New York State Department of Transportation



Accelerated Bridge Program – Phase 1B

April 27, 2012

RFP Questions and Responses 17 to 93

Question # 17

On page B-1 of the Instructions to Proposers, the RFP states that “Each sheet shall be 8.5” by 11” and printed double-sided, unless otherwise stated below.”

However, the RFP does not state an alternate size within the section where design drawings are requested (Section B1.2 on page B-3) and we would ideally like to submit the drawings in standard size per structure, which is much larger than 8.5 by 11.

Please confirm whether or not there is a max sheet size for this section of the proposal other than 8.5 by 11.

Answer:

Design drawings shall be submitted on 11” by 17” paper. They shall be printed double-sided.

Question # 18

Appendix A section A2.3.3 provides a list of forms and certificates that proposers are required to provide. Items P and Q on this list are Form PAB and Form PEB. However, these forms appear to be due upon award of the Phase 1B contract. To clarify, are Form PAB and Form PEB required to be submitted with our proposal?

Answer:

Forms PAB and PEB are not required to be submitted with the proposal. The Best Value selected team will be required to submit them.

Question # 19

Appendix A section A2.3.3 specified that the “Project Principal” is required to sign Form CR. However, the instructions on Form CR state “ to be executed by the Proposer’s designated Project Manager.” Who is responsible for signing Form CR, the proposed Project Manager, or a Project Principal, which would most likely be the Proposer’s designated representative?

Answer:

The Project Principal.

Question # 20

Appendix B section B2.5 states in the last paragraph that “Proposer shall submit Form SCD…” The paragraph does not specify if Proposer is required to submit Form SCD in this Volume 2, Section 2 along with the Baseline Schedule in the hard copies, and/or if the Proposer is to submit Form SCD with the Baseline Schedule on the electronic copy (CD), or if the submission of Form SCD in Volume 1 (as required in Appendix A instructions) is sufficient to answer this requirement. Is Form SCD required in both Volume 1 and Volume 2 of our proposal?

Answer:

Yes. It is required in both Volumes.

Question # 21

Further explanation is needed in regards to Appendix A, Section A2.4.3, where it says Organizational Documents are required to be submitted with the proposal.  Please clarify if a subcontractor is considered a “principal participant” and whether a subcontract agreement is considered an “equivalent organizational document” that needs to be submitted with the proposal.

Answer:

A subcontractor is not considered a “principal participant”.

Question # 22

The ADP plan set provided for BIN 1001830 shows that both abutments will be converted into integral abutments, encasing the existing bearings in concrete. Please confirm that is acceptable to NYSDOT and if so, would this also be applicable to BIN 1024270, BIN 1039280, and BIN 1044430?

Answer:

The plan set for BIN 1001830 is attached as guidance only. Alternate designs, including integral abutments, will be accepted as long as the design calculations support the proposed solutions and will be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Question # 23

Can you please clarify the requirements for the certified copies? Can this be a notary stamp with the words “Certified True Copy” written over it, with a signature of the Proposer’s Representative?

Answer:

Yes

Question # 24

Currently, Form FA(A) states the Proposal Validity Period is 180 days from Proposal Due Date. Shouldn’t this be changed to 90 days, per earlier verbiage in the RFP in Section 3.4.3 on page 15?

Answer:

Yes. The proposal validity period is 90 days.

Question # 25

Form KP – Key Personnel Information includes two positions (Resident Engineer & Lead Materials Testing Person) that were not included on the SOQ Matrix of Key Personnel for the original submission. Therefore, there has been a change relative to the SOQ… please explain if this is in fact considered a change relative to our SOQ submission.

Answer:

It is not a change in the SOQ submission. It is an extension of the requirements in the RFP. The bidder shall Include the requested information for those individuals also in the Proposal.

Question # 26

Section B2.3.1 indicates that 2-page resumes shall be included for key QC personnel. Table B indicates that resumes can be three pages max. Please clarify the page limit on resumes, and if resumes should only be included in Volume 2, Section 3 of the proposal, and nowhere else.

Answer:

Resumes shall be 3 pages max. Resumes shall be in Volume 2, Section 3 and Section 4. Follow specific section requirements.

Question # 27

Section B2.4.1 indicates that 2-page resumes shall be included for all personnel listed in the organization charts. Table B indicates that resumes can be three pages max. Please clarify the page limit on resumes, and if resumes should only be included in Volume 2, Section 3 of the proposal, and nowhere else.

Answer:

Resumes shall be 3 pages max. Resumes shall be in Volume 2, Section 3 and Section 4.

Question # 28

Can you please clarify if resumes are only needed for Key Personnel listed on form KP, or if they are needed for all staff listed on the Organizational Charts in Section B2.3.1 and Section B2.4.1.

Answer:

Resumes listed in Table B shall be provided.

Question # 29

There is a difference in what the Design Report and the proposal at the Paul Road Bridge, (BIN 1048600) Specifically, the Design Report has a 4’ shoulder with 2’-1” safety walk versus the proposal which says 2’ shoulder and 4’ walk.

Answer:

“Part 3 - Project Requirements” - page 57 - states “…two 4-foot shoulders. Two 2’-1” brush curbs shall be provided.”

Question # 30

Will the NYSDOT be incorporating into the D/B Agreement any provisions for the typical Item 698 Items (Steel, Fuel, Asphalt Price Adjustments)?

Answer:

No.

Question # 31

Can Rt 27 be closed at night to replace main span stringers? (WZTC currently state only 2 lanes can be taken each way Sun-Thurs.  However, we would like DOT to consider the traffic exiting Rt 27 to Great Neck road (EB and WB) and getting right back on again on the other side of the bridge - at night, traffic should be light.

Answer:

At this point no.

Question # 32

Also - for the same bridge, there is a reference on the as-builts that approach slab info is on the highway plans; is it possible to get the relevant Highway Drawing?

Answer:

Relevant drawings have been posted.

Question # 33

DB Contract Documents - Part 3 (Project Requirements): BIN 1070110 - Rte 55 over Rte 44 (Section 3.7.9): The table provided in for this bridge states that the first stage of construction is to occur when school is out and 1 lane is to be maintained on the bridge. The duration provided in the table states "3 months per stage". If the duration of the first stage when school is out is less than 3 months will the Design Builder be required to complete the stage in a shorter duration than 3 months? Please confirm which shall govern. If the school recess period governs please provide the dates the schools will closed.

Answer:

Three months will govern but the school recess period must be within the three month maximum period,

Question # 34:

DB Contract Documents - Part 3 (Project Requirements): BIN 1044870 - Ridge St over I-287 and BIN 1037510 - Rte 125 over 1-95 (Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.9):

The two (2) referenced structures call for a single-slope concrete barrier with pedestrian fencing to be provided at each side of the structure. These structures also call for 5-foot wide sidewalks.

Traditionally when bridge sidewalks with pedestrian fencing is to be installed, a vertically face concrete parapet is usually specified. Please confirm that these two bridges will require single-slope concrete barrier at each fascia in lieu of vertical face concrete parapets. Please confirm that the intent to use barrier in lieu of vertical parapet is to facilitate the installation of precast construction in lieu of cast-in-place.

Answer:

The barrier as indicated is a NYSDOT requirement on this structure and can be used on precast or CIP decks.

Question # 35:

DB Contract Documents - Part 3 (Project Requirements): BIN 1070450 Rte 100C over Sprain Brook Parkway (Section 4.2.10): The Required Bridge Section calls for four 12-foot lanes, two 12-foot shoulders, and a 12-foot wide median. The existing bridge contains an EB turn lane to make a left onto Sprain Brook Parkway NB. Is it the owner's intent to eliminate this turn lane and replace with a 12-foot wide median? The existing structure also contains a narrower raised concrete median. Is this raised median to be re-established on the new structure?

Answer:

The intent is to retain the existing roadway configuration as is. The median shall not be made wider.

Question # 36:

DB Contract Documents - Part 3 (Project Requirements):. BIN 1022240 - Rte 32 over Moodna Creek (Section 4.2.13.3A): Please clarify whether the bearing replacement scope of work includes replacement of Pin?

Answer:

Pins do not need to be replaced. Roller nests shall be removed and new bearings installed in place of the roller nests.

Question # 37:

DB Contract Documents - Part 3 (Project Requirements): BIN 1096560 - Scotchtown

Road over Route 17: Since Scotchtown Road is not a State Highway, please clarify whether we have approval for full closure and use of town roads for the detour?

Answer:

Thirty days are allowed for closure as per RFP. Request for approval of use of town roads shall be coordinated with the NYSDOT and the Town. NYSDOT has met with the Town and they are aware of the closure and the detour.

Question # 38:

General Question:

The "Bridge Specific Scope of Work" provided in RFP does not always agree with the "Proposed Work" described in Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report (PSR/FDR). Please clarify which document controls. For example, for BIN 1014510 bridge, concrete abutment and wingwall repair work is included in the PSR/FDR, whereas, it is not included in the scope of work noted in the RFP.

Answer:

“Part 3 - Project Requirements” is the controlling document.

Question # 39:

General Question:

Please clarify whether it is acceptable to use asphalt overlay with water proofing membrane on precast deck considering the following constraints/parameters noted in the RFP:

a. Precast deck shall have equal or better performance than a cast-in-place deck

b. Limited available full or partial closure durations for bridges resulting in limited time for curing

c. A new wearing surface and a waterproofing membrane shall be provided only if precast deck is used (Section 4.1)

Answer:

A waterproofing membrane with an asphalt overlay shall be used on precast deck only in the NYSDOT Regions specified in Part 3 - Project Requirements.

Question # 40:

General Question:

In the ABP Phase 1B Questions and Answers, Q&A #136 stated, "The Site Manager Computers and Networking, etc. shall be the responsibility of the Design-Builder. The Department will provide the minimum standards." Please provide.

Answer:

A list will be provided as part of an Addendum.

Question # 41:

Section 5.2.1.3, BIN 1052160, Clinton Ave over Route 104 – Section D of the scope calls for “Backwall Rehabilitation” however the 8/26/11 biennial inspection report provided on the Department’s website gives a backwall rating of 6 (begin) and 5 (end).  No deterioration is noted in the photos or text of the report for the backwalls.   No backwall work is mentioned in the Design Report other than reconfiguring the top of the backwalls to accommodate jointless construction.  Please confirm that backwall rehabilitation is truly needed at this BIN and if so please provide documentation for the limits of the deterioration on which to base our costs.

Answer:

Backwall repairs are not anticipated at this location.

Question # 42:

Section 6.2.3.3, BIN 1022880, East Delevan Ave over Route 33 – Section B and C1 of the scope call for “Pedestal Rehabilitation” and “Backwall Rehabilitation”, however the 11/7/11 inspection report provided on the Department’s website is only an interim inspection report and does not have any detailed information about the condition of the pedestals or backwall (other than a numerical rating) on which to base our reconstruction work effort.  Can the Department provide the most recent biennial inspection report?

Answer:

Additional inspection reports have been posted.

Question # 43

1) In reference to the bridge design reports which identify stainless steel reinforcement is to be used for interstate, NHS and other selected highway bridges to reduce future corrosion, please confirm stainless steel reinforcement shall be utilized for the 4 region 1 bridges identified below, and also advise if required on other bridges not listed here:

1. BIN 1004249, Route 7 over I-890, Schenectady, NY

2. BIN 1006800, Route 9N over NW Bay Brook, Bolton, NY

3. BIN 1053570, Route 9N over Grove Brook, Port Henry, NY

4. BIN 4002590, Route 5 over Erie Canal, Schenectady, NY

Answer:

Stainless steel is not required to be used on any bridge in this program.

Question # 44

Will DOT provide a secure area for storing street lights that are taken down, or will the contractor be responsible for finding a storage area?

Answer:

The Contractor is responsible. R.O.W access can be obtained through NYSDOT by a Highway Work Permit. See website.

Question # 45

Please reference Section 4.1 of the contract documents for each of the Zones. Please confirm that the only zone that does not require a membrane and overlay is Zone 3. Thank you.

Answer:

This requirement is by Region, not by Zone. Please review Section 4.1 for each Region.

Question #46

For maintenance of traffic, can temporary concrete barrier be set adjacent to a travel lane or is an offset required?

Answer:

The requirements of Section 619 of the Standard Specifications shall be adhered to.

Question #47

BIN 1040560, Route 208 over Otter Kill – No bearing work is listed in the scope of work, yet 5% of payment is listed for bearing work. Please clarify if bearing work is anticipated.

Answer:

An Addendum will be issued.

Bearing work is not anticipated. The 5% will be included in the demolition and removal of deck. That payment will increase from 15% to 20%.

Question #48

If existing approach guide rail is non-standard, to what extent will proposer be responsible for upgrading the approach guide rail?

Answer:

Non-standard railing shall be replaced to a distance that can be safely transitioned from the new standard rail to the existing non-standard rail to remain.

Question #49

BIN 1014510, Route 17K over Ex-NHRR – The Design Report identifies cracks in the abutment

which are to be repaired. The RFP does not include this work. Is the proposer responsible for repairing the cracks?

Answer:

No.

Question #50

BIN 1096560, Scotchtown Road over Route 17

a. The existing structure has fencing installed along the fascias. The RFP does not indicate that any fencing will be installed. Please clarify if fencing is to be installed.

Answer:

Please see Section 4.2.5 – Required bridge section. Pedestrian fencing shall be installed.

b. The RFP identifies a “single-faced concrete parapet” to be installed. Please clarify the parapet type.

Answer:

As stated in the RFP. See BD RC-11 for details.

Question #51

BIN 5500019, Hutchinson River Parkway (Route 907W) over Route 1 – There are existing conduits in the concrete parapets that are empty. Do they need to be replaced?

Answer:

Yes.

Question #52

BIN 1044870, Ridge Street over I-287:

a. Has the Department obtained local approval to perform the work under a full closure?

Answer:

It should be estimated as a full closure until further notice.

b. No bearing work is listed in the scope of work, yet 5% of payment is listed for bearing work.

Please clarify if bearing work is anticipated.

Answer:

An Addendum will be issued.

Bearing work is not anticipated. The 5% will be included in the demolition and removal of deck. That payment will increase from 10% to 15%.

c. The RFP identifies a “single-slope concrete barrier with pedestrian fencing” to be installed.

Please clarify that this is the barrier type required.

Answer:

Yes it is. See BD RC-11.

Question #53

BIN 1037510, Route 125 over I-95:

a. Has the Department obtained local approval to perform the work under a full closure?

Answer:

It should be estimated as staged construction until further notice.

b. The RFP identifies a “single-slope concrete barrier with pedestrian fencing” to be installed.

Please clarify that this is the barrier type required.

Answer:

As stated in the RFP. See BD RC-11.

Question #54

Are records available indicating the thicknesses of asphalt overlays on the bridges?

Answer:

It is the Design-Build team’s responsibility to verify all information given by the Department and to visit the job site.

Question #55

Has the Department identified the type of Engineer’s Field Office it will require?

Answer:

Field offices are not required.

Question #56

Activity ID 00005, Prestart Schedule Meeting – SS with letting date as shown on table or following award as stated on page 6?

Answer:

Following Contract award as stated on page 6.

Question #57

Activity ID M00025, Contract Award Process – 45 days is inconsistent with May 30, 2012 date in the instruction to proposers

Answer:

An Addendum will be issued.

The date in the Instructions to Proposers is correct.

Question #58

Activity ID 00055, Set up Engineer’s Field Office – is this for one or multiple locations?

Answer:

Field Offices are not required.

Question #59

Bridge 7 Rt. 907(Hutchinson River Pkwy) over Rt.1

1. The existing ½ barrier parapet has a fluted design on the back side. Will the new barrier parapet be required to duplicate this?

Answer:

No.

2. The existing ½ barrier parapet angles away from the traveled lanes beyond the bridge deck,

terminating with a blunt end. Some type of end treatment or tapered end will be required.

Answer:

The design shall be in accordance with current standards and a safe transition shall be provided. This is the Engineer of Record’s responsibility

3. The existing bridge deck has been overlaid with asphalt. Is it one overlay, or multiple overlays, and what is the thickness? This bridge may have been overlaid with a new asphalt surface course after the 2010 inspection.

Answer:

Overlay thickness is unknown. Contractor to verify in field.

Question #60

Bridge 8 Ridge St. over I-287

1. The existing gas main is supported on hangers attached to the underside of the deck. The hangers will need to be attached to the diaphragms. Is this our responsibility or the utility companies?

Answer:

It is recommended that these findings be revisited as our information differs. If hangers are needed, the cost shall be included in the Lump Sum bid for this bridge,

Question #61

Bridge 9 Rt. 125 over I-95

1. The bridge deck and joints appear to have been recently rehabilitated.

Answer:

No recent work has been done on this bridge.

2. A major rehabilitation construction was performed on this bridge and probably the adjoining

bridge over MetroNorth/Amtrak railroad at the same time, at some point. This is evident from the

new joints and the fact that the record plans show bridge rail and the bridge currently has

continuous barrier with fence. Are these plans available?

Answer:

No recent work has been done on this bridge. Plans are not available.

Question #62

Bridge 11 Tuckahoe Rd. over Rt. 100

1. Extending the deck to eliminate the end joints, and the addition of approach slabs puts this work into the 2 intersections of Tuckahoe Rd. and the 2 lane/each service roads that run parallel to Rt. 100. This will tremendously affect MPT.

Answer:

WZTC shall be designed to accommodate the proposed construction.

2. Two new traffic signal systems are required to be constructed at this location. Do the standard specifications and details cover this, or are any special NYSDOT specifications or information available.

Answer:

NYSDOT Standard Specifications and details shall be used.

Question #63

Regarding Zone 1, BIN 1005720 - 912Q over Rte 9, Lake George, Section 4.2.6.3 D, Rail. Please clarify the requirements of the brush curb. Should the brush curb be 2' 7" wide as described under the previously mentioned document section or should it be 2' 1" wide as shown on BD-RS1E? Is the brush curb to have granite curbing? Is the brush curb to be 6" tall?

Answer:

The 2’-7” dimension includes a 6” high granite curb. See resource document for this BIN.

Question #64

Form FP(A) - Appendix to Form of Proposal lists the “proposal validity period” as 180 days. This period was amended in the Final “Instructions to Bidders” document to 90 days. Will this Form FP(A) be revised and made available to the proposal teams, or is it acceptable to strike through the “180” days, and substitute “90” days on the form before signing and submitting with our proposal?

Answer:

The correct date is 90 days. It is acceptable to strike through the 180 days as requested.

Question #65

Please explain in greater detail the work scope expectations between a bearing restoration, and a bearing replacement. If a bearing is to undergo a restoration, and it is determined by the Design-Build team that the bearing must be replaced instead, how is the proposer compensated for this change in work scope?

Answer:

No additional compensation will be made. It is expected that the restored bearing will be like new. The Contractor shall bid accordingly.

The  Design-Builder  has  the  option  of  replacing  the  bearings  rather  than restoring them if he determines that it is more advantageous to do so. An entire line of bearings shall be either replaced or restored.  The proposed scheme shall be submitted to the CQAE for approval.

Question #66

Regarding the Zone 1 – Rte 458 Over St Regis River work, is there a gusset plate analysis for this bridge that is available to the proposers?

Answer:

No there is not. All necessary design and analysis must be performed by the Design-Builder.

Question #67

Regarding the Zone 1 - Rte 177 Over Sandy Creek work, the RFP’s cross sectional drawing showing the existing bridge and proposed bridge section appears to indicate a single new stringer beam overtop of the W18x50 in print as “Install New Stringer”. However, pictorially it appears that a second new stringer beam is to be installed. Please clarify – is this detail typically both sides of the bridge?

Answer:

The RFP does not have drawings for this structure. Drawings shown in the Design Report are preliminary concepts done by others and should only be used as reference. The designer must design the solution they intend to construct.

Question #68

In the event that municipally owned utilities must be relocated, and the work is performed by the municipality, will any reimbursement to the municipality come from NYSDOT or should the Design-Builder include these costs in their bid?

Answer:

The reimbursement will come from NYSDOT.

Question #69

The final RFP states that all utilities currently located in conduits in the deck/sidewalk shall be replaced in the sidewalk.  Can the lines be permanently relocated under the deck or on the superstructure if mutually agreed by the Utility owner?

Answer:

The final relocation shall be coordinated with and approved by the utility owner and NYSDOT.

Question #70

If there are currently unused conduits in the bridge deck/sidewalk, is it necessary to replace/reinstall all conduits, even if some of the conduits will remain unused?

Answer:

Yes,

Question #71

Who is responsible for obtaining the Utility Agreement? 

Answer:

NYSDOT is responsible for securing the agreement.

Question #72

Will the Utility Agreement be secured before proposals are due (May 18th) or after Notice to Proceed is issued?

Answer:

It is not anticipated that this will be the case. However, if conditions change they will be posted.

Question #73

Is it acceptable for the Utility owner to expose their lines/conduits prior to the Design-Builder completing demolition with much larger equipment? 

Answer:

The work plan shall be coordinated with and approved by the utility owner.

The Design-Builder in coordination with the Department’s Project Manager (or his designee) shall meet with all the affected Utility owners or operators for the purpose of discussing the affect on the utility facilities and to agree on a plan to maintain, protect, reinstall, or other action that may be necessary for the work to progress.

Question #74

Will the As Built Plans consist  of one set of complete drawings for each bridge or will one set of   As Built drawings be required that includes all the bridges in the project for each Zone? 

Answer:

One set of plans for each bridge is required as an individual package. Digital copies shall also be submitted.

Question #75

Will the As Built Drawings consist of a collection of all the Release for Construction drawings modified as necessary to show field changes, or will Title Sheet, General Notes and MPT be included in the As Built plan set?

Answer:

Title Sheet, General Notes and MPT will be required in addition to the updated Release for Construction Drawings.

Question #76

Question # 41 from the April 3, 2012 Informational Meeting asked if Virtis must be used for Load Ratings.  The answer distributed in the Q&A memo distributed by NYSDOT states that yes, Virtis must be used and that Version 6.2 must be used.  However, this response differs with the answer given at the meeting and that given in the Draft RFP, which states that Version 6.3 can be used because Version 6.2 is no longer being distributed by AASHTO.    If the designer doesn’t currently have a license for Virtis, how will they obtain access to Virtis 6.2? 

Answer:

See section 3.11 Load Rating Software of Part 3 – Project Requirements

Question #77

Are Load Ratings to be performed in LRFR or LFD?

Answer:

The Instructions for preparation of Level 1 Load Ratings shall be followed. LRFD or LFD are acceptable.

Question #78

Who is responsible for preparation of Work Plans such as demolition plans?  Is it acceptable that the Designer will prepare these drawings and backup calculations and submit to the NYSDOT representative for review and approval prior to submission of Release For Construction Plans for this design element?

Answer:

Work plans shall be prepared by the Design-builder. Yes it is acceptable to submit for review. Approval will be done by the Engineer of Record.

Question #79

The PSR/FDR’s for BIN 1018079, NY 24 over Belmont Park Road and BIN 1058780, Robert Moses Causeway over Ocean Parkway note that these roadways are on the NHS, and therefore under the Proposed Work sections in these reports note that the reinforcing steel in the decks must be stainless steel.  Please confirm.  Please also note any other bridges which will require stainless steel reinforcing in the decks.

Answer:

Stainless steel bars are not required.

Question #80

On April 19, 2012, NYSDOT let Contract D261875, Overhead Sign Panel Replacements at Various Locations.  In light of this information, will all bridge-mounted overhead sign panels be replaced with new, high reflectivity panels?  Will all existing sign panel lighting fixtures and appurtenances be removed as well?  This applies to BINs 10493309, 1049489, and 1064080.

Answer:

Signs present at the start of construction shall be removed and stored for re-installation under this project. Coordination with the overhead sign panel Contractor is the Design Builder’s responsibility.

Question #81

The extent of the work required for bearing restoration needs to be clarified.   For example, there are cases where the rolled phospher bronze plates beneath the bearing plates exhibit various degrees of deterioration, but do not affect the proper functioning of the bearings.  Will the deterioration of the bronze plates need to be addressed under this contract?  

Answer:

Yes.

Question #82

It is assumed that granite stone curbing will only be installed on the bridge decks and approach slabs.  The curb along the approach roadways will be replaced in kind and along the existing alignments except for the median along NY 24.  Please confirm.

Answer:

The curb on the approaches will be replaced in kind unless noted otherwise in the RFP Documents.

Question #83

No lighting will be required along the runs of temporary concrete barrier in this project. Please confirm.

Answer:

The WZTC plans shall include and comply with all NYSDOT and MUTCD standards.

Question #84

BIN 1018079 – NY 24 OVER BELMONT RACE ROAD

1. For BIN 1018079 - NY 24 over Belmont Park Road, along the north side of NY 24, the bridge rail transitions to guide rail are unclear.  In the northwest quadrant, there is a driveway entrance adjacent to the end of the existing bridge rail.  It is presumed that this driveway will need to remain available after the bridge reconstruction work is completed, so the replacement bridge rail would need to end at the same location as that of the existing.  Is this correct?

Answer:

This work shall be coordinated with Belmont and NYSDOT. It shall be assumed that the driveway will be closed until further notice.

2. At the northeast quadrant, the current bridge rail ends with no transition.  To bring this up to current NYSDOT Standards, the four rail bridge rail needs to transition to box beam guide railing.  The transition section on NYSDOT Drawing titled “Steel Bridge Railing to Box Beam Guide Rail Transition”, BD-RS4E, shows how two of the four rails are terminated.  These terminations would extend beyond the right-of-way line, and would also require modifications to the existing ornamental fencing.

Answer:

The rail transition shall be designed within the existing R.O.W. limits

3. Similarly for both the southwest and southeast quadrants, the transitions would require encroachment onto property beyond the State right-of-way.

Answer:

The rail transition shall be designed within the existing R.O.W. limits

4. In addition, if the transition railing were to be in alignment with the replacement bridge rail, the posts still may encroach onto private property in all quadrants except the northwest.

Answer:

The rail transition shall be designed to terminate within the existing R.O.W. limits

Question #85

1. The PSR/FDR for BIN 1018079, NY 24 over Belmont Park Road notes that this roadway is on the NHS, and therefore under the Proposed Work section in the report notes that the reinforcing steel in the deck must be stainless steel.  Please confirm. 

Answer:

Stainless steel bars are not required.

2. The median along NY 24 will need to be completely removed from approximately 300 feet west of BIN 1018079 to Wellington Road.  Should the reconstructed median be replaced with a four (4) foot wide median to match proposed for the replacement bridge deck?

Answer:

The four foot median should extend east to Wellington and west to the existing median.

3. The design report for the bridge calls for bearing rehabilitation however; bearing rehabilitation is not listed as a work item in Part 3 Section 4.2.1 of the bridge specific scope of work.  Are we required to rehabilitate the bearings at this bridge?

Answer:

Part 3 – Project Requirements- is the controlling document,

4. Work includes removal of the bridge deck and currently there is under bridge lighting in the deck.  Are the under deck lights to be abandoned?  If not, can wall packs be used in place of the under deck lighting?  Current standards do not permit mounting lighting fixtures to the underside of a bridge deck.  Conduits for lighting cannot be installed in the bridge deck.

Answer:

The lighting is to be designed and supported to current standards.

5. North fascia of the bridge has railing that terminates right at the end of the structure with decorative wrought iron fence for Belmont Park directly adjacent.  Current design standards call for bridge rail to be transitioned off structure.  Are bridge rail transitions to be installed, and if so, will this require removal of the wrought iron fence in the area or can the transitions be installed in front of the wrought iron, thereby reducing the sidewalk width?

Answer:

The rail transition shall be designed within the existing R.O.W. limits

6. The wrought iron fence behind the bridge rail is 6’ high.  When the project is completed, should the fence remain at six (6) above the ground to match the existing, or should it increase to eight (8) feet along the bridge railing?

Answer:

See Page 17 of Part 3 – Project Requirements

Question #86

BIN 1049309 -  PINELAWN ROAD (CR3) OVER I-495

1. There is an existing sign mounted to the west fascia that includes sign lighting.  Does the sign need to be reinstalled after the new deck with lighting or is a new standard high visibility sign required at this location? (See general question above.)

Answer:

The signs existing at the start of construction shall be removed, stored and reinstalled.

2. The existing fence behind bridge rail is a black vinyl system.  Does the new pedestrian fence need to be black vinyl?

Answer:

Yes.

3. The Scope of Work for this structure calls for jointless deck details at the abutments, however, the Bridge Manual Section 5.2  indicates that jointless deck details should not be used at expansion ends of bridges with U wingwalls that have skews >15 degrees.  The skew for this bridge is approximately 26 degrees.  Please confirm that the jointless detail should be used here.

Answer:

Yes. It shall be used.

Question #87

BIN 1018249 – GREAT NECK ROAD (CR 47) OVER NY 27

It is assumed that full roadway closures along NY 27 will NOT be permitted.  Please confirm.

Answer:

That is correct.

Question #88

BIN 1058780 – ROBERT MOSES CAUSEWAY OVER OCEAN PARKWAY

The PSR/FDR for BIN 1058780, Robert Moses Causeway over Ocean Parkway notes that this roadway is on the NHS, and therefore under the Proposed Work section in the report notes that the reinforcing steel in the decks must be stainless steel.  Please confirm. 

Answer:

Stainless steel bars are not required.

Question #89

BIN 1049489 – RONKONKOMA AVENUE OVER I-495

The box beam guide rail and box beam guide rail to bridge transition may need to be shop curved.  The alignments of the existing guide rails will be maintained along each side of Ronkonkoma Avenue and the south side of the I-495 North Service Road.  Please confirm.

Answer:

The design shall be to current standards.

Question #90

BIN 1064080 – WAVERLY AVENUE OVER I-495 

1. Will NYSDOT accept the replacement in-kind to the transition from vertical faced curb to half section barrier along Waverly Avenue?  Will the fence atop the barrier need to be replaced as well, or will the taller barrier height suffice? 

Answer:

All rail and curb transitions shall be designed to current standards. New pedestrian fencing is required on the barrier.

2. It is presumed that single slope half section barrier will be installed on the same horizontal alignment as the existing half section barrier.  Please confirm.

Answer:

Transitions and layouts must be designed to current standards.

3. For BIN 1064080, the design report calls for a pressure relief joint to be installed, but the pavement sections indicate the approach is asphalt. Please clarify if the approach is asphalt or asphalt over cement base?

Answer:

Pressure relief joints are required.

4. Certain design reports for Zone 4 bridges note that stainless steel rebar is being used on interstate, NHS and other selected bridges to reduce future corrosion. The project requirements for this RFP calls for NYSDOT Standards to be followed, which do not require stainless steel rebar. Please confirm that standard epoxy coated rebar will be used for these bridges unless stainless steel rebar is specifically noted in the requirements for certain bridges.

Answer:

Stainless steel bars are not required.

 Question #91

RE: The NY24/Belmont Pk Rd Bridge (Bin 1018079) -

1. The Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report mentions that the bridge bearings are rated 4 and require bearing restoration.  However the latest Bridge inspection report rate these abutment bearings 5 and 6, respectively. Furthermore, the RFP does not include the bearing restoration (or replacement) item under the specific scope requirements.  Please confirm that the Design report is in error and no bearing work is required for this bridge under the scope (or that the scope is now to include bearing restoration).

Answer:

Confirmed that no bearing work is required.

 

2.  For the same bridge, the RFP scope includes a new raised 4' wide median for the bridge...does this imply that the median at the approaches (not just for the 50' approach work but beyond) must be 4' or does DOT have transition requirements?

Answer:

The design should provide the proper standard transition lengths. 

3. For the all the bridges deck replacements - Is galvanized rebar in lieu of stainless steel rebar acceptable?

Answer:

Stainless steel bar is not required.

 

4. Will the bridge mounted sign structures (LIE bridges) be replaced under another - recent - DOT contract, i.e., should we re-install these existing sign structures?

Answer:

The signs existing at the start of construction shall be removed, stored and reinstalled.

Question #92

5. On Pinelawn:

The existing decorative fence is a black vinyl system. Is the new fencing a black system or a non-vinyl system?

Answer:

Yes, black vinyl.

Question #93

On Waverly:

There is no mention of replacement of the 4' fence on the new concrete barrier to be installed.

Answer:

Fence shall be installed on the barrier.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download