For additional information on Contract Number (PG6385172) click here

Contractor's Inquiry Responses

Contract No. PG6385172


Inq. 166	Post Date: 12/19/2006	Inquiry Date: 12/8/2006
	Q. With respect to Inq 150 --- your response states that "Although SHA believes that the existing structures are adequate and will not require repair or replacement, it is the responsibility of the Design-Build Teams to ensure that they are". As it is effectively unfeasible for the Contractors to thoroughly inspect these structures prior to bid, please further clarify your answer and advise how the SHA will reimburse the Contractor if he finds that the existing structures are not adequate.
	A. The plans have been included in Addendum 4

Inq. 165	Post Date: 12/19/2006	Inquiry Date: 12/7/2006
	Q. The Arena Drive ramp signing provides a guide sign for Largo Town Center. I-95 mainline signs Largo Town Center via MD 214. Does SHA want Largo Town Center accessed via Arena Drive or via MD 214 since the existing guide signing would be in conflict?
	A. The signing layouts should remain as they exist today with respect to Largo Town Center. Northbound I-95 traffic to Largo Town center will still be routed via MD 214, and southbound traffic will be routed via MD 202. The existing supplemental signing along the Arena Drive ramps should be maintained as supplemental signing for traffic that is aware of the access to the Town Center via Arena Drive. All other upgrade requirements as specified in the contract documents shall still apply.

Inq. 164	Post Date: 12/19/2006	Inquiry Date: 12/7/2006
	Q. Inquiry 146 indicates that the existing signs which have DMS sections in them should be replaced in their entirety. The IFB indicates that the only message that was required for Arena Drive was for Arena Drive on the 1 mile advance sign. Therefore can the design builder assume that this will be the only message required and none other such as "Fed Ex Field" or "Peebles Drive"? The messages will impact panel size which will impact structures size which will impact cost.
	A. There will be no need to add additional messages such as FedEx field or Bishop Peebles Drive.

Inq. 163	Post Date: 12/12/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/30/2006
	Q. Materials: The Geotechnical report indicates that the shoulders of I-495/I-95 are not traffic bearing. There are no borings provided on the outside shoulders to confirm this information. The indicative plans only indicate milling and overlay for these outside shoulders. Can the design builder assume that these outside shoulders are not traffic bearing and therefore will need full depth replacement if they are planned for use for permanent or MOT use?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 159

Inq. 162	Post Date: 12/12/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Traffic/Highway Design: The IFB special provision for W-Beam is for Brown Poly Coated. From our existing site visits the existing w-beam along I-495 ad other roadways within the project limits is not currently brown poly coated. Should the proposed w-beam be brown poly coated along I-495? What about along the other roadways where we may be connecting to existing galvanized w-beam?
	A. Brown Poly Coat will not be used in this contract. This Special Provision will be removed in the next addendum

Inq. 161	Post Date: 12/12/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Traffic/Materials?: The IFB includes a special provision for Rumble Strips. According to the Draft Guidelines for Application of Rumble Strips"; "Shoulder rumble strips should be installed along the inside and outside shoulders of expressways and controlled access highways, with the following exceptions: Along the Baltimore Beltway (I-695) and the Capital Beltway (I-95 and I-495) ¿" Where are they to be applied to this project?
	A. Shoulder Rumble Strips will not be included in this contract. Please refer to Inquiry No. 157 for clarification on Rumble Strips included in the contract.

Inq. 160	Post Date: 12/12/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Highway Design: The Ramp D paved shoulder width (left side of baseline) is shown as 2' on the Typical Sections for Sta. 51+80 to Sta. 60+90. It is shown as 4' wide on the plan sheets. Should we use 2' or 4' for the paved shoulder?
	A. Please refer to the typical section for the shoulder width.

Inq. 159	Post Date: 12/12/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Pavement: Does SHA want a 2" overlay for the northbound outside shoulder of I-95/495 from Sta. 172+65 to Sta. 183+27.55 or can the Design Build Team grind 2" and resurface 2" of the existing pavement? If so, this overlay will need to be "feathered" into the outside travel lane which would reduce the cross slope of that lane.
	A. Where the existing shoulder will be used for temporary and/or permanent travel lane, the shoulder will need to be reconstructed as full depth. The typical section will be revised to show the full depth reconstruction.

Inq. 158	Post Date: 12/12/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Number of Lanes: The ramp from EB MD 214 to the SB I-495 entrance ramp is currently 2 lanes; however, the plan sheets show one lane arrow for this movement. Is SHA's intention to modify this approach from two lanes to one lane because of the new 2-lane ramp spur from WB MD 214 to SB I 495? Is it SHA's intention to have the EB to SB movement yield to the WB to SB movement?
	A. Based on the conceptual advertised plans the traffic coming from EB MD 214 to SB I-495, the entrance ramp should remain as a 2 lane entrance. The EB movement will yield to the WB movement. Both signals at the entrance of the shopping center (station 313+50) and at the spur ramp (station 317+50) will be adjusted using the existing interconnect.

Inq. 157	Post Date: 12/12/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. General: Does SHA want rumble strips included in the 4-foot separation between the CD road and general purpose lanes? If so, please provide the details for placement (i.e. one set down the center or two sets adjacent to the lane lines). In addition, does SHA want a rumble strip along the section where there is a single lane line separating the CD road and the general purpose lanes?
	A. Yes, rumble strips should be included in the section of the 4-foot separation between the CD lanes and the general purpose lanes. The configuration should be one set down the center. No, a rumble strip is not recommended along the section where there is a single lane line separating the CD road and the general purpose lanes.

Inq. 156	Post Date: 12/12/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Structures: The IFB book directs the Design-Build Team to add 2" HMA to the NB roadway underneath the MD 202 bridge. However, the additional pavement will reduce the clearance to 15' 10.75" which is below the 16' minimum acceptable clearance based on the direction given on page 151 of the IFB book to follow the OBD Policy and Procedures Memorandum D-75-7(4). Does SHA still want the 2" surface added to the NB roadway?
	A. Based on re-evaluation of pavement section in the area of MD 202; We recommend grinding the HMA down 4" and resurface with the same surface mix resurfacing I-495 with, i.e. 2" HMA Superpave 12.5 mm Gap Graded, PG 76-22, Level 4. This is across all existing traveled lanes in the northbound direction. See Special Provision Insert 504 for taper rates. A revised pavement detail will be provided in a subsequent addendum.

Inq. 155	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/30/2006
	Q. Guard Rail: Page 90 in the IFB states that traffic barrier must meet current standards and NCHRP 350. Does SHA's "Guidelines for Traffic Barrier Placement and End Treatment Design" constitute "current standards"? If so, does SHA want the Design Build Team to provide a bottom rail on the back side of the Traffic Barrier Median Barrier where the barrier is exposed to vehicles approaching on an upslope steeper than 6:1 (per page 23)?
	A. The "Guidelines for Traffic Barrier Placement and End Treatment Design" dated March 2006, constitutes the "current standard". The Design Build Team is required to meet the guidelines.

Inq. 154	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/30/2006
	Q. We assume that all existing sign lighting, on the above referenced project, is in working order and has be maintained to accept a retro-fit application. Is this assumption correct?
	A. No assumptions should be made regarding the working condition or the ability to retrofit any of the system in the future.

Inq. 153	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/30/2006
	Q. Utilities/Highway Design: Utility poles between Station 317+00 to Station 319+00 on MD 214 will likely be impacted by the improvements. What schedule can the design builder expect for the relocation of these poles? Will the design builder be responsible for the relocation of these poles?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 131

Inq. 152	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/30/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: Will SHA allow for water quality treatment by cartridge filters?
	A. SHA is not inclined to approve use of water quality devices which require relatively frequent or specialized maintenance. Approval would be considered if there were a lack of practical alternatives, the devices were MDE approved, and there was safe and dependable access.

Inq. 151	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/30/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: The IFB indicates that the design builder will be responsible for repair and/or replacement of unstable or deteriorating outfalls, inlets, manholes and other drainage structures within the project limits. Will SHA facilitate the inspection of these items prior to bid?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 150.

Inq. 150	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/30/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: The Storm Drain pipe in the median of I-495 from Station 220+00 to Station 242+00 is indicated to be retained and used in the new design. Also the IFB indicates that the design builder is responsible to ensure the condition of this and the associated structures are in acceptable working condition. Will SHA facilitate the inspection of these and all structures on the job prior to bid or can the design builder assume these structures are adequate and will not need repair/replacement?
	A. The inspection of these and all structures will not be completed by SHA prior to bids. Although, SHA believes that the existing structures are adequate and will not require repair or replacement, it is the responsibility of the Design Build Teams to ensure that they are.

Inq. 149	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/30/2006
	Q. Traffic/Bridge: Is there reserve conduit fill area on the bridges to run the interconnect cables or will the design builder be expected to provide these cables and new conduit across the bridges?
	A. Any information regarding existing parapet conduit s will need to be obtained from existing bridge plans. Any information regarding the conduit fills, and the ability pull additional cables must be obtained in the field. New cables shall be installed wherever it is determined or, has already been specified, that the cables will need to be replaced.

Inq. 148	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/30/2006
	Q. What is the maximum numbers of days an overhead sign structure can be down with a temporary ground mounted panel used to provide positive guidance?
	A. There is no limit as to how long the temporary ground mounted signage can be used while making the switch in structures.

Inq. 147	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/30/2006
	Q. : Should the destinations for the Beltway for the overhead guide sign along MD 214 at the WB gore be "Andrews AFB/Richmond VA" and "College Park/Baltimore" or "Richmond" and "Baltimore"? It will impact sign and structures costs.
	A. The signs in this sequence should reference the Andrews AFB/ Richmond Va College Park/Baltimore messages.

Inq. 146	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/30/2006
	Q. Traffic: The signs on Arena Drive currently have DMS and lane control signs that will not be required once the ramp is open full time. Will the SHA allow an overlay of the existing panel to cover the openings or will a new panel with Clearview font be required?
	A. The existing signs which have the DMS sections in them should be replaced in their entirety.

Inq. 145	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/17/2006
	Q. Bridge Deck Striping: SHA's response to Inquiry 83 directed the Design-Build Teams to the response for Inquiry #58. However, the question specifically asked about removing pavement markings from a CONCRETE bridge deck and the inquiry directed the Team to grind and overlay the surface. Does SHA want the Design-Build Team to grind the concrete bridge deck? If not, how does SHA recommend the Design-Build Team remove the pavement markings on the concrete bridge deck without compromising the integrity of the deck?
	A. Water blasting is an acceptable method for removing pavement markings on concrete bridges.

Inq. 144	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/17/2006
	Q. Highway Design/Materials: In order to create the ultimate cross slope as shown in the typical sections, the project will require a substantial amount of wedge and level course. The process required to properly calculate this quantity involves field surveys of the existing beltway. Would SHA consider adding unit price items for "Variable depth Hot Mix Asphalt Superpave 9.5 mm for Surface, PG 64-22, Level-4" and "Variable depth Hot Mix Asphalt Superpave 19.0 mm for Base, PG 64-22, Level-4" or estimated quantities for bidding purposes similar to patching quantities?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 135. Field surveys of I-495 have been included on the Advertisement CD.

Inq. 143	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/17/2006
	Q. On page 178, section 3.17.05.p states "For SWM facilities within Use III and IV waters that are also adjacement to the Principal or Intermediate Arterial class roadways, hazardous material spills of 10,000 gallons shall be contained within the forebay during a 2-year rainfall event. The facility release structure shall incorporate accessible shut-off valves to contain spills. Aproval shall be obtained from the administration if this criterion is not met" The project is located at Use IV Water. The BMP proposed are wet ponds. The over flow weir invert is set at the WQv elevation. How can we contain the hazardous material in the forebay since the entire forebay and micropool is submersed during the 2-yr storm event. Also the forebay is designed to provide storage of 0.1" per impervious acre of contributing area. The 2-yr storm event volume will be 30+times larger. The facility release structure is located at the micropool instead of the forebay. Where can we find a location that can be designed and constructed to contain the hazardous material within the project limit?
	A. This criteria will be deleted by addendum.

Inq. 142	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/10/2006
	Q. Highway Design: In order to meet the IFB requirements for Design Speed I-495/I-95 of 70 MPH, will the Design Build Team be required to adjust the existing superelevation to meet the criteria for Design Speed of 70 MPH?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 87

Inq. 141	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/10/2006
	Q. Highway Design: Typical Superelevated Section Ramp D - Station 55+15 to Station 59+15 shows an adjustment to the outside fill slope will be required. However, on plan sheet PS-09, the 25' Wetland Buffer is adjacent to the edge of existing shoulder and no wetland or buffer impacts were quantify. Please clarify if slope adjustments are required and if impacts are anticipated.
	A. The plan sheet shows a fill slope line and a 25' wetland buffer line in the correct locations. Based on the conceptual plans, there are minor fill slope adjustments but no impacts to the buffer are anticipated.

Inq. 140	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/10/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: A supplemental WQS sheet issued with Addendum No. 1 includes a final line in the WQS sheet that indicates a 1.85 acre water quality credit as a result of "Des-Build SWM." We assume in the absence of any explanation that the intent of this information is that the D/B team is to provide additional structural or non-structural water quality credits in order to maintain the maximum 1.00 acre water quality debit. In consideration of the fact that the conceptual SWM scheme relies upon treatment of offsite areas (namely the Landover Mall parking lot) to meet the project's water quality requirements, are there any restrictions whatsoever that the administration will place upon the D/B team in meeting 1.85 acre credit indicated on the WQS sheet?"
	A. No. There are no restrictions provided the 1.85 acre credit can be attained by a method acceptable to MDE.

Inq. 139	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/10/2006
	Q. Highway Design: Since interstate ramps are being modified, will the Design-Build Team be required to submit, update, or revised an Interstate Access Point Approval Point document?
	A. The IAPA has already been submitted and approved by FHWA. The IAPA will not need to be revised or resubmitted unless the design on the interchange access is changed from the conceptual plans.

Inq. 138	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/10/2006
	Q. Highway Design: Page 144 of IFB Section 3.09.01 General Highway Design Requirements includes MDSHA Guidelines for Traffic Barrier Placement and End Treatment Design, dated January 2003. This guide has been updated in March 2006. Please clarify which edition should be used for the design of this project.
	A. The March 2006 edition is the one that should be used. The IFB will be revised in a subsequent addendum.

Inq. 137	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Structures: Regarding: Category 400 Structures Section 435-Cleaning and Painting New Structural Steel, where will this apply and to what bridge and or bridges? This is not stated in the IFB or the Letter of Intent or on the bridge plan sheets 34 through 39 of 39.
	A. This Special Provision is not required in this contract and will be removed from the IFB in a subsequent addendum.

Inq. 136	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Ramp C in the Southeast quadrant of MD 214: The typical sections (TS-01) in the plans (sheet 21) show full depth lane and shoulder pavement to the left side and full depth shoulder widening to the right side. However, the plans (PS-02) show grind and resurface of the existing lane (left side of ramp) and full depth pavement lane widening to the right with effectively no shoulder width. What typical section does SHA want to use for this ramp? If widening and new grading is proposed to the right side of this existing ramp, there may be impacts to ROW and the adjacent waters of the US because of the steep slopes in this location
	A. The plan view for Ramp C is correct. The typical section will be revised in the upcoming addendum to show proposed full depth pavement for the right shoulder.

Inq. 135	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Cross Slope: Existing cross slope appears to be between 1.5 to 1.7 %. Is it SHA's intention to raise the existing cross slope to 2% and not allow any existing pavement to be undercut?
	A. The normal typical section of I-495 should show the proposed cross slope to meet existing cross slope, as long as the existing is cross slope is no less than 1.5%. If there are areas that the cross slope is less than 1.5%, the Design Build Team is required to adjust it to meet a minimum of 1.5%. No undercutting will be allowed to adjust the cross slope. The typical section will be revised in a subsequent addendum by pen and ink.

Inq. 134	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Landscape Architecture: TC 3.13 "Roadside Landscape and Reforestation Design Criteria" - Section 3.13.02 "Landscape and On-Site Reforestation Plan" indicates that "The Design-Build Team shall prepare a Planting Plan for the Landscape and Reforestation Plantings, which have been based on the Conceptual Landscape Plans. The Conceptual Landscape Plans are included in this Invitation for Bid Document. The conceptual plans designate planting zones by type, location and square footage". The provided Landscape Concept Plans only identify Forest Impact Areas and Reforestation. Will SHA provide plans designating planting zones by type, location and square footage?
	A. The Reforestation Concept Plans provided by SHA have clearly designated planting zones by type, by location, and by acreage.

Inq. 133	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Landscape Architecture: TC 3.13 "Roadside Landscape and Reforestation Design Criteria" - Section 3.13.01 requires that areas identified on the Landscape/Reforestation Concept Plates as "Tree Preservation Areas" shall be protected by means of blaze orange construction fencing. No areas have been defined as "Tree Preservation Areas" in any of the provided drawings. Will SHA provide plans depicting "Tree Preservation Areas"
	A. Since there are currently no areas defined as Tree Preservation Areas (TPA) on the Landscape/Reforestation Concept Plates, no plans depicting TPA will be provided by SHA.

Inq. 132	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/3/2006
	Q. Structures: On Page 88 of the IFB Book, it states that the 100% complete Structure Plans for Bridge No. 16150 are considered conceptual and the Administration makes no representation regarding the accuracy of the plans. However, the plans are signed and sealed by a professional engineer. Is the Design Build Team responsible for the accuracy of the current design plans that have been sealed by another consultant?
	A. The plans are 100% complete and are not to be considered conceptual. The wording in the IFB will be revised in a subsequent addendum

Inq. 131	Post Date: 12/5/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Utilities: The utility statement says there are no relocations anticipated; however, it appears that there will be two impacts to overhead utility poles along MD 214 (one on the north side and south side) and both of the impacts may be 69 kV PEPCO lines with Comcast also on the pole. Are SHA and the utility companies aware of this potential major impact? Who is responsible for the cost of the design/reconstruction (i.e. who has prior rights) and who is responsible for the potential time delay associated with PEPCO work?.
	A. The utility pole(s) located in this area will need to be relocated based on the impacts shown on the conceptual plans at advertisement. The Utility Statement will be revised by Addendum. SHA will be responsible for the cost to relocate the pole(s), based on the impacts associated with the conceptual plans.

Inq. 130	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/21/2006
	Q. Wetland Impact: The drainage concept shows a proposed ditch just west of the SB I-495 ramp to Arena Drive (STA 187+50 - STA 191+50, LT). This proposed ditch appears to impact Wetland 15 and an unknown waterway (not labeled); however, the impact was not included in the permit. Will the Design-Build team be responsible for mitigation for these previously unidentified environmental impacts?
	A. A permit modification will be submitted to reflect the impact to Wetland 15, Wetland 14 and WUS 20. There will be no mitigation required for these impacts

Inq. 129	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/21/2006
	Q. Utilities: The utility file shows a 60" water line crossing the Ramp B spur in the southeast quadrant of the MD 214 interchange. Typically, SHA requires that utility crossings be encased. Does SHA anticipate that this water line will need to be encased? If so, does SHA expect the Design Build Team to be responsible for the design, cost of encasing, and potential delay to the project schedule?
	A. There are no anticipated impacts to this water line. The Design Build Team is responsible to verify the depth of this water line and coordinate with SHA and WSSC if there are impacts to the utility. The responsibility of design, cost, and construction time will be determined on a case by case basis.

Inq. 128	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/21/2006
	Q. Utilities: The utility file shows a 24" water line along the north side of MD 214 from Sta. 313+00 to Sta.323+00. The roadway widening will likely be located on top of the water line. Does SHA anticipate that this water line will need to be relocted? If so, does SHA expect the Design-Build Team to be responsible for the design, cost of relocation, and potential delay to the project schedule?
	A. There are no anticipated impacts to this water line. The Design Build Team is responsible to verify the depth of this water line and coordinate with SHA and WSSC if there are impacts to the utility. The responsibility of design, cost, and construction time will be determined on a case by case basis.

Inq. 127	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Wetlands and Wetland Impacts: In the vicinity of Sta. 225+00, 45' left, there is an area shown as a wetland in the topography file; however, it is not included in the Wetland Delineation Report. Could SHA please verify if this is or is not a wetland?
	A. The area is not a wetland

Inq. 126	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Wetlands and Wetland Impacts: Should the buffer shown around Wetland W89PG on wetland impact plate 11 extend beyond the noise wall? Consequently, this extension of the buffer beyond the noise wall is impacted by the project LOD. Is this area actually a buffer impact since the work will be occurring on the other side of the noise wall?
	A. MDE considers this area to be a buffer as shown on Plate 11.

Inq. 125	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Wetlands and Wetland Impacts: Wetlands W89PG and W11PG shown on wetland impact plates 9 through 11 do not appear in the Arena Drive Wetland Delineation Report. Could SHA please provide descriptions for these two wetlands?
	A. Yes, a description of these wetlands will be provided to all bidders by email

Inq. 124	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Wetlands and Wetland Impacts: According to the Wetland Delineation Report, Wetland 10 and WUS 19 are connected. However, the connection between the two features is not shown on wetland impact plate 7. Should more than 24 L.F. of stream impact or additional square footage of wetland impacts be shown on the wetland plate?
	A. A permit modification will be submitted by SHA to reflect this additional impact.

Inq. 123	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Wetlands and Wetland Impacts: The SWM concept shows an elimination of Study Point 13 at the northern limit of the project. Storm flows will be redirected south to an existing 30" culvert outfall. The Design-Build anticipates that there may be impacts associated with redirection of the storm flows from the receiving waters of the storm drain system that is being abandoned. Will the Design-Build team be responsible for mitigation for any previously unidentified environmental impacts?
	A. The drainage area to Study point 13 is just over 1 acre and does not contribute significantly to downstream receiving waters. SHA does not feel that the redirection of this flow constitutes an impact and thus will not require mitigation.

Inq. 122	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Wetlands and Wetland Impacts: The concept for SWM 2 shows abandonment of an existing cross culvert under the ramp from WB 202 to NB -95. The outlet from this culvert discharges into a ditch that is connected to Wetland 299. The redirection of this flow could reduce hydrology to an environmental resource. Will the Design-Build team be responsible for mitigation of a previously unidentified environmental impact?
	A. The principal hydrologic source for Wetland 299 is derived from off-site. The redirection of flow should not have any significant impact on Wetland 299 and as such will not require mitigation.

Inq. 121	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Wetlands and Wetland Impacts: The concept for SWM shows abandonment of an existing 42" storm drain outfall in the southeast quadrant of the MD 202 interchange. This storm drain directs flow to WUS 27 and Wetland 22. As a result of this abandonment, almost all of the drainage area to these environmental features will be redirected to other outfalls. Will the Design-Build team be responsible for mitigation for these previously unidentified environmental impacts?
	A. A permit modification will be requested by SHA for additional impacts from the project. WUS 27 is located at the base of a concrete swale. Although stormwater drainage flows into WUS 27 the elimination of this flow should not significantly change the characteristics of WUS 27. Furthermore, the current hydrology that drives WUS 27 and Wetland 22 is the backwater effect from the beaver activity located in Wetland 8. SHA does not feel that the abandonment of the 42" storm drain will be considered a significant impact, and as such will not require mitigation.

Inq. 120	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Wetlands and Wetland Impacts: The concept for SWM Pond No. 1 shows a new cross culvert and inlet at the ramp from SB MD 202 to SB I-95 (southwest quadrant of interchange). The permit does not identify impacts to WUS18 for either the construction of the new inlet or 525+/- LF of potential stream loss due to diversion of hydrology. Will the Design-Build team be responsible for mitigation for these previously unidentified environmental impacts?
	A. A permit modification will be requested by SHA for additional impacts from the project. WUS 18 is an ephemeral channel, and as such will not require mitigation.

Inq. 119	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/10/2006
	Q. Materials: See Pavement and Geotechnical Data Report dated May 11, 2006, Section 3.4.3.4 Median Base Widening on South Bound I-95/I-495 says "After excavating the existing shoulders and proper preparation of the subgrade, place the following, taking care to ensure that the final 25.0 mm base course is placed to the same grade and elevation as the existing South Bound I-95/I-495 mainline pavement after grinding and prior to placing the final surface course". Questions: The Typical Pavement Sections in the IFB does not indicate the existing South Bound I-95/I-495 requires grinding before resurfacing. Please clarify.
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 118

Inq. 118	Post Date: 12/1/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/10/2006
	Q. Materials: See Pavement and Geotechnical Data Report dated May 11, 2006, Section 3.4.3.3 Median Base Widening on North Bound I-95/I-495 says "After excavating the existing shoulders and proper preparation of the subgrade, place the following, taking care to ensure that the final 19.0 mm base course is placed to the same grade and elevation as the existing North Bound I-95/I-495 mainline pavement after grinding and prior to placing the final surface course". Questions: The Typical Pavement Sections in the IFB does not indicate the existing North Bound I-95/I-495 requires grinding before resurfacing. Please clarify.
	A. There is no grinding anticipated, as indicated in the conceptual plans and the special provisions. This is included in the geotechnical report if the Design-Build Team feels that it is necessary to grind prior to resurfacing to correct cross slope.

Inq. 117	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/20/2006
	Q. Traffic: Inq. 67 states "...all wiring shall be replaced" and Inq. 64 states "The lighting at MD 214 is new and can be reused....". Is the wiring for the new lighting at MD 214 also new and can it be reused in lieu of replacing it as stated in Inq. 67?
	A. The wiring at MD 214 is new and can only be re-used if the existing lighting cables will provide a continuous, unspliced run between areas of lighting structures. No splices or junction points will be permitted between poles except in manholes to provide for a roadway crossing.

Inq. 116	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/20/2006
	Q. Traffic: Should the new proposed Sign Lighting system be wired for 120V or 240V?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 115

Inq. 115	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/20/2006
	Q. Traffic: Inq. 67 Response to Contractor's Inquiries states "All ultimate lighting designs shall be 120/240 V...." Should the new proposed Roadway Lighting be wired for 120V or 240V?
	A. 240V

Inq. 114	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/20/2006
	Q. Traffic: For all Existing Overhead and Cantilever Signs that are being modified - Should the Existing Sign Lighting systems be replaced with the ICELS 100,000 hour life system?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 92

Inq. 113	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/20/2006
	Q. Traffic: For all Existing Overhead and Cantilever Signs that remain as is - Should the Existing Sign Lighting systems be replaced with the ICELS 100,000 hour life system?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 92

Inq. 112	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/20/2006
	Q. Traffic: Should all NEW sign lighting design be based on the Induction (ICELS) 100,000 hour life system?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 92

Inq. 111	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/17/2006
	Q. Lighting: Do the CD lanes need to have continuous lighting for the entire length or is the intent to only illuminate the beginning and end of the CD lanes since they are to be considered gore areas?
	A. Only the beginning and ends of the CD lanes will have to be illuminated. This will be in conformance with the requirements of partial interchange lighting as required for this project.

Inq. 110	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/17/2006
	Q. Lighting: Are the existing bridge mounted shoebox luminaires on the Arena Drive bridge to be replaced by cobrahead luminaires as well?
	A. The bridge mounted lighting structures shall be replaced in kind if needed.

Inq. 109	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/17/2006
	Q. Lighting: There are existing Prince George's County owned poles along Arena Drive on the east side of the beltway. These poles are 30' in height with shoebox luminaires and are maintained by PEPCO. Are these to be remain in place while designing new interchange lighting at this location or should they be removed and replaced by new cobrahead luminaires on 40' aluminum poles?
	A. Any structures that are not owned or maintained by SHA and are not being impacted by the project should remain. Those that are being impacted or need to be replaced shall be replaced in kind. Any lights that are currently wired into the SHA lighting systems shall be upgraded to the SHA standard.

Inq. 108	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/17/2006
	Q. Signing Limits: It is somewhat unclear what the limits of the project are versus the limits of the signing work and this affects the assumptions on signing and lighting upgrades. Can the Design-Build Teams assume that ALL signing within the limits of the roadway work need to be upgraded to meet current standards (or as noted in responses to other questions) and those limits would be from MD 214 to Glenarden Parkway. In addition, any sign located outside of those limits that is being impacted or installed must also be upgraded and must include sign lighting systems. If this is not a correct assumption, please clarify the exact project limits versus the signing upgrade project limits.
	A. All signing related to the 3 interchanges within the project limits must be evaluated to see if the geometric improvements for the project will require modifications be made to the sign messages. This signing may or may not be located within the physical limits of the project. If there are changes to be made to the sign, then the lighting shall be upgrade to a sign lighting system.

Inq. 107	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/17/2006
	Q. Materials: Does your recent response to Inquiry No. 58 apply only to the pavement transition sections between stations 181+ and 183+50 and stations 269+50 and 272+, or does it apply to the entire project limits?
	A. The inquiry response applies to the entire project limits.

Inq. 106	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Traffic: Is the Design-Build Team required to replace the existing Semi-Cutoff luminaries with Full Cutoff luminaries on lighting assemblies that do not otherwise need to be modified?
	A. Yes, all lighting structures shall meet the current SHA standard.

Inq. 105	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Traffic: There are existing Overhead Sign Structures with their left supports in conflict due to proposed left should widening and median batter. New structures are needed at these locations even though the existing sign panels are correct and would otherwise not be impacted. Can the existing sign panels be reused on the new structure if the existing message is okay, or will new sign panels be required?
	A. Yes, the existing signs may be transferred to the new structures although if this is done, arrangements must be made to have temporary signing installed while the existing signs are not up.

Inq. 104	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Materials: The pavement sections in the IFB show pavement section for the median widening and resurfacing for I-495 (different section for Northbound and Southbound). There is not a pavement section for outside widening on I-495 in areas where there is resurfacing and median widening. Which section should we use?
	A. For the outside widening on I-495 north bound direction between stations 222+50 to 229+25 use the inside median widening pavement section for I-495 north bound roadway.

Inq. 103	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Drainage: Between approximately Sta. 232+00 and 241+00, the proposed SWM / drainage concept shows maintaining the existing 42" storm drain which is located in the middle of the median. If this is maintained, it will be located directly beneath the proposed median concrete. Is this SHA's intention to maintain the existing 42" storm drain beneath the barrier or would you require this section to be relocated so it is not underneath the barrier?
	A. The existing pipe in this area can remain in place. Access to the pipe shall be provided at least every 400 feet, as per the drainage criteria.

Inq. 102	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/16/2006
	Q. Traffic: Regarding Sight Lighting: Please provide the as-built lighting plans to the D/B Teams for our use for MD Rt. 202, 214, Arena Drive and I-495. Also please define the limits of the required lighting needs for the above referenced project?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 17.

Inq. 101	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Signals: Is a left turn phase needed for the eastbound MD 202 movement to the ramp to northbound I-495?
	A. Due to a predicted traffic generation from a proposed development within the vicinity of MD 202 and McCormick Dr./St. Josephs Dr., the EP left turn phase for a new signal is recommended to allow EB MD 202 left movement to the NB ramp I-495. For this, a DR Revision will follow from District 3 Traffic.

Inq. 100	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Signals: Queue detection is called for in the design request for the ramp signals. How far back on the ramps should the loops be placed? This information is necessary to determine quantities. If this information is not available, will SHA provide traffic data so this can be determined?
	A. The traffic data has been provided on the advertisement CD. It is located in the following folder: /2E. Reference Files (.pdf or .tif files)/Traffic Data/existing and proposed traffic.PDF

Inq. 99	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Signals: If sampling is required, does SHA want the Design Build Team to use 6'X6' loops or video?
	A. If proper placement can be obtained with the cameras, then cameras shall be used. If proper placement cannot be obtained then 6x6 loops shall be used.

Inq. 98	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Signals: Interconnect is specified in the design request, but sampling is not mentioned. However, sampling is called for on page 160 of the IFB, but specific locations are not included. Is sampling required at existing and/or new signal locations on MD 214, MD 202, or Arena Drive? If so, please specify the locations.
	A. Sampling should be provided at all signals where an interconnect system exists or will exist. Sampling shall be provided one zone/loop per through lane on the downstream side of the signal.

Inq. 97	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Median Widening: The roadway plans show the median widening starting station at 183+27.55 for both northbound and southbound I-495. However, the Geotechnical Report shows the starting station for northbound as 171+00 and for southbound as 175+00. What station limit does SHA want to use for the beginning of widening?
	A. Please refer to the limits shown on the advertised conceptual plans.

Inq. 96	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Longitudinal Joints: Page 5 in the Geotechnical Report states "… the existing longitudinal joints in the underlying concrete pavement and the constructions joint between the old pavement and the base widening will fall in the proposed wheel path." This sentence implies that recommendations will be provided later in the report for both conditions; however, page 6 of the Geotechnical Report only provides a recommendation for the longitudinal joint along the edge line between existing pavement and proposed widening. It does not provide a recommendation for the longitudinal joint within the pavement section. Is it SHA's intention to have the Design-Build Teams replace the longitudinal joints within the pavement section? If so, please provide a recommendation for how SHA wants this completed.
	A. Please review page 209 of the IFB. See pavement details and notes.

Inq. 95	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Signing: Does SHA want the existing Arena Drive guide signs to be modified / replaced to include both "Arena Drive" and "Bishop Peebles Drive"? Or is the supplemental ground mounted sign identifying Bishop Peebles Drive adequate?
	A. The existing supplemental guide sign messages along I-95 should be kept but modified as needed. The sign messages along the ramps should also be kept but modified as needed.

Inq. 94	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/14/2006
	Q. Pavement: Does SHA want a 2" overlay for the southbound travel lanes from Sta. 176+00 to 183+27.55 or can the Design Build Team grind 2" and resurface 2" of the existing pavement? If so, the shoulders in this area will also need the overlay.
	A. Based on the data report, this section requires 4" HMA resurfacing and no grinding.

Inq. 93	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Materials: The boring logs indicate that T-180 (Proctor Test) tests were performed. We could not locate the results of the proctor tests in the IFB. Can these results please be provided to the design-build teams?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 90

Inq. 92	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Traffic: Is the overhead sign light design to be based on the new Induction (ICELS) light fixtures?
	A. No, all sign lighting shall be designed using the current standard of the sign lighting system using Mercury Vapor bulbs.

Inq. 91	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Traffic: Can the existing light poles, lighting fixtures, and control cabinets be reused for the partial interchange lighting at MD 202, Arena Drive, MD 214, and I-95/I-495 required as part of this contract.
	A. Please refer to Inquiries 64, 67, and 68.

Inq. 90	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Materials: Are laboratory test reports available for the Proctor tests performed on the soil survey borings?
	A. The results of the proctor test run on various sample is shown on the Soil Lab Tests Result Sheets in the following folder on the advertised CD: 2E. Reference Files (.pdf or .tif files)/Geotechnical Files/Arena Drive-Soils Lab Data.pdf

Inq. 89	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Materials: If existing pavement markings are in conflict with the proposed geometry and the plans do not indicate any work on the existing pavement, should the area be milled and overlaid or should the existing markings be removed by grinding?
	A. In areas where there are conflicting markings, the whole lane with the conflicting markings should be ground and resurfaced with the proposed surface mix for that area.

Inq. 88	Post Date: 11/29/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/3/2006
	Q. Traffic: Please identify whether the traffic structures (sign structures and light poles) can be galvanized or need to be color treated brown. Currently, there is a mix of brown and galvanized structures within the project limits.
	A. We are not aware of any brown sign structures involved in this project. Any light poles that are installed along the SHA road network, that being I-95/495 MD 214 or MD 202 shall be galvanized and any existing brown poles shall be removed and replaced with galvanized. Any existing brown light poles that are located along Arena Drive that are affected by this project or will be maintained as part of this project shall be replaced in kind or maintained as is.

Inq. 87	Post Date: 11/22/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Design Speed / Superelevation: IFB Book states that the design speed should be 70 mph; however, the existing superelevation does not meet the 2001 AASHTO Guidelines for 70 mph. Is it SHA's intention to raise the superelevation on the horizontal curves to meet current 70 mph guidelines or to match the existing cross slopes and superelevation?
	A. A Design Exception has been prepared and approved by SHA to keep the existing superelevation rate along I-495 and not adjust the superelevation to meet the 70mph Design Speed. A copy of the Design Exception will be provided to the Design Build Teams by Addendum.

Inq. 86	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/3/2006
	Q. Maintenance of Traffic: Will SHA provide the maintenance of traffic for surveyors on the Beltway travel lanes after the bid is awarded but prior to construction, similar to current protocol that is followed with District 3?
	A. The Maintenance of Traffic will be the responsibility of the Design-Build Team.

Inq. 85	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Traffic Barrier W-Beam: Does SHA expect the Design-Build Team to also replace any damaged traffic barrier that is within and along the Arena Drive, MD 202, and MD 214 interchange ramps if there are not geometric improvements adjacent to it?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 5.

Inq. 84	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Maintenance of Traffic: Page 174 of the IFB Book states that the Design Build Team cannot remove existing pavement markings by water blasting, sand blasting, spot grinding or covering them with black tape. Therefore, the Team would need to grind the entire roadway section in order to shift lanes to construct the median widening. However, page 8 in the Geotechnical Report states that "…..the ground surface cannot be exposed to traffic more than 2 to 3 weeks before resurfacing." These two statements imply that the Design Build Team would need to grind and resurface the entire roadway for every lane shift needed in the MOT plan which will increase the cost of the project. Would SHA consider modifying the statement on page 174 in the IFB book to allow Design Build Teams to remove markings by water blasting, sand blasting, spot grinding or covering them with black tape so that they do not need to grind and resurface between each MOT lane shift?
	A. Refer to Inquiry No. 58

Inq. 83	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Striping: The existing striping on the Arena Drive concrete bridge deck must be removed to restripe it to 5 lanes. If page 174 of the IFB Book states that the Design Build Team cannot remove existing pavement markings by water blasting, sand blasting, spot grinding or covering them with black tape, how does SHA recommend the Design-Build Team remove the markings?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 58.

Inq. 82	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Highway Design: Some of the Microstation files are referencing a file named ExPipes_i495.dgn. Can this file be provided to the design-build teams?
	A. This file was a scanned file from an as-built. This file will not be provided but the as-builts will be provided in a subsequent addendum.

Inq. 81	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Traffic: If the Clearview font is required, and the final messages will not be determined until after the bid opening, will the panels have to be replaces or is it safe to assume the message will fit within the existing panel limits?
	A. Clearview will only be required on those signs that are to be fabricated new or on those signs that are overlayed with an entirely new message.

Inq. 80	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Traffic: Do the existing overhead signs, whose messages are adequate for the project, need to be updated to the Clearview font? If yes, does this apply to the bridge mounted panels? Would the updated bridge mounted panels have to be relocated off the bridges?
	A. The existing bridge mounted signs are to be removed as specified in the IFB. Signs that only modify part of the existing message do not need to have the clearview font on them and the new message can be provided in the Hi-Intensity sheeting. New signs shall have the clearview font and the type XI sheeting.

Inq. 79	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Traffic: Are existing lighting plans available and can they be provided to the design-build teams?
	A. Any existing plans available can be provided upon request.

Inq. 78	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Highway Design: Please clarify if all work on this project needs to be behind traffic barrier.
	A. The SHA "Temporary Traffic Barrier Policy" will be forwarded to the Design-Build Teams via email and will be included in a subsequent addendum.

Inq. 77	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Traffic: Are plans available for the two DMS sign structures that need to be relocated?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 64.

Inq. 76	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Traffic: The IFB did not indicate that signing along the exit ramps to MD 214 or MD 202 would be required; however, to provide positive guidance it would be necessary. Should the additional signing be included?
	A. All signing shall meet the requirements of the MUTCD and SHA. If it is deemed necessary that additional ramp signing is needed to clarify directions then it shall be installed.

Inq. 75	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Traffic: Will overhead signs be required indicating the left turn access to I-95 along the cross streets or can ground mounted signs be used; we have seen designs with overheads and others with ground mounted signs.
	A. Yes, overhead signs should be provided for the left movements along the local roads.

Inq. 74	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Traffic: The IFB indicates non-conforming signs should be brought into conformance which could be as simple as removing signing related to the second exit, changing distances on interchange sequence signs and modifying exit panels to eliminate the A and B designations. However, if an existing sign does not meet current criteria in terms of not having the larger first uppercase letter in the cardinal direction, improper interline spacing, CLEARVIEW font, etc should it be replaced?
	A. No, if the only thing non-standard about a sign is the first letter of the cardinal direction, or improper spacing then it does not have to be replaced. If a sign is only modified to remove a letter from the exit tab the whole sign does not need to be refabricated. If a sign needs a destination or a mileage upgraded then that change can be made in the current Highway Gothic font in Hi-Intensity sheeting. Any signs fabricated new shall have the new sheeting and font style.

Inq. 73	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Traffic: If a new sign is added to an existing structure with an existing sign to remain does the existing sign need to be modified to be in the CLEARVIEW font or can we mix regular and CLEARVIEW signs on the same structure?
	A. Any new signs shall be fabricated with Clearview font. It will be acceptable to mix clearview and Highway Gothic on the same structures or in the same interchange sequence HOWEVER the fonts shall not be mixed on the same sign.

Inq. 72	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Traffic: Are the existing Arena Drive guide signs to be modified to remove the DMS and lane control signs?
	A. These shall be modified to reflect the current SHA and MUTCD standard.

Inq. 71	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Traffic: Are there destinations, Fed Ex Field, or roadways to be noted with the Arena Drive advanced guide signs along the mainline or only on the ramps?
	A. The destinations listed shall be in accordance with the standard signing practices of the State Highway Administration.

Inq. 70	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Traffic: A sign has been installed on temporary wood support along I-95 northbound south of the MD 214 interchange with the messages "Largo Town Ctr", Prince George's/Community College", "Six Flags/EXIT 15A" and a services bar with an MVA logo. The sign is only about one foot off the ground, not protected and the text is not laid out appropriately or in CLEARVIEW font. Is this sign going to be addressed under another contract or should it be included in the Arena Drive project.
	A. This sign shall be addressed as all others within the project scope. It shall be modified, replaced, brought up to standard as needed.

Inq. 69	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/6/2006
	Q. Traffic: Where lighting structures appear to be in good condition, can they be reused and/or relocated?
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 65.

Inq. 68	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/6/2006
	Q. Traffic: Where old lighting conductors or aluminum conductors exist, are we to rewire all circuits on that lighting cabinet?
	A. The ultimate lighting design shall be rewired in accordance with the latest SHA standards.

Inq. 67	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/6/2006
	Q. Where the Old 240/480V lighting systems exist, are we to upgrade to 120/240V systems?
	A. All ultimate lighting designs shall be 120/240V and all wiring shall be replaced.

Inq. 66	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/6/2006
	Q. Traffic: Will OOT&S require the contractor to place lighting cabinets on either side of the Beltway to avoid conduit crossings under the Beltway or in each of the four quadrants of interchanges?
	A. Crossings under the mainline beltway shall be avoided however crossings under the ramps in the 4 quadrants can be made.

Inq. 65	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/6/2006
	Q. Traffic: The Scope of Work specifies the roadways to remain illuminated at IES levels during construction. Lighting outages are anticipated in several areas. Will the contractor be required to provide temporary lighting in all areas where outages occur or will partial illumination of areas be acceptable during the various phase of construction?
	A. Final lighting levels are determined by partial interchange lighting layouts. The existing lighting shall be maintained throughout the project at least to partial interchange requirements.

Inq. 64	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/3/2006
	Q. Lighting: Some lighting within the project limits is very old and rusted. Is it at the discretion of the Design Build Team to determine if the poles can be relocated? If not, will SHA identify which ramp light poles may be relocated?
	A. The lighting at MD 214 is new and can be reused to provide the partial interchange layout. Existing 40' poles at MD 214 can be reused however any 30' poles must be replaced with 40'.The lighting at MD 202 and Arena Drive is older and will need to be replaced.

Inq. 63	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/3/2006
	Q. Traffic: Will SHA provide existing sign structure plans for DMS signs 323 and 316 (structure numbers 16362 and 16329)?
	A. We will provide all structural drawings available upon request.

Inq. 62	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/3/2006
	Q. Traffic: Does the Design Build Team need to relocate the two RTMS (remote traffic microwave sensors) which are attached to the DMS signs which need to be relocated, or is OOTS not planning to use this system in the future?
	A. If they are mounted on the structure they are to be relocated and made operational when the structure is relocated.

Inq. 61	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/3/2006
	Q. Signing: Is it acceptable to place overlays on bridge mounted signs? The IFB indicates that signs being replaced on bridges need to be removed from the bridge and installed on new overhead structures, however, can an overlay be used instead?
	A. No, the signs are to be removed from the bridges.

Inq. 60	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Pavement: Page 174 of the IFB states, "When required by the Design-Build Team's MOT plan, existing pavement markings shall be removed by grinding or overlaying the entire pavement surface, from shoulder edge to shoulder edge." Pavement Legend Note No. 6 on Page 199 states, "For MOT on I-95/I-495 the pavement markings may be removed by grinding. Grind to a 2" depth for the entire roadway width to remove the markings. After grinding replace the grind area with 2" Hot Mix Asphalt Superpave 12.5 mm for Base, PG64-22, Level-4." Please clarify a) if all roadways in the project limits are subject to the requirement of grinding the entire pavement width to remove existing pavement markings and b) if roadways on which grinding is used to remove existing pavement markings must receive an overlay.
	A. Please refer to Inquiry No. 58.

Inq. 59	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Lighting: Page 157 of the IFB states, "The Design Build Team shall prepare full interchange and continuous lighting plans…" On Page 265, the Design Request states "Replace all interchange lighting at Arena Drive and at MD 202 and modify lighting as necessary at the MD 214 interchange." Please confirm the intent to provide all new lighting at the MD 202 and Arena Drive interchanges and to upgrade the MD 214 interchange to full interchange lighting.
	A. The TC-3 will be modified to reflect partial interchange lighting. The ultimate lighting layout shall reflect partial interchange lighting. The lighting at MD 214 is new and can be modified to the partial layout while the existing light poles will need to be replaced at MD 202 and Arena Drive.

Inq. 58	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Maintenance of Traffic: Page 174 of the IFB Book states that the Design Build Team cannot remove existing pavement markings by water blasting, sand blasting, spot grinding or covering them with black tape. However, the existing lanes will need to be shifted to construct all widening and the limits of the resurfacing shown in the plans do not account for the tapers into and out of the widening areas. Can the Design Build Team use one of these techniques for the lane shifts / tapers approaching and departing from the widening areas?
	A. The Administration will allow the Design-Builder to eradicate all existing pavement markings that conflict with the MOT markings by means of water blasting, sand blasting, covering with black tape, spot grinding, etc. Any areas where existing pavement markings have been eradicated, the Design-Builder shall grind and overlay the entire pavement surface, prior to the laying the final surface course, from shoulder edge to shoulder edge and reinstall permanent pavement markings. The depth of grinding/thickness of overlay shall be the depth to remove the entire thickness of the existing surface layer of the pavement. Section 3.16.07 will be revised to reflect what is stated above in a subsequent addendum.

Inq. 57	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Utilities: If other utility impacts are discovered due to the current proposed design, who determines prior rights and consequently, who is responsible for the cost and construction time?
	A. The prior rights will be determined by the Administration. If impacts occur, the responsibility of cost and construction time will be determined on a case by case basis.

Inq. 56	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Utilities: Were the utilities provided to the Design Build teams designated or were they developed from records? If they were designated, were test pits performed and can SHA provide the test pit information?
	A. The utilities were designated. Test pits were not performed by SHA on the utilities because there were no anticipated impacts based on the concept plans.

Inq. 55	Post Date: 11/17/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Pavement: Patching quantities are identified in the IFB book as 100 tons plus 650 tons for full depth patching and 500 tons plus 300 tons for partial patching in the IFB book. If these quantities are exceeded, how will the Design-Build Team be reimbursed?
	A. If the quantity is overrun, a change order will be processed accordingly.

Inq. 54	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/13/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: According to the SWM report, there are only two SWM ponds proposed to treat all of the required impervious area on the job. However, upon inspection of the water quality summary sheet, provided in the SWM report, there is an extra 1.85 acres of impervious area being treated by a facility identified as Des. Build SWM. This there a third SWM facility proposed on the project, and if so where is it located and what type of facility is required?
	A. Please refer to the response to Inquiry No. 51

Inq. 53	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/8/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: Addendum No. 1 - The Water Quality Summary Sheet from Addendum # 1 shows an outfall Number called Des-Build SWM and an Impervious Area Treated by Structural BMP as 1.85 acres. Is this stating that the Design -Builder needs to find a location for and to manage an additional 1.85 acres of impervious area? This is not stated in the SWM report or MDE's Letter of Intent.
	A. Please refer to the response to Inquiry no. 51

Inq. 52	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/6/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: Are their existing storm drain plans (as-built plans) available for I-495 and the interchanges?
	A. All available as-built plans will be included in a future addendum.

Inq. 51	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/6/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: According to the Water Quality Summary Sheet, there is 1.00 acre of debit to the Water Quality Bank. Is this number acceptable to SHA/MDE as a final number or is the D/B required to provide more management to get a zero balance or a credit?
	A. Although MDE has approved a SWM concept which will result in a project debit in excess of 1.0 acre, SHA has specified that there be a maximum debit of 1.0 acre. The final SWM Report and Water Quality Summary Sheet submitted by the design-build team shall reflect additional measures developed to reduce debit to 1.0 acre.

Inq. 50	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/6/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: MDE's Letter of Intent does not mention the Landover Mall area per say but they find the area getting to the SWM Facility #2 acceptable. Does SHA have an agreement in place to manage this area or will the D/B be required to obtain it?
	A. No agreement is necessary. The Mall currently outfalls onto SHA property. We can convey flow through SHA property as needed without consent of upstream property owner. MDE has approved the concept in the SWM Report. MDE allows SHA to receive credit for SWM of off-site areas.

Inq. 49	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/6/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: The existing situation at the Landover Mall shows demolition of all buildings except for the Sears Store. Will this impact the runoff from the parking area and drainage system from that used in the SWM report?
	A. Any demolition or redevelopment of Landover Mall is outside the control of SHA. The approved SWM Report was based on the area remaining impervious. Design should be based on what is in place at time of construction.

Inq. 48	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/6/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: What is the Limits Of Disturbance with regards SWM #2 at Landover Mall?
	A. The LOD was not definitely set as part of the concept design. The design-build team's design will be constrained by existing Right-of-Way, permit requirements, and the need to maintain appropriate distance from roadways and ramps as indicated in the specifications. The suggested location for SWM-2 is between MD 202, I-495, and the ramp from MD 202. This area is owned by SHA, and contains no wetlands or waters of the US.

Inq. 47	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 11/6/2006
	Q. Hydraulics: The Conceptual SWM Report indicates "that runoff from a large area of the parking lot at Landover mall is diverted into SWM #2 to be treated and credited for toward pavement balances." Can the Drainage and grading as-builts for the Landover Mall be provided to the Design-Build Teams?
	A. The redirection of flow to SWM#2 is to be accomplished in this contract. The design is the responsibility of the design-build team. SHA does not have Landover Mall plans. Available survey information was supplied with bid package. Any additional information needed will have to be obtained by the design-build team.

Inq. 46	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Signals: Please verify where crosswalks are required at the Arena Drive/Ramp intersections. There is conflicting information in the design request on page 259 in sections 8.6 and 13.1. Also, the design requests call for crosswalks on the north side of the intersection where there are no existing or proposed sidewalks.
	A. Crosswalks shall only be provided across the south legs of the interchange. The design request will be revised in a subsequent addendum to remove the north legs.

Inq. 45	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Signals: Will SHA provide fiber optic interface equipment for the existing and proposed traffic signal controllers along Arena Drive?
	A. Yes, the new signal cabinets at the offramps will be provided by SHA as well as the fiber interface equipment.

Inq. 44	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Wetlands: If wetland impacts change, will DB Team be responsible for modifying the wetland plates or will we provide the information to SHA to modify? If DB Team will be required to do this, we request that SHA provide the DGN files for the wetland plates included in the IFB book (pages 69 - 77).
	A. If wetland impacts change, the DB Team will be responsible for modifying the wetland plates and the Joint Permit Application and provide the revised plates, revised application, and any other pertinent information to SHA for review and concurrence, and submittal to the appropriate regulatory agencies. The .dgn files for the wetland plates were included in Addendum No. 1.

Inq. 43	Post Date: 11/15/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Horizontal / MD 214: The exit ramp from the Outer Loop does not appear to meet the posted speed limit of 30 mph, based on the 2001 AASHTO Green Book. The baseline radius is 630 feet with approximately 4.0 to 4.3% superelevation. Assuming an 8% maximum superelevation on the ramp, this horizontal curve would only meet 25 mph. Would SHA expect the Design Build Team to increase the superelevation to meet the 35 mph or utilize the existing superelevation rates?
	A. The Design-Build Team is responsible to ensure the ramp will meet a 30 mph speed at an 8% maximum superelevation based on the 2001 AASHTO Green Book.

Inq. 42	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. CD Files: The following files are not located on the electronic files CD included with the RFP. a) Survey/Topographic Files i. Photogrammetry files (PH) ii. Bridge location files (BR) b) Utility Files i. Utility Test Pit files (TH) c) Right of Way i. Metes & Bounds file ii. Proposed right of way line file (RW) iii. * Received "Work Map files (WM) - mRW-E000_i495.dgn"* d) Landscaping, Reforestation & Wetland Plates i. All files accounted for e) Geotechnical files i. Soil Survey Boring Logs ii. Utility Test Hole Reports f) Conceptual Plan Sheets i. All files accounted for g) Design Files i. Vertical alignment file (VA) ii. Conceptual Cross Section file (CS)
	A. All available electronic files have been included in Addendum No. 1. The list of available files has been updated in Addendum No. 1.

Inq. 41	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. MOT: Page 289 of the IFB states, "no travel lane shall be reduced to less than 10 ft." Please confirm that 10-foot wide travel lanes will be acceptable for long term traffic control during construction.
	A. 10ft Lanes may be used to reduce the widths of turn lanes, but not through lanes. 10.5ft may be used along Arena Drive but 11ft is the minimum width on the remaining roadways, MD 214, MD 202 and I-95/I-495.

Inq. 40	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Signing: The IFB does not seem to address the existing guide signs that have a variable message sign section. Should these signs be removed or retained?
	A. All signs that no longer apply to the new roadway configurations are to be removed. All existing signs relating to the new roadway configurations shall be modified as needed or replaced in their entirety. If these signs are needed, then power and operation shall be maintained.

Inq. 39	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Lighting: Page 156 of the IFB states, "All roadway lighting shall be on the outside of the travel lanes, not in the median." It may be difficult to obtain the required lighting levels on I-495 without the use of median lighting. Please review this requirement. If median lighting will be permitted, can SHA provide standard drawings or details for twin arm light pole foundation in median barrier?
	A. All lighting shall be installed to the outside of the roadway. In the event that the lighting levels are not met for lanes 1&2, that will be acceptable since these lanes will be carrying through traffic and lanes 3-5 will be the only lanes that will carry traffic entering and exiting the roadway via the ramps.

Inq. 38	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Traffic: It appears that the median modifications on MD 214 near the Hampton Mall Entrance will impact the existing traffic signal at the intersection of MD 214 at the Hampton Mall Entrance. Has a Design Request been prepared for this traffic signal work?
	A. Based on the survey files and the plans in the IFB, the median work being performed at the Hampton mall entrance does not appear to impact any signal equipment. However as part of the reconstruction of the signal at the southbound ramps, the existing interconnect that ties the existing ramp signal to Hampton mall is expected to be maintained as noted in the IFB under the requirement that all existing interconnect is to be maintained. The existing lighting cable runs that run through this area are also expected to be maintained.

Inq. 37	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. As-Built Information: Please provide as-built plans for the existing reversible lane signal system on Arena Drive.
	A. This is a Prince George's County maintained reversible lane system and they should be contacted for any as built information.

Inq. 36	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. As-Built Information: Please provide as-built plans for I-495 from Sta. 100+00 to Sta. 278+00 and the three interchanges (I-495 at MD 202, I-495 at Arena Drive, and I-495 at MD 214) within the project limits of work.
	A. Any As-Built plans that SHA has available for the section of I-495 within the project limits will be included in a subsequent addendum.

Inq. 35	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Drainage: Page 1 and Page 11 of the Preliminary Stormwater Management Report states that the pavement of Landover Mall's parking lot is redirected to drain and great treated in the proposed SWM #2 facility in the northeastern quadrant of the I-495/MD 202 interchange. Please provide the Landover Mall as-built plans for verification.
	A. The redirection of flow to SWM#2 is to be accomplished in this contract. Design is contractor responsibility. SHA does not have Landover Mall plans. Some survey was supplied with bid package. Any additional information needed will have to be obtained by contractor.

Inq. 34	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Page 177 of the IFB states, "The maximum water quality debit allowed for this project is 1.0 acres." The Water Quality Summary Sheet in Appendix H of the Preliminary Stormwater Management Report shows a debit of 2.69 acres. Which is correct?
	A. The 1.0 acre debit limit in the contract must be met. The final Stormwater Management Report and Water Quality Summary Sheet submitted by contractor shall reflect additional measures developed by contractor used to reduce debit to 1.0 acre.

Inq. 33	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Reforestation: The IFB book states that there are 5.2 acres of forest impacts, but the landscape concept only shows 3.5 acres of reforestation. Will the Design Build Team be required to provide mitigation for the remaining 1.7 acres?
	A. The Design Build Team is responsible only for the on-site reforestation amount. SHA LAD/LOD will find sites for the remainder of reforestation with the following exception: If the Design Build Team were to increase forest impacts, they would be additionally responsible for mitigation to cover the loss. SHA also verifies, on all projects, if proposed forest impacts are to exist reforestation area mitigation. This would then require 2:1 mitigation.

Inq. 32	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Geotech: The Summary of Topsoil Results provided indicated that the geographic area is Piedmont. However, this area is not Piedmont, it is Coastal Plains. Could SHA please have OMT verify that the summary of topsoil results is correct based on this difference?
	A. The geographic area should be Coastal Plain.

Inq. 31	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Geotech: Are the soil samples available from OMT for review?
	A. No, this is an old project and for Design-Build projects where sampling and testing are done to get a general idea of the type of materials that are present on a project. The samples are not kept. The Design-Builder needs to perform geotechnical studies.

Inq. 30	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Geotech: Did SHA conduct MR or CBR testing for the project? If so, could SHA please provide the laboratory test data?
	A. No, from the data report, it was assumed from a nearby project.

Inq. 29	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Geotech: A summary of the laboratory testing was provided, could SHA provide copies of the grain size distribution curves, proctor curves, etc.?
	A. The sieve sizes and all other available information is provided in the summary sheets. We are encouraging the Design-Build to perform their own geotechnical studies.

Inq. 28	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Signals: Will SHA provide traffic signal controllers and traffic signal related signing?
	A. Yes.

Inq. 27	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Signing: If DMS numbers or references are provided to SHA will existing DMS plans be made available?
	A. Any information that is available will be provided upon request.

Inq. 26	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Signing: If specific structure numbers are provided to SHA, will existing overhead and cantilever sign structure information be made available?
	A. Any information that is available will be provided upon request.

Inq. 25	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Signing: On page 154, in the last paragraph, the IFB indicates that "the Design Build Team shall provide sign lighting systems for all overhead sign structures (existing and new) within the project limits. (a) Please confirm that "overhead" sign structures include cantilever, bridge mounted, and overhead type sign structures. (b) Does the Design Build Team need to add sign lighting systems for signs within the stated project limits that we are not modifying or impacting? (c) Does the Design Build Team need to add sign lighting systems to signs that are impacted along the Beltway, but fall outside of the stated project limits of the IFB?
	A. a) Yes, the term overhead applies to all of these types b) Yes c) Yes

Inq. 24	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Signing: The IFB calls for the use of clearview fonts for signs. The IFB also indicates to optimize the use of existing signs. Is it acceptable to use Highway Gothic for some signs and Clearview for others as part of the advanced interchange guide signing sequence? Is it acceptable to have a combination of Highway Gothic and Clearview on the same sign (if overlays are being proposed).
	A. For signs that will use an overlay to make the needed changes, Highway Gothic shall be used. For those signs that are to be fabricated and installed as brand new signs, Clearview shall be used. There should be no mixing of the two fonts on the same sign.

Inq. 23	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Signing: Along the Outer Loop, does SHA expect the advanced guide signs for MD 202 to be adjusted because the decision point to exit the mainline has been moved further to the south?
	A. Yes.

Inq. 22	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Signing: Along the Inner Loop, does SHA expect the advanced signing for the CD lanes to include information for both the MD 202 and Arena Drive exits?
	A. Yes.

Inq. 21	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Signing: Page 156 in the IFB lists some suggested signing modifications; however, the modifications do not appear to address the reconfiguration of traffic due to ramp removals, construction of CD lanes, and relocation of exit gores. Does SHA intend the Design-Build Team to develop full new signing concepts for I-495, the CD road, MD 202, and MD 214 including all advance interchange signing because the exit locations are changing?
	A. The Design-Build Team is required to address the suggested changes outlined in the IFB. ALL other changes to the signing shall be based on the new roadway configuration and will contain both signs within and outside of the actual limits of the project.

Inq. 20	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Lighting - Mainline: Does SHA expect that IES lighting criteria will be met for all five lanes on the Inner and Outer Loops of I-495 rather than just the CD lanes?
	A. In the areas where the CD lanes will be constructed, we are only concerned with maintaining the lighting levels for the CD lanes. It should be understood that both the beginning of the CD division and the ending of the division are to be considered gore areas.

Inq. 19	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Lighting - Mainline: Does SHA want the Design-Build Team to provide full continuous lighting along I-495 from Sta. 128+50 to Sta. 269+37?
	A. No, lighting shall be upgraded to partial interchange as outlined in previous question.

Inq. 18	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Lighting - Interchange: The IFB also indicates that the existing interchange lighting shall be analyzed. Do the entire interchanges, MD 202, and MD 214 need to be analyzed or just the portion where geometric modifications are being made? If deficiencies are found where geometric modifications are not being made, is the Design Build Team required to correct those areas?
	A. ALL lighting shall be analyzed and brought up to the current SHA standards for partial interchange lighting regardless of whether or not geometric modifications are being made at that location. TC3 will be revised in a subsequent addendum to address the lighting requirements stated.

Inq. 17	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Lighting - Interchange: On page 157, the first sentence in the IFB states that "full interchange and continuous lighting shall be prepared". Is full interchange lighting required along the ramps where it does not exist today? Is continuous lighting required along MD 202 and MD 214 because currently lighting is provided for the ramp gore areas, but it is not continuous?
	A. All lighting within the limits of this project shall be designed and updated to partial interchange lighting. If current lighting circuits extend across the limits of the project, then accommodations shall be made to maintain the lighting that exists beyond those limits in accordance with the requirements of this contract, i.e. partial interchange lighting. If full/continuous lighting exists today, it shall be removed and replaced with partial lighting. TC3 will be revised in a subsequent addendum to address the lighting requirements stated.

Inq. 16	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Traffic Shop Drawings: Confirm that SHA wants Design Build Team to review all of their own traffic shop drawings. SHA / OOTS is usually responsible for this.
	A. The Design-Build team will be responsible for reviewing and approving ALL shop drawings and catalog cuts for compliance with current SHA standards.

Inq. 15	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. SWM: The IFB Book, page 177, states that the maximum water quality debit allowed for the project is 1.0 acres. However, the preliminary approved SWM report included in the IFB package shows a net debit to water quality requiring the use of 2.7 acres from SHA's bank. Can the Design Build Team use 2.7 acres from SHA's bank?
	A. The 1.0 acre debit limit in the contract must be met. The final Stormwater Management Report and Water Quality Summary Sheet submitted by contractor shall reflect additional measures developed by contractor used to reduce debit to 1.0 acre.

Inq. 14	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. SWM: Within the MD 202 and MD 214 interchanges, are there locations that SHA will exclude from allowing alternative SWM facilities to be placed?
	A. SHA will consider use of alternative sites. However, for any such sites which impact wetlands or other environmental resources, the contractor must apply for and receive the appropriate permits or permit revisions.

Inq. 13	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Drainage: Does SHA expect the Design-Build Team to jack and bore the storm drain underneath the MD 202 ramps or can we close the ramps to install them?
	A. It is up to the Design-Build Team to submit a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) adhering to Section 104 in the IFB. District Traffic will make the final determination for lane/ramp closures included in the proposed TCP.

Inq. 12	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Wetlands: Please provide a copy of the wetlands and waterways delineation report (per page 86 IFB).
	A. This report has been distributed to the Design Build Teams.

Inq. 11	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Utilities: Confirm that SHA wants Design-Build Team to pay for all utility connection fees for electrical hook-ups. SHA is usually responsible for this.
	A. Yes the Design-Build Team is responsible for the connection costs as indicated in TC3 of the IFB.

Inq. 10	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Profiles: Will profiles be provided? IFB states they have been provided in the plan set for I-495 and MD 214 Ramps A and B, but they have not provided them in plans nor files on the CD.
	A. Profiles are not available and will not be provided.

Inq. 9	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Pavement: What is the pavement section for the widening and resurfacing of Ramp B (per plan sheet PS-02) in the MD 214 interchange? A pavement section is not provided in the IFB book.
	A. For Ramps B and C pavement sections, use the same pavement sections shown for MD 214 Ramp A. This detail will be revised in a subsequent addendum to include Ramps B and C, and grinding and resurfacing as stated in a previous question.

Inq. 8	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Pavement: Page 205 IFB book, MD 214 Ramp A, does SHA want 2" grinding and 2" resurfacing on the existing ramp OR just 2" resurfacing over the existing pavement section?
	A. This detail will be revised to show 2" grinding and 2" resurfacing.. The detail will be revised in a subsequent addendum.

Inq. 7	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Pavement: The patching item shown in the Pavement and Geotechnical Data Report (pages 5 & 6) is HMA Superpave 25.0 mm for Base, PG64-22, Level-4; however, the Pavement Legend (page 199 in IFB book) states that the patching item should be HMA Superpave 19.0 mm for Base, PG64-22, Level-4. Which item is correct?
	A. The patching material should be 25.0 mm. The IFB will be revised in a subsequent addendum.

Inq. 6	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Shading files: Shading files: There are 3 shading files included on the CD: a. mSH-0001_i495.dgn b. sh01_i495-proposed.dgn c. sh01_495-removal.dgn These files show some conflicting shading information and parts of all 3 files are used in the plan sheets, so there is not 1 complete shading file to clearly identify the design intentions.
	A. The revised files will be provided in a subsequent addendum.

Inq. 5	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Traffic Barrier W-Beam: Page 90 in IFB book states that all existing traffic barrier and traffic barrier end treatments within the project limits must meet NCHRP Report 350 standards. Does SHA expect the Design-Build Team to also replace any damaged traffic barrier that is within the project limits? Will the Design-Build Team also be required to clean out underneath traffic barrier that is not being replaced?
	A. The Design-Build Team is responsible to replace any damaged traffic barrier within the project limits. During construction, the Design-Build Team is responsible to maintain the highway and slopes within the project limits until SHA accepts the project for maintenance after construction completion.

Inq. 4	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Horizontal / Design: Plans show a lane drop for the 5th lane from the left side (high-speed) of the highway. The horizontal alignment file appears to show the lane drop on the right side of the highway. Typically, design practice would suggest dropping the lane on the right side (lower speed) of the highway. How does SHA want the lane drop designed?
	A. The lane drop will be on the right side as shown. This can be seen if you turn off the topo file level for the existing lane line.

Inq. 3	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Horizontal / MD 214 (Sta. 312+80 to 314+00): Plan sheet (PS-01) and typical sections (TS-02) show sidewalk and grading in the middle of the SB to WB ramp right turn lane. In addition, there are two horizontal alignment files on the CD provided by SHA (mHD-P000_i495.dgn and ha01_m214_i495.dgn); however, the line work conflicts between these two files in the same western quadrant of the MD 214 interchange and both show the sidewalk in the middle of the ramp. What is the preferred design for this limit of work and which horizontal alignment is correct?
	A. In response to the first part of the question, the changes will be made and issued in an Addendum. Revised files will be provided for the second part of the question.

Inq. 2	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Horizontal / Crown Line: Location of proposed crown line. Page 147 states crown line should be 4' to the left of the CD road. In locations where there is NOT a 4' buffer separation, does SHA still want the crown line to be 4' left of the CD and in the middle of a lane, or do they want it to be at the single paint line between the CD and the general purpose lanes?
	A. The crown will always have to be at an edge of a lane.

Inq. 1	Post Date: 11/6/2006	Inquiry Date: 10/25/2006
	Q. Data: Please provide boring logs for the 65 auger probes and 4 SWM borings. In addition, please provide the location for the 12 auger probes and 1 SWM boring that are not included in the IFB Book. If SHA cannot provide the boring logs, then please provide the pavement thickness from the auger probes.
	A. All of the boring logs that are available for the project have been included in the CD provided as part of Addendum No. 1.

CIC Home