For additional information on Contract Number (CL3115187) click here

Contractor's Inquiry Responses

Contract No. CL3115187


Inq. 34	Post Date: 1/25/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/12/2007
	Q. Structures: The Borings furnished with the IFB in the vicinity of S1 were not taken at the proposed wall location (probably because of the overhead utility lines). Will these borings be acceptable to OBD or will we be required to take additional borings?.
	A. The locations of the borings were moved from the vicinity of the wall due to the overhead utilities. The current borings are acceptable to OBD. Associated change to Page 119 in TC-3.11.02.09.01 of the IFB will be addressed by Addendum No. 2.

Inq. 33	Post Date: 1/25/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/8/2007
	Q. Traffic: Can existing traffic signs be reused? In particular, the sign located at STA 33+00 NB
	A. : All existing signs shall be replaced with the latest SHA material requirement. The IFB spells out requirements for red signs such as "STOP" and "DO NOT ENTER" and guide signs as well. In addition, all other signs not covered by other SHA guidelines shall be replaced using TYPE IV sheeting for the background. Signs currently being fabricated using engineer grade by SHA Standard shall still use Engineer Grade.

Inq. 32	Post Date: 1/25/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/8/2007
	Q. Structures/Utilities: Will the overhead power lines be relocated at Breand Corporation? It will be difficult to maintain clearance with the auger when constructing the wall.
	A. The overhead power lines may need adjustments due to the relocation of the utility pole in front of Breand Corporation.

Inq. 31	Post Date: 1/25/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/8/2007
	Q. Landscape: There are existing plants shown in front of homes but no removal is shown on the concept plans. Is the contractor required to protect this plants or is removal allowed?
	A. If planting is impacted within SHA right-of-way, then it must be replaced in kind by the DB contractor.

Inq. 30	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/19/2007
	Q. . At the north end of the property is a triangular area between the fee simple and temporary easement. What is it and can we work in it?
	A. The triangular area is existing SHA slope easement and it can be used for slopes, drainage and drainage structures.

Inq. 29	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/19/2007
	Q. On the south side of the driveway we do not have a fee simple area for the wall.
	A. The proposed wall does not extend south of the driveway

Inq. 28	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/19/2007
	Q. It appears that SHA is taking a width of 13'+/- of fee simple in front of the house. The remainder of the property up to the house is a Temporary Easement for the purpose of drive way tie in, fine grading and landscaping. Does this mean that our wall straps must be totally within the fee simple area and cannot extend beyond that line into the Temporary Easement?
	A. If the easement is only a temporary construction easement, then the straps for the wall cannot be within this area.

Inq. 27	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/19/2007
	Q. TC-3.11.03.01 states that the exposed face of the retaining wall shall be stimulated random cut stone pattern with varying stone sizes. With some of the proprietary wall types referenced in Section TC-3.11.02.05, each block has a simulated stone surface but the blocks are all the same size. Also, section TC-3.11.03.01 prohibits long continuous horizontal grouted joint lines. Again, some of the proprietary wall systems have layers of blocks that do not have grouted joints and the joint lines are continuous. Should any of the proprietary wall systems listed in section TC-3.11.02.05 be discounted because the particular system may not meet the other requirements, or will each proprietary system be acceptable as long as it is in accordance with the manufacturer's details?
	A. If a proprietary wall system is selected, it must meet the architectural requirements.

Inq. 26	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/12/2007
	Q. Landscape: There are 2 trees and some mature bushes by the existing building at the location of the proposed retaining wall. We will probably be excavating close enough to the tree roots to kill them. Do we need to account for replanting/landscape services?
	A. The DB Team will need to account for replanting/landscaping services to satisfy property owners

Inq. 25	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/12/2007
	Q. Traffic: As the signal at Macbeth must be installed in the early stages of the project, must the interconnect be installed/operational at this time as well?
	A. Refer Answer to Inquiry 7.

Inq. 24	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/12/2007
	Q. Hydraulics: The concept plans indicate that we will be tying into the existing storm drain at Sta 0+80+/- on Piney Ridge Parkway. There is no invert or size given for this existing storm drain. Can SHA please provide this information?
	A. This information was provided on the CD as part of the advertised documents

Inq. 23	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/11/2007
	Q. Utilities/Hydraulics: The spec book states that the 1981 SHA Drainage manual shall be followed including the following specifics, spread along roadway shall be no more then 8 ft when there are shoulders, and no more then 1/2 the travel lane when there are no shoulders with a minimal 85% efficiency. This being said, the concept drainage provided does not meet this criteria. Additional inlets will cause significant utility impacts including underground Verizon Telephone lines along the southbound roadway, and gas and waterman impacts along the northbound roadway. Will the SHA Highway Hydraulic Division relax the drainage criteria to eliminate costly BGE & Verizon utility relocations?
	A. The drainage concept did not include complete drainage design. The final design by DB team shall meet criteria. Exceptions may be granted on a case by case basis.

Inq. 22	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/11/2007
	Q. Geotech: Please define the paving limits on MD 26 at the MD 26/MD 32 intersection. The shading plan, concept plan and station limits do not match.
	A. The paving stops in front of the intersection. However, the DB contractor should be aware that the construction of the new intersection island at the southwest corner may require some paving work extending into the intersection.

Inq. 21	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/11/2007
	Q. Utilities: TC 3.15 Utility Design and Relocation Criteria a. The last paragraph indicated the DB Team should be aware that the construction of the storm drain system may impact existing utilities and inability to maintain required clearance will result in relocation of the facility at the DB Team expense. i. Please provide clearance requirements for all utilities ii. Does the storm drain concept meet the clearance requirements?
	A. A. i. There is 1 feet vertical clearance and 5 feet horizontal clearance required for all utilities. ii. The drainage concept did not include pipe profiles. The final design by DB team needs to meet required clearances.

Inq. 20	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/8/2007
	Q. Highway Design: Are there any as-built utility plans available?
	A. No as-built utility plans are available.

Inq. 19	Post Date: 1/24/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/8/2007
	Q. Structures/Design: Has the Breand Corporation agreed to a pre-construction inspection or does the contractor need to contact them to set something up?
	A. The DB Contractor will need to contact Breand Corporation to set up the pre-construction survey as per the requirements stated on Page 199 of the IFB.

Inq. 18	Post Date: 1/23/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/11/2007
	Q. The concept drainage plan utilizes existing CMP culverts within the storm drain system, (25+00 RT). Current SHA practices discourages the use of CMP pipes within storm systems, should this CMP pipe continued to be utilized within a storm drain system?
	A. Replacement of existing CMP culverts is not required unless they are in poor condition.

Inq. 17	Post Date: 1/23/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/11/2007
	Q. Geotech: Paving Details, Page 169 The IFB plans and typicals indicate "Grind & Resurface" while the pavement details show "Resurface". Please clarify.
	A. The Office of Materials and Technology did not recommend grinding. The "Grind and Resurfacing" label was an error on the plans. The Pavement & Geotechnical data report does not refer to grinding, and the details also show resurfacing without grinding. However, if the design-builder chooses to grind, the Administration must approve per TC 3.10.

Inq. 16	Post Date: 1/23/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/11/2007
	Q. Geotech/Hydraulics: The Geotech Report refers to 5 storm water management borings. Please provide boring data.
	A. The boring data is provided on the cd.

Inq. 15	Post Date: 1/23/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/8/2007
	Q. ADA: Is the contractor required to make all 4 corners of the MD 32/MD 26 intersection ADA compliant?
	A. The DB team is required too upgrade the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection for ADA compliance.

Inq. 14	Post Date: 1/23/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/8/2007
	Q. Hydraulics: The pipe network plan shows smaller pipes connecting into larger pipes. Will Highway Hydraulics approve this type of design?
	A. The proposed pipes shown are part of the conceptual plan. Sizes are tentative. The DB designers will have to prove the adequacy of proposed and existing pipes within the limits of work. Existing pipes within the limit which do not meet hydraulic criteria will need to be replaced. If a existing pipe is smaller than one upstream, but can still adequately convey flow, it will not need to be replaced. Proposed pipes must be hydraulically adequate, and should not be smaller than upstream pipes unless there are special circumstances (i.e. utility conflicts).

Inq. 13	Post Date: 1/23/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/8/2007
	Q. Hydraulics: Pipes are shown outside the LOD at the following locations: STA 26+70 to STA 31+00 RT, STA 31+30 to STA 32+80 RT and STA 32+44 LT. Is this correct?
	A. All of the pipes are located within an easement shown on the plats.

Inq. 12	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/12/2007
	Q. Structures: TC-3.11.03.01 (e) refers to a Special Provision "Ornamental Fence" but I have not been able to find such a Special Provision. Can you tell me where it is? Or is TC-3.11.02.04 (d) supposed to cover the requirements?
	A. The Special Provision for the Ornamental Fence is located on Page 269 of the IFB.

Inq. 11	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/12/2007
	Q. Structures: TC-3.11.01 under Structure S1: Retaining Wall it states "Acceptable wall types for this location include cast-in-place gravity, cantilever, or proprietary Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls." In TC-3.11.02.05 there is a list of pre-approved proprietary walls that includes several that are not MSE walls. Also TC-3.11.02.05(c) is about top-down walls. Are all the wall types listed in TC-3.11.02 permitted or only the types listed in TC-3.11.01? If we are restricted to the types listed in TC3.11.01 we do not believe MSE walls are feasible because of the adjacent building so our only options are cast-in-place gravity or cantilever walls.
	A. The acceptable wall types for the proposed retaining wall shown in the plans are described in TC-3.11.01. The wall types in TC-3.11.02.05 are the general guidelines for all acceptable wall types that the Design-Build team may use elsewhere in the project, if needed.

Inq. 10	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/12/2007
	Q. Traffic: Must new loops be installed on the south leg of MD 26/MD 32 for sampling detection, or can the existing video detection camera be used for sampling?
	A. If the existing sampling loops on SB MD 32 are impacted by this project then they must be replaced. If the existing camera can effectively detect the sampling station they yes, it may be used. If it cannot effectively detect the sampling zones, then either a new camera must be installed to cover the area or new 6x6 loops must be cut.

Inq. 9	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/12/2007
	Q. Traffic: Proposed signal at Macbeth - "non-invasive probes for advance detection" are specified on the DR - should one assume this applies to the side-streets as well?
	A. Where side street advance detection is needed to meet SHA design criteria, non-invasive probes shall be used.

Inq. 8	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/12/2007
	Q. Utilities: Will utility pole 529425 at Station 32+50+/- RT be relocated?
	A. Yes this pole will be relocated.

Inq. 7	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/11/2007
	Q. Can the proposed interconnect between MD 26 and Macbeth be overhead, using the above ground utility poles?
	A. The proposed interconnect may be installed overhead, but the design-build team will be responsible for obtaining all attachment agreements and will be responsible for all costs associated with the overhead installation, including any utility adjustments necessary.

Inq. 6	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/11/2007
	Q. Should existing microloop probes at MD 32 / MD 26 be replaced with non-invasive probes or can they remain as they are?
	A. If the signal is reconstructed, then yes, all existing microloop probes should be replaced with non-invasive probes. If the signal is not reconstructed, then only the existing probes which are affected will need to be replaced, but should be replaced with non-invasive probes.

Inq. 5	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/11/2007
	Q. Is existing signal at MD 32 / MD 26 to be converted to a mast arm design?
	A. The existing signal at MD 26, upon completion of the project shall be in full compliance with all applicable standards. This would apply to all ADA issues, utility clearances and traffic signal design requirements. If it becomes necessary that this signal needs to be reconstructed, then yes, it should be reconstructed using mast arms as the first choice.

Inq. 4	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/11/2007
	Q. Traffic: On TC 3.12.02 Lighting Plans, Page 128 Does this project require roadway lighting and intersection lighting?
	A. Continuous roadway lighting will not be required, however, intersection lighting shall be provided at the signalized intersections based on current SHA design practices. The lighting at the intersections shall be installed on the traffic signal upright poles wherever possible and on separate lighting poles where the signal poles cannot be used.

Inq. 3	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/8/2007
	Q. Innovative Contracting: Do the designers MBE subs count towards the overall MBE goal of the project?
	A. The minority participation goal(s) set in the contract may include designer MBE firms. It is the prime contractors responsibility to determine how to achieve the goal(s) via sub-consultant or sub-contracting firms.

Inq. 2	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/8/2007
	Q. Highway Design: The concept plans show a driveway entrance at STA 29+00 Left being closed. Is an entrance required to be placed at this location?
	A. The concept plan at this location is incorrect. The entrance is to remain in place.

Inq. 1	Post Date: 1/19/2007	Inquiry Date: 1/8/2007
	Q. Traffic: Is there any flexibility with the lane closure times?
	A. The work hours and lane closure times are fixed as specified in the contract documents.

CIC Home