| 140 | 1 | Kleinfelder Final Geotechnical Design Report dated August 1, 2024 | 09/20/2024 06:54 AM | Keller North America | Response Published |
|
| Question: PDF page 31 (document page 27 of 39) of the Kleinfelder Final Geotechnical Design Report is not shown in full on the file that is available to be downloaded with the link provided in the Special Provisions. Table 5-8 is not fully visible. Can the Geotechnical Design Report be made available with the Table 5-8 fully visible? |
| Answer: The page has been corrected with the table fully visible. |
|
| 141 | 2 | Sheet RW-19 Anchor Cap | 10/03/2024 09:44 AM | LAS VEGAS PAVING CORP. | Response Published |
|
| Question: Please confirm that the Anchor Caps (Typ.) on Sheet RW-19 extend to the full height of the wall at 18” x 8”, like a pilaster at each ground anchor location, but not merely a typical blister boxing the anchor inside. If that’s the case, please supply a full architectural design as it would interfere with the formliner setup. Thanks. |
| Answer: An additional detail will be provided in a forthcoming Supplemental. |
|
| 142 | 3 | Soil Nail and Anchor Material | 10/03/2024 01:17 PM | Keller North America | Response Published |
|
| Question: Is the soil nail and anchor hardware, including hex nut, cap bar, required to be galvanized? |
| Answer: Conventional nail bars shall be grade 75 deformed bars in accordance with ASTM A615 with double corrosion protection (Encapsulation with pre grouting) per plan sheet RW07, Materials Section, Note 8. |
|
| 143 | 4 | Soundwall Footing Removal | 10/07/2024 02:52 PM | Las Vegas Paving Corp. | Response Published |
|
| Question: Please provide additional details of the as-built conditions of the sound wall drilled hole/foundation for removal. Please provide sizes/depths and if the entire foundation is to be removed. If only a portion of the foundation is to be removed, please provide a detail. |
| Answer: A revised plan sheet with additional information of as-built conditions will be provided in an upcoming supplemental. |
|
| 191 | 5 | Existing MSE Wall Loading | 10/07/2024 03:34 PM | Las Vegas Paving Corp. | Response Published |
|
| Question: Per allowable work areas, access restrictions, and the expected state / stability of the existing MSE walls, it is likely that the existing walls will not support the necessary equipment for construction of soil nail walls. Per sheet RW08, the contractor is to bring the slope down one level at a time (5' max). From approximately station "F1" 8+53 to 10+37, the contractor does not have the ability to reach the soil nail portions without loading the existing MSE walls with construction equipment as the existing sound wall is protected in place and there will not be any access to reach from below due to location in proximity to the existing MSE /block wall. Loading of these walls will likely cause a failure of the wall. Please advise. |
| Answer: Updated locations of protect in place areas will be provided in an upcoming supplemental. It is recognized that specialty means and methods are expected to be needed. Please bid accordingly. |
|
| 192 | 6 | Easements | 10/07/2024 03:36 PM | Las Vegas Paving Corp. | Response Published |
|
| Question: Can NDOT please provide the easement agreements or an exhibit with limits to ensure that the contractor understands permanent easements and temporary easements on the project? |
| Answer: Please refer to the permanent easements depicted in the landscaping sheets. Temporary easements have been provided in sheet RE1 as part of Addendum 1. |
|
| 193 | 7 | Time of Completion for the Project | 10/07/2024 03:38 PM | Las Vegas Paving Corp. | Response Published |
|
| Question: Based on our initial scheduling, we feel that the project should be closer to 400 working days to complete due to accessibility and other conditions. In our opinion 200 working days is nowhere close to enough time to complete the work as required given the limitations that this site presents. |
| Answer: The Department understands access to the project will be challenging, however, we have reviewed the conditions and are confident 200 working days is adequate to complete. Please bid accordingly as the Department will not be increasing the working days at this time. |
|
| 194 | 8 | Noise Abatement | 10/07/2024 03:53 PM | Las Vegas Paving Corp. | Response Published |
|
| Question: The project requires a noise abatement product to be used. The only possible place for noise abatement devices would be along the temporary fence at the bottom of the slope, however, since the equipment will be working substantially higher than the top of the noise abatement materials, there will be no abatement of noise. We respectfully request that this requirement be removed or re-evaluated. |
| Answer: Temporary acoustic barriers will be required between live traffic and the work zone(s) on I-515 for the duration of any existing soundwall being down. Additional information pertaining to noise abatement requirements will be provided in an upcoming supplemental. |
|
| 195 | 9 | RW21 Tieback Details | 10/09/2024 01:49 PM | Malcolm Drilling | Response Published |
|
| Question: Note 2. on sheet RW21 states that permanent casings are to be used where indicated. The tieback details on sheet RW21 state that permanent casing is required over the length of the unbonded zone. Please provide the specifications for this permanent pipe? |
| Answer: Please see Section 643 of the 2014 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and the Special Provisions including the additions provided in Addendum No. 1. |
|
| 196 | 10 | Soil Nail and Anchor Material | 10/10/2024 11:14 AM | Keller North America | Response Published |
|
| Question: To follow-up on the response to question 3, can you please specify Class A, B, or C levels of corrosion protection from GeoCirc #7 for soil nails? |
| Answer: Please see Section 644 of the 2014 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and the Special Provisions including the additions provided in Addendum No. 1. |
|
| 197 | 11 | Bid Date | 10/10/2024 01:14 PM | Las Vegas Paving Corp. | Response Published |
|
| Question: We respectfully request that the bid date be moved to the 10/24 to allow the proposers enough time to receive quotes from the noise abatement manufacturers listed as well as evaluate the as-built drawings. |
| Answer: The bid open date change has been provided in Addendum 4. |
|
| 198 | 12 | Sound Walls | 10/10/2024 02:59 PM | Western pacific Precast | Response Published |
|
| Question: The bid documents specify cast in place concrete sound wall construction utilizing patterned form liners. The Architect has defined an architectural “Design Intent” referenced on Sheet L400. Most notably, the panels will be installed to the top of the barrier, “not vertically plumb.” It additionally states that some field adjustments to the form liner (to be coordinated with the RE & Architect) will be necessary where the barrier grade changes. We would like to propose the use of an alternative precast concrete sound wall system to be manufactured and installed in accordance with the stated Design Intent. The panels would each be 10’ 0” in width and installed parallel with the barrier rail, not vertically plumb. Our precast solution would accommodate the change in the rate of grade and provide a seamless form liner pattern. Some differences do exist between the C.I.P design and a precast alternative system. The precast system will require a grouted bottom joint for shimming (approx. 1-1/2” max). Each 10’ 0” wide panel will have a detailed ½” wide actual vertical joint from panel to panel that will be caulked. We would like to confirm that a precast system as described above would be an acceptable alternative to the Owner/Architect. |
| Answer: Proposals to design changes may be brought up by the successful low bidder of the project. |
|
| 199 | 13 | Load Definitions - LRFD/ASD | 10/14/2024 02:35 PM | Harrison Western Construction Corporation | Response Published |
|
| Question: Plan sheets RW15 thru RW17 call out the ground anchor loads as a “Factored Design Force (T)”, which implies the design loads are in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. However, the 2014 NDOT Standard Specifications still utilize denotations consistent with Allowable Stress Design (ASD), and the Design Load is denoted by “DL”. Please clarify if the Factored Design Force (T) is intended to be equivalent to the “DL” in Section 643.03 of the 2014 Standard Specifications. |
| Answer: The design load is not the factored design force. The design load (DL) for Performance, Proof and Extended Creep Testing is the Factored Design Force (T) divided by 1.35. This will be included in an upcoming addendum. |
|
| 200 | 14 | Sheet RW07 Issues of Excavation at Sloped Unstable Ground | 10/17/2024 11:17 AM | LAS VEGAS PAVING CORP. | Response Published |
|
| Question: Per the project geotechnical report provided in the bid documents prepared by Kleinfelder, dated August 1, 2024. Section 1.2 (project description) states that pea gravel backfill material was used in the areas that required shoring. This pea gravel material will present problems during excavation activities. Installation of the shoring will require vertical “stand up” time of the soil. Pea gravel does not have this “stand up” time and will slough into the excavation during excavation activities. To mitigate this sloughing, grout will need to be installed at multiple locations into the pea gravel to “knit” this material together. There is not a way to quantify how much grout will be needed to “knit” this pea gravel together. Therefore, we recommend that these grouting activities be considered as time and material. |
| Answer: Refer to Section 206 for Excavation Plan and caving/flowing ground stabilization technique requirements. Pea gravel was also discussed in the mandatory pre-bid meeting along with direction that there will be no direct payment for stabilization of flowing/caving ground conditions. This is to be incidental to wall construction bid items. |
|
| 201 | 15 | Accoustic Barrier | 10/21/2024 02:24 PM | Las Vegas Paving Corp. | Response Published |
|
| Question: What is the required height of the temporary acoustic barrier? Additionally, some of the products specified have a higher STC than the 23 dBA. From the manufacturers listed, they have products that have a cheaper product that has an STC rating of 27 dBA, however the product that was specified in addendum 3, has an STC of 30 dBA. Please clarify the minimum requirements. |
| Answer: There is no specified height requirement. Please see Noise Abatement requirements as set forth in Subsection 637.03.03 in the 2014 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction as well as the Special Provisions and Addendum 3 of this contract and bid accordingly. |
|