QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES TO:
Call 570, NHPPI‐4400‐(054)PM, J/P 2969404, Tulsa County Call 570, NHPPI‐4400‐(077)PM, J/P 3378804, Tulsa County Interchange and Bridge and Approaches ‐ I‐44: AT THE US‐75 INTERCHANGE, 1.7 MILES EAST OF I‐244 AND OVER UNION AVENUE, 1.5 MILES EAST OF I‐244 IN TULSA. PROJECT LENGTH = 1.902 MILES J/P 2969404
1. Can the engineer of record give us a linear foot total for the railing that shows up on sheet R028 of the plans?
• The length of the metal handrail is measured at 154.89 LF. This is denoted by the Station Range callouts under the detail on Sheet R028 – additionally as FYI the cost is also noted to be included in price bid for ‘MSE wall’.
2. Plan Sheet B023 Illustrates the joint between the bridge deck and approach slab be dimensionally sawed ½” wide x 1” deep then filled ¾” depth with Rapid Cure Joint Sealant with the remaining ¼” to be filled with High Molecular Weight Methacrylate.
Should the depth of the Rapid Cure Joint Sealant be 1” and the High Molecular Weight Methacrylate be deleted? The manufacturer’s representative is not familiar with the proposed installation using two products.
• The intent of the joint is as shown. The 1” deep, ½” wide with Rapid Cure Joint Sealant is per specifications. The HMWM is to seal the top ¼”.
3. Plan Sheet B041 Detail “A” illustrates a ½” x 2” dimensionally sawed joint with backer rod to be filled a depth of ¼” with High Molecular Weight Methacrylate. Should this be Rapid Cure Joint Sealant? The manufacturer’s representative is not familiar with the proposed use of the HMWM for this type of joint.
• Yes. The detail will be updated to use Rapid Cure Joint Sealant in lieu of HMWM for this joint.
J/P 3378804
1. Per the above mentioned project Bridge “A” & Bridge “B” seem to be like bridges. Why is the structural steel pay plan quantity different?
Bridge “A” is 3,520 pounds of structural steel and Bridge “B” is 2,700 pounds of structural steel.
I know the weights are for the diaphragm bolts, but I’m not finding something else in the plans that would make up for the difference.
• The plan quantities for structural steel for Bridge “A” and Bridge “B” should be slightly revised. Plan revisions would include -
i. Bridge “A” structural steel to be revised to = 2,620 lbs ii. Bridge “B” structural steel to be revised to = 2,550 lbs
• Note that Bridge “B” structural steel should be slightly less than Bridge “A”
structural steel because Bridge “B” is staged and does not have an intermediate diaphragm in the staged bay.
2. Per sheet B268 of the plans we have a ½” cover plate that is shown in Detail “B”. We have a pay item for Bridge “P” 5,080 pounds of structural steel. Are the ½” cover plates and 1” anchor bolts for that pay item?
• Yes
3. What will the grade of steel be for the ½” cover plates?
• Cover plates shall be ASTM A240 (Austenitic Stainless Steel, Type 316, Charpy V-Notch testing not required). Plan note to be added for clarity.
4. Can the engineer give a quantity and a detailed design for the ½” cover plates that will be needed?
• “Detail B” on Sheet No. B268 shows the cover plate dimensions and location of bolt holes. If there is confusion, please provide more details as to what is
needed. Pier Nos. 6 & 8 cover plates each weigh 1,307lb and Pier Nos. 9 & 10 cover plates each weight 980lb.
5. Can the engineer verify the quantities for the 1” anchor bolts? Pier 6 & Pier 8 will need 64 1” anchor bolts? Pier 9 & Pier 10 will need 30 1” anchor bolts?
• Pier Nos. 6 & 8 will require 32 bolts. Pier Nos. 9 & 10 will require 28 bolts. See the plan view of “Detail B” on Sheet No. B268.
6. Bridge “A” is the only complete bridge to have bridge specific Aesthetic Treatment Plan Sheets. Will bridge specific Aesthetic Treatment Plan Sheets be provided for Bridges
“B”, “C”, and “D”?
• Aesthetic treatments are required for all bridges. The Aesthetic Details are provided in the Bridge A set because it is the first bridge to show up in plan set. Repeating the same sheets in each individual bridge set was
unnecessary. A table of variables is provided on sheet B025.
7. Could the all ramps be labeled with the ramp name
• Per review of sheets appears ramps are labeled on multiple sheets and locations – also refer to Key Maps for overview
General Questions:
8. The line item numbering in the Proposal does not match the line item numbering in the EBS file. Will this be corrected?
• This will be corrected.
9. Could the digital project design files be made available?
• The files are available on our website.
10. Line item 5450 (EBS) or 5490 (Proposal) – Traffic Surveillance (OHP) has a bid quantity of 750 Hours. On recent projects of similar scale and complexity OHP hours have been between 7,700 Hours and 18,000 Hours. Would ODOT consider increasing this non- biddable item to ensure sufficient OHP hours are included?
• Quantity will be adjusted.
11. Which Division 8 residency will manage this project and who will provide project inspection? Will a consultant be involved with project inspection?
• This information is not known at this time.
12. Recent ODOT projects bid on interstates with higher traffic counts have had lower milestone and/or incentive/disincentive rates ranging from $12,000/Day -
$20,000/Day. The highest milestone rate recently included on an interstate project was
$25,000/Day only to have the milestone removed completely during construction.
How are the significantly larger incentive/disincentive rates being justified for this project?
• The full incentive for this project is roughly 3.5% of the engineer's estimate which we feel is a fair incentive amount. The timeline of completion is critical on several components. The milestone amounts are reflective of this importance.
Will the disincentive be limited to 3.5% of the engineer’s estimate?
• No…disincentives are never capped on ODOT projects.
Is this not a factor of user cost based on traffic count?
• Traffic impact is considered when applying incentives on projects
13. SP 108-908(a) 09 Prosecution and Progress, includes the following language “Claims for delay or lost time due to the delays caused by the above mentioned utility will not be considered.”
A known utility conflict exists which is outside the contractors control and could possibly cause a delay to the project. How is this not a compensable delay?
• The provision has been revised.
Is the included language legal?
• The provision has been revised.
14. Pavement Smoothness Job Special Provision Will the Department please confirm that the EB C-D & WB C-D are considered Ramps and thereby considered exceptions to Sec. 430 – Special Provision for Pavement and Bridge Deck Smoothness?
• The C-D road will not be deemed a ramp. The majority of these roads can be paved using slip form operations and the geometry does not lend itself to an exception. Consideration may be given for areas where phasing required hand pours.
15. Bridge D US-75 NB Presently shown with a Class 1 Ride Specification. It is requested The Department please Wave the Ride Smoothness for Bridge D for the following reasons.
- The Bridge is a Two Phase Structural Steel Superstructure. Stage #2 Bridge
Construction will have adverse effects due to Vibrations created by Live Traffic in the occupied 1st Stage Deck. Vibrations for Steel Bridges will result in some degree of reflective cracking.
- Full Deflection from the first Five Girders in Stage 1 will not be realized until Stage 2 Deck is placed.
- The Outside Lane of this Bridge in the ultimate completed section operates as a Weaving Lane for Exiting Traffic to I-44. This is essentially a Ramp criteria that is also part of the Bridge Deck. Ramp Criteria is an exception as per the Job Smoothness SP.
16. Bridge C US-75 SB Presently shown with a Class 1 Ride Specification. It is requested the Department please consider either Waving the Ride Smoothness or modify to a Class 2 for Bridge C. The Outside Lane of this Bridge in the ultimate completed section operates as a Weaving Lane for Exiting Traffic to I-44. This is essentially a Ramp criteria that happens to be part of the Bridge Deck. Ramp Criteria is an exception per the Job Smoothness SP.
17. Bridge B US-75 NB Presently shown with a Class 1 Ride Specification. It is requested the Department please consider either Waving the Ride Smoothness or modify to a Class 2 for Bridge B. Bridge Construction is Two Phases. Stage #2 Construction will still have the issues beyond the Contractors Control from vibrations occurring from Live Traffic occupying Stage 1 Construction.
• No bridges will be exempted out from the smoothness provision. We have not had issues in the past with achieving acceptable rides on phased
bridges. Additionally, weave sections on a bridge are not considered ramps in this case. The ultimate condition of the interchange will not have weaving movements so acceptable rides must be achieved during this work package 18. Contract Items 339 and 375 (Retaining Walls) Both Contract Items cover the CIP
Retaining Walls associated with US 75 Bridges A and B. The present Contract Item has 10” and 12” H-Piles subsidiary to the respective Retaining Wall. Due the Different Sizes, Large Quantity and uncertainty of Final In Place Furnish and Driven Quantity we respectively request the H-Piling for both Bridges have their own Contract Items.
• The 10” piles and 12” piles have been removed from the cost per square yard of retaining wall and have been added as their own pay item.
19. Contract Items 413 and 440 (Retaining Walls) Both Contract Items cover the CIP Retaining Walls associated with US 75 Bridges C and D. The present Contract Item has 36” Dia. and 42” Dia. Drill Shafts subsidiary to the respective Retaining Wall. Due to the different sizes and uncertainty of Final Tip Elevation we respectively request the Drill Shafts for both Bridges have their own Contract Items.
You may recall the issues with questions 2 & 3 were Originally Setup in the same manner on the OKLA County I-40 Project at Sooner Road from the May Letting. The Dept. by ADDM 1 added new Contract Items covering the H-Piles and Drill Shafts associated with CIP Retaining Walls.
• 36” diameter shafts and 42” diameter shafts have been removed from the cost per square yard of retaining wall and have been added as their own pay item.
20. Could ODOT please confirm that High Molecular Weight Methacrylate is correctly specified in that attached approach slab drawings? This product is not commonly used in this application. It’s also our understanding that HMWM should not be used in
contact with rapid cure or backer rod.
• The designer has replaced HMWM with Rapid Cure Joint Sealant on sheet B041 with revisions dated 8/11/2020. However, on Sheet B041, this joint was not modified with revisions. The designer is ok with using Rapid Cure Joint Sealant only, in lieu of a combination of HMWM and Rapid Cure Joint Sealant at this location.
21. Could ODOT please confirm that High Molecular Weight Methacrylate is correctly specified in that attached approach slab drawings? This product is not commonly used in this application. It’s also our understanding that HMWM should not be used in
contact with rapid cure or backer rod.
• The designer has replaced HMWM with Rapid Cure Joint Sealant on sheet B041 with revisions dated 8/11/2020. However, on Sheet B041, this joint was not modified with revisions. The designer is ok with using Rapid Cure Joint Sealant only, in lieu of a combination of HMWM and Rapid Cure Joint Sealant at this location.
