questions and answers - thruway.ny.gov 400 bid items as well as a significant technical proposal....

TANE 18-7 / D214568 Reconstruction of the New England Thruway (I-95) from MP NE 14.1 to MP NE 15.0,

Replacement of two bridges: Ramp B over I-95 at MP NE 14.24 and

Grace Church Street over I-95 at MP NE 14.46

Rehabilitation of Four bridges: I-95 over the Blind Brook at MP NE 13.34,

I-95 over Purchase Street at MP NE 13.48, Boston Post Road over I-95 at MP NE 13.71

and I-95 over the Byram River at MP NE 14.93

in the New York Division in Westchester County

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q1. Drawing No.’s PSS-1, PSS-3 and TPY-20 & TPY-21, what is the existing and new

pavement cross sections for the paving work on Playland Parkway from Theodore Fremd

Ave to Old Boston Post Bridge?

A1. Match existing cross slope.

Q2. What are the allowable lane closing hours to perform paving work on I-95 for Exit 19, 20

& 21?

A2. Refer to A.1 of the Schedule and Suspension of Work on Page 41 of the Proposal.

Q3. What are the allowable lane closing hours to perform paving work on Playland Parkway in Rye, NY?

A3. An amendment will be issued to address this question.

Q4. Proposal Book 1 of 1, Page 40, Work To Be Done, Exit 19, 20 & 21 and Playland Parkway

with their Milestones are not listed.

A4. All work shall be done in accordance with the Contract Documents even though not

specifically mentioned in this list.

Q5. Proposal Book 1 of 1, Page 7, Construction Schedule, is I-95 Exit 19, 20 & 21 and

Playland Parkway pavement work required in the Contractor’s schedule?

A5. No.

Q6. Drawing WZN-002, what stage shall Exit 19, 20 & 21 and Playland Parkway pavement

work be performed or will it be the Contractor’s choice to do it independently of other

mainline work?

A6. It will be the Contractor’s choice to do it independently of other mainline work.

Q7. Drawing WZN-002, after Stage 4, Part 1, the first winter shutdown is implemented

between Dec.15, 2018 to March 15, 2019. The winter shutdown note states: Existing

Ramp B as well as Grace Church Street shall remain in use during the first winter

shutdown period. No demolition work of either bridge is to be done prior to Stage 5.

Drawing WZP-283, Note 5 allows the Contractor to begin Stage 1 work on Grace Church

in 2018 which will require demolition and one way traffic on Grace Church Street during

the first winter shutdown. Please clarify this conflict in the notes and stages.

A7. An amendment will be issued to clarify this conflict.

Q8. Will CADD files for this project become available?

A8. Yes, it is anticipated to become available (and posted as Supplemental Information) before

the end of the week.









March 5, 2018

Q9. See specification Item 619.99230103 – Accessible Shuttle Accommodations for

Pedestrians. The specification construction details states the Contractor shall provide

shuttle service during the times and under the conditions noted in the special notes entitled

”Pedestrian Accommodations During Construction”.

The Special Notes section on Pages 360 to 402 does not provide any information for

“Pedestrian Accommodations During Construction”. We request this information be

provided in an Amendment including the days, times and shuttle route that the Contractor

must provide shuttle service through a commercial carrier approved by NYS.

A9. A special note titled “Pedestrian Accommodations During Construction” will be issued by

amendment.

March 9, 2018

Q10. Regarding Special Specification 606.3042xx25, the specification states that a PE stamped

design shall be provided for the traffic barrier wall. There are (4) barrier items under this

spec. We need clarification on how to interpret this spec. as it pertains to each barrier item.

The first Item 606.30420125 is a standard single slope full (8” top) barrier per NYSDOT

std. sheet 606-14, no special detail is provided, so, no PE design should be required, please

confirm that this is true.

A10. Correct, this is true.

Q11. The second Item 606.30420525 is a standard single slope half sect. barrier per NYSDOT

std. sheet 606-13, no special detail is provided, so, no PE design should be required, please

confirm that this is true.


Q12. The third Item 606.30420725 is a single slope asymmetrical full (12” top) barrier for

pavement deltas from 0” to 12” with a detail/design given on drawing # GRD-8 which

shows no footer or moment slab required for this barrier. Since there is a design for this

barrier provided on drawing # GRD-8, we are interpreting this to mean that no PE design

will be required, please confirm that this is true.










March 9, 2018 …continued

Q13. The fourth Item 606.30420825 is a single slope asymmetrical full (12” top) barrier wall w/

footer for pavement deltas over 12” with a general detail given on drawing # GRD-8 which

shows a footer but does not show complete design details. Since this is the only item called

out in the quantity estimate as a barrier wall, we are interpreting this as the only barrier

item of the (4) mentioned here that requires a PE stamped design per the above spec.,

please confirm that this is true.

A13. Correct, this is true. Therefore, it is correct that as outlined throughout Questions 10

through 13, that the only barrier item of the (4) barrier items mentioned above, a PE

stamped design will be required only for barrier Item 606.30420825.

March 12, 2018

Q14. 8 weeks has been provided for the preparation of this bid proposal. This project includes

over 400 bid items as well as a significant technical proposal. Due to various competing

bids that have been advertised in this locality since the beginning of the year, the March

28th bid deadline is an aggressive completion date.

A14. The normal advertising period for a project of this size is 6 weeks. Per the request of the

AGC, two additional weeks have been provided for Best Value Submission. Therefore, a

time extension will not be issued for this project.

Q15. After reviewing all the bid documents up to Addendum #1 for the Contract TANE 18-7

D214568 – Reconstructing a Portion of the New England Thruway (I-95) from MP NE

14.1 to NE 15.0 Including the Replacement of 2 Bridges and the Rehabilitation of 4

Bridges, we request a postponement of the bid due date. The postponement will be

beneficial because we need the extra time to be most competitive and thoroughly analyze,

appropriately price and schedule the complex logistics of building this project while

minimizing the affects to the daily operations of the traveling public.

A15. Please refer to the answer provided for Question 14 (A14.).









March 13, 2018

Q16. On page 229 of noise barrier spec. above, under (A. Fabrication), it states that noise wall

panels shall be full height with no horizontal joints. This contradicts the plan drawings

#NBD-2 & #NBD-4 which both show a horizontal joint in the panel, stacked panels. There

are a lot of panels at 12’ height & a lesser quantity at 20’ height, with some in between.

With these heights it seems that a full height panel would be preferred because the joint

detail on drawing #NBD-2 shows a minimum top panel height of 10’, which would make

for a 2’ bottom panel in the case of the 12’ height wall. Please confirm what the intent is

here.

A16. Per the plans, horizontal joints will be allowed. The 10' min shown on Section A-A of

Drawing Number NBD-2, sheet 575 of 950 will be deleted by Amendment. Also, a note

stating that the horizontal joint location will be determined by the Contractor and approved

by the Engineer and that only one joint per panel section will be allowed, will be added by

Amendment.

Q17. The typical wall elevation detail on drawing #NBD-2 shows that the post caps are set

above the panel caps & the ends of the panel caps butt up to the edge of posts. If this is the

intended detail, then the top of post elevation should be approx. 6” above the top of panel

elevation. If the 6” overhang is correct, then many of the post heights given in the wall

tables on drawing #NS-1 thru #NS-4 are incorrect. After reviewing the overall post heights

in these tables, it seems that a lot of the heights are incorrect, even without taking into

account the post overhang. Please confirm what the required post overhang should be.

A17. The heights given in the table indicate heights to get to the top of the panel, as shown on

the wall profiles. An extra 6" will be required to get above the panel caps. A note will be

added by Amendment stating that actual post height shall be detailed in the shop drawings.

Q18. In follow up to the Thruway’s response to our RFI-2, regarding stacked noise wall panels

or not, will full height panels be allowed for any of the main panel height groupings (12’ or

20’)? We have the capability of producing all the noise wall panels at the full height

shown, please confirm if this will be allowed.

A18. Full height panels will be allowed for all post and panel walls.










Q19. Drawing SRB-33 shows Fill Type Retaining Wall (Item 554.43) starting right after the new

concrete wing wall on the east side of new begin abutment of the Ramp B Bridge.

Drawing SRB-31 shows new 30'x40' GRES wall (Item 554.3001) being constructed behind

the Ramp B Bridge Begin Abutment extending past the CIP wing walls. We have the

following questions regarding these details:

1- Please address the conflicts between Geo-synthetic Reinforced Earth System (GRES

Wall - Item 554.3001) and Fill Type Retaining Wall which will be constructed adjacent

to the new CIP wing walls (Item 554.43)

2- Contract Bid Item 554.3005 appears to be the correct pay item for this GRES Wall, as

the quantity as shown on SRB-31 of 1,200 SF matches the pay item quantity.

However, the work is called out several times as bid Item 554.3001 on the Contract

Drawings (SRB-31, SRB-12), please clarify correct bid item and adjust quantities, if

necessary.

3- Please clarify the purpose of constructing the GRES Wall at this location.

A19. 1. The contractor is responsible for developing the construction method for integrating the

two systems.

2. Item 554.3001 is the correct item for the GRES wall. Item 554.3005 will be deleted

from the Itemized Proposal. The quantity for Item 554.3001 will be increased from 942 SF

to 2,142 SF.

3. The purpose of the GRES wall is to reduce lateral pressure on the backwall.

Q20. In the Volume 1 Contract Drawings provided, it appears Drawing GRP1 was mistakenly

inserted between PRO36 (Sheet 125) and PRO38 (Sheet 127). The two GRP1 drawings

provided are different, specifying different items for the guardrail end piece on the shoulder

of Northbound I95 @ approximately mile point N563+00. Should this item be

606.34030025 or 606.27? Also, please clarify if PRO37 is missing from contact

documents.

A20. An Amendment will be issued to delete duplicate Drawing Number GRP-1, sheet 128 of

950 and replacing it with the correct Drawing Number PRO-37, sheet 126-A2 of 950. On

Drawing Number GRP-1, sheet 128 of 950, reference to Item 606.34030025 is to be

replaced with Item 606.27. Also, be advised of a Special Note on Proposal page 393

regarding Item 606.27.










Q21. Contract drawing SPD-4 provides the details for the Fiber Optic Pullbox as part of the ITS

system. The detail provided shows that this pullbox must be installed at 12' minimum

offset from the pavement shoulder. However, on the plan drawings, these pull boxes are

shown within this required offset and there is not sufficient space to provide the required

12 feet.

A21. An Amendment will be issued to delete reference to the "12' minimum offset" from the

fiber optic pull box detail. The following note will be added in its place: "See ITS Plans

for offset location".

March 14, 2018

Q22. In the Supplemental Information quantity calculations, Item 206.01 Structural Excavation

has a quantity of 4 CY. In the estimate of quantities in the proposal book, Item 206.01

Structural Excavation has a quantity of 6,626 CY. Please clarify.

A22. The total volume for Item 206.01, Structure Excavation is 6,626 CY. Please refer to pages

763-772 for the Ramp B Bridge (1,900 CY) and pages 786-787 for the Grace Church Street

Bridge (4,722 CY) of the Supplemental Information quantity calculations.

Q23. On Contract Drawing EES-1, Earth Summary Sheet, there is no table for Item 206.01,

Structural Excavation. Can a table be provided listing the quantity of rock and non-rock

and the source location based on the 6,626 CY quantity for Item 206.01 in the proposal?

Note: A table was provided for Item 206.0201, Trench and Culvert Excavation.

A23. We did not break out the rock vs. non-rock excavation for Item 206.01, Structure

Excavation in our estimate so we cannot provide that information at this time.

Q24. Contract Specification 643.9201—25 – “Installing Foundations for Noise Barriers”, Basis

of Payment states that the unit price for this pay item includes placing concrete and

reinforcing. Contract Specification 643.99010004 – “Precast Concrete Noise Barrier

System”, Basis of Payment states that unit price for this pay item includes concrete

foundation and reinforcement. Which pay item will the concrete and reinforcement for the

noise barrier wall foundations be paid under?

A24. As per Note 6 of General Noise Barrier Wall Note on Drawing Number NBD-1 (sheet 574

of 950), the concrete foundation will be paid for under Item 643.9201--25, Installing

Foundations for Noise Barriers or Wood Screen Fencing.










Q25. Contract Specification 643.9201—25 – “Installing Foundations for Noise Barriers”, Basis

of Payment Section states that the unit price shall include the cost of drilling through all in-

situ soils and bedrock. Contract Documents provide various boring logs that were taken

along the proposed noise walls. However, the boring logs provide insufficient information

to accurately determine the rock elevation along the noise barrier wall locations. For

example, the boring logs that were taken along the proposed “Visual Barrier N1” locations

are at distances of 200 feet to 400 feet apart, no borings were taken at “Noise Barrier N3”,

some borings at Noise Barrier S1 have distances of 200 feet apart, and borings at Noise

Barrier S2 have a distance of 200 feet to 400 feet apart.

Contract Item 643.9201—25 includes both soil and bedrock drilling and is paid by the

lineal foot of foundation installed. Since rock elevations will be difficult to determine

based on the limited boring information provided in the Contract Documents, will the

Authority consider creating a separate pay item for installation foundations in rock for the

noise barrier?

A25. Item 643.9201--25, Installing Foundations for Noise Barriers or Wood Screen Fencing

covers installation of foundation in both soil and bedrock. A separate pay item for

installation foundation in rock for the noise barrier will not be included.

Q26. Contract Drawing Nos. NB-4 through NB-15 show an approximate rock location for the

proposed noise barrier wall locations. The quantity of rock sockets foundations to be

performed under pay Item 643.9201—25 will be determined based on the actual rock

elevations encountered. Contract Drawing No. NB-8 shows an approximate rock location

for Noise Barrier Wall N3. No borings have been provided along this noise wall. Is the

Contractor to assume that the approximate rock line show is accurate for this location?

A26. The approximate rock line is based on past record plans and the geotechnical report. The

Contractor shall assume that the approximate rock line is accurate for bidding purposes.










Q27. Contract Drawing Nos. WAL-1 through WAL-9 show the plan and elevation of the

proposed Retaining Walls #2 and #3. These drawings show a typical panel spacing

between soldier piles at 8’-0”. Contract Drawings Nos. WAL-16 through WAL-20 provide

tables for the same retaining walls which show the panels at various widths. Is the typical

8’-0” spacing shown on Drawings WAL-1 through WAL-9 correct? What is the horizontal

pay limits of the precast concrete lagging panels, Item Numbers 552.230301 and

552.230302? Is the horizontal pay limit the actual width of the panel or is the horizontal

pay limit from center line of soldier pile to center line of soldier pile?

A27. The 8’-0” spacing shown on Drawing Numbers WAL-1 thru WAL-9 (sheets 322 to 330 of

950) represents the center-to-center spacing of the piles. The horizontal pay limit for the

panels is based on the width shown in the tables and on Drawing Numbers WAL-16 thru

WAL-20, sheets 337 to 341 of 950.

Q28. Contract Drawing Nos. SRB-47 and SRB-48 provide details for Retaining Wall No. 4.

Contract Drawing No. SRB-48, “Typical Cantilever Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall

Retaining Wall No. 4” shows drilling a rock socket from existing rock surface down to the

tip of the soldier pile. However, the finished grade at the front of the retaining wall is a

distance below the existing rock surface. How is the Contractor to install the precast panels

below the existing rock surface without excavating the rock down to the bottom of the

proposed precast panels? Shouldn’t the detail for Retaining Wall No. 4 be similar to the

detail for Retaining Wall No. 3 shown on Contract Drawing No. WAL-13 for Sta. W3

0+00 to Sta. W3 1+62.6, which shows a vertical rock excavation pay limit behind the wall

from existing rock surface down to bottom of proposed precast panel? If so, then the

minimum rock socket quantity shown in the Retaining Wall 4 Pile Schedule on Drawing

No. SRB-48 would be overstated. Please advise.

A28. A revised Drawing Number SRB-48 (sheet 445-A2 of 950) which shows the new wall pay

lines and a revised pile table will be issued by Amendment.

Q29. Contract Drawing No. SRB-12, Section A-A “Proposed Begin Abutment” shows a bold

dotted line around the excavation required for the proposed Begin Abutment Stem. The

legend on this drawing states that the areas enclosed within this bold dotted line is paid

under Item 206.01. However, Section A-A also calls out a vertical pay limit dimension for

unclassified excavation Item 203.02. Please clarify the pay limits of both Item numbers

203.02 and 206.01 for the Proposed Begin Abutment shown in Section A-A.

A29. Excavation shall be paid for under Item 206.01, Structure Excavation per the legend. A

revised drawing removing the vertical pay item pay limit dimension for Unclassified

Excavation, Item 203.02 will be issued by Amendment.










Q30. Contract Drawing Nos. EQ-1, SRB-9, and SRB-31 all call out Item 554.3001 –

Geosynthetic Reinforced Earth System Wall – Welded Wire Forms to be utilized for the

Begin Abutment. However, Drawing No. SRB-28 “Typical Begin Abutment Section” calls

out Item 554.3005 behind the abutment. The “Wall Facing Detail” shown on Drawing

SRB-31 shows no welded wire forms for this wall. Should the pay item for Geosynthetic

Reinforced Earth System utilized for the Ramp B Begin Abutment be Item 554.3005

instead of Item 554.3001 since no weld wire forms are required for this location?

A30. The GRES wall for Ramp B shall be paid for under Item 554.3001, Geosynthetic

Reinforced Earth System Wall Welded Wire Forms. For details of the welded wire form

refer to Standard Sheet 554.02, sheet 5 of 6, details D and F.

Q31. Contract Drawing No. GNP-4, Note #2 and GNP-15, Note #1 state the following “No work

shall be performed within the environmentally sensitive area without the monitoring

archeologist on site.” Will the New York State Thruway Authority provide and pay for the

Monitoring Archeologist? If the Archeologist is to be provided by the Contractor will a bid

item be added to the Contract for this work required?

A31. Note 2 will be revised to state the following “No work will be allowed within the

environmentally sensitive area.”

Q32. Can the Asbestos Assessment Report be made available to the bidding Contractors?

A32. The Asbestos Assessment Report will be provided as Supplemental Information.

Q33. Contract Drawing No. SRB-13, Sections E-E, D-D, and F-F show a bold dotted line around

the excavation required for the proposed End Abut, proposed Retaining Wall No.1, and

proposed Retaining Wall No. 4. The legend on this drawing states that the areas enclosed

within this bold dotted line is paid under Item 206.01. However, these Sections also call

out a vertical pay limit dimension for unclassified excavation Item 203.02. Please clarify

the pay limits of both Item numbers 203.02 and 206.01 for these Sections shown on

Drawing SRB-13.

A33. Excavation shall be paid for under Item 206.01, Structure Excavation per the legend. A

revised drawing removing the vertical pay item pay limit dimension for Item 203.02,

Unclassified Excavation will be issued by Amendment.









March 15, 2018

Q34. Drawing Numbers WAL-3 to WAL-9 show noise wall on top of the proposed retaining

wall. Which item will the noise wall section be paid under? Which panel details should be

followed, detail for noise wall or retaining wall?

A34. The noise wall depicted on Drawing Numbers WAL-3 to WAL-9 are integral with the

soldier pile and lagging wall and will be paid for under Item 552.2207, Soldier Piles for

Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall, and Item 552.230302, Precast Concrete Panel Lagging for

Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall. Precast concrete lagging panels are to match the noise

barrier panels. Refer to the Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall Notes on Drawing Number

WAL-15, sheet 336 of 950, specifically Notes 9 and 10 for color and finish requirements.

March 23, 2018

Q35. On BRP-01, under Work to be Done, Item 7 requires that we replace all bearings. Under

which item will the bearing removal be paid?

A35. Item No. 589.520001, Removal of Existing Steel (32 EA) will be added by Amendment to

the contract plans to pay for bearing removal.

Q36. Drawing PS-18 shows plate being removed under the 589.01 item. Are the plates on both

sides of the web and both bottom flanges, or on one side only - are 4 plates per location

being removed or 2?

A36. There are 3 plates being removed per location. The current condition has one plate on one

side of the web and a plate on the top of the bottom flange on either side of the web for a

total of 3 plates.

Q37. Specification section (page 225) 643.9202—25 Installing foundations for noise barriers in

part 2.01 it states to use Class G concrete for the foundations however in section

643.99010004 – Precast Concrete Noise Barrier System (page 228) item B states the

concrete for cast in place piers and footings shall be Class A. Please clarify what type of

concrete is to be used for the Noise Barrier Foundations?

A37. Refer to Note 6 of the General Noise Barrier Wall Note. Drilled shaft to be paid under

Item 643.9201—25, Installing Foundations for Noise Barriers or Wood Screen Fencing.

Therefore, per Section 2.01 of the Special Specification, concrete shall meet the

requirements of Class G concrete.










Q38. Plan sheet 575, NBD-2 the upper left detail for Typical Wall Elevation has for payment

item 607.99620010 for vertical measurement and item 643.99010004 for horizontal

payment. Please confirm that the vertical measurement should read 643.99010004?

A38. Correct, the vertical measurement should read as “FOR PAYMENT LIMIT

643.99010004”. Revision will be included in Amendment 3.

Q39. Plan sheet 46, MST-9 the lower right table for Noise Barrier has the pay items

607.92030025 and 607.99620010.

a. Please confirm that these should read 643.920125 and 643.99010004, respectively

b. Also, in the same table, lower lines also use the item 607’s.

c. In the lower lines for the foundations it indicates (3’-6” diameter) when all other tables

and plans indicate a 3”-0” diameter foundations. Please confirm that the foundations are

per the Noises Barrier Schedule 1 – 4. (pages 594 – 597).

A39. The Table of Noise Barriers found on Drawing Number MST-9 (sheet 46 of 950) will be

deleted. Refer to Noise Barrier General Plan and Elevation on Drawing Numbers NB1

through NB15 (sheets 579 to 593 of 950) and the Noise Barrier Schedule on Drawing

Numbers NS-1 to NS-4 (sheets 594 to 597 of 950) for noise barrier information. Revision

will be included in Amendment 3.

Q40. Contract Drawing SRB-12 calls for Contract Bid Item 207.300125 – Synthetic

Compressible Inclusion behind the proposed abutment stem. The call out on this sheet says

“12”, Synthetic Compressible Inclusion”. However, Contract Specification 207.300125,

Material section, calls for the panels to be 4 ft. x4 ft. x 10 inches thick. Please clarify the

thickness required for this material.

A40. The required thickness is 12". The specification calls for 4 ft. x 4 ft. x 10 inches thick or

thickness as shown on the plans.

Q41. We have not been able to locate Contract Item 203.17130017 – Resin Rock Bolts 1”

(Grade 150) on the Contract Drawings. Also, no calculations have been provided in the

Engineer’s quantity work up sheets.

A41. The rock bolt item is included in the contract on a contingency basis. Following presplit

blasting of the rockslopes, there may be a joint or weak rock layer that would leave an

unstable rock face above. It may not be possible (due to ROW or quantities) to scale this

rock behind the presplit line. Rock bolts may be required to stabilize this rock.










Q42. On Dwg. No. Typ-11 (Sheet 15), in Detail C1 and the Description Table, the median

barrier is identified with Item 606.30420325. There is no Bid Item with that # listed in the

Quantity Sheet Summary for Proposal on Page 28 of Book 1. Please verify and confirm the

Bid Item No. required for this SS median barrier.

A42. The item should be Item 606.30420125, Single Slope Traffic Barrier (Precast) in that

section, it is shown correctly in section B1 and B2 on Drawing Numbers TYP-8 and GRP-

14 (sheets 12 and 141 of 950, respectively). Correction will be made in Amendment 3.

Q43. On Dwg. No. MST-9 (Sheet 46) under Table of Noise Barrier, the Item No’s listed are not

in Quantity Sheet Summary for Proposal on Page 31 for the Noise Barrier. Please verify

and confirm the Bid Item Nos.

A43. The Table of Noise Barrier on MST-9 (sheet 46 of 950) should be deleted. The bid items

are ok. Correction will be made in Amendment 3.

Q44. On Dwg. No. GRP-2 (Sheet 129) in the SB lane there is 1,025’ of Item No. 606.40220525

listed. That Item No. is not in the Quantity Sheet Summary for Proposal on Page 28.

Please verify and confirm.

A44. This is a typo and should read 606.30420525. This 1,025’ run is shown correctly on GRP-

1 & GRP-3. Correction will be made in Amendment 3.










Q45. On Dwg. No. GRD-9 for the custom transition barrier and on Dwg. No. GRD-10, General

Notes, it indicates that the Item No. 606.30330008, Concrete Barrier (modified) comes

from NH DOT and is for precast concrete barrier. The Quantity Sheet Summary for

Proposal on Page 28 does not indicate if this custom 54” high barrier is CIP concrete (as

shown on GRD-10) or precast concrete. Please verify if Bid Item No. 606.30330008 is to

be CIP or Precast concrete barrier. If precast, then is the detailing, rebar, dimensions and

connection methods shown on GRD-9 and GRD-10 sufficient to meet all of the contract

requirements indicated in General Notes 4 and 5? It is not customary or typical for a

precast manufacturer to be responsible for a crash test of barrier that meets or exceeds

NCHRP Report 350 for test MASH TL-5. The dynamic crash test is “very expensive and

has a very significant lead-time” and performed at only two nationwide independent testing

facilities. Is the dynamic crash test required for this custom 54” barrier or is a theoretical

MASH TL-5 engineering design analysis only acceptable? Does NYS Education Law

Section 145 allow a precast manufacturer the ability to provide a NYSPE stamped design

for this custom barrier? Please verify and confirm all.

A45. Item 606.30330008, Concrete Median Barrier (Modified) is to be pre-cast. Crash testing of

this concrete median barrier (modified) will not be required. A stamp from a New York

State Professional Engineer is not required. Since NYSDOT does not have a Standard

Sheet for 54” concrete barrier, the New Hampshire DOT standard sheets were used to

develop these details. Note 5 will be deleted and Note 6 will be revised to read as follows:

“Details shown are based on the New Hampshire Department of Transportation’s 54”

Single Slope concrete barrier, single faced, precast standard detail. The details are in

compliance with requirements per updated NCHRP Report 350 for test No. 5-11 (MASH

TL-5). Documentation is included in the FHWA Acceptance Letter B64”. Revision will

be made in Amendment 3.










Q46. On Dwg. No. LTN-2, a Lighting Standard Schedule indicates the foundation requirements

for the lamppost. The detail for the barrier lamp post foundation is shown on DWG. No.

LTD-3 (Sheet 315) and includes the casting in cast iron junction boxes and anchor bolts

and conduit. The first four (4) Pole No.’s listed on LTN-2 (i.e. 1 thru4) appear to be located

on existing concrete median barrier. Pole No. 5 is the first lamp post that could be “cast

into” the “new” precast concrete barrier. Please verify and confirm that only Pole No’s 5

thru 20 and 53 will be cast into the “new” precast concrete barrier on this project. Where

specifically (dimensionally and in elevation view) is the cast iron junction boxes that are to

be cast into the face of precast barrier sections relative to the lamp post anchor bolts,

conduit and 90 degree sweep that are cast in? Also, how is the Barrier Lamp Post

Foundation detail on LTD-3 work for a lamp post that has cast in items on what appears to

be existing median barrier? Please confirm.

A46. The first four (4) Poles (1 thru 4) are on existing barrier. The intent of the design was that

in these sections of the existing concrete barrier, the contractor would remove the existing

section of barrier and replace the barrier with a new barrier that would accommodate the

light pole attachment and conduit. The barrier would have to be wider in the center (to

accommodate the 12” needed for the light pole base plate) and then transition into the

thinner barrier to tie into the existing surrounding barrier. Please refer to NYSDOT

Standard Sheet Drawing 670-02 for additional details on symmetrical concrete barrier lamp

post foundation. Pole No’s 5 thru 20 and 52 can be cast in place or precast with the light

pole attachment, conduit and junction box in the concrete barrier section. The barrier

mounted cast iron junction boxes shall be placed 5’ from the center of the light pole to the

center of the junction box and 18” from the center of the box to finished grade.

Q47. On Dwg. No. Wal-15 (Sheet 336) under Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall Note 9, the exposed

wall panel surfaces are to have a front traffic side (#129A or equal) and back residential

side (#182 or equal) formliner finish. Please confirm that any buried portions of the precast

lagging wall panels will NOT require a grape stake formliner finish on the “non-exposed

and buried” residential surface as indicated in the elevation views with finished grades

behind the walls as shown on Dwgs Wal-1 thru Wal-14.

A47. Per Note 9 on Drawing Number WAL-15 (sheet 336 of 950), architectural pattern shall be

utilized to a minimum of 2’ below final grade.

Q48. Please confirm all precast concrete Noise Barrier is to be reflective noise barrier and not

absorptive noise barrier.

A48. All precast noise barrier is to be reflective.










Q49. On Dwg. No. SRB-33, SRB-34 and SRB-41 Notes 5 and 6 and on SRB-43 thru SRB-45

Note 5 indicate the new fill type retaining walls are to “match” the noise walls installed

under contract TANE 03-06. Please provide the manufacturer’s name and year the noise

wall panels were built and installed. There is no way given the environmental conditions

and lapse of time from manufacturing the noise wall panels and the new precast wall units,

they will not match in color. If the Federal ID # 12300 is the standard, then please confirm

the new fill type retaining walls on this project should be as close as possible to a match of

that federal standard color # 12300.

A49. The intent is to match the color, as close as possible, of the existing Noise Barrier located

within the project limits between MP NE 13.47 to NE 14.78. A color sample panel from

the precast plant shall be provided to the EIC for approval. Reference to the federal

standard color #12300 will be deleted. Revision will be made in Amendment 3.

Q50. Per Specification for Item 643.99010004 – Precast Concrete Noise Barrier System on Page

230, Design and Shop Drawings, it indicates that the contractor shall design the precast

noise barrier system. On Dwg. No. NBD-3 (Sheet 576), it appears to have an already

designed precast concrete post size, keyways and reinforcing. Does this design and

detailing meet the requirement for a contractor designed noise barrier wall system and can

the dimensions and rebar layout be utilized for this project? Please confirm the precast

posts dimensions and rebar layout, the precast wall panel thickness shown on Dwg. No.

NBD-2 Section A-A and the precast cap dimensions on Dwg. No. NBD-4 are acceptable

and meet the design criteria as shown.

A50. The Contractor shall design the precast noise barrier system per the specification. The caps

for the posts and panels are being removed from the contract, new drawings were issued in

Amendment 2.










Q51. Per Specification 606.3042XX25 – Single Slope Traffic Barrier, under Part 1.02 it

indicates that the Concrete Traffic Barrier (Wall), Item No. 606.30420825 “shall be

designed” by a NYSPE. This precast barrier is indicated on Dwg No. TYP-3, Detail M2

and M3 and Dwg. No. GRD-8. This precast barrier wall (I.e. Vari-Wal) was developed

between Fort Miller and the NYSTA many years ago and has been installed on many

NYSTA mainline projects over the past 30 years. More recently on NYS Thruway I-90

between Exit 23 and 24 by Rifenburg Construction, Union Concrete (for NYSDOT on

D262652) in the Buffalo area, etc. and many other NYSTA projects. Will this precast

barrier wall called Vari-Wall meet the spec requirements and be accepted on this project

too per all of our previous barrier dimensions, reinforcing and connection details? What is

the min and max roadway differential that requires the use of the Traffic Barrier Wall

Item? Per GRD-8, it appears that the Asymmetric barrier is only allowed from 0” to 14”

max Delta (i.e. roadway differential). In the past, asymmetric barrier was acceptable with a

Delta between 0” to 21”. In the past the Vari-Wall has been acceptable for Deltas from 21”

to 48”. Is the Vari-Wall barrier system still allowed on this project from Deltas from 14” to

48” ? What precast barrier and Item No. is to be used with Deltas from 14” to 21” ? Please

confirm all.

A51. Per the plans and specifications, a concrete traffic barrier (wall) design by a PE will be

required for differentials greater than 12”. Asymmetrical barrier, as shown on GRD-8, will

be allowed for differential up to 12”.

Q52. Please confirm the Federal Fan Deck color for fill type retaining walls, precast lagging

walls and noise barrier wall panels and posts as identified in the contract plans is correct

and to be color #12300 and “orange”.

A52. Please see the response to Question 49 (A49.).










Q53. Per Dwg. No. Wal-15 (Sheet 336 of 950), the precast lagging wall panels are shown as 5’-

0” high. On the Retaining Wall Plan and Elevation views on Dwg. No’s Wal-1 thru Wal-

10, it appears the precast lagging panels are depicted as “one piece” with no horizontal

joints. Given the individual panel retaining wall heights between pile for the various

retaining walls in the Pile Schedule tables on Dwg. No. Wal-16 thru Wal-21, 1.) are the

precast lagging panels to be 5’-0” high or full height? 2.) If the precast lagging panels are

to be a maximum and typical of 5’-0”, then what is the “minimum” precast lagging wall

panel height, 3.) what is the joint configuration and joint material between precast lagging

panels and 4.) what is the reinforcing layout that is to be used to make up the possible

“shorter” varying precast lagging wall Panel heights?

A53. 1.) Horizontal joints were not shown on the plans. Precast lagging panels shall be 5’-0”

high.

2.) Minimum panel height shall be 2’-0”

3.) See joint detail on revised Drawing Number WAL-15 (sheet 336 of 950)

4.) Reinforcing for smaller panels shall be the same as the reinforcing for the 5’-0” panel.

Horizontal bars: #5’s @ 6” o.c. Each Face, Vertical Bars: #5’s @ 24” o.c.

Revised Drawing Number WAL-15 (sheet 336 of 950), will be issued under Amendment 3.

Q54. Also for consideration; steel pier cap girders and transverse girders at piers 1 and 2 should

normally require “Full Component Assembly” in accordance with NYSCM Section

1103.4.1. Question: Can Section 1103.4.5 Special Complete Structure Assembly (Sheet

396, GN-1, General Notes #12) be excluded?

A54. Section 1103.4.5 cannot be excluded. As per general Note #12 on drawing GN-1 – the

structure shall be assembled per section 1103.4.5.

Q55. Per Dwg No. GRD-8, the Asymmetric barrier Item No. 606.3042075 indicate a roadway

elevation difference (Delta) of 0” to 14” at the top and 0” to 12” at the bottom. Shouldn’t

the limits be the same limits? What is correct and maximum Delta that can be used for

this Bid Item? Please verify. Is the 18” of embedment below finished grade correct? It

typically is a 9” embedment. Please confirm.

A55. Drawing GRD-8, sheet 153 of 950 will be superseded in forthcoming Amendment 3. The

0-12” (delta) shown at the bottom is correct. An 18” embedment is required.










Q56. For Visual Barrier N1 Plan Views shown on Dwg No’s NB-1 thru NB-15 and schedules in

NS-1thru NS, there appears to be a conflict with the depicted post layout and stationing as

listed in NS-1 thru NS-4. For example post NB1-50 on Dwg. No. NS-1 says the post is at

station 15+56, however if you count 50 posts starting w/ post NB1-1 in the Plan View on

Dwg. No. NB-1, the 50th NB1 post ends up on Dwg. No. NB-2 Plan View and around

station 14+00? Please clarify what is correct (Plan views or NB1 Schedule and stations).

The post numbering and spacing shown on NB-1 thru NB-4 and stations and posts spacing

in Dwgs NS-1 thru NS-4 appear to be in conflict and not matching.

A56. The line depicting the noise/visual barriers is not an actual representation of the post

layout. The noise barrier schedules on Drawing Numbers NS-1 to NS-4, sheets 594 to 597

of 950, should be the determination of the post location.

Q57. General Plans GNP-4 through GNP-6 show existing noise barrier being removed under

item 203.02 - Unclassified Excavation and Disposal. Please provide removal limits in

station and elevation including any foundation removal. Please confirm the payment item is

correct and what unit of measure will be used.

A57. Limits of noise barrier removal is to coincide with the limits of proposed new noise barrier

in these areas and to include all portions of the existing barrier (ie, panels, wall posts, post

caps and foundations). Removal is to be included in the costs for Item 203.02, Unclassified

Excavation and Disposal. On Drawing Numbers GNP4 & GNP-5, sheets 77 and 78 of 950,

respectively, Limits = B 28+16.86 to B 30+14.72. On Drawing Number GNP-6, sheet 79

of 950, Limits = N 586+00.00 to N 587+94.74.

Q58. See Drawing Sheet 608/950, Note no. 55. The note requires the contractor to replace the

existing utility covers with reinforced covers in the shoulders that are impacted by the

WZTC traffic patterns under the Lump Sum MPT Item 619.01. We request a detail be

provided in an amendment of the reinforced utility covers that will be accepted by the

Thruway Authority for this requirement. What is the quantity and type of covers that will

need to be replaced?

A58. Note 55 on Drawing Number WZN-002, sheet 608 of 950, will be deleted by amendment.

Under Item 619.01, it is the responsibility of the Contractor to make sure that all grates and

manhole covers are secure to permit the safe, comfortable passage of vehicles at the posted

speed limit.










Q59. Drawing SRB-68 shows the elevation detail of Fascia Girders (G1 &G6) along the

centerline but there is no given similar elevation details for the intermediate Girders.

A59. Please refer to the Table of Plate Dimensions and notes 9 & 10 on Drawing Number SRB-

68 (sheet 465 of 950), which presents the required information to produce fabrication

drawings for the interior girders.

Q60. Reference: RAMP B - Sheet 396, GN-1, General Notes #12, - Sheet 397, GN-2, General

Notes #19, and #20. B. Considering: Where a no load condition is required until steel is

erected, shop assembling crossframes will need to be fit in a forced condition due to

detailing for rotation based on a “Steel Dead Load”. Shop assembly based on these

conditions may be unsafe and field fit of the assembly cannot be guaranteed.

A60. It is standard practice in New York State to fabricate the diaphragms so they will fit in the

superstructure with the girders fully deflected for dead load.

Q61. For Bid Item No’s 606.30420725 and 606.30420825 shown on Dwg. No. GRD-8, there is a

roadway elevation difference (Delta). Hence, that is why these types of asymmetric precast

barrier and bid Items are required and utilized. To prepare a bid estimate and cost for these

two (2) barrier items, the F.G elevations at both faces of barrier between roadways MUST

be given and at least at every 50 to 100 Lf and shown in some format on the contract plans

in order to determine a responsible scope and pricing for these two (2) bid items. All

previous NYSTA projects have supplied this roadway elevation information and stationing

in a table format. Please provide the information and where we can find the roadway

elevations at the face of barrier/roadway and finished grade by station as it relates to the

precast barrier layouts and limits as shown on Dwg. No’s GRP-1 to GRP-8.

A61. Information can be found on the cross-sections provided as supplemental information. An

Excel table will be provided as Supplemental Information as part of Amendment 3.










Q62. Dwg. No. PSL-001 thru PSL-005 show the precast concrete pavement slabs with a typical

length of 15’-6”. Most of the lanes are 12’ wide, but some of the lanes vary from 14’ up to

as much as 22’ wide. Because the slabs are reinforced, we can build and install the slabs,

but transporting these very wide and heavy slabs will require expensive pilot cars and many

significant travel restrictions. In the pavement areas requiring 14’ wide or greater precast

slabs (which is everywhere the precast is required), can the length of the slab be shortened

to 11’-4” or less so that the slabs can be shipped as permitted loads (11’-4” long + 7”

protruding dowels or 11’-11” shipping width)? If it is required by the engineer that the

transverse joints all line up across the road, then the adjacent cast-in-place slabs would also

have to be shortened accordingly. Please verify and confirm.

A62. The pavement slab layout plan shown on the plans was designed to utilize the current

NYSDOT standard slab sizes of 15’-6” slab lengths with 12’ travel lanes and 14’ right edge

lanes. Non-standard slabs were used only in ramp/roadway transition areas as needed. The

Authority will allow reduced transverse joint spacing in pavement areas requiring 14’ wide

or greater precast slabs for the purpose of allowing the slabs to be shipped as permitted

loads as long as the PCC slab aspect ratio and geometry are met per NYSDOT Standard

Specification Section 502-3.06 and Standard Sheet 502-08 and transverse joints line up

across all lanes for the 14’ precast and adjacent 12’ cast-in-place slabs.

Q63. There is no stationing shown on Dwg No’s PSL-001 thru PSL-005. Please provide

stationing on the PSL-00x series of drawings, or some other method, so that the location of

the 13” thick and 11” thick pavement slabs can be determined, maybe by using the “Ramp

Typical Section Configuration Table” given on Dwg. No. TYP-20 or some other method.

Please delineate specific roadway areas and limits for the 11” and 13” thick precast slabs

that was used in determining the contract bid quantities for both precast concrete highway

pavement slab bid items?

A63. The precast pavement slab thicknesses are as the following:

Drawing PSL-001 – 11” thick per Typical Section C2 and F3

Drawing PSL-002 – 13” thick per Typical Section C3

Drawing PSL-003 – 13” thick per Typical Section C3 and SB1

Drawing PSL-005 – 13” thick per Typical Section SB2 and NB2









March 27, 2018

Q64. Temporary Median Paved Condition Detail on WZP-316 indicates that the existing subbase

should remain. On WZP-297, Stage 1 Cross Section @ station 566+12, the drawing shows

excavation items 21" - 203.02 and 12"-304.12 subbase course type 2. Which drawing

should be used as the typical section for temporary median reconstruction?

A64. The Contractor shall use the details on Drawing Number WZP-316, sheet 943 of 950 and

disregard item callouts on Drawing Number WZP-297, sheet 924 of 950. All median work

indicated on Stage 1 shall conform to the details “Existing Median Barrier

Removal/Resetting” and “Temporary Median Paved Condition” on Drawing Number

WZP-316, sheet 943 of 950. Work indicated within the median during Stage 1 shall

excavate only the existing asphalt pavement section. The existing subbase shall remain at

these locations. All other MPT related shoulder, approach or ramp pavements outside of

those locations listed in the median for Stage 1 work shall conform to the detail labeled

“Temporary Roadway Section Shoulder and Temp Ramp B Approach” on Drawing

Number WZP-316, sheet 943 of 950, unless otherwise noted. Work indicated under the

“Temporary Roadway Section Shoulder and Temporary Ramp B Approach” detail also on

Drawing Number WZP-316, sheet 943 of 950, shall include excavation as required to meet

the 21” depth (2” binder, 7” base and 12” subbase) of the detail. Current estimate of

quantities was completed using the above approach. Please note that the entire median

section will be completely excavated and replaced when the proposed roadway is

constructed during Stage 10 (beginning and end crossover locations median pavement and

subbase will be replaced with the final barrier placement at the conclusion of Stage 12).










Q65. We have a few questions regarding the construction schedule to be provided with our

proposal, per part 3.2 of the Best Value Selection Scoring.

A) The Gantt Chart provided in the excel format, and in the example included in the

proposal documents contains columns or cells representing 12 months with a certain

amount of rows for the work activities and Gantt chart bars, is the proposer at liberty to add

columns and rows to the Gantt chart, and expand this chart and sections below as needed?

B) Is the large scale plot of the Gantt Chart in a pocket or sheet protector the only

construction schedule to be included with our technical submission, or is the schedule to be

presented in another form as well as the large scale plot?

C) What is the sheet size or maximum size of the sheet for the large scale plot? And is

“Times New Roman” font 10 the minimum font for this plot?

D) Because this is a complex project with multiple stages and with much information

requested to be provided with the submission, multiple sheets may be needed to clearly

present our schedule, and approach to the work, are there sheet limits with regards to the

schedule?

E) With regard to the crew makeup section below the Gantt chart, are we to provide the

crew makeup of each activity included in the Gantt chart, or is the example of one crew for

a particular task sufficient? Say a forming crew is comprised of this ….. a steel erection

crew this ….., road excavation crew this?

F) Equipment to be included in the “Equipment” column is just major equipment? Is the

general description of the equipment enough, say a backhoe versus rubber tire backhoe, or

Caterpillar 320, or crane versus 180 ton crane or 35 ton cherry picker?

G) As some activities in the schedule may be performed both at night and during the day,

are we to provide separate activities for day and night, or is “day and night work” sufficient

as an explanation for those activities in which this situation occurs?

H) It is also noted in this section, that we are to update this schedule on a bi-weekly basis

following project award. Would this be in addition to the CPM Progress Schedule being

paid for under section 639.2x010011? Are we to include in our price the cost to maintain

two schedules? If so, where are we to include the cost of maintaining this schedule?

A65.

A) Yes, but only to provide information requested for the Best Value Submission.

B) Per Section 3.2 of the Best Value Submission requirements, the Gantt Chart is the only

construction schedule to be included with the Best Value Submission.










A65. C) There is no requirement for the sheet size as long as it can be reasonably inserted in a

pocket or sheet protector. Per 1.1 General Requirements, Times New Roman 10 font is the

minimum font size for the plot.

D) No, there are no sheet limitations with regards to the Gantt Chart.

E) A description of one crew for a particular activity may be sufficient to describe the

same crew for other activities as long as the same crew make up applies to the other

activities. Any changes to crew make up must be noted, including day and nighttime crew

composition for same activity.

F) General description of the equipment is enough.

G) The same work activity may be noted as day and night work, but it is a requirement that

the time duration of day and night work be defined for the activity.

H) The Gantt chart prepared for the Best Value Submission will not be required to be

updated on a bi-weekly basis. This requirement will be deleted by amendment from

Section 3.2 of the Best Value Special note.

March 28, 2018

Q66. Addendum #3 added Item 589.01 Removal of Existing Steel - 32 Pounds (Line #1104).

The contract already contained 589.01 Removal of Existing Steel - 66 Pounds (Line

#0314); please clarify.

A66. The intent was to increase the quantity of Item 589.01, Removal of Existing Steel, Per

Pound, from 66 pounds to 98 pounds. An increase of 32 pounds. This will be clarified in

a future amendment.

Q67. Should the noise wall panels shown on WAL-03, WAL-04 and WAL-05 be paid under

555.2206 and 552.230301 and the noise wall panels shown on WAL-06, WAL-07, WAL-

08 and WAL-09 be paid as 552.2207 and 552.230302?

A67. Refer to the typical sections on revised Drawing Numbers WAL-12 through WAL -14,

sheets 333 to 335 of 950, respectively, as issued under Amendment 3, for payment items

for noise wall panels and soldier piles.









March 28, 2018 …continued (Revised on March 30, 2018)

Q68. Per Q & A #13 and #51 and the Note under Item No. 606.30420825 on Dwg. No. GRD-8

(Sheet 151/950), the precast concrete traffic barrier wall is to be designed by a NYSPE.

Please clarify and provide the specific limits to be used in the varying barrier height (i.e.

min. and max Delta (differential) between pavements at face of barrier), the design loads,

criteria and standards that are required to be used and confirm a dynamic crash test or static

load test will NOT be required for this precast barrier wall and the NYSPE stamped barrier

wall design will suffice and meet all of the contractual requirements for this Item on this

project.

A68. A spreadsheet with differential at face of barrier has been provided as supplemental

information (Amendment 3). The barrier is to be designed per Section 13 of AASHTO

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for Test Level (TL) 4. A dynamic crash test or static

load test will NOT be required for this precast barrier wall. A NYSPE stamped barrier will

suffice and meet all the contractual requirements for this item on this project. (Revised on

March 30, 2018; Changed (TL) 5 to (TL) 4)

Q69. We also respectively request a one week bid postponement to 4/18/18 given the complexity

of the job and all of the Q&As and Amendment #3 have yet to be received.

A69. The letting date has already been postponed once. A six week advertisement period is

typical for a project of this size. As recommend by the AGC, two additional weeks were

provided for preparation of the best value submission. An additional two weeks was then

provided as requested by plan buyers. Therefore, a total of ten weeks has been provided

for bid preparation and best value submission.

Q70. Can alternate designs be allowed for the temporary soldier pile and lagging walls? I.E. can

a "Contractor Designed" temporary SOE bid item be utilized as opposed to the "Design

Provided" bid items listed?

A70. Alternate design will be may be allowed for the temporary soldier and lagging walls as

long as the alternate design complies with New York State DOT Standard Specifications

and design guides including, but not limited, to Chapter 4 of the Bridge Manual. The

Shields and Shoring item will not be considered an acceptable alternate design. Alternate

design must be designed and stamped by a New York State Professional Engineer.

Q71. For S1 noise barrier locations from STA 10+50 to 14+57, the existing grade is below the

proposed bottom of the noise barrier wall because the new retaining wall will be backfilled.

Will the drilled shafts be paid from the bottom of panel to the drilled shaft tip?

A71. The drilled shafts for S-1 shall be paid for from the bottom of the post connection, shown

on NBD-2, for the indicated length shown on the schedule for S-1, similar to that of the

other noise/visual barriers.










Q72. Is the length of casing (Lc) shown on the micropile summary chart a minimum or

maximum length on sheet SRB-60? If rock is encountered above the elevations shown on

the table, should the casing be terminated 1ft. into the competent rock?

A72. Lc is the minimum casing length for each substructure location. Embedment into

competent rock shall be 1’-0” minimum.

Q73. Can the tension and lateral micropile loads be provided?

A73. All loads necessary to design the piles are given on sheet 457, SRB60, notes 5 to 8.

Q74. Can the current bid date be postponed to allow more time to properly prepare the best value

approaches in detail?

A74. Please see the response to question 69 (A69.).

March 30, 2018

Q75. Several critical subcontractors are requesting additional time due to the magnitude and

complex nature of the project. These critical subs will have an impact on defining the

construction schedule which directly effects the preparation of the Best Value Submittal.

The subcontractors include several minority certified firms (MBE&WBE). For this reason

we respectfully request a two week postponement of the current letting date of April 11,

2018.

A75. The letting date has already been postponed once. Six week advertisement period is typical

for a project this size. As recommend by AGC, two additional weeks were provided for

preparation of the best value submission. An additional two weeks were provided as

requested by plan buyers. A total of ten weeks has been provided for bid preparation and

best value submission. No postponement of letting is being considered.

Q76. Contract Drawing SRB-OS1E (Plan Sheet #343), Span Structure Table, shows the substrate

type (soil/rock). Note 10 states that the substrate type shall be designated S (Soil) or R

(Rock) and total shaft length in rock shall be indicated in parenthesis. S.I.N. #1 shows the

following “R 19.7 (4.0)”. According to note #10, this would mean the total shaft length in

rock is 4.0ft? Or is the shaft length in rock 19.7ft?

A76. The total length of shaft is 19.7’. The length of shaft in rock is 4’.










Q77. In response to the NYSTA answer to Question # 30, GRES wall located at Ramp B North

Abutment as shown on plan sheet 428 does not required a welded wire form. It seems that

the designer’s original intent was for this GRES wall to be paid under bid item 554.3005 –

Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil System Wall – Other. However, this item was eliminated in

Amendment #2. Amendment #2 now calls for all GRES walls to be paid under item

554.3001 which includes welded wire forms. Please confirm that welded wire forms will

not be required for the GRES wall shown on Plan Sheet 428.

A77. No- Welded wire forms will be required at Ramp B north abutment

Q78. Contract Proposal page 41-A1 “SCHEDULE AND SUSPENSION OF WORK”, Section

A.1. states that lane closures on the Thruway shall only be allowed in accordance with the

traffic management table(s) available on the Thruway Authority website. NYSTA Lane

Closure Chart TA 619-30 (Sheet 18 of 24) “I-95: INT 21/22 – CT (MP 14.4 – MP 15.0)”

falls within the limits of this project. The chart calls for 3 lanes required to be maintained

Monday through Friday from 6AM to 8PM. However, starting in Stage 4 of the WZTC

Plans, I-95 NB and SB are reduced to 2 lanes utilizing temporary concrete barriers for

establishing work zones. Therefore, the configuration in Stage 4 and subsequent stages of

the project do not comply with the NYSTA Lane Closure Chart between MP 14.4 and MP

15.0.During the multiple stages when I-95 NB & SB will be restricted to 2 travel lanes, will

the Contractor be permitted to reduce traffic to a single lane during the time period when

the chart calls for 2 travel lanes to be maintained? For example, on Monday night the Chart

(Sheet 18 of 24) shows an allowable reduction in travel lanes from 3 lanes to 2 lanes NB

from 8PM to 12AM. Since I-95 is already reduced down to 2 travel

A78. The contractor will not be allowed to reduce traffic to a single lane during the time period

when the charts call for 2 travel lanes to be maintained. Lane closures shall only be

allowed in accordance with the traffic management table(s), unless indicated otherwise in

the contract documents.










Q79. In response to Amendment #2 3, Plan changes, #15 – Drawing SRB-48 was revised to

depict a rock socket with the top elevation of the rock socket starting at the proposed

bottom of the lagging panels. The previous version of this drawing showed the rock socket

starting from the existing approximate rock surface. However, the Retaining Wall 4 Pile

Schedule (table) on this drawing still shows the same values for the minimum rock socket

as well as the estimated pile tip. Please confirm that this is correct and that the value of

rock socket shown in the schedule is to be drilled from the bottom of panel. For example,

Pile Number 1 has an estimated pile tip of 30ft with an assumed rock elevation of 37ft

which would make the rock socket 7ft. However, the schedule calls for a 20ft minimum

rock socket for Pile Number 1 which would put the pile tip elevation at 17 ft. The 20ft

minimum rock socket seems excessive for this location compared to the design of the

Retaining Walls which only call for a 5 ft minimum rock socket. Please clarify the

minimum rock socket values required for Retaining Wall #4.

A79. The Contractor should adjust the pile tip elevations as required to satisfy the specified

minimum rock socket lengths. Drawing Number SRB-48, will be re-issued in Amendment

#4.

Q80. Per Dwg. No. GRD-8, it indicates that the concrete traffic wall for Item No. 606.30420825

– single slope concrete barrier wall (wide barrier pre-cast or cast-in-place) shall be

designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of New York. The detail on Dwg.

No. GRD-8 gives fixed dimensions (i.e. 1’ thick x 8’ wide footing, a 1’-4” wide toe, 12”

wide top, 36” buried, etc.) for the barrier unit. Please verify that a global analysis was

performed on the shape and dimensions shown are adequate and that the NYSPE design

required is for structural capacity of the precast traffic wall.

A80. Yes, a global analysis was performed on the shape and dimensions shown are adequate. A

NYSPE design is required is for structural capacity of the precast traffic wall.

Q81. Item 11 in Amendment 3 directs us to remove portions of the existing noise barrier

sections, including foundations. Are the foundation to be completely removed, or removed

to 2'-0" below final grade?

A81. The existing noise barrier foundations can be removed 2'-0" below final grade as long as

there are no conflicts with proposed work.









April 05, 2018

Q82. Please clarify the detail (precast concrete lagging end treatment/noise barrier panels) that

was added to drawingWAL-15 in addendum 3. Our interpretation is that only the exposed

noise wall panels (new item #552.230305 & #552.230306) on retaining walls #2 & #3 get

the haunched end treatment on the panels & that the below grade retaining wall/lagging

wall panels on these (2) walls as well as Ramp L wall do not require the haunch.

A82. Correct.

Q83. Also the requirement by note #9 on this same drawing, that architectural finish on the

backfilled/rear face of panels shall extend to 2’ below grade, does this apply to lagging wall

areas on these 3 walls that do not have a noise wall panel stacked on top of the lagging

wall/retaining wall.

A83. No. 2’ finish requirement is only for noise wall panels.

Q84. So does the Ramp L wall have this 2’ finish requirement on the rear face & also portions of

retaining wall #2 that do not have a noise wall above, is this 2’ finished area required.

A84. No

Q85. This same question would also apply to the haunched end treatment in these areas that do

not have a noise wall above the retaining wall.

A85. The haunched end treatment is only required for the noise wall portion. Per Note 8 on

WAL-17 (336 A3/950), the contractor can submit alternative methods for holding panel

tight against the pile flange to the Engineer for approval.

April 06, 2018

Q86. On drawing SRB-61 a CJP weld detail is shown for the bottom flanges slope transition.

Would it be acceptable to have those flanges bended?

A86. Bending the bottom flange plates in lieu of welding is acceptable, refer to section 15 of the

NYS Steel Construction Manual for details and methods.









April 06, 2018…continued

Q87. On drawing SRB-62, Full width bearing stiffener details, a 3/8'' fillet weld is shown

between the 1'' connection plate and bearing plate. On the same drawing, details for section

E-E & D-D are showing a CJP weld.

Can we get this clarified?

A87. The 3/8” fillet welds are intended for the vertical sides of the stiffener. The CJP welds are

for the bottom welds only. Drawing SRB-62, Sections D-D and E-E should show 3/8”

fillet welds on the vertical sides of the plate.

April 09, 2018

Q88. As part of Item No. 606.30330008 and per Dwg No. GRD-7 (Sheet No. 150/950), Sections

A-A, B-B and C-C it indicates #4 stirrups are required. Please provide the spacing of the

#4 stirrups.

Also please verify this 40’ long special transition section can be split into two (2) 20’ long

sections. If not, then it will weigh 73,500 lbs. (+/-) and may not be able to be delivered and

set in one 40’ long precast section. Verify what the joint if two sections are made would

be. Assuming a typical flat butt joint w/ closed cell foam like other precast barrier on this

project. Please confirm.

A88. Stirrup spacing shall be as specified on standard sheet 606-36. The barrier section can be

precast in two pieces with a typical barrier joint separating the pieces.