1. business and industrial
2. company
3. annual report

Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Project No. 150001
HEN-90991 - SR 109-18.02 Major Brdg Repl
Sale Date - 2/10/2015
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 2:19:05 PM
A pre-bid question has been previously submitted inquiring the status and availability of the waterway permit(s) for this project. One of
the crucial components of the permit(s) is the temporary access causeway into the river, specifically ,what has been permitted and what
are the restrictions/requirements in regards to the causeway.
What is the permitted footprint (area) for the temporary causeway? Is this measured at the OHWM or at the river bottom?
What is the permitted volume of temporary fill for the temporary causeway?
How much flow must be maintained through the causeway and what submittal/design requirements will be required for the temporary
causeway?
Does river traffic have to be maintained through or around the causeway?
Should the Contractor’s temporary causeway design result in a lesser impact than what was permitted, will a permit modification be
required? In the past the Department has required a permit modification for a proposed impact less than what was permitted.
The analysis of the answers to the above questions as well as a thorough review of the waterway permit conditions will require time, and
therefore we request that this information be provided to the bidders no later than 2 weeks prior to the bid date.
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
A previous answer to a question about the intent of Note F on Sheet 10 of 133 states that barge work is prohibited outside of the August 1
to October 31 low flow window. This answer prohibits use of barges to support pier cap construction or concrete beam erection except
during low flow periods. Is this truly the intent of the environmental commitment?
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 12:56:09 PM
Assuming a causeway is placed during the August 1 to October 31 window, will contractors be permitted to work from that causeway
outside of the low flow period as long as that work does not include placing or removing fill material below the ordinary high water
elevation?
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 12:53:10 PM
Does Note F on Sheet 10 of 133 require removal of any causeway installed prior to the end of a low flow period, or can the causeway
remain in service and be removed during another low flow period?
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 12:49:44 PM
Please provide a definition of "In-Stream Work" as it is used in Note F on Plan Sheet 10 of 133.
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 3:44:09 PM
A.) Detour Signing – On sheet 12/133, the plan note under Item 614, Maintaining Traffic states “ODOT shall provide, erect, and remove the
detour signs and supports, as detailed in the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.” Does this mean that the cost of all material,
labor, and equipment for all signs included on sheets 15/133 and 16/133 are the responsibility of ODOT? If not, what specific signage is
ODOT responsible for, and what signage is to be covered under bid item 83: Detour Signing - LS?
B.) Maintenance of Traffic – Signage – Under what bid item is the work zone signage on sheet 17-18/133 to be paid?
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 1
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 9:40:05 AM
Floodplain Permit – Note 13 on plan sheet 11/133 states that all terms and conditions of the floodplain permit shall be adhered to. Is this
permit available for review prior to bidding?
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 9:37:48 AM
Waterway Permit – Has the Department received the required waterway permit(s) for this project? If so, can they be made available for
review prior to bidding? If not, when does the Department anticipate receiving the approved permit(s)?
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 9:35:56 AM
Stream Bottom Elevations – Note F on plan sheet 11/133 states that stream bottom elevations shall be determined before in-stream work
commences. Whose responsibility is it to determine the stream bottom elevations?
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 9:32:48 AM
Mussel Survey and Re-location – Note 6 on plan sheet 11/133 states that Mussel survey and relocation must be conducted by ODOT prior
to start of construction. When can the Contractor assume that this survey and relocation will be completed? Note F on plan sheet 10/133
also discusses mussel survey and relocation. Does the Contractor have any responsibility for the survey and/or relocation of mussels?
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 9:18:00 AM
Equipment Re-fueling & Storage – Note D on plan sheet 10/133 states that neither idle equipment storage or equipment refueling shall
occur in the floodplain. Note 9 on plan sheet 11/133 states “…project related refueling and maintenance activities shall not be performed
within the project area.” Based on these notes it appears that it is the Department’s intent to require the Contractor to re-fuel equipment
at an off right-of-way location. Is this correct? Also please clarify what is defined as equipment as some items that will require re-fueling
would be impractical to remove from the site to re-fuel (i.e. pumps, generators, cranes, drilled shaft equipment).
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 11:56:37 AM
Can ODOT provide additional information on the textured pattern for the parapets such as photos, dimensions etc.
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 11:52:17 AM
The texture for the parapets shown on plan sheet 76/133 is stated to have a maximum of 1/2" relief. The illustration appears to have a
relief larger than 1/2", please confirm required relief.
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 11:45:54 AM
The formliner shown on plan sheet 76/133 appears to be a custom liner, is the pattern proprietary to a specific manufacture?
Question Submitted:
1/14/2015 11:54:08 AM
Will glass fiber reinforced polymer bars be required at the control joints in the parapets?
Yes, glass fiber reinforced polymer bars will be required at the control joints in the parapets
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 2
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/14/2015 11:26:49 AM
Bid line item 0099 Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Steel has a qty. of 888,347LB. Plan notes on sheets 116 and 121/133 state reinforcing steel for
parapets is included in Item 517 Railing. We believe the quantity for reinforcing steel includes the parapet qty., please clarify.
The note on plan sheet 121, "THE CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL FOR THE PARAPETS IS INCLUDED WITH ITEM 517, RAILING,
MISC.:CONCRETE PARAPET WITHSTEEL RAILING", is incorrect.
Revise this note in its entirety to read "THE PARAPET CONCRETE AND STEEL RAILING IS INCLUDED WITH ITEM 517, RAILING, MISC.:
CONCRETE PARAPET CLASS QC2 CONCRETE WITH QC/QA AND STEEL RAILING".
So the parapet concrete and the steel members that are located on top of the parapet will be paid under the 517 RAILING, MISC.:
item. The reinfocing steel located inside the papapet will be paid under the standard repar item.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 2:27:02 PM
Can the core borings be made available to be viewed?
The physical cores are available for inspection. Please contact:
Enoch Chipukaizer
Barr Engineering, Incorporated
2800 Corporate Exchange Dr, Ste 240
Columbus, OH 43231
614-892-0162
[email protected]
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 9:16:33 AM
Where can Special Provisions listed on plan sheet 1/133 be located?
The Special Provisions are shown on sheets 159-165 in the PDF Plan Set.
Question Submitted:
1/12/2015 10:28:48 AM
Could ODOT or the Designer provide a deck pour sequence since it was omitted from the plans? Thanks.
On sheet 31/55 of the plan, the designer states to follow std dwg PSID-1-13 for the deck pour sequence. The intent is for the
contractor follow this Standard Drawing notes with no additional design limitations required for the concrete deck pour.
Question Submitted:
1/7/2015 10:48:10 AM
It appeares to be conduit in the bridge abutments, but there is no pay item for it. Will you tell us where this is paid?Thanks
The conduit is paid for under proposal line item #55.
Question Submitted:
12/23/2014 9:29:59 AM
Can the existing structure files please be made available online?
The existing plans and other required files can be found at:
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/HEN-90991/
Question Submitted:
12/23/2014 8:48:50 AM
What is the intent of note G on sheet 10/133? Are any rip rap causeway or pads placed in the river to be bounded by some sort of
diversion? Will any rip rap causeways be allowed without any containment provided they are clean washed non-erodible fill larger than 3
inches?
The permitting agencies would prefer the use of structures such as membrane, rubber or inflatable dams when feasible over the use
of fill material to divert stream flow. Given the size, depth and flow of the Maumee at the 109 bridge however the use membrane,
rubber or inflatable dams for diversion becomes impracticable.
A causeway built without containment using clean washed non-erodible fill larger than 3 inches will be allowed.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 3
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
12/23/2014 8:47:29 AM
Please explain the intent of note F on sheet 10/133. Is the contractor to only be allowed in the river for any work including causeway work,
barge work, sheeting, etc. only during August 1st through Oct. 31st? If this is correct please extend the completion date by at least 1 year
for the project. With there being 10 wet piers in the river for construction more than a 3 month time frame is necessary to construct pier
access, piers, and set beams which will all be river activities. Furthermore, the contractor will then need a window in the river once the
new bridge is completed to remove the old bridge piers in the river. Therefore, either expand on this note telling us what is allowed to be
done in the river outside of the August 1st to October 31st date if anything. Depending on the answer to that please consider a completion
date change.
Q1) Is the contractor to only be allowed in the river for any work including causeway work, barge work, sheeting, etc. only during
August 1st through Oct. 31st?
A1) Yes but an addenda is forcoming to extend the completion date to 9/30/2017.
Question Submitted:
12/15/2014 4:15:41 PM
Will the reference files be available on ODOT's website soon?
The reference files are now available at:
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/HEN-90991/Reference%20Files/
Project No. 150003
CUY-87613 - CHAGRIN FALLS RESURFACING
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/9/2015 2:51:40 PM
Quantity for guardrail removed and guardrail installed on sheet 46 appears to be overstated by 400'. Please review.
Guardrail removed and installed quantity has been deleted in Addendum1. No reference on sheet 46 to guardrail removed and
installed quantity.
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 11:23:15 AM
In regards to the Type A concrete steps, do you have any idea how many locations and exactly how wide?
Question will be answered in a forthcoming Addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/7/2015 12:31:29 PM
Ref. D-24. Plan Page 40 lists this as a CB 3. Plan Pages 50 and 66 list this as a CB 3A. Please clarify.Ref. D-30. Plan Page 41 lists this as a CB
3. Plan Pages 51 and 67 list this as a CB 3A. Please clarify.Ref. D-40. Plan Page 42 lists this as a CB 2-3. Plan Pages 52 and 69 list this as a
CB 3. Please clarify.Ref. D-41. Plan Page 42 lists this as a CB 2-3. Plan Pages 52 and 69 list this as a CB 3. Please clarify.Ref. D-43. Plan
Page 42 lists this as a CB 2-3. Plan Page 52 shows this on a curb. Is it to be a CB 3A? Also, there is no Rim/Invert data - see separate
question.Ref. D-45. Plan Page 42 lists this as a CB 2-3. Plan Page 52 shows this on a curb. Is it to be a CB 3A? Also, there is no Rim/Invert
data - see separate question.
This question will be answered in a forth coming Addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/7/2015 12:17:35 PM
Plan Page 51. Ref D-34 has no invert elevation listed and has no cross section. Please provide an invert elevation and pipe sizing. The invert
elevation also affects the Type 1 WQS at Ref D-34.Plan Page 38 and 58. Ref D-35 on Plan Page 38 is listed as 12"Ø. D-35 on plan page 58
is listed as 12"Ø on the plan view, but 15"Ø on the profile view. Ref D-36 is listed as 15"Ø. Please clarify what pipe size D-35 is.
Question will be answered in a forth coming Addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/7/2015 12:04:45 PM
Plan Page 48. Ref D-10 has no profile view or cross section. Need Rim and Invert data.Plan Page 52. Ref D-43 and D-45 have no profile
views or cross sections. Need Rim and Invert data for both.
Question will be answered in a forth coming Addendum.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 4
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/7/2015 11:58:27 AM
Plan Page 38. Ref S-2 is listed as STA. 13+37.38, 0.21' RT. Ref S-4 is listed as STA. 12+98.24, 67.57' LT. These show up on Plan Page 48 on the
plan view, but the profile view has only one, lsted as STA. 13+37.38, 67.50' LT. Is this S-2 or S-4? Whichever it is, the is no profile or cross
section for the other. Need Rim & Invert data.
Question will be answered in a forth comming Addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/7/2015 10:03:29 AM
Is the 4" Concrete Sidewalk measured throught the Ramps?
The 4” Concrete Sidewalk quantities and Curb Ramp quantities have been calculated as per ODOT Standard Construction Drawing
BP-7.1. Please refer to this standard construction drawing for description of payment.
Question Submitted:
1/6/2015 2:59:41 PM
please clarify acceptable methods of storage for the brick removal and storage app.Are the concrete steps Type A or B?please verify the
quantity of type 2 asphalt allocated for roadway and drives.
Please see forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/6/2015 2:20:33 PM
On sheet 51, D-34, the Manhole and Water Quality Structure are shown but no invert elevations are given. Please provide.
Please see forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/5/2015 1:26:40 PM
Page 12 of the plans specifically lists 3 CIPP installers that are acceptable for use on the project, the note also mentions "or an approved
equal".
As a prequalified ODOT contractor and one of the largest CIPP installers in the US, would we fall into the "or approved equal" clause?
Question Submitted:
12/30/2014 10:02:18 AM
Can the CAD and Survey files used to create the preliminary plans be made available?
The Village of Chagrin Falls does not make these files available during the bidding process, but can make the CAD and Survey files
available to the successful bidder.
Question Submitted:
12/10/2014 8:15:18 AM
On Works type page 1 the completion date is 6/30/15. On page 4 in scope of work the date is 9/30/15. Please clarify
Can the refrence to the pages be more specific, what is the plan sheet No. ? Is it possible that the question belong to another
Project?
Project No. 150013
HAM-75890 - SR 128-0.00
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 7:55:07 AM
The EBS file for addendum 2 does not have the revised or added bid items.The EBS file has not been updated.
The amendment files will be repaired to reflect the proper revisions in forthcoming Addendum No. 3. Apologies for the
inconvenience.
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 5:23:53 PM
On drawing 48E the watermain is shown to be installed 15' deep alongside an existing watermain that is very old and consistently breaking,
alongside and under a fiberoptic telephone line, and alongside a live existing gasmain. The borepit shows the existing live utilities within
the pit. Can the watermain be relocated into the road and barrier wall be used with alternating traffic lights to install the jack and bore
under the box culvert in lieu of the current design or can a utility relocation allowance bid item be added since no bidder will know this
cost prebid. This installation method cannot be accomplished without moving the existing utilities or relocating the proposed watermain
design.
The Department believes the plans are buildable; please bid according to the contract documents.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 5
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/5/2015 2:12:51 PM
Can a Dowel holes bid item added to bid? With the quanity of dowels that are required for this project we believe it would be in the best
interest for all parties.
See forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/5/2015 2:07:00 PM
We believe your rebar for the dowels is incorrect. Can you please review and make any correction. For example on page 57 of 83 shows
only 60 D501 dowels. That will only do one row of rebar into the footer per wing wall. Our total dowel bar count this whole ares is 264
each including connection to existing culvert and top slab dowels. Please clarify.
See forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/5/2015 11:00:27 AM
It appears temporary concrete barrier wall will be required at some the of culvert repair locations due to the amount of time the guardrail
will need to be down in order to repair the guardrail. Will portable concrete barrier wall be required at any locations? How will the
department pay for the placement of the PCB in required areas?
See forthcoming addendum.
Project No. 150029
JEF-93192 - -SR 7-10.00
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 3:09:10 PM
Existing 401/404 permit mitigation commitments implemented by Murray Energy on property near the Northwest end of the project and
the regulated stream through the hollow near station 595+00 will impact this schedule. The majority of the excavation will need to be
hauled out through the south end of the project. With access out the south end of the project and the limited bench widths the
opportunity to double shift the project is not viable. Please consider this when evaluating the project completion date.
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 10:16:16 AM
The disposal of the excess material on the job will require significant clearing of forested areas for access of waste areas. If mitigation of
the cleared area is required by the various resource agencies, will the contractor be allowed to offset the impacts on the forested areas
through mitigation at ODOT's Sunday Creek II habitat preservation area?
No. The Contractor will be responsible for their own mitigation sites.
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 9:22:30 AM
With the sawcut shown on plan page 3/130 pavement removal will be needed. There is no bid item for pavement removal for this variable
width section. Will the Department add a bid item for pavement removal?
The intent of the sawcut is to construct a clean edge between the exisitng and proposed pavement. The amount of pavement
removed is minimal and should be included in Item 203 excavation for pavement.
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 8:08:14 AM
Can the Department make available the following environmental documents:1. The Ecological Survey Report and any related reports
(e.g., Bat survey, cultural resource report)2. The categorical exclusion report, including correspondence with resource agencies as well as
environmental commitments.3. The 404 Permit Application4. The issued 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
The ESR and CE document will be posted to the following FTP Site.
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Districts/D11/93192/
No 404 Permit was required.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 6
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 10:30:21 AM
Seeding & Mulching - Based on the estimated quantities it seems that the entire finished slope is NOT to be seeded and mulched, however,
I could not find any indication as to what sections of the finished slope were to be seeded and which sections weren't. Please clarify what
is to be seeded and mulched on the finished slope.For areas not being seeded, are any permanent erosion control measures required or
is the existing stratum to be left exposed?
No rock surfaces will need to be seeded. Only the areas of expsed soil will need to be seeded.
No permanent erosion control is required on the non-seeded areas.
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 10:15:21 AM
Bid Item 0045 is described as "Catch Basin Reconstructed to Grade", however, the details on plan sheet 28/130 appear to reflect "Adjusted
to Grade". Should the description for Item 0045 be revised?
The description does not need to be changed. The item should be bid as detailed in the plan.
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 9:59:07 AM
Upon reviewing the contract documents I did not see any reference to any Waterway Permits. Please verify that no Waterway Permits are
required to complete the work shown in the plans.
No Waterway permit is required.
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 1:15:46 PM
the department added a scaling item in addendum #1 to address the possible condition of rock being loosen above the new rock fall zone
excavation during blasting operations. this item was given a lump sum unit. given the uncertainty of this possible condition and its
magnitude, we are requesting the department make this item a predetermined bid amount.
This item is to be bid as a lump sum. No changes will be made.
Question Submitted:
1/14/2015 2:32:21 PM
Per SCD-RM-4.5, Ref. 622 - Concrete Barrier Wall, Type D, As Per Plan, requires an expansion joint, with an end anchorage on each side, at
a minimum of 800' spacing. Should there be end anchors throughout the D-wall to follow this standard?
A quantity for end anchorages will be added by addendum. Exp. Joints will be required when the continuous barrier length exceeds
800'.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 2:18:34 PM
Regarding Ref 53 – Asphalt Intermediate Course Type 2 (446), with the asphalt course only being 19” wide butting against the catchment
wall and with the quantity only being 36 CY, please consider changing the Item designation to (448) rather than the proposed (446).
The designation is to be 446.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 8:43:19 AM
According to the borings, coal is anticipated on the project. However, no other documentation is available in the plans or proposal
regarding the ownership, removal, sales, etc. of the coal. Can ODOT provide verification regarding whether the coal becomes the property
of the contractor and that the quantity of the coal present is considered 'incidental' to the project (i.e. mine permit not needed)?
All excavated material will become the property of the contractor to dispose of per the CMS.
No quatity for the coal has been developed. The removal is included in 203 Excavation.
The need for a mine permit will be dependent on how the material will be diposed of. Any need for a permit should be coordinated
thru ODNR.
Question Submitted:
1/12/2015 2:03:45 PM
Please clarify the location for delivery of the portable concrete barrier and glare screen to James White Construction. Contractors may
have various laydown yards. For bidding purposes please provide the single location of delivery. Should the location for the glare screen
be different from that of the PCB please define.
The portable concrete barrier and glare screen will need to be delivered to James White Construction's Freedom Way Yard in
Weirton, W.Va.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 7
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/12/2015 1:45:13 PM
The revised project completion date of 6/30/2017 did not address the logic to previous pre-bid questions. Various projects along route 7
have provided historical data which should be used as a reference to determine a realistic project completion date for this project. Bench
widths and site conditions relevant to safety will minimize mass excavation productions. Will the Department revise the completion date
to correlate to the actual site conditions and quantities of work to be performed?
The completion will not be changed
Question Submitted:
1/9/2015 3:34:52 PM
The revised completion date of 6/30/2017 is not achievable. For example, ODOT Project 7004(12) JEF-7-5.00, which included 2,056,000 cy
of excavation, is still not finished, and it bid on 7/19/2012 (30 months ago). It appears that the soonest 7004(12) will complete is 4/1/2015,
which is 33 months total duration. Is it not reasonable to expect this project to take even longer considering it includes 35% more
excavation of similar scope and difficulty? Furthermore, unlike 7004(12), this project is subject to 2013 CMS 108.06.C for weather days. If
you account for lost weather in accordance with 108.06.C, and figure working 6 days per week for the duration (which is unrealistic), there
simply are not enough working days between say 3/15/2015 and 6/30/2017 to safely complete the excavation, and remove the catchment
wall, and switch traffic, and repair the median, and repair and stripe the asphalt pavement. Please consider revising the completion date to
something achievable. A more realistic date for completion is 12/1/2018.
The completion date has been changed to 6/30/17 and no additional changes will be made.
Question Submitted:
1/9/2015 10:41:10 AM
The quantity for Bid Item 0013 Presplitting, As Per Plan seems to be understated. Please verify the bid quantity is correct.
The pre-splitting quantity in the plan is incorrect. The correct quantity should be 166838 sq. yd. An addendum will be issued to
correct the quantity.
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 3:47:31 PM
Can you please clarify the scope for Item 5 Removal Misc: Catchment Wall 1LS. Does this item include both the concrete wall and the
basket wall. If the basket wall is included, please provide more details as to size and materials making up the baskets.
The item for removal of the Catchment Wall includes the removal of the basket wall that is currently constructed in the south bound
lanes of S.R. 7. If is the responsibility of the Contractor to field measure and verify the size of the wall.
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 9:47:35 AM
There is a section of the project where the benches are not wide enough for equipment to safely construct the proposed cross section.
From Sta. 580+00 - 581+50 between elevation 765 to 875 the proposed cut is minimal. This does not allow room for construction
equipment to complete the excavation in a safe manner. Will the department revise the cross sections through this area?
The plan cross sections will not be revised.
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 9:38:43 AM
The current completion date is a potential concern. Due to the width of the cuts the opportunity to double shift or run two crews is not
feasible. Will the department revise the current completion date?
The completion date will be revised to 6/30/17 by addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/7/2015 5:15:44 PM
The current project completion date of 10/31/2016 is not achievable. The operations required to complete this project will not allow for
night work or multiple crews due to severe slopes and narrow bench widths. Based on our experience on similar work in the region, this
project will not be complete until 12/1/2018. Please revise the completion date. As a comparison, Project 148015 - JEF-7-4.98 sold 6
months ago and included only 1,000,000 cy of excavation; the completion date on this project is 10/31/2016.
The completion date will be revised to 6/30/17 by addendum.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 8
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/6/2015 8:47:33 AM
I have several questions regarding the temporary cut for fall zone shown in the cross sections:1. How is this excavation going to be
paid?2. Is pre-splitting required for this excavation? If so will it be measured and paid as pre-splitting?3. Is all of this material required to
be completely removed from site prior to the main excavation or can it be stacked behind the earthen wall while still providing a fall
zone?4. The blasting and excavation of this cut for fall zone creates a dangerous situation to work under especially after the first blast
takes place. Blasting will most likely loosen the rock and debris above the bench pose a serious safety hazard. We suggest that a line item
be added to the bid for scaling so the slope above the work can be inspected and safely scaled after each shot before work resumes below
the slope.
The following answers are provided:
1. The excavation of the temporary cut for the fall zone is included in Item 203 Excavation.
2. Pre-Splitting for the Temporary cut line will not be requried.
3. The material does not have to be completely removed from the site, however the material may NOT be stockpiled behind the
temporary earthen wall. The catchment area must be maintained.
4. A pay item for scaling will be added to the plan by addendum.
Project No. 150030
FRA-88310 - IR 270-17.28 (1st Pjt)
Sale Date - 2/10/2015
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 1:18:06 PM
The existing plans (FRA-270-7.47N) show the existing ramps (NE, ES, SW, WN) to be originally built as T-71 9” of Reinforce Concrete
Pavement. This quantity of pavement removed is not included in the quantity of Ref No. 4 Pavement Removed. Will the department
address this quantity bust by addendum?
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 10:39:19 AM
Th Office Calcs for the Pavement Removed bid item 4 made available on the FTP site via the link given in the 12/30/14 2:02:37 PM prebid
question answer does not give the locations ( stations, etc.) for the Pavement Removals. The locations determine how the pavement will
have to be removed. Can the locations be made available?
The pavement quantity “office calculations” included an item for pavement removed along I-270. There is composite pavement in
sections of I-270 where widening for acceleration/deceleration and merge/diverge areas is necessary. In case a clean cut edge
couldn’t be made at the shoulder, or if the composite pavement extended slightly into the shoulder, the plans included Item 202 as
a contingency. The following note is on the typical section sheets 20-25:
FULL DEPTH PAVEMENT SAWCUT. TRIM AND
CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE, AS PER CMS 203.04(E). IN AREAS ALONG I-270 WITH COMPOSITE MAINLINE PAVEMENT. THE
PAVEMENT CALCULATIONS INCLUDE A ONE FOOT WIDTH OF ITEM 202 - PAVEMENT REMOVED.This is denoted in the typical
sections at:I-270 SB
611+82.81 to 623+48.53624+52.03 to 625+66.54625+66.54 to
640+97.44640+97.44 to 652+17.01652+17.01 to 664+64.95664+64.95 to 670+00.00680+44.48 to 682+77.38683+31.37 to
688+97.50688+97.50 to 693+89.63693+89.63 to 699+57.66700+73.35 to 739+32.00I-270 NB
676+94.00 to 680+44.48680+44.48 to 682+77.38696+82.08 to 696+83.84696+83.84 to 697+01.64698+16.60 to
698+42.82698+42.82 to 699+57.27700+73.91 to 731+50
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 10:11:48 AM
The "Note to Contractor" on plan sheet 1093/1763 The second to last sentence states that " The Department will pay for the Temporary
Support of Excavation at the Contract Lump Sum for Cofferdams and Excavation bracing, As Per Plan. Please add bid items for Walls T02
and T03 in an addendum.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 9
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 10:36:27 AM
In the Utility Note provided in the proposal, Columbus Fibernet states that “The SUE confirmation for the stations listed below will be
complete by 6/1/15”. Under Bullet Point # 1 in this same section, it states that at “Station 195+10- US 33WB – Level A SUE confirmed that
fiber is in conflict with the proposed storm sewers due to manhole installation.” If the Level A SUE is complete and the fiber is in conflict,
when does ODOT anticipate Columbus Fibernet having its facility relocated to resolve this conflict with the storm sewer? This storm sewer
installation is critical to being completed prior to the shutdown of US 33 through traffic in Phases 2A/2B. It will not be complete prior to the construction; it will be a field coordination as stated in the utility note:"This will be a
coordination between the ODOT contractor to contact Columbus Fibernet 30 days prior to working in this vicinity to complete SUE
testing and relocate during the project as necessary. (1) Station 195+10- US 33 WB - Level A SUE confirmed that fiber is in conflict
with proposed storm sewers due to manhole installation."
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 8:28:21 AM
Please clarify the light pole design for base bid ref 236, ALT35. This design is not referenced in HL-10.11. Is correct design ATLM35? Also,
should base bid light poles designs(ref 235 and 236)include bronze finish?
Question Submitted:
1/14/2015 1:51:52 PM
It appears that the embankment quantities at the following locations were not reduced to allow for the MSE Wall Select Granular backfill
material: RW-5, Ramp WN 7668+02 – 7672+50;; RW-6, Ramp ES 6672+00 – 6674+00. Please revise the quantities in an addendum. This will be addressed in a forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/14/2015 1:50:48 PM
There are many cases in which excavation and embankment is not included to remove and replace the existing pavement when it is below
the proposed subgrade. For instance, at station 688+50 of Ramp SE (page 810), there should be excavation included to remove the asphalt
shoulders along with pavement removed for the asphalt over concrete base. Embankment should also be included to fill this void. This
occurs at the following locations: Ramp SE 685+00-688+96; existing Ramp WS (full length); existing Ramp WN (full length); existing Ramp ES
(full length); Ramp A 1073+00-1079+65; 270 SB 627+00-670+00, 683+50-699+50 & 707+50-739+00; 270 NB 698+00-703+00; 33 WB 159+50169+50 and 33 EB 165+50-172+50. Please revise the plans and bid item quantities in an Addendum. This will be addressed in a forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 5:38:02 PM
Where do we find or obtain:1)SECTION 1100 AS REFERENCED ON SHEET 1010 "SECTION 1100:MICROPILES";2) Special Provision "900
Permanent Soil Nailing" NOTED ON SHEET 1003;3) "SECTION 900 PERMANENT SOIL NAILS"; AS SHOWN ON SHEET 1016 "...SHOP
DRAWINGS AS PER THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MICROPILES."4) SS 866 AS SHOWN ON SHEET 1052 "...TIEBACK ANCHORS... IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ODOT SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATION SS 866." 5. FINAL QUESTION - ON SHEET 1060 IS THE TIE BACK BOND LENGTH
50 FOOT MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM?
This will be addressed in a forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 4:49:38 PM
Can ODOT provide the existing pavement buildups for each ramp on the project?
Existing plans have already been posted. ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/FRA-88310/
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 3:05:22 PM
The steel piles note on page 1052 for Retaining Wall 3 requires that the soldier piles conform to ASTM A709 50W which is for weathering
steel in the manufacture of bridges. Please advise if the preferred material specifications of A572 Grade 50 or A992 Grade 50 may be used
in lieu of A709 50W.
ODOT will allow the substitution of A572 Grade 50 steel for the soldier piles for Retaining Walls. If the steel material is substituted
for the soldier pile itself, the anchor components must also be changed to match, to prevent the formation of a galvanic cell due to
differing steel materials. ODOT will revise plan sheets.
Question Submitted:
1/7/2015 2:20:57 PM
Can the basemap DGN files be broke out into a separate ZIP file for download? The Reference Files.ZIP is too large at 1.7 GB.
The roadway basemaps are posted separately here: ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/FRA-88310/Reference%20Files/
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 10
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/6/2015 10:07:19 AM
Can the department please provide the “office calcs” referred to in the general summary?
The pavement calcs are availavble in the 88310.zip file located at: ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/FRA88310/Reference%20Files/
Question Submitted:
12/30/2014 2:02:37 PM
Not all the quantities shown on sheet 987 that are carried over to sheet 333B have bid items associated with them. Are all these items
incidental to the 6'x4' conduit or should bid items be added?
All items on sheet 987 are ultimately carried to the proposal in either Section 4 - "Drainage" or Section 37 - "Structures under 20
Foot Span".
Project No. 150031
BEL-85112 - -US 40-23.380
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 12:52:01 PM
due to the existing pavement width and the need to set workzones to perform the curb -walk removal/replacement operations are we to
interpret that no work can be preformed prior to august 1 and will the completion date be revised. addendum 1 is rather vague in its intent
The intent is not to allow the restriction of traffic down to one lane until after August 1. Any work (sidewalk and curb) which can be
performed while maintaining two lanes of traffic (one each direction) can be completed prior to August 1.
No change in completion date is required.
Project No. 150036
HOC-80844 - BP-FY2014
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 12:24:09 PM
Can the contractor have an option not to use the barrier wall for their maintenance of traffic per each bridge and perform daily temporary
lane closures.Or is it mandatory to use the barrier wall?
Please see note on sheet 4 for alternate methods.
Project No. 150038
FRA-86453 - IR 270-34.87
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 11:07:47 AM
The plans call for the sealing of concrete surfaces to be non-epoxy. The proposals calls for Epoxy-Urethane. Which is correct?
An addendum will be forthcoming to update the item to non-epoxy.
Project No. 150039
FRA-85688 - IR 71-21.260
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 10:25:24 AM
Reference numbers 147 and 148 seem to be a repetition of reference number 94. Can you please delete these two?
This will be addressed in a forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/7/2015 8:42:52 AM
Please clarify complete light pole design requirement for ref 0038. Bid pamplet states AT10B32.5, plans state MIS-181 which is 41'8" with
12' or 15' single truss arm.
This will be addressed in a forthcoming addendum.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 11
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Project No. 150041
HAN-93683 - US 224/SR 568-12.76/0.23
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 3:35:34 PM
With 12 major intersections on this project can a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) reference/bid item be added to assist the contractor in
traffic control through these intersections? Estimated time - 12 ea x 8 hrs x 2 times = 192 hours.
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 1:23:40 PM
Can some items be added for manhole, catchbasins (in pavement) and watervalve adjustments? With numerous existing manholes, water
valves and catch basins we request bid items be added/established to make adjustments to these existing structures if required. There are
currently existing structures that are leaning more than the plan pavement slope or set in concrete that cannot be met even after planing
that should be adjusted to match the proposed new pavement.
The City is to come in after the paving and adjust the manholes. No quantities will be needed.
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 1:11:56 PM
We would like to request that PN 470 be removed from this project.Per the designer notes for PN 470 the following should be taken in
consideration when a smoothness requirement is achievable Projects where this note may not be desired are: 1. Projects with single
course overlay without pavement planing. Districts should evaluate the existing pavement condition to determine if the desired
smoothness is reasonably achievable and potentially provide additional asphalt quantity as required. (Even though this project is being
planed it will be hard to obtain with a single lift)
2. Projects with legal speeds less than 40 mph. (This project’s speed limit is 35 MPH)
3.
Projects with numerous intersections. (This project has over 52 intersections. The project also has multiple turn lanes with variable widths
that will cause obtaining smoothness difficult)4. Small projects of less than 1 lane mile in length. (This project is 4.64 miles on USR 224 and
0.90 on SR 568. Due to the 7 day planing restrictions will cause the project to be paved in relatively short phases of less than 1 mile, no
long sustained pulls to establish smoothness per PN 470).5. Projects with special nighttime time restrictions and traffic making obtaining
smoothness data impractical. (Smoothness testing will be difficult to obtain due to the traffic and multiple phases)
The PN 470 will be remove in a forthcoming addenda
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 1:00:28 PM
Bid Item Reference 1, Wearing Course Removed, bid quantity totals 14,073 sy per general summary on page 16/16 and pavement data
table on page 4/16. The three intersection summary tables on page 5/16 only total 9,225 sy for Part 1 and no intersection summary was
provided for Part 2. Assuming Part 2 quantity of 162 sy is correct as listed on page 4/16 this only totals 9,387 sy of wearing course removed
for the project. Where is the remaining 4,686 sy?
The quantities in the general summary are correct, the tables on sheet 5 have been revised and will be issued in a forthcoming
addenda.
Project No. 150044
LUC-81058 - SR 2-21.10 Struct Repl (PART 1/PART 2)
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 12:52:48 PM
Bid Item #47, 301 Asphalt Concrete Base is listed as using PG 64-28 liquid, which we do not normally see. Is this the correct liquid?
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 4:22:08 PM
Part 1 is using Marshall design asphalt mixes, while Part 2, immediately adjacent to Part 1, is using Superpave mixes. Please consider
making the entire job Superpave.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 12
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 2:32:53 PM
After reviewing the Waterway Permit conditions I found no reference to stream bypass pumping for the installation of the proposed
structure. Are there any restrictions on bypass pumping of Otter Creek?
If less than one third of the stream is filled then bypass pumping would be allowed.
From the permit verbage: "If more than one-third the width of the stream is filled, then use culvert pipes to allow the movement of
aquatic life."
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 3:27:55 PM
Can the Office Calculations, Existing Structure Plans and any other design data available be provided to the Contractor?
The files can now be found on the FTP site at:
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/LUC-81058/
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 1:34:12 PM
Will the contractor be allowed to utilize an open trench method in order to install the steel encasement pipe, 611E96600 CONDUIT,
BORED OR JACKED 30” STEEL PIPE ENCASEMENT and 638E07200 14” STEEL PIPE ENCASEMENT, BORED OR JACKED ?
Question Submitted:
1/12/2015 10:33:20 AM
The Department has indicated that the Utility relocations would not be completed until June 1, 2015. On Part 1 plan sheet 5 of 35,
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC DETOUR PLAN, it is noted that the Detour Duration is limited to 30 consecutive days and that the construction
work must be completed by May 15, 2015.
This Part 1 work can not be completed by May 15 if the utilities are not relocated until June 1, 2015. This will also delay the completion of
the Part 2 work and the overall completion date of the project. Will the noted Detour completion and project completion dates be revised?
Question Submitted:
1/9/2015 10:45:11 AM
The Proposal’s Utility Note indicates that there are utilities to be relocated in the vicinity of the proposed 18’ x 8’ CONDUIT, TYPE A. These
relocates include Toledo Edison (Three phase aerial distribution), Columbia Gas of Ohio (20 inch gas line) and AT&T (Buried fiber cable).
What are the anticipated completion dates for these relocations?The above noted relocates will need to be completed prior to the
Contractor relocating the City of Oregon’s 20 inch sanitary and 8 inch water lines.
All utility relocates will need to be completed prior to
the removal of the existing 12’ x 7’ structure and installation of the proposed 18’ x 8’ structure.
All utility relocation will not be complete before June 1, 2015.
Project No. 150046
MIA-93561 - IR 75-19.95
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
12/31/2014 3:44:39 PM
Will ODOT consider lowering the work type to be performed by the prime contractor on this job. There is a large quantity of vandal fence
and bridge rail which will more than likely be performed by a guardrail contractor, large amounts of bridge painting performed by a bridge
painter, and then overlay and bridge rehabilitation performed by a bridge contractor. Something in the neighborhood of 30 to 35% prime
would be more reasonable for this job.
This request has been evaluated and the Percent of Work Completed by the Prime will not be revised.
Project No. 150048
NOB-92439 - -SR 147-7.87
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 9:21:45 AM
Bid items 34 and 35 have their quantities reversed as per page 6 of the plans.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 13
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Project No. 150049
SAN-86929 - -US 6-30.34 Bridge
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 9:25:16 AM
There is no summary for bid items 21 and 22, but I assume that their quantities are reversed.
These small quantites of pavment marking are to be completed using district forces.
An addendum will be forthcoming to removed these items from the proposal.
Project No. 150050
SEN-88513 - -US 224-29.54 Resurf
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 3:38:24 PM
On projects 150020 SEN-18-30.53 and 150021 SEN-67-0.00 there are separate items for Linear Grading and Prep for Shoulder Paving. Does
the Department intend on adding an item for Linear Grading to this project?
Linear grading will be added by addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 8:58:14 AM
The proposal specifies using PN 420 for the smoothness measurement on this project. PN 420 states that it is to be used for resurfacing
applications of 3 or more inches of new asphalt pavement. This project is receiving only 1.5” of new asphalt pavement. This proposal note
would not apply to the pavement placed on this project. Please remove this note and consider adding PN 470 Smoothness for Thin Lift
Pavements.
PN 420 will be removed and replaced with PN 470 by addendum.
Project No. 150051
SHE-92207 - SR 29-14.63
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 2:55:19 PM
Under ODOT Spec 451.04A it states not to use built up forms for projects over 2000 SY. With the temporary wall in place on the ramps
there will not be enough room for a slip form paver track on the wall side. Please clarify if the use of built of forms will be permitted on the
ramps.
Question Submitted:
1/14/2015 11:36:39 AM
Please add an item for temporary roads to cover any excavations and grading required for the temporary pavement.
An item for temporary roads will be added to a forthcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/6/2015 2:58:16 PM
Will ODOT allow steel pedestals to be used for the new bearing/pier raising to be set on the existing beam seat made to grade for the
height differential from the new beam seat to the old beam seat and then cast into the new pier concrete?
No.
Project No. 150055
SEN-85376 - SR 587-10.66 Culvert
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/14/2015 1:07:58 PM
Are the plan notes on sheet 3 titled ITEM 441, ASPHALT CONCRETE intended to apply to the 442 mixes on this project?
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 14
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Project No. 150061
BRO-88981 - US 62-13.92
Sale Date - 2/10/2015
Question Submitted:
1/12/2015 10:34:56 AM
Page 6A of 14 shows a Full Depth Pavement Repair section; however no bid items were carried over to the proposal for this work? Please
add the additional bid items from the general summary for this work.
The missing quantities will be addressed by addendum.
Project No. 150065
HAM-91310 - US 42/SR 561-7.12/0.00
Sale Date - 2/10/2015
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 10:40:54 AM
Will the mix design requirements regarding liquid type, minimum virgin AC content and permitted RAP percentage for the 9.5mm asphalt
mix be as specified for "intermediate" mixes as the bid item indicates?
Project No. 150068
HIG-88720 - SR 247-11.07
Sale Date - 2/10/2015
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 9:34:55 PM
Will ODOT re-consider allowing metal intermediate cross-frames for this project due to the height of the beams?
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 2:58:49 PM
Plan sheet 34/36 shows the approach slab details. We understand the sleeper slab is incidental to the approach slab. Where is the 6"
under drain pipe with precast outlets and tied concrete block mats paid? Are these to be included with the approach slab. The notes do
not state where these items are paid. Notes 1 through 3 on this sheet cover these items.
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 10:07:59 AM
For the item for the 511E33500 Semi-Integral Diaphragm Guide 2 EA, the standard SICD-2-14 shows this for a three foot wide beam seat.
The beam seat on this job is 4' 8". Does the rebar requirements shown in the standard or the plate lengths need to be adjusted for the
wider beam seats? Please advise if a new detail is required.
see forthcoming Addendum
Question Submitted:
1/9/2015 10:52:43 AM
Please extend the completion date to July 31st. The current completion date is June 27th. The corp permit does not allow the contractor
to disturb the river between April 15th and June 30th. A causeway which may be required for beam set, pier removal, bridge striping etc.
will have to be installed before April 15th but then not removed until after July 1st. the bridge can be completed and opened prior to June
27th if that is ODOT's wish with an interim date, but due to the permit restrictions the contractor will need extra time for final grading
and/or any river removals required.
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 5:10:56 PM
Please clarify the bid item in the structure for 75 CY of LSM. We believe this to be a 1 FT layer under the approach slab area? If this is true
can the backfill behind the abutment be done using 304 under the approach slab and dirt in the wing wall areas per 503? Or will LSM
backfill for the entire void created behind the abutment be required? If so please update the LSM quantity to allow for a 1:1 slope.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 15
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Project No. 150078
TRU-91350 - SR 5-(6.88)(7.79)(9.23)
Sale Date - 2/10/2015
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 11:22:18 AM
Please modify the proposal to add "with QC/QA" to the appropriate substructure and superstructure bid items. The current proposal is
incorrect and needs revised.
Question Submitted:
1/14/2015 12:41:04 PM
To add to the previous question on the completion date, please note that Note 1 under the sequence of Construction (p12/178) states that
each bridge is to be built individually. Given the winter restriction notes, new steel needing procured and the closure durations, the
completion date needs modified. Please review and revise the current completion date from 10-2-15 to a date that reflects the proposed
sequencing and closure limits.
Completion date revised to 10/31/16 in a forthcoming Addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/5/2015 10:48:40 AM
The current completion date is 10-2-2015 but the proposal is set up for 18 months of Field Office. Is the completion date supposed to be in
2016 to allow for the bridge painting? Please advise.
completion date revised to 10/31/16 in forthcoming Addendum
Project No. 150085
HAM-87268 - IR 71-1.34
Sale Date - 3/19/2015
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 9:26:23 AM
In response to your answer regarding non-certified contractors not exceeding $500,000 per year, some of these specific specialized trades
appear that they will exceed $500,000. If this occurs, will ODOT approve these contracts?
If any subcontractor shall exceed $500,000 in work per year, then that subcontractor shall be prequalified.
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 1:54:14 PM
Will ODOT consider lowering the amount of work performed by Prime contractor which is currently at 50%
This request has been reviewed and it is determined that the work completed by Prime shall not be reduced.
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 1:24:46 PM
This project has major components of work that subcontractors are not ODOT certified to perform. For example, the HVAC, Fire Resistant
Coatings, Dampers, Carbon Monoxide Detection system, Soundproofing, Dry Pipe (Fire system-requiring fire license)etc. This project is
following building codes for the strucuture work, which the majority of ODOT contractors are Civil. Please advise how ODOT is going to be
considering the approval of subcontracts for this project?
Subcontractors are not required to be on the ODOT Prequalified Contractors List unless their ODOT work exceeds $500,000 in one
year.
Question Submitted:
1/12/2015 4:23:20 PM
We are requesting an site visit to the Electrical Vaults and Pump Station.
Question Submitted:
1/6/2015 12:53:55 PM
When will plans for project 150085 HAM-71-1.34 be available?
The advertisment phase of this project commenced today and the plans are now available.
http://contracts.dot.state.oh.us/home.do
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 16
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Project No. 151004
D05-87635 - GR-FY2015
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 4:21:45 PM
What is the width of the Type 2 Attenuator needing repaired?
This project is a District-wide repair of damaged guardrail items. We currently do not have a Type 2 Attenuator that is damaged. If
a Type 2 Attenuator is damaged during this contract, the contractor will be required to make the necessary repairs in order to make
the attenuator crashworthy. The attenuator needing repaired could be any of the approved attenuators listed on the Office of
Roadway Engineering's web page.
Project No. 153001
ADA-94121 - US 32-16.99/19.42 L&R
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 4:14:53 PM
For structure ADA-32-1699 does the existing sealer need to be removed from the parapet before resealing.
Yes, the existing sealer will be removed per section 512.03F of the Construction and Materials Specifications.
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 1:05:26 PM
Will ODOT require the contractor to mill and fill full width of roadway in the areas where WZ pavement markings will be installed for MOT?
No, but the contractor shall follow the removal limitations set forth in section 614.11G of the 2013 Construction and Materials
Specifications. Also, the scope of services limits which type of work zone markings are permitted in areas that are not re-surfaced
before the end of the project.
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 12:19:58 PM
If new steel is chosen will weathering steel be permissible with the last 10 FT of beams painted?
Yes.
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 10:25:17 AM
Should the reference in section 13.4 to "pressure relief joints (Type A)" be "approach slab installation (Type A)" per standard drawing AS-215?
No, the text is referencing Pressure Relief Joints, type A.
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 1:08:02 PM
Scope Section 12.3 requires CMS 740.06 temporary tape striping in certain circumstances. If the Department orders replacement markings
after 120 days per CMS 614.11.A will they be paid for as a change order?
No, payment for this work will be included in the lump sum bid for maintaining traffic.
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 11:36:55 AM
For the 19.42 Structures if the existing steel is re-used will fatigue plates be required over the existing pier cover plates? If so will both
bottom and top be required or just one or the other?
Refer to section 402.2.4.1A.2 of the 2004 Bridge Design Manual.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 10:18:28 AM
Attachment 5 III.5.A.2.b says the contractor shall allow 30 days for the Railroad's review and response to all construction related
correspondence and submittals. Will railroad review and approval be required for any design plan submissions? If so, will the 30 day
review by the railroad be concurrent with or subsequent to review by ODOT?
Yes, the railroad will receive all plan submissions as shown in the plan review distribution tables in section 17.3 and 17.5 of the
scope of services. The 30 day review will be concurrent with ODOT.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 10:06:38 AM
Attachment 5 III.14 calls for the Prime Contractor to carry Railroad Protective Liability insurance. Will a pay item be added for this?
Refer to section 12 "Incidentals" in the list of pay items found in the proposal.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 17
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/12/2015 5:28:36 PM
Plans call for Rumble Strips to be installed within the 100 FT paving or PN 555 paving requirements. We are assuming no rumble strips will
be required in the concrete deck/approach slab areas? Can ODOT confirm this?
Yes, this is correct. No rumble strips will be required in the concrete deck or the approach slabs.
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 1:58:48 PM
Scope section 17 provides for 30 day Department review times of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 plan submittals. Due to the size and nature of
this project, we request that the Department consider modifying their review durations to 14 days.
The department will reduce the Stage 2 review time period to 14 days, but the stage 1 review time period will remain 30 days.
Question Submitted:
1/8/2015 10:11:14 AM
Scope of Services 13.4.4 states all new guardrail shall be paved under (T=2") from the paved shoulder to at least 1'-0" behind the guardrail
post. If this applies to the guardrail in the narrow medians the width of 2” pavement will be up to about 20’. Will paving under median
guardrail be required?
Paving under the guardrail will be required in the median. However, the entire area between the median shoulders and the median
guardrail will not be paved. This section of the scope has been changed, and will be reflected in an upcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
1/6/2015 10:44:50 AM
The scope states that any shoulder required to maintain traffic around the 1942 structures shall be removed and replaced with Item 615Pavement for maintaining traffic, Class A. Upon project completion, can the Class A temporary pavement be left in place since it is an
upgrade to the current shoulder conditions?
Yes, the Class A temporary pavement can be left in place.
Question Submitted:
1/3/2015 7:58:25 AM
Project 148031 (ADA-32-19.56) is constructing an additional lane on westbound SR 32 from the SR73 intersection to the west, ending just
to the east of the ADA-32-1942 L structure. This lane serves as a merging/acceleration lane for traffic turning left from SR 73 onto SR32
WB. For MOT purposes will this lane need to be treated as a thru lane for purposes of determining taper lengths and buffers? According
to the OMUTCD, there is insufficient distance available between the bridge and the intersection to allow the buffer lengths for the double
lane closure required of the 3 lane section. Can the acceleration/merge lane be closed off completely?
Part 1:No, the merging/acceleration lane will not be considered a thru lane. Part 2:No, the acceleration/merge lane shall not be
closed.
Question Submitted:
12/29/2014 9:25:33 PM
Will ODOT consider a 150 day work window for the ADA-32-1942 L&R bridges in section 12.4? Additionally, can the note be changed for all
of the structures to not include the epoxy-urethane sealer and the steel beam painting? The time windows once curing/striping etc. are
figured in do not provide enough time on any of the 4 structures for any epoxy-urethane sealer and/or steel beam painting; however, this
work can be completed without impacting traffic so letting this work occur outside of the window contract table should not affect the
traveling public and the final completion dates can still be met.
This will be answered in an upcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
12/29/2014 11:52:23 AM
Section 14.3B.D.b refers to checking the loading of the existing beams and deck as per BDM 301.4. For a bridge rehabilitation (such as deck
replacement), the typical loading is HS20-44 as described in the 2004 BDM Section 401.2. Is it the Department’s intent to have the DBT
analyze - prior to bid - the existing bridge with the proposed composite deck to determine if HS25 loading can be met?
This will be clarified in an upcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
12/16/2014 3:04:32 PM
Will Work Zone Crossover Lighting Systems be required if the contractor elects to utilize crossovers?
Yes, work zone crossover lighting systems will be required per sections 605-12 and 640-12.1 of the Traffic Engineering Manual.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 18
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
12/16/2014 3:04:20 PM
Section 13.4, Item 1 requires Pressure Relief Joints (Type A). Per Standard Drawing BP-2.3, these are used where new approach slabs abut
existing concrete pavement. From the available information it appears that the adjacent pavement sections on this project are full depth
asphalt. Will pressure relief joints still be required?
Yes.
Question Submitted:
12/16/2014 3:04:01 PM
Can the 25' long approach slabs be considered part of the 100' transition section outlined in Scope Section 13.3 or is a minimum of 100' of
asphalt wedge required beyond the approach slabs?
The 25’ long approach slabs cannot be included in the 100’ transition section.
Question Submitted:
12/16/2014 3:03:47 PM
Please define 'full width' as used in Scope Section 13.3. Does the minimum 100' asphalt wedge include shoulders or just the travel lanes?
‘Full width’ includes both the shoulders and the travel lanes.
Question Submitted:
12/16/2014 3:03:29 PM
Scope Section 9.4 requires the Consultant to perform a detailed flood plain analysis for each waterway crossing. Since Scope Section 9.1
states that no work is permitted below the OHWM, is a flood plain analysis required for Scioto Brush Creek?
No, a detailed flood plain analysis is not required since there is no work permitted in Scioto Brush Creek. The language requiring a
detailed flood plain study has been removed from the scope which will be reflected in an upcoming addendum.
Question Submitted:
12/15/2014 12:02:05 PM
May the speed limit be reduced by 10 mph during construction?
See section 1A of the Scope.
Question Submitted:
11/21/2014 6:48:55 AM
The window contract table in Scope of Services section 12.4 shows a final completion date of Sept 30 2016 for ADA-32-1942 L and Sept 20
2016 for ADA-32-1942 R. Should both dates be Sept 30 2016?
No, please bid as per plan.
Project No. 153007
ASD-97540 - TR 383 / CR 31 (PART 1 AND PART 2)
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 6:57:40 AM
The preliminary foundation investigations encountered subgrade soils that require modification per ODOT GB1. Will these requirements
have to be met for this project?
Yes, ODOT CMS will have to be met.
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 11:12:51 AM
1. Are approach slabs required if the 3-sided flat-topped culvert option is chosen for structure RIC-T0383-0105?
2. Are spread footings permitted per L&D Volume 2 1008.9 if the 3-sided flat-topped culvert option is chosen for structure RIC-T03830105?
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 4:43:30 PM
Will the approach slabs for this project be required to meet the new SCD AS-1-15 and AS-2-15 just posted on the DRRC?
The approach slabs will not be required to meet the just posted SCD upgrades.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 11:18:08 AM
Is the area near 7+50 to 8+00 RT at the RIC-CR31 structure a drive and does access need to be maintained?
The area is not an access drive and does not need to be maintained.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 19
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/6/2015 12:21:43 PM
Should the pavement buildup provided in Section 14.3 of the Scope still be used for this project even though Item 448 is not a current
asphalt specification? If a pre-stressed box beam alternative is selected at TR 383, can the same roadway pavement be used for the asphalt
wearing surface even though it may not match the requirements of Section 302.1.3 of the BDM?
The current asphalt specification Item 441 should be used in lieu of Item 448.BDM requirements should be used.
Question Submitted:
1/6/2015 10:32:14 AM
Can the HEC-RAS files be made available if revised hydraulic design is necessary?
If a revised hydraulic analysis is determined to be needed the HEC-RAS files can be made available at that time.
Question Submitted:
1/6/2015 8:29:11 AM
For the RIC-C0031-0425 structure, the scope says to use capped pile piers per CPP-1-08 and semi-integral abutments. Capped pile piers are
normally integral to the superstructure and fixed at the piers, but semi-integral abutments and piers float with elastomeric bearings.
Should bearings be used at the piers or not?
Piers shall not have bearings, and be per CPP-1-08.The DBT shall propose a bridge type and components meeting design standards.
Question Submitted:
1/6/2015 8:16:35 AM
Section 14.10 of the Scope of Services states slopes can be steeper than 2:1 if reinforced per SS863 but no steeper than 1:1. Standard
Drawing MGS-1.1 shows a maximum of 2:1 slopes for guardrail installations. Will the slope requirement on the SCD be waived? If so, how
should the posts be modified to meet crash test requirements for the increased slopes?
The SCD slope requirement can be waived, and if so 9 feet posts must be used.
Question Submitted:
12/30/2014 11:54:01 AM
RIC-0031-0425: 1) The scope says to use SCD CS-1-08 and CPP-1-08, however these standard drawings prohibit skews greater than 30
degrees. Since a skew of 47 degrees is shown on the plans, has this requirement been waived? If this requirement is waived, does the
reinforcing steel shown in the tables on the standard drawings have to be adjusted to accommodate the skew?2) The scope says to use
semi-integral abutments, however, the BDM prohibits their use on curved alignments. Is this requirement waived?3) The existing plans
provided do not match the existing structure (most current plans show a 3-span steel beam bridge). Is there any additional information
available regarding the existing structure? 4) The preliminary plans provided show the existing centerline of right of way is a 14 degree
curve. The existing from 1964 and 1965 show the centerline of right of way as a 18 degree 30 minute and 18 degree curve. Which is
correct for the centerline of existing right of way?5) Would the District accept a horizontal curve sharper than 9 degree 30 minute? 6)
The soils report does not provide the D50 grain size for scour. Is this available? Will scour calculations be required? 7) Two borings
have been provided with recommendations for abutment foundations, but no recommendations for pier foundations. Will these
recommendations be acceptable for pier design?RIC-T0383-0105: 1) Boring logs were provided but no foundation recommendations.
Are any foundation recommendations available? 2) Standard drawing PSBD-1-93 is referenced in PN 527, however, this drawing has
been retired. Should PSBD-2-2007 be used instead?
RIC-31:1) The 30 degree requirement is waived, and the SCD is for reference. The reinforcing steel must be designed for this
arrangement.2) The requirement is waived. It may also be possible to use CPA's with straight wingwalls.3) These were the only
plans made available from the County Engineer's office.4) The County Engineer provided the survey and the 14 degree curve was
based on field monuments and existing alignment. It is up to the DBT to accept and certify, or redefine the survey.5) No, unless
the DBT determines that major issues arise with this curve.6) The D50 grain size is not available. Per the scope, collection of
additional soils information is the responsibility of the DBT. Any scour calculations required shall be per L&D Volume 2. 7) The
geotech information provided is for information only. It is up to the DBT to determine design criteria.RIC-3831) The geotech
information provided is for information only. It is up to the DBT to determine design criteria.2) PSBD-2-2007 should be used.
Question Submitted:
12/30/2014 7:21:48 AM
Please make available the CAD files of the preliminary engineering Survey and Site Plan.
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Districts/D03/97540/AsFiled/97540CADD
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 20
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
12/23/2014 1:33:54 PM
For Bridge No. RIC-T0383-0105, Section 15.4 of the Scope of Services states: "The Consultant shall use the same span lengths shown on the
existing original plans for the design, and preparation of the detail construction plans for the construction of this structure. The number of
spans must also remain the same." Per the Scope and the existing plans, the existing span is 20’. The Preliminary Plan shows a proposed
structure that is significantly longer than the existing bridge. Will a single span structure that is longer than the existing bridge be
acceptable?
A longer than existing span for the proposed structure is acceptable.
Question Submitted:
12/23/2014 1:32:00 PM
For Bridge No. RIC-C0031-0425, Section 15.4 of the Scope of Services states: "The Consultant shall use the same span lengths shown on the
existing original plans for the design, and preparation of the detail construction plans for the construction of this structure. The number of
spans must also remain the same. A two span structure shall not be acceptable." Per the Scope, the existing spans are 35’ – 40’ – 35’. The
Preliminary Plan shows a proposed structure that is slightly longer than the existing bridge. If the existing span lengths are matched, there
may be conflicts between existing and proposed piles for abutments and piers. In addition, the Scope states that the new bridge is to be a
continuous reinforced concrete slab per Standard Drawing CS-1-08. There is no span arrangement listed on the standard drawing that
matches the existing span arrangement. Will a three-span structure that is slightly longer than the existing bridge be acceptable?
A continuous concrete slab superstructure was scoped. A slightly longer proposed bridge is acceptable.
Question Submitted:
12/23/2014 1:28:15 PM
The RFP states that the existing plans are included in Attachment B. Attachment B is "Preliminary Plan". Attachment D is "Existing Plans
and Photos". Existing plans are not included in Attachment D for Bridge No. RIC-C0031-0425, the existing three-span box beam bridge.
Can these plans please be provided?
Plans are available at:ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Districts/D03/97540/Bellville_Johnsville_Ex._Plans
Question Submitted:
12/22/2014 1:58:47 PM
Can any existing or preliminary CAD files be made available for our designer's use?
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/RIC-97540/
Question Submitted:
12/10/2014 3:57:17 PM
Can the existing project CAD files be made available?
Preliminary plans, survey, and related information can be found
at:ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Districts/D03/97540/AsFiled/97540CADD
Question Submitted:
12/10/2014 3:03:42 PM
Can the CAD files (DGN) used to create preliminary plans be made available to the DBT?
Preliminary plans, survey and related information can be found
at:ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Districts/D03/97540/AsFiled/97540CADD
Question Submitted:
12/10/2014 12:51:28 PM
I see this project call for a bridge replacement, can you please type what type of structure is proposed; steel, concrete or timber? Thank
youThis is a Design/Build project; therefore, the proposed structure type shall be proposed by the Contractor and their Designer.
Project No. 153008
WAR-97568 - Carlisle & Mason Des-Build (PART 1/PART 2)
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 9:54:55 AM
What are the sealer requirements for the Hanover Road Bridge? The existing abutments will get patched and have a black sealer/paint on
them with graffiti. Will the contractor be required to remove this and seal the existing abutments down to the ordinary high water mark as
no work below this limit is allowed by the usace permit?
Only the concrete surfaces described under Section 7.4 require sealer. The graffiti/black sealer paint on the existing abutments is
not required to be removed. No work below the OHWM is permitted. No work shall result in the contamination of the intersecting
water resource.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 21
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 8:09:53 AM
section 11.4.3 of the scope on page 15 calls for Century Link to have two each 4" conduits to run through the sidewalks of the bridge.
Who's responsibility is this conduit? Is this to be included in the contractors Bid or will Century Link perform this work while the bridge is
under construction? If the contractor is to do the work, please specify a 700 item for pipe type and if any expansion or deflection
couplings will be used (a detail from Century Link would be great).
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 8:06:25 AM
REF #7 and REF # 24 are for Subgrade Treatment which is specified in section 7.2 of the scope. Is this treatment to be required for the full
depth area, or only if the existing soils once excavated are "weak or yielding"? Can this be clarified and if it is more of a contingency item
and not a required item can ODOT set-up an actual quantity to level the playing field for all bidding contractors and potentially save ODOT
money if no subgrade treatment is required.
Install the cited subgrade treatment Options 1 or 2 only if the existing soils, once excavated, are discovered to be "weak or yielding"
or as dictated by the final geotechnical findings.The DBT shall reference the provided soil boring information. The quantity will be
dictated by the DBT’s final design.
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 11:10:05 AM
In Section 14.4.1, it is stated to the Guardrail on the Hanover Road Bridge is to be DBR-2-73 modified for pedestrian traffic. We have
reviewed the references, yet do not fully understand the noted modifications. Can you provide a typical section or other detail that will
clarify the modification?
There aren’t any specific standard drawings or details that illustrate the potential structural modifications necessary to
accommodate for pedestrian traffic. However, there would be multiple ways to accomplish this modification. It is anticipated that
the DBR-2-73 rail would be modified in similar ways as previously done by the DBR-3-11 Standard by adding additional tubes and
possibly increasing the height of the vertical posts. The tubes would be arranged to meet the requirements of Section 2.7 of the
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. The DBR-3-11 Standard intent is to raise the crash level of DBR-2-73 up to a TL3 level which is not a requirement of the scope, but some of the details presented in the DBR-3-11 Standard would be helpful in
modifying the rail to meet the requirements presented in AASHTO. This is just one option and the DBT is tasked with developing an
acceptable final design.
Question Submitted:
1/7/2015 10:38:46 AM
Part 2 item #29 Special Retaining WallCould an explanation of the item be given?
For the WAR-HANOV-0005 structure, only the super-structure is being replaced. A small short retaining wall will be required in
order to avoid R/W along the widened side of the structure.
Question Submitted:
1/7/2015 10:20:17 AM
Can the electronic dgn of the preliminary engineering (site plans) and the electronic hec-ras files be made available
The site plan .dgn files for each bridge have been provided, for reference purposes only, at the following link:
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/WAR-97568/Reference%20Files/
No HEC-RAS files are available.
Question Submitted:
12/15/2014 8:30:23 AM
Can the CAD and survey files used to create the preliminary plans be made available?
Yes. Survey data, including basemap .dgn files, .gpk files, .tin files, for each bridge site, has been provided for reference purposes
only at the following link:
WAR – 97568:
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/WAR-97568/Reference%20Files/
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 22
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Project No. 153009
MAR-96474 - US 23-12.650
Sale Date - 2/10/2015
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 4:20:35 PM
Scope of Services pg.23 Section 15.3 states that the abutment backwall shall be removed down to top of footing, is the intent to remove
the seat section down to top footing?
Question Submitted:
12/16/2014 3:20:28 PM
The plan review criteria on this job calls for 3 separate reviews all to allow 20 working days. This is 3 months of plan review. With the bid
not happening until February 10th, initial design necessary and then a series of 1 month review with a week or two of design
corrections/changes, there will not be enough time to construct this job by the Oct. 31 2015 completion date. At the very least this job will
require new bearings which are approximately 2 month lead time items, potentially with the 18" bottom cord adjustment new steel will be
required to correctly blend in the profile. With that 3 to 6 months of steel procurement will be required. Please eliminate or shorten some
of these review periods or allow the construction to happen at the beginning of the 2016 construction season?
Forthcoming addendum will update review requirements and timeframes. Intent of project is for completion during calendar year
2015.
Project No. 153010
MED-97549 - TR 33 / CR 4
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 4:06:41 PM
1)Scope of Services pg.3 Section 5, does the Steel Fabricator need to be listed as a sub-consultant.2)Conflicting Completion Dates: Scope
of Services pg.4 Section 6 has a completion date of 11/15/15 and in the proposal has a completion date of 8/31/15 please clarify.
1) If steel fabrication is done on site and/or the steel fabricator is being used towards the DBE/EDGE goal then yes they must be
listed as a sub-consultant.2) Proposal Completion Date 8/31/15 is correct.
Question Submitted:
1/14/2015 3:16:42 PM
Is Item 407 - Tack Coat, 702.13 (rubberized asphalt emulsion) required on MED-CR4-7.19 in areas where asphalt will be placed directly on
the top of the box culvert?
Yes.
Question Submitted:
1/14/2015 3:16:17 PM
Will Item 408 – Prime Coat be required if the contractors paving sequence won’t expose the item 304 – Aggregate Base to damage from
construction traffic?
Scope indicates that all existing pavement within the limits of the final proposed profile shall be removed and replaced, and
provides the pavement build-up.It is the responsibility of the DBT to obtain approval of any pavement build-up proposed.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 4:13:26 PM
Can ODOT provide the electronic version of the HEC RAS model?
ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Attach/MED-97549/Reference%20Files/
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 4:12:46 PM
Will a pre-bid meeting be held for this project, as noted in Scope Section 2?
A pre-bid meeting has not been scheduled at this time. If it is deemed necessary a time and place will be announced.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 4:11:12 PM
For the TR33 bridge over Mallet Creek, the hydraulic data shows an increase in the 100-year headwater elevation for the proposed
conditions compared to the existing. Does the DBT need to evaluate any potential adverse impacts to structures upstream of the bridge?
It is the responsibility of the DBT to propose a replacement structure that meets hydraulic criteria, and doesn't adversely impact the
bridge site and surrounding areas.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 23
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 4:10:21 PM
Are the proposed bridges in a FEMA special flood hazard area? If so, is floodplain coordination expected from the DBT?
Neither bridge is in a flood hazard area; therefore, floodplain coordination is not necessary.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 4:09:57 PM
Scope section 15.5.G states that spread footers cannot be used. Please confirm that deep foundations need to be used at the MED-TR0333.23 bridge.
Deep foundations shall be proposed by the DBT for the TR33 bridge replacement.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 4:09:24 PM
Scope section 15.5.G states that asphalt deck cannot be used. Does this mean a standard bridge deck is required over the culvert plus
approach slabs, or can a standard asphalt typical section be used over the culvert for the MED-CR004-7.19 bridge?
If a culvert is proposed as a replacement of an existing bridge then the asphalt deck comment does not apply. Normal roadway
typical section pavement build-up is acceptable.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 4:08:29 PM
Please provide the environmental commitments and notes from the CE Document.
Required notes have been included in the scope package.ODOT did a survey and did not find any mussels.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 4:08:08 PM
Please provide the waterway permit applications so that we can see what the limits of work are at each bridge site.
ODOT is still in the process of obtaining the permits. Work limits shown on the preliminary plans are for worst case scenarios.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 4:07:48 PM
Page 20 of the Scope of Services states that “Approach Guardrail will be provided as
follows:
Bridge
terminal Assembly, Type 1, 12.5 Guardrail, Type MGS and Anchor Assembly Type E…”. Will the DBT be required to design all guardrail
installations in accordance with L&D, Vol. 1, Section 600 and current Standard Construction Drawings and provide Length of Need
calculations?
Guardrail design, including LON that meets current manuals and SCD's is the responsibility of the DBT.
Question Submitted:
1/13/2015 4:07:00 PM
1.Will the District prepare the necessary documentation for design elements that do not meet Normal Design Criteria shown on the
provided site plans, such as Maximum Change in Vertical Alignment without Vertical Curve as well as Allowable Grade Break Locations
(L&D Vol. 1, Fig. 203-2E) and Pavement Transition/Taper Rates (L&D Vol. 1, Sec. 301.1.4)?
Final design criteria, documentation, analysis and plan development is the responsibility of the DBT.
Question Submitted:
1/12/2015 7:55:39 AM
Can the CAD files of the preliminary engineering Survey and Site Plans for both locations be made available?
Please see:ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Districts/D03/97549/AsFiled/CADD
Project No. 158000
FRA-25735 - SR 315-5.18
Sale Date - 1/29/2015
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 1:39:26 PM
Item MISC: CLASS QC1, CONCRETE BARRIER REPAIR includes SEALING as part of the work to be bid for this item. Please provide further
information regarding what type of sealing is required here.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:50 AM
Page 24
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
1/20/2015 8:35:06 AM
We greatly appreciate ODOT extending the completion date due to the volume of night work required for this project.
On plan sheet 18/89, the general notes for the high friction surface course states, “For applications on new pavements, install the high
friction epoxy binder and aggregate topping a minimum of 30 days after the placement of the underlying and adjacent asphalt pavement.”
Due to this 30 day minimum requirement, would ODOT please consider extending the completion date?
Question Submitted:
1/19/2015 3:12:59 PM
To clarify a previous question, the plans show some barrier replacement locations in the median to be 32" high, but isn't it all actually 50"
high?
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 3:25:14 PM
Isthe existing barrier on SR 315 32" high or 50" high?
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 2:52:48 PM
Ref 27, Inlet 3B, APP: The original SCD is not on Sheets 51 and 52, as called out on Sheet 20.
Also, is only the barrier portion of the inlet to be replaced?
Question Submitted:
1/16/2015 2:29:31 PM
1. Can ODOT please increase the work zone striping quantities to include temporary striping on the high friction surface treatment once
placed?
2. Can ODOT please verify the use of 646 epoxy on the concrete surfaces since Columbus doesn't typically allow epoxy on roadways that
they maintain.
3. Are Ref. 54 & 57 to be inlaid as typically required in Columbus?
4. Please clarify the size of the line widths on Ref 53 & 57 as these are used together in the same segment.
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 12:30:02 PM
Sheet 19/89 states Item 41 - Maintain Existing Lighting is a lump sum item for the median barrier wall. The contractor is able to define
where the lighting will be impacted by the locations of the median inlet repair work. Without specifying how many sections of Item 0021 Special - Misc: Concrete Barrier Repair, as well as their locations, how can the contractor fully understand the extent of the lighting that
will be impacted?
Question Submitted:
1/15/2015 12:28:03 PM
As currently stated in the plans, Item 21, Special - Misc.: Class QC1, Concrete Barrier Repair does not allow the contractor to fully
understand the work involved. Please clarify the following:
1. What is the minimum length of each repair?
2. Will each repair consist of a full height remove/replace?
3. Are all of the wall repairs going to be located in the median wall?
Question Submitted:
1/12/2015 11:45:12 AM
This project would appear to be an ideal candidate for the use of variable speed limit signs (VSL) and the new ODOT specifications. Would
ODOT consider adding the necessary items to make this a VSL project?
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:51 AM
Page 25
Ohio Department of Transportation - Prebid Questions
Question Submitted:
12/31/2014 9:28:41 AM
Due to the large volume of work and night restricted hours, ODOT CMS 108.06C drastically limits the contractor's working days in any given
month. Would ODOT please consider extending the completion date on this project?
The completion date will be extended to 10/15/15 in a forthcoming addendum.
*** DISCLAIMER - Prebid questions and answers provided are for informational purposes only and are not part of the Bid Documents. If a question warrants a revision to the Bid Documents, the
Department will issue an addendum.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
7:40:51 AM
Page 26