My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Add No 10
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
Bids-RFQ-RFP
>
RFP
>
RFP No. 14-09-01 Construction of the N. Bay Road Pedestrian Emergency Bridge
>
Add No 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2017 3:46:37 PM
Creation date
6/14/2017 3:44:13 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Addendum No.10 <br />CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH BAY ROAD PEDESTRIAN EMERGENCY BRIDGE <br />CITY RFP NO. 14‐09‐01 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />underway concurrent with the bridge construction. The drainage scope of work is <br />currently included in the 174th St project (By Others) and as such, the cross <br />sections are depicted as existing. Extensive coordination with the 174th St <br />Contractor will be required as part of this project. In the event the drainage project <br />is delayed or withdrawn, the City will solicit additional pricing from the contractor <br />for this Emergency Bridge project to construct the outfall and related drainage <br />improvements. <br /> <br /> <br />Q3: Typical section sheet 4 shows an interior barrier wall adjacent to the 5’6” <br />sidewalk. MSE plans and roadway plans do not show this wall. Will revised <br />drawings be provided for the typical sections, MSE or roadway drawings? <br /> <br />A3: The plans have been revised to eliminate the interior barrier wall. <br /> <br /> <br />Q4: Typical section sheet 4 shows a pedestrian barrier wall, but does not show a <br />sidewalk or standard moment slab. Which moment slab detail should be followed <br />here? <br /> <br />A4: The Roadway Drawings have been revised to show the standard moment <br />slab/junction slab of the MSE Wall Details. <br /> <br /> <br />Q5: Ground improvement are shown from 20+70 to 21+70 and 24+12 to <br />26+40. Will any demucking be required beyond this area? <br /> <br />A5: The limits of demucking will be dependent upon the means and methods <br />employed by the contractor noting that the plan data is based upon the conditions <br />found at the individual boring locations. While best professional efforts and due <br />care were put forth in quantifying this item, field conditions may or may not match <br />these limits exactly. The contractor shall satisfy himself of the limits of muck that <br />must be removed for the project be constructed in accordance with the plans and <br />specifications. Refer to Note 2 on Sheet BW-1 of the Bridge Drawings. Further, <br />the regular excavation and embankment volumes shown in the plan sheets have <br />been calculated without regard to subsoil excavation because the contractor is <br />responsible to choose from the method of soil improvements shown in the <br />Geotechnical Report, which was issued with and is a part of the contract <br />documents. The chosen method of soil improvement would impact the volume, <br />so the excavation and embankment volumes are calculated based upon the <br />existing ground surface elevation. The contractor must account for the differential <br />cost of excavation and embankment in the cost of soil improvement <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.