 2:35:58 PM
Please review REF# 172, EBS and the Proposal call this Patching Concrete Bridge Deck 125 SY, while the plans call out Patching Concrete
Structure, As Per Plan 125 SF? Which one is correct, we believe it to be the Patching concrete Structure 125 SF. Can ODOT verify and
correct this?
See forthcoming addendum.The plans are correct and the item will be revised to a SF unit.
Question Submitted:
10/29/2014 2:11:47 PM
Please check the quantity on reference #150 Full Depth Repair. 78 CY seems like an extremely high quantity for this type of work.
See forthcoming addendum.The quantity will be revised to 10 Cubic Yards.
Question Submitted:
10/27/2014 4:54:23 PM
For REF #101 Field Painting of Damaged Structural Steel as Per Plan, what areas does ODOT anticipate this item to cover? Does this cover
scupper removal areas and new/old bearing areas outside of the new abutment diaphragms? Any guidance as to the intended areas
would be greatly appreciated.
See forthcoming addendum.The item is to repair paint damaged by project work and contractor damage including nicks, scrapes,
concrete slurry, welding, etc.
Question Submitted:
10/27/2014 2:44:36 PM
Plan notes on sheet 9 indicate that asbestos testing has already been complete and no asbestos has been found. If this is true there is no
need for the asbestos abatement note on sheet 9 as well as the bid item #22. If ODOT's concern is any unforeseen asbestos there is no
way for a contractor to legitimately determine how to price this item knowing no asbestos was found in the original survey. Will ODOT
eliminate this bid item and handle any unforeseen asbestos encountered as extra work? This would be fair to all bidders as well as ODOT
since this item is to handle an unforeseen situation.
The Lump Sum pay item is to account for items which could contain asbestos, but were not surveyed. These items, per the note on
sheet 9, include inaccessible areas, concrete, paint, asphalt, debris, and piping. The bid item will not be deleted from the project.
Project No. 140561
HOC-91715 - SR 56-5.38
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/8/2014 11:51:08 AM
Can the existing structure drawings be made available? Thank you.
There are no existing plans for this structure.
Project No. 140562
JEF-85113 - SR 43-5.58
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 10:59:36 AM
The plan note on page three regarding Pavement Planing states that all 59,228 tons of grindings shall be delivered to ODOT. The quantity
seems to be in error. But regardless, would the department consider releasing the material to be incorporated into the project?
In the Item 254-Pavement Planing, Asphalt Concrete, as Per Plan note on sheet 3, the quantity of grindings to be delivered is
incorrect. It should be 4936 Tons (2468 c.y.). The square yard quantity on the general summary is correct. All of the above quantity
is still to be delivered to Wintersville Street Department.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 3:27:44 PM
Request to waive PN 420 note from the Project for the following reasons:1.)There are multiple sections of this project that does not
meet the designer recommendations for minimum speed limit of 50 MPH and minimum thickness of 3 inches of new pavement. 2.)This
Project has multiple intersections which disrupts the normal paving process in order to transition in and out of these areas.3.)Varying
number of lanes and lane widths with and without curbs.Historically, other projects similar to this in District 11 have had PN 420 waived
for the same above reasons, i.e. Project 06-12, state route 213.
The PN 420 will not be removed on this project.
3:11:48 PM
Page 18
Project No. 140564
LOR-82262 - US 20-8.56, LOR-SR 10C-0.73, LOR-SR 10-6.52
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 5:20:20 PM
Ref. No. 18 Remove Lighting - Please clarify the limits of removal. To the Disconnect Switch? To the pullbox? Just the lights on the sign?
Remove Sign Lighting to the disconnect switch or to the splice at a circuit that is to remain.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 3:16:38 PM
There is no ground mounted structural beam foundation reference number for the new W6x9 beams.Reference Number 6 Quantity
listed as 3 should be 5. The two additional units were added to Reference Number 7 on the general summary.Reference Number 7
quantity for Sign Attachment Assembly should be zero. One unit is listed along with a ground mounted sign on the subsummary which is in
error. It appears that all overhead signs will be replaced using the existing sign attachment assemblies.
These comments will be addressed by addendum.Addendum #1 is forthcoming.
Project No. 140565
MED-93113 - SR 57-03.24
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/20/2014 9:15:09 AM
Will consideration be made to replace the existing polymer modified joints on SR 57-05.72 (Sheet 53)instead of going to Saw & Seal Joint?
With SS 846 requirement of onsite manufacture rep for polymer modified installation, it makes sense to keep the same. Not sure why
additional pay item is in plans for removal of the polymer joints, when they will be taken out with milling. Please clarify. Thank you.
The existing joint is performing satisfactorily and doesn’t need replaced. The separate pay item identifies the joint and allows for
different milling operation if necessary.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 10:43:35 AM
Ref. 79 - Portable Barrier, 32" and Ref. 80 - Portable Barrier, 32" Bridge Mounted (Unanchored) are itemized in the Proposal but do not
appear in the plan General Summary. These items also do not appear to be shown in any of the maintaining traffic drawings. Could you
please clarify how these items are intended to be used?
Some items in the proposal weren’t synchronized with the plan for Project 140565. The proposal will be updated to match the
plan’s General Summary.
Addendum #1 is forthcoming.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 12:00:06 PM
Ref. 43 Item 617 Shoulder Preparation - 1,206 SY is listed in the Proposal, but does not appear to be quantified in the plans. Could you
please provide clarification as to what the intent of this item is and where it's located?
Some items in the proposal weren’t synchronized with the plan for Project 140565. The proposal will be updated to match the
plan’s General Summary.
Addendum #1 is forthcoming.
Project No. 140566
MIA-93779 - -SR 721-05.21
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
11/25/2014 4:48:19 PM
There is excavation required to construct the pier pile encasements. There is no bid item for Unclassified Excavation or Cofferdams, Cribs,
and Sheeting. How is this excavation/backfill to be paid?
Item 503e11100, Cofferdams and Excavation Bracing is missing from the plans. This is required both for the excavation/backfill and
for the damming of the stream around the work area. An addendum is forthcoming and the sale is delayed to Dec. 11.
3:11:48 PM
Page 19
Project No. 140567
MOE-91431 - SR 7-15.07
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 1:22:33 PM
Plan page 7, the flow line of the existing channel in the immediate vicinity of the existing concrete box culvert is approximately 5’ lower
than the stream bed on either end of the existing plate culvert. What grade is the stream bed to be at upon completion of the conduit
filling operation? If these areas are to be filled, how will the Contractor be compensated?
Flow line of the stream will remain the same as it is now. There is to be no filling in the stream.
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 1:21:47 PM
Plan page 7, were there any soil borings taken on the inlet/outlet sides of the existing concrete box culvert? If so, will they be made
available to the Contractors?
There are no known soil boring in this area.
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 1:20:48 PM
Plan pages 6 & 7, what does the abbreviation CH & SH stand for? Can the Contractor utilize these areas in the prosecution of the contract?
CH is channel easement, SH is standard highway easement. The contractor can use the areas with these limits for construction.
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 1:19:47 PM
Does the concrete masonry Reference #11 include reinforcing steel? If reinforcing required could the Department provide details?
There is no reinforcing associated with this pay item.
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 1:18:56 PM
Reference #14 Field Paving of Existing Pipe, as per plan, 144” includes the patching of compromised sections of the existing field paved
invert. Since the existing field paving is currently buried under sediment and cannot be viewed, would the Department provide a
contingency item for any patching required of the existing paved invert since this work cannot be defined at bid time.
No contingency quantity will be provided for this item.
Project No. 140568
PER-88951 - US 22-07.63/12.02
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 11:28:40 AM
Ref 44-rebar weight for the A1010 should be 909 lbs, not 698.Ref 104-rebar weight for the diaphragms equals 5987, not 5252
Project No. 140570
BEL-92353 - SR 149-8.28
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 7:52:49 AM
Under the heading "Short-Duration Closing of the Highway", on plan sheet 7 of 49, item 4 calls for 2 LEO's during blasting operations and
item 5 states they are paid in item 614 - Law Enforcement Officer with Patrol Car. Please add a pay item in the proposal for the LEO. Thanks.
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 10:57:52 AM
The existing 8" water main along the north side of the road shown in the plans and cross sections is indicated to be asbestos concrete on
sheet 16/49. This waterline will not withstand the weight of the construction equipment needed to construct this project. Provisions
should be made to replace this waterline. Please establish contingent quantities to deal with repair/replacement of this waterline.
The 8" waterline shall remain in place and in service during construction. The Contractor shall take all precautions necessary to
prevent damage to the waterline by equipment. Please refer to the Utility Note for additional information regarding the waterline.
3:11:48 PM
Page 20
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 9:33:21 AM
Provisions have been made for pavement restoration of damaged eastbound pavement lanes on plan sheet 4. There will be a considerable
amount of work that will take place on the westbound lanes including rock fall. Will these pay items be used for the westbound lanes
also? Consideration should be given to mill, overlay, and restripe SR 149 within the project limits at the completion of the project.
The pavement restoration note should read westbound instead of eastbound lanes. The provisions for pavement repair are for
damage done to the westbound lanes. No aditional pavement work will be added.
Project No. 140571
JAC-89400 - SR 327-19.44 Rockfall Repair
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 4:30:47 PM
Jackson County Water Co. Larry Foster wants a duplicate (backup) waterline put together on the surface, in case the blasting breaks the
existing 6" PVC, since it is on that same side of the road as the blasting.
Please indicate how this should be Allowed for in the Bid by everyone.
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 11:19:02 AM
I do not see a pay item for six (6) each CL Ref Monuments, Type A, Design 6 as mentioned on plan sht 29.Please add Bid Item.Thank you
This question will be answered by addendum.
Question Submitted:
11/5/2014 11:23:33 AM
RE: Excavation QtyStation 472+25 with an end-area of 327 SF, I figure the Cut btwn this and Sta 472+00 is only 151 CY instead of 3,638
CY. Please verify.
This question will be answered by addendum.
Project No. 140573
BRO-86586 - -41-0.89
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 4:37:30 PM
What class of pipe as per ASTM F2562 is specified for SS938? SS937 has RSC 250 listed in the plans, what is it for SS 938?
For supplemental Specification 938 the class of pipe should meet the requirements of Supplemental Specification 837.02, unless
otherwise stated in Supplemental Specification 938, the plan specifications and have an equal or greater RSC 250.
Question Submitted:
11/13/2014 5:09:43 PM
Will ss 938, steel reinforced thermoplastic ribbed pipe, be allowed as an option for the 108" liner pipe for this project?
This will be addressed by forthcoming Addendum.
Project No. 140575
CUY-22891 - -IR 77-13.75
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 2:52:58 PM
Could the Department please provide a link to the Office Calcs for the Roadway and Pavement Items?
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 2:04:39 PM
The Special Vandal Protection Fence does not call out for the steel members and the anchors to be hot dipped galvanized. Normally these
items are galvanized and we highly recommend this be required. Please confirm if hot dipped galvanizing of all steel materials should be
included.
3:11:48 PM
Page 21
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 2:02:17 PM
Sheet 172 of 183 provides the specifications for the Special Vandal Protection Fence and the steel members are all called out as Grade 50
steel. Being that this is a 607 item, is a fence, and is not a structural member of any kind, can we use Grade 36 steel?
Question Submitted:
11/25/2014 8:38:25 AM
Regarding pavement removals (Ref. Nos. 2 and 3), it appears that at most locations in the pavement calculations, ODOT is planning to pay
for both Pavement Removed and Pavement Removed, Asphalt. Is this really the intent? Also, it appears that the pavement removed for the
majority of Ramp D-1 (plan sheets 82-85/183) was not carried to the General Summary. At least one other area on Pershing was also
missed. Please review and revise.
This has been reviewed, please bid as per the contract documents.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 2:26:14 PM
The utility notes in the proposal have some discrepancies and are missing some information needed to accurately bid the project.CEI Page 48/183 states a pole will be relocated but the utility notes have the relocation crossed out. Which is correct?DEOG - Will the active
8" gas line be capped outside the bridge limits during demolition and reconstruction of the bridge? Will DEOG remove the existing conduits
from the structure? If so how much notice and how long will it take them? How much notice and how long will DEOG take to install and
connect to new gas line once the contractor completes steel erection? TWC - They have a pole at each end of the bridge and an
overhead fiber optic line that are to be relocated. Where will the relocate to? By what date will the relocation be completed? CPP - Plans
show that their electric, assumed to be in the conduit in the sidewalk, is to be relocated. Please provide details of the planned relocation
including timeframe and proposed location.
The forthcoming addenda will supercede all previous answers to this particular pre-bid question.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 10:59:50 AM
The Construction Noise Restriction noted on Sheet 8/183 conflicts with the requirements to perform many activities during periods or
permissible lane closures per the notes on Sheet 11/183. Will there be a variance to the permissible lane closures restrictions or to the City
of Cleveland noise ordinance?
A noise ordinance waiver may be obtained from the City after project award once details are made known regarding the length of
waiver and equipment used, etc.
Question Submitted:
11/20/2014 4:48:37 PM
On plan sheet 143/183, there are cross-hatched areas at the new abutments that indicate "Area to be excavated prior to Phase 1
Substructure removal". How is this excavation to be paid? It does not appear to be included on the I-77 cross sections on sheet 64/183.
Please clarify.
The excavation in front of the proposed abutment is included with the roadway plans (sheets 64 and 65), under Item 203,
Excavation. The remaining portion is included under the bridge plans as a lump sum bid Item for Unclassified Excavation, As Per
Plan.
Question Submitted:
11/20/2014 4:35:47 PM
The bridge drawings require the use of two "Workzone MSE Walls". The question is this: do the fill quantities as shown on the crosssections from stations 9+02 to 11+14 (plan sheets 68-70) take into account the volume of select granular backfill required for the MSE
walls? Should this quantity be deducted from the fill quantities?
See plan note on sheet 143 of 183, which specifies the design of the workzone MSE wall. The wall is not designed as this is the
Contractor’s responsibility; therefore, the plans do not indicate the amount of select granular backfill since this is dependent on the
workzone MSE wall design. The amount of select granular backfill will need to be subtracted out of the fill quantities.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 8:24:39 AM
Are stay-in-place metal deck forms allowed to be used on this project?
Stay in place forms of any kind are not allowed to be used on this project.
3:11:48 PM
Page 22
Question Submitted:
11/14/2014 4:12:58 PM
Plan sheet 134/183 indicates that the Vandal Protection Fence items (Refs. 234, 235) are alternates, but they are additive in the Expedite
file. Please repair the Expedite file to reflect alternate bid items.
The EBS file will be revised by an addendum 1 amendment file
Question Submitted:
11/12/2014 4:30:45 PM
The utility notes in the proposal have some discrepancies and are missing some information needed to accurately bid the project.
CEI - Page 48/183 states a pole will be relocated but the utility notes have the relocation crossed out. Which is correct?
DEOG - Will the active 8" gas line be capped outside the bridge limits during demolition and reconstruction of the bridge? Will DEOG
remove the existing conduits from the structure? If so how much notice and how long will it take them? How much notice and how long
will DEOG take to install and connect to new gas line once the contractor completes steel erection?
TWC - They have a pole at each end of the bridge and an overhead fiber optic line that are to be relocated. Where will the relocate to? By
what date will the relocation be completed?
CPP - Plans show that their electric, assumed to be in the conduit in the sidewalk, is to be relocated. Please provide details of the planned
relocation including timeframe and proposed location.
CEI - The Utility Note is correct. The ODOT Contractor will corrdinate the respective work with Dominion, TWC, and CPP.
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 11:03:56 AM
Can ODOT please provide existing bridge drawings for bidder's use?
information is available on the website
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/CUY-22891/
Project No. 140576
ROS-87326 - -BH-FY 2015
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
11/26/2014 9:55:31 AM
Can the completion date be extended to 9/30/15, so we can utilize the typically dry and low water conditions of August and September?
The completion date is being revised to 10/31/15 in forthcoming Addendum No. 1.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 12:28:15 PM
Can you provide more detailed maps for the locations of the culverts on this project? The small location map on plan sheet 1 is hard to
read.
Please see the existing plans posted at teh ftp site for more information: ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/D0987326/Reference%20Files/
Project No. 140578
HOC-82832 - SR 56-13.60
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
11/6/2014 8:47:00 AM
Item 61840101 rumble strips. Is this pattern to be sawed in different locations? Will the dept measure all saw cuts & pay by the Lin Foot ? I
have added all cuts in the pattern x 10.5 feet. X 2 & still only get 3000 feet. Please clarify.
The location is as stated on sheet 5. Your method of estimating is correct except the Department estimated the lane width to be 12';
the roadway widens near the intersection of SR93. (144 x 12' = 1728' per direction)
Project No. 140580
MAD-92877 - -Toland Street Bridge
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 9:35:53 AM
Can the project completion date be changed to 11-29-15 to match the detour date listed on plan sheet 4?
The request has been evaluated and the Department will not be changing the completion date.
3:11:48 PM
Page 23
Question Submitted:
11/26/2014 10:02:07 AM
Regarding he waterline bore & jack. We understand the city would like the line to not have a casing. If this is the case ductile iron pipe
should not be used as this is rarely bored if ever without a casing pipe. Will ODOT and the city allow a directional bore, or will ODOT
amend the permit for the job and allow the contractor to open cut the waterline as that is very possible in this area and in fact was just
done a few years ago on this same waterline. In summation we ask to either allow a directional bore using different materials, or an open
cut using dip cl 52 if a casing pipe is not allowed for the jack and bore as shown on the plans.
The City will allow the use of a liner pipe to install the waterline. The contractor is to try minimize the number of joint in the cast
iron waterline. No open cut will be allowed.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 1:15:59 PM
On our site review we noticed a drainage pipe on the rear right corner which is shown on sheet 22 on the right of way plans. This pipe is
called out as a 15" RCP. It will run right through the new wing wall on the bridge. Should a manhole and new pipe be laid to avoid the
bridge? Where would any of this work be paid for? Please address this pipe issue.
This will be addressed in a forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 9:49:20 AM
Plan sheet 8 shows the detour plan and has notes 1 and 2 including temporary crosswalks as well as temporary sidewalk curb ramps. Can
ODOT please clarify that these are incidental to the 614 item as shown in note 4 and correct the bid item to be Maintenance of Traffic As
Per Plan? Also will ODOT allow the sidewalk extensions/curb ramps to be left in at the end of the job?
All work was accepted to be paid for under Item 614 – Maintaining Traffic and is stated as such in the General Notes and on the
Detour Plan. Large portions of the detour signing note are not applicable. The plans have been updated to change Item 614 –
Maintaining Traffic to be as per plan, include the applicable portions of the detour signing note under the general note for Item 614
– Maintaining Traffic, As Per Plan, and clarify in the notes that temporary walks and curb ramps need to be removed unless they are
installed to the BP-7.1 (7/18/2004) standards. The temporary curb ramps are being installed in tree lawn areas to connect existing
sidewalks to the curb, areas which are assumed to be within the R/W at their respective locations. No above ground utilities are
known to exist at these locations. OUPS must be called prior to digging. These changes will be included in Addendum 1.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 9:41:16 AM
For the waterline relocation as shown on plan sheet 2 for the bore and jack, will a casing pipe be required? If so what are the
specifications for the casing pipe and fill of the casing pipe?
Marty Colwell from City of London Public Utilities, responded that casing is not required and would prefer that it is not provided
stating his reasoning as it would make future maintenance difficult.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 9:13:07 PM
Are any cross sections available for the excavation/embankment work on the job to check quantities?
Cross sections were not developed for this project as they follow a simplified plans format as the approach work is minimal.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 9:12:24 PM
Please add a bid item for 1 dynamic load test, as it is required in the notes for the pile driving.
A bid item will be added in Addendum 1.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 4:44:02 PM
For the waterline relocation can any additional information be given? Will the contractor be required to bore and jack the line as shown
on sheet 2/22 but not called out in any other notes? Will a directional bore be considered with polyethylene pipe?
Contractor must bore and jack the pipe under Oak Run and a minimum class 52 ductile iron pipe is required as the plan note
indicates.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 4:25:23 PM
Please add a bid item for seeding and mulching, fertilizer, etc as there will be earth disturbance inside the construction limits for structure
excavations and access ramps.
Bid items will be added in Addendum 1.
3:11:48 PM
Page 24
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 3:59:32 PM
There are no utility notes listed in the proposal. the plan and profile show an electric line approximately 7 FT off the off the left edge of
bridge deck label to remain. Will this line be able to be relocated, or temporarily shut down for pile driving operations and bridge beam
setting? The 7 FT distance will create OSHA violations and the piling is actually closer than that.
Agree that aerial electric lines and telephone lines will be in conflict with pile driving and beam setting. The overhead electric lines
are the City of London’s power feed for the street lighting. Steve Hume from the City of London has been contacted and stated that
the lines can be de-energized for pile driving and beam erection operations. The plans will be updated to reflect this in Addendum
1. AT&T has lines on the same poles, but telephone lines are not subject to OSHA clearances for energized power lines.
Project No. 140582
MRW-77240 - -CR 146-0.28
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 1:40:28 PM
Reference # 17, Reference Monument has an EBS quantity of 8 each, plans only call out 4 each. Can ODOT show where the other 4 are
required or correct the quantity if only 4 each are required.
An addendum will be issued to change the quantity to 4.
Question Submitted:
11/18/2014 11:22:24 AM
Would like verification on reference no. 71, draped strand prestressed concrete bridge I-beam members, Level 3.Does the producer of the
I-beam have to be qualified for Level 3? or does the general contractor have to be qualified for Level 3 Bridge?
According to (ODOT Construction and Material Specifications) Item 515.03 the fabricator/producer needs to be Level 3.
Question Submitted:
11/8/2014 11:53:37 AM
Can the existing structure drawings be made available? Thank you.
Existing structure drawings are not available.
Project No. 140586
WAY-83453 - BH-FY2015
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
11/25/2014 8:57:30 AM
Contract Drawing 13 of 36 has a note in Section B-B "Galvanize exposed reinforcing steel prior to epoxy injection". Is there a specification
for the required galvanizing?
Project No. 140587
WOO-92375 - SR 65-5.89 Resurf
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 2:06:07 PM
Item 9 Preparing subgrade for shoulder paving APP. has a quantity of 5.54 miles. This only covers one side of the road should the quantity
be doubled?
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 11:24:28 AM
Ref 8 Re-shaping under guardrail - the unit in bid proposal is "Miles" - and per plan drawings should be "Station"
Project No. 140589
SCI-94037 - Shawnee Culvert Project #1
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
12/1/2014 9:44:58 AM
References 14-20 for storm pipes , as per plan, are bid under item 611. I don't see line and grade information on the numerous pipes
listed, and the pipes are only located by latitude and longitude. What is our responsibility under 611 for plan and testing?
3:11:48 PM
Page 25
Question Submitted:
11/26/2014 11:36:21 AM
Is there a breakdown of the existing pavement for the depth on the full depth sawing line item?
The existing pavement thickness for FR 4 & 18 is estimated at 3". The 8 CY of replacement asphalt (Item 441) was calculated using
2" replacement thickness.
Question Submitted:
11/20/2014 2:44:05 PM
Can you provide cut sheets or depths of the culvert pipes at each location so granular backfill can be properly estimated?Will the
contractor be required to complete a performance and execution plan for each of the 122 culvert locations per supplement 1015?
The District believes that sufficient data has been provided to estimate the backfill of these relatively shallow culverts. Also,
concerning installation and performance plan including compaction, the ODOT CMS 611 requirements will be followed.
Project No. 141094
D08-87099 - /PRE-GCS-FY2015
Sale Date - 12/11/2014
Question Submitted:
11/25/2014 10:43:51 AM
1. It appears that there will be no routing on this project, is that correct?
2. If I understand the plans correctly the items listed under Traffic Control (Items 642 : 100 - 1410 & 645 : 110-310) are permanent
pavement markings to be placed upon completion of the project.
3. In regards to the Maintenance of Traffic (Item 614 : 21600-31640) pavement Markings, if I am reading the Standard Specifications
correctly, (614.11.F.1) that those markings would only be required if the final pavement markings are not in place within 14 days?
Project No. 142011
CUY-96284 - -TEST LAB RENOVATION
Sale Date - 12/12/2014
Question Submitted:
11/25/2014 9:31:15 AM
On the VAV Box with Hot Water Reheat Schedule, note #1 says "MC to provide room thermostat and controls necessary for
communication with, and controls by,existing building automation system. Field verify and match control type of existing VAV boxes."
What is the make of the existing building automation system that we need to tie in to?
The company is Trane. As the District is moving forward on upgrading the HVAC system, it is recommended that Delta Controls are
used for the new installation.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 1:37:46 PM
What is the existing fire alarm system and security system for the building?
The District has a security and fire alarm system through Northwestern Ohio Security. There are fire sprinklers in the ceiling
throughout this area. The new outer man doors must have door contacts for the security alarm, and an electronic latch that is
activated by the card reader that is to be on the outside of this door as well, for access control.A motion detector will be needed
in the lab area, and video camera on the door to the outside, that is hooked up to our monitoring software.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 1:16:19 PM
The plans call for lab painting to be completed in 24 hours. Will the selected colors cover in one coat or will a second coat be needed? If a
second coat is needed, this timeframe may not be feasible.
Per Section 09 90 00 Painting and Coating all paint systems are a 3-coat system. For existing walls that are already painted the First
Coating primer coat maybe omitted.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 1:13:32 PM
Keynote #1 on sheet A-4 says new floor coating, what is the new floor coating? There is an epoxy paint listed under paint spec's, but we are
not sure if that is for this floor coating.
Paragraph 5 under Section 09 90 00 Painting and Coating is for Concrete Floors and is intended for the floor.
3:11:48 PM
Page 26
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 1:11:12 PM
Should only half the doors/frames in labs #120 and #103 be painted or should entire door and frame be painted? Please clarify the scope.
The intent of keynote 2 is that the entire lab including doors and frames in the area are to be painted. This would include both sides
of the doors and frames.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 1:07:40 PM
Keynote #6 on sheet A-4 says to paint existing gyp. bd. ceilings, where are they located ?
Keynote 6 can be found grouped with keynotes 1 and 2 in rooms 102 and 103.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 1:05:35 PM
What is the ceiling height for labs #102 and #103?
Existing ceilings are plus/minus 8'-0". Contractor shall field verify.
Question Submitted:
11/19/2014 10:33:44 AM
Can you provide a contact to provide access to the area for a site visit?
The contractor will be provided access to the District 12 Test Lab by appointment only during regular working hours, 7:30 am to 4:30
pm. To schedule an appointment the contractor should contact either of the following District personnel: Nader Armand @ (216)
584-2170, Tom Vanek @ (216) 584-2040 or Dave Whiteley @ (216) 584-2194.
Project No. 148037
LAK-99084 - US 6-2.06 Subdecking
Sale Date - 11/26/2014
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 1:20:12 PM
Due to the availability and difficulty to pressure treat douglas fir, would southern yellow pine be an acceptable material alternative?
Question Submitted:
11/24/2014 1:16:39 PM
Could the Department provide clarification regarding plan note #4 under Maintenance of Traffic Systems on plan sheet 3 of 9. This plan
note states at least two flaggers are required for each closure and the contractor shall furnish additional flaggers as directed by the
Engineer. Since the closures required to perform the project work are interstate lane closures why would flaggers be required?
Flaggers shall be used for potential closures on Chardon Rd.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 9:10:11 AM
Per plan notes the Engineer can deem no lane closures based on special events that increase traffic volumes or conditions too hazardous
which we assume would be weather based on the time of year for this project. Will the Contractor have a workday added for each day
that the Engineer does not allow lane closures?
The Department will consider and process any time extensions per C&MS 108.06.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 9:09:17 AM
Would the Department consider extending the completion date since there is two holidays with holiday weekends that do not allow lane
closures to be implemented per plan notes? Since these holidays are on Thursday is the no lane closure period from noon Wednesday
through noon Monday?
The completion date will be revised in a forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 9:08:10 AM
Could the Department provide the date when the contract will be executed since there is only a little over six weeks from bid date to the
completion date of 1/13/15 with major holidays during this period.
Typical time period for obtaining a signed contract is between 3 and 5 weeks. The completion date will be revised in a forthcoming
addendum.
3:11:48 PM
Page 27
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 9:05:15 AM
Could the Department provide the method of measurement for the underdeck shielding. Will it be center to center of outside girders x
length of shields or the surface area of plywood or some other combination of measurements?
Pay limits for timber subdecking shall be as shown on Section B-B on Sheet 9. Pay limits shall be per square footage in place and
accepted of the footprint area of the timber subdecking, including plywood and timber beams. Overlapping plywood areas, as
shown on Section A-A on Sheet 9, shall only be paid as one area and not duplicated.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 8:05:12 AM
Will the district allow a total closure of the express lanes to perform the sub decking work? This would allow the work over express lanes
to be completed in one long shift rather than multiple lane closures.
Total closure of the express lanes to perform the sub decking work will be allowed per forthcoming addendum.
Project No. 153000
SUM-98061 - IR 76/IR 77-7.58 / 9.59
Sale Date - 1/15/2015
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 8:29:18 AM
Will the Department allow both bridges to be built in 2015 under any circumstance?Please post a link to the Geotech info that is listed in
Attachment c.
Due to commitments to construct the SUM-76-0758 during the summer (school summer vacation) and conflicts with PID 84655 this
structure must be done in CY2016.
Attachment C is now posted at: ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/SUM-98061/Attachments/
Project No. 153001
ADA-94121 - US 32-16.99/19.42 L&R
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 6:48:55 AM
The window contract table in Scope of Services section 12.4 shows a final completion date of Sept 30 2016 for ADA-32-1942 L and Sept 20
2016 for ADA-32-1942 R. Should both dates be Sept 30 2016?
No, please bid as per plan.
3:11:48 PM
Page 28

Ohio Department of Transportation

Transcription

Similar documents

Addendum No. 2 - City of Kodiak

ADDENDUM No. 5

Transbay Transit Center San Francisco, CA CM/GC Contract No. 08-04-CMGC-000 Project No. 30100

PDF Lot View

PDF Lot View

2005 CHEVY COBALT

PDF Lot View

INVITATION TO TENDER

PDF Lot View