22-05-C Request for Clarification Responses

Supplemental Information - Not Part of the Contract Documents

The following list is comprised of paraphrased Requests for Clarification (RFC) submitted by potential bidders or sub-bidders in writing via email, letter, and this form:

22-05-C Request for Clarification Form

These paraphrased questions and associated responses are not part of the contract documents and shall have no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the Standard Specifications, the Standard Plans, the Special Provisions, or the Plans. Nor shall they have any bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of other publications referenced therein.

Questions without answers may be posted here to indicate that we have received them before the deadline and we intend to respond. 

Last updated: March 13, 2023 1:53 PM

The quantity and unit price for Bid Item 20 "Storm Water Annual Report" in the specifications do not match the Bid Express bid form. Please clarify. (RFC 51708 submitted 2/22/2023)   

See Addendum #1. Response date: 02/23/2023   

There is a pre-bid meeting for the Dry Creek Bridge Project scheduled for tomorrow morning onsite at 10:00 AM. The current weather forecast is showing a 99% chance of rain/snow for the Tollhouse area tomorrow at 10:00 AM. Would the County consider moving the pre-bid meeting to sometime early next week?  (RFC 51724 submitted 2/23/2023)   

The pre-bid conference has been changed to a virtual meeting on Zoom. See Addendum #1. Response date: 02/23/2023   

The listed quantities for Bid Items 34 and 35 on the Bid Express bid form do not match the quantities listed on the Addendum #1 bid form. Please clarify. (RFC 51735 submitted 2/23/2023)   

See Addendum #2. Response date: 2/27/2023

Will the county provide cross section for the new road alignment and detour or CAD files to allow a accurate take off for the dirt quantities?  (RFC 51756 and 51795 submitted 2/24/2023 and 2/27/2023)

The cross sections have been posted on the website under Supplemental Information. Response date: 02/27/2023

Drawing No. 16, Specification No. 83-4.01
Item #80 Alternative Inline Crash Cushion. On plan sheet 16 the call out is for a Quadguard M10 or approved equal with the option of using a TL-2 unit. Section 83-4.01 is a call out for a TAU M TL-3 with no substitution. Please clarify which unit will be required (Or both will suffice) and will a TL-2 or TL-3 unit be required.  (RFC 51796 and 51899 submitted 2/27/2023 and 3/2/2023)   

The correct crash cushion is a Tau-M TL-2. Similarly, the correct end terminal is an MSKT TL-2. See Addendum #3. Response date: 03/09/2023, revised 3/13/2023 

Will the box culvert construction time be lengthened?  (RFC 51797 submitted 2/24/2023)   

The number of working days includes time to order, deliver, and install the proposed culvert. The contractor may submit a delay according to Spec Section 8-1.07 for review. Response date: 03/01/2023   

Has there been or will there be consideration for a cast-in-place culvert?  (RFC 51798 submitted 2/24/2023)   

A cast-in-place culvert was considered during design. A pre-cast culvert was selected to minimize roadway construction time and traffic impacts. The contractor could propose a cast-in-place culvert as part of a VECP per Spec Section 4-1.07. All associated engineering, traffic control, and other coordination would be the responsibility of the contractor.  Response date: 03/01/2023 

Yes, water diversions shown on the plans are the responsibility of the contractor. Refer to Special Provisions Section 13-11 for additional information. Response date: 03/01/2023

Will County provide information on anticipated flow that the contractor needs to be ready for within channel?  (RFC 51800 submitted 2/24/2023)   

Yes, the County will release historical rainfall and/or water flow data in forthcoming Addendum #2. The low flow technical memorandum has been posted on the website under Supplemental Information. Response date: 03/02/2023, revised 03/06/2023

In stage 4, the work primarily consists of removing the detour and constructing a portion of Tollhouse that was at the detour intersection location. Stage 4  assumed that one-way traffic would be needed to do the work on Tollhouse.  The contractor can propose an alternative way to perform the work to eliminate the signal. The proposed approach would need to be approved by the County.  Response date: 03/01/2023 

Will the County be providing cross sections for the detour?  (RFC 51875 submitted 3/2/2023)   

The cross sections for the detour have been posted on the website under Supplemental Information. Response date: 03/06/2023 

Please confirm bid item 38 Class 2 Aggregate Base is correct. It seems to be overstated by approximately 75%.  (RFC 51883 submitted 3/2/2023) 

See Addendum #3. Response date: 03/09/2023, revised 3/13/2023    

Specification No. Section 2-1.06B
Will the County provide the Foundation Report for the Dry Creek Bridge Replacement? The design services webpage does not have these files, as stated in Section 2-1.06B of the specs.  (RFC 51884 submitted 3/2/2023)   

The Foundation Report has been posted on the website under Supplemental Information. Response date: 03/08/2023   

Drawing No. L-1, L-2, Specification No. 83-2.04B
Item #79, Alternative In-Line Terminal System: Project Special Provisions Section 83-2.04B calls for the MSKT In-Line TS with no substitution. Is this Item to be the 46"-9-1/2" TL-3 MSKT or the 21’-10-1/2" TL-2 MSKT? (RFC 51892 submitted 3/2/2023)

See answer to RFC 51796. Response date: 03/09/2023   

Please confirm that the quantities for Bid Items 64-66 are correct. They seem to be significantly overstated.  (RFC 51933 submitted 3/6/2023)   

See Addendum #3. Response date: 03/09/2023, revised 3/13/2023    

Drawing No. 60-62
Can you clarify the C.I.P. culvert parapet, barrier parapet and cutoff walls for the precast box culvert?

The precast boxes are 54'-9"" long. The details provided on sheets 61 & 62 show the parapets within the 54'-9"" reach. Is it the intent that the precast box be missing 1' of deck to accommodate the culvert parapet and 2' 10-1/2"" to accommodate the barrier parapet? Or is it the intent that we demo a portion of the new box to accommodate the parapets? 

Can you also clarify the cutoff walls? On the stage 2 section on sheet 61 the cutoff wall on the upstream side is shown inside the 54'-9"" reach. Is it the intent that the precast box be missing 1' of invert to accommodate the cutoff wall? Or is it the intent that we demo a portion of the new box to accommodate the cutoff wall. 

On the stage 3, 4 & final condition sections on sheets 61 & 62 there is a dark solid vertical line roughly 4' to the left of the downstream end. The line is shown through the wall and into the invert but does not extend into the deck. What does this line represent? Are we just adding a cutoff wall to this end or are we to do further work to the invert/walls? (RFC 51945 submitted 3/6/2023)    

The intent is to have the end sections of the precast box culverts to be cast short to allow the construction of the cast-in-place concrete head walls and cutoff walls as shown on the plans. Along with the additional #6 reinforcement shown on the plans, the standard longitudinal reinforcement of the end sections of the precast boxes needs to extend into the cast-in-place concrete headwalls, cut off walls, and wing walls to provide a bond between the precast concrete and cast-in-place concrete. 

The joint between the precast concrete and cast-in-place concrete at the ends of the culvert needs to match the location of the limits of the headwalls; 1' from the end to accommodate the standard head wall and 2' 10-1/2"" from the to accommodate the head wall supporting the barrier.

The cut off wall must be constructed per Section BB of Standard Plan D84. For the cutoff wall below the head wall supporting the barrier, the standard culvert transverse invert and wall reinforcement needs to be installed to cover the 2’ 10-1/2" of cast-in-place concrete.  Response date: 03/09/2023   

Drawing No. Sheet 61
We anticipate long lead times for the construction of the pre-cast box culvert. if those lead times should impact the schedule would the County allow for a C.I.P. Box Culvert in Stage 2?  (RFC 51946 submitted 3/6/2023)   

Previously answered under RFC 51798. Response date: 3/8/2023

Specification No. Section 2-1.06B
Will the County provide the As-Builts of the existing bridge? The design services webpage does not have these files, as stated in Section 2-1.06B of the specs.  (RFC 51964 and 51967 submitted 3/7/2023)   

Archival Drawing: Burrough Valley Road ... Toll House Road

The title of this archival drawing indicates it applies to our site, but several details do not match the current bridge as it is today. The file is provided as-is. No other files are available. Response date: 03/8/2023 

The plans sheet No.18, EC-1, shows the seed for the hydroseed mix but does not show how much mulch, tackifier, or fertilizer is to be applied. Please clarify how much mulch, tackifier, and fertilizer are to be applied. The specifications do not state this. (RFC 51995 submitted 3/8/2023) 

Section 21-2 of the Standard Specifications and the Special Provisions provide general information.  Depending on the provided materials, application rates vary. The contractor submittals should provide exact materials with manufacturer suggested rates for dosage into the hydroseed mixture and application on the site. Response date: 03/09/2023  

Drawing No. Sheet 51 & 52
The prestress cable is shown on the longitudinal section shown on sheet 52. We are not seeing the spacing of the P.T. duct. They are typically shown on the "Typical Section" on sheet 51. Can you clarify the number of PT ducts/cables? (RFC 52000 submitted 3/8/2023)   

The P.T. duct size and spacing is to be determined by the prestressing contractor based on his proposed prestressing design. Prestressing shop drawings showing the PT ducts, strands, stressing methodology, etc. shall be submitted by the Contractor per the provisions of the contract documents to the Engineer for review and approval. Response date: 03/09/2023

Drawing No. 55
Is the 3' sub-excavation from the bottom of the culvert or the bottom of the cutoff wall? If to the bottom of the cutoff wall, what material goes from the bottom of the cutoff wall to the bottom of the culvert? (RFC 52009 submitted 3/8/2023) 

The Excavation and Backfill sections on Sheet S-19 were misdrawn. The excavation limits below the culvert should be 3 feet below the bottom of the culvert invert slab, not 3 feet below the cut off wall.  The base material below the bottom of the culvert invert slab consists of 3" of Class 2 Aggregate Base (Culvert) supported on recompacted native.  The recompacted native is paid for as Structure Excavation (Culvert). The aggregate base does not extend 3" below the cutoff wall.  Response date: 03/09/2023 

Drawing No. ST-19
The structure excavation elevation detail for the box culvert on sheet ST-19 shows 3'-0" plus an unknown depth of excavation below box culvert. Is this correct? Does the County require 3' of additional overexcavation below the box culvert? If yes, is the additional depth accounted for in bid items 27 and 30? (RFC 52010 submitted 3/8/2023) 

See answer to RFC 52009. Response date: 03/09/2023   

Drawing No. ST-19
The structure backfill elevation detail for the box culvert on sheet ST-19 shows an unknown material section between the bottom of the box culvert and the Class 2 Aggregate Base bedding. What is the material between the bottom of the box culvert and the aggregate base and what depth is the material? How is the unknown material paid? (RFC 52011 submitted 3/8/2023) 

See answer to RFC 52009. Response date: 03/09/2023