Please Note: If this is the first time accessing our system on our new web site, you will be required to reset your password.
| Date Asked: 11/04/2021 | Date Answered: 11/04/2021 |
| Poster: Spiros Fotopoulos | Company: RIDOT |
|
Question:
There is an issue with the Precast Fascia Panels. The plans call for a certified precast manufacturer to fabricate the panels but there no precastors that will quote the panels. They are concerned with the delivery of the panels. Are there any approved precast plants that the Engineer consulted during design that will provide a quote. |
|
|
Answer:
The design engineer did not consult with certified precastors during design as they did not believe it was necessary to do so. Fascia panels of similar geometry were previously provided on 2011-CB-096 Natick Bridge, by J&R Slaw, Inc. www.slawprecast.com In order to facilitate delivery and decrease the weight of the panels, an alternate fascia panel detail – which reduces the “core” thickness of the panel from 1’-3” to 1’-0” will be issued in a future addendum. The Contractor may choose to utilize this alternate detail, or the original detail. The bid date opening will be adjusted to accommodate the addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/21/2021 | Date Answered: 10/22/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
The plans call to open bridge before bridge curb and sidewalks are complete. Please clarify that traffic can drive on exposed concrete deck before curbing and paving is completed. |
|
|
Answer:
Waterproofing and initial pavement/base course, of sufficient width to provide for the two traffic lanes, shall be placed prior to opening of the bridge to traffic. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/19/2021 | Date Answered: 10/22/2021 |
| Poster: Kyle Sawicki | Company: Maine Drilling & Blasting |
|
Question:
Specification Section 804.9901, Drilled Micropiles, Page JS-40 Materials, Permanent Casing Pipe, 2. states "Micropile casing/pipe may be new “structural grade” (a.k.a. “mill secondary”) steel pipe meeting the above requirement but without mill certification, free from defects (dents, cracks, tears) and with two coupon tests per truckload delivered to the fabricator and provided to the Engineer." Specification Section 804.9901, Drilled Micropiles, Page JS-41 Materials, Permanent Casing Pipe, Paragraph #3 states "New “mill secondary” steel casing pipe will not be accepted regardless if they are accompanied by coupon test results as indicated above." Question: Is mill secondary casing allowed? |
|
|
Answer:
Mill secondary casing is not allowed. Micropile Specification Page JS-40, Permanent Casing Pipe, Paragraph #2 should be removed. This will be corrected in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/19/2021 | Date Answered: 10/22/2021 |
| Poster: Kyle Sawicki | Company: Maine Drilling & Blasting |
|
Question:
Specification Section 804.9901, Drilled Micropiles, Page JS-31, 6. states "Micropile Grout shall be a non-shrink, minimum 5,000 psi 28 day compressive strength cementitious material" Specification Section 804.9901, Drilled Micropiles, page JS-39 Materials, Grout states "RIDOT approved neat cement or sand/cement mixture with a minimum 3-day compressive strength of 2,500 psi (50% of the 28 day unconfined compressive strength) and a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 5,000 psi per AASHTO T106/ASTM C109. The grout shall be proportioned and mixed so as to provide a fluid grout capable of maintaining the solids in suspension without appreciable bleed." Question: Is non-shrink grout required for the micropiles? |
|
|
Answer:
“Non-Shrink” grout is not required. Micropile Specification Page JS-31, Item #6 , the word “non-shrink” should be removed. This will be corrected in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/19/2021 | Date Answered: 10/22/2021 |
| Poster: Kyle Sawicki | Company: Maine Drilling & Blasting |
|
Question:
Addendum #1, Page 12 of 25, Distribution of Quantities Item 046 804.9901 Drilled Micropiles shows a total of 98 each drilled micropiles. Plan Sheet #33, Footing Plan shows a total of 96 Micropiles. Question: Is the total quantity of production micropiles 98 or 96? |
|
|
Answer:
There are 96 production micropiles, and 2 Verification Test micropiles are required. The Verification test micropiles are sacrificial non-production piles. The total pile number assumes (1) that all test piles meet specification, i.e. without additional test piles required due to a failed test, and (2) all production piles meet specification, i.e. there are no “non-conforming” production piles requiring additional production piles. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/05/2021 | Date Answered: 10/05/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
805.99 Temporary Earth Retaining and Dewatering Systems is for temporary earth retaining system that is removed after use. Please clarify how the temp sheeting left in place is paid for. |
|
|
Answer:
As stated in Code 805.99, no separate payment will be made for this item. |
|
| Date Asked: 10/04/2021 | Date Answered: 10/05/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Sheet 27 states that temp sheeting is to be left in place. Please clarify if this is mandatory or can the sheet piles be removed. If it is mandatory to be left in place, the department should provide a design of the sheeting. |
|
|
Answer:
The purpose of the temporary earth retainage system is only for temporary dewatering of the substructure excavations, not for permanent scour protection or other permanent structural reasons. The method of removal/abandonment that will be least disruptive to the river channel and to the adjacent structure should implemented; in the case of temporary sheeting, this is typically to cut the tops of the sheet piles to a minimum distance below the natural channel bottom, and leave the remainder of temporary works below that level in place (hence the statements on Plan Sheet 27). Note, however, that this approach is typically based on that type of earth retainage system, and is not a specific requirement of the RIDEM permit. As the design and detailing of this temporary earth retainage system is solely the responsibility of the Contractor, per Code 805.99, an alternative method that includes removal would be considered. This will be clarified in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/30/2021 | Date Answered: 10/04/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Sheet 59 shows the Fascia Beams being installed after the bridge is open to traffic. Can a nightly detour occur in order to install the fascia beams? |
|
|
Answer:
The TMP will be reissued in a future addendum |
|
| Date Asked: 09/29/2021 | Date Answered: 09/30/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
How many days of Traffic control will be needed for the Utility Relocations? |
|
|
Answer:
The following durations are per the submitted utility company force accounts: NGRID = 20 DAYS VERIZON = 15 DAYS CROWN CASTLE = 8 DAYS |
|
| Date Asked: 09/29/2021 | Date Answered: 09/30/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Sheet 36 - Protective Course - How is it paid for and what type of RIDOT mix will be used? |
|
|
Answer:
Protective Course is included in the lump sum bridge item, 800.9901 Hunts Mills Bridge No. 208. As for the mix type, the plan details are directly per RIDOT Standard 7.80, which states “Bridge Binder”. As this is no longer a standard item, 401.3101 Modified Class 9.5 HMA for Bridge Decks, which is utilized elsewhere on the project, would be acceptable for this application. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/23/2021 | Date Answered: 09/27/2021 |
| Poster: Peter Calcagni | Company: Manafort Brothers Inc |
|
Question:
Is the barrier that is currently on the bridge acceptable to work behind before the roadway closure occurs? |
|
|
Answer:
We assume that this proposed work will take place behind the barriers at the bridge approaches, and not on the bridge itself. Please note that the condition of the existing bridge sidewalks is very poor, and prospective bidders are cautioned about their condition and performing any work from them. The poor sidewalk condition is the reason for RIDOT’s placement of the barriers. With that said, yes it is acceptable to utilize the existing 40.5.0 barrier currently in place prior to road closure, provided that adequate distance is maintained between the back of the barrier and the proposed work to allow for potential deflection from a vehicle impact. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/23/2021 | Date Answered: 09/27/2021 |
| Poster: Peter Calcagni | Company: Manafort Brothers Inc |
|
Question:
Does the contractor own traffic control for the utility contractors performing the utility relocations? |
|
|
Answer:
It will be the Contractors responsibility to coordinate with, and provide MPT support for all utility relocation operations that occur post contract award. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/23/2021 | Date Answered: 09/23/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Please clarify if Wingwall Stems are precast or CIP. Sheet 39 shows CIP and Sheet 41 shows precast. |
|
|
Answer:
Sheet 39 is specific to the “Pylons”, located immediately adjacent to the arched fascia panel ends, which have cast-in-place stems. Sheet 41 is specific to the wingwalls, which have precast stems. Also, please note that the section callouts (“33” and “34”) on sheets 38 and 39 are incorrect and will be changed by addendum. The correct callouts are “38” and “39”. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/23/2021 | Date Answered: 09/23/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Does the Contractor have the option to CIP the Abutment Stems? |
|
|
Answer:
The Contractor may propose an alternative cast-in-place option, subject to approval by the Engineer, provided that this alternative will not negatively impact the project schedule and it is at no additional cost to the State. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/21/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Jason LaForge | Company: New England Building & Bridge |
|
Question:
The job specific special provisions (pages JS-29 - JS-60) indicates that there should be bid items 804.9911, 804.9913 & 804.9914 relative to the drilled micropile mobilization and testing. Please clarify if these bid items will be added or if the mobilization & testing should be considered incidental to bid item 804.9901. |
|
|
Answer:
Pay items for 804.9911, 804.9913, 804.9914, and 805.9909 will be included in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/20/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Sheet 9 of 60 - Please clarify how the concrete water stop with bituminous surface course are paid for. |
|
|
Answer:
The concrete water stop located between the pervious paver system and the “P-2” driveway opening is considered incidental to the 702.9902 Lump Sum. The 1.5” bituminous surface course located above this water stop was taken off separately and included in the quantity for 401.3101. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/20/2021 | Date Answered: 09/22/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Item 202.0100 - DOQ states 1988.50 Cy for Paver area. We calculate 3977 Sf x 1.25' - 185 cy. Please check quantity. |
|
|
Answer:
An incorrect unit of measure factor was applied. The errant quantity will be revised in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/17/2021 | Date Answered: 09/20/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Item 202.0800 - Gravel Borrow - Please clarify where the gravel borrow is used. |
|
|
Answer:
The Item for Gravel Borrow is an inadvertent carryover from a previous submission. This Item will be deleted in a future addendum. |
|
| Date Asked: 09/16/2021 | Date Answered: 09/20/2021 |
| Poster: Anthony Mesiti | Company: Cardi Corporation |
|
Question:
Item 302.0100 Gravel Borrow Subbase - The DOQ shows 1325.65 CY for the PAVER area. The paver area is 3977 SF with 1' of gravel subbase. The quantity should be approx. 148 CY. Please clarify where the remaining quantity is located. |
|
|
Answer:
An incorrect unit of measure factor was applied. The errant quantity will be revised in a future addendum. |
|