Ohio.gov State Agencies  |  Online Services
Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
  
  
  
  
  
Question
  
ODOTEric Kahligeric.kahlig@dot.state.oh.us614-387-2406
Trial run to check website.
  
KokosingJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Will the Department make available the mapping (microstation dgn drawings) and also the CAE design data files for the project?
  
KokosingJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
In reference to section 2.3 of the Selection Criteria, in Part A, do cover letter and table of contents count as part of the Part A number of maximum pages?
  
KokosingJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
In reference to section 2.4 of the Selection Criteria, does "25 sequentially numbered paper copies" mean pages within copies are sequentially numbered, or that each copy of the document is numbered 1 thru 25?  If the latter, does each page of each copy need to indicate the number copy that it is in?
  
Walsh Construction/HNTBMax Rowlandmrowland@walshgroup.com317-481-4935
1. What is the time and location for the Pre-SOQ meeting scheduled for October 14, 2010?
2. Regarding the SOQ Oral Interviews, who are the required attendees, where are the interviews, and how long will they be? Are we able to bring in any new material to the interview?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
What is the time and place of the Pre-SOQ Meeting scheduled for 10/14/10 per the Proposal?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Many of the technical studies completed as part of the NEPA process were included in “Appendix H” of the Environmental Assessment (EA).  Appendix H was published as a CD-ROM attachment to the EA and was not included in the files posted as part of Appendix 5 of the Project Scope.  Would it be possible for ODOT to also post this portion of the EA document?
  
Shelly and SandsAndy Leffleraleffler@shellyandsands.com3303516262
What is the time location for the Pre-SOQ Mtg on 14OCT10?

Also the link to view Pre-bid questions and answers does not seem to be working.  Thank You.
  
Shelly and SandsAndy Leffleraleffler@shellyandsands.com3303516262
Page 12 of the proposal includes restrictions on Organizational Conficts of Interest.  Where can DBT leaders confirm it's team members are not considered in conflict by ODOT?
  
KokosingJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Is there a Conceptual ITS plan available for the project?  We could not find one as part of the plans posted on ODOT ftp.  If so, please make available for use by the teams.
  
KokosingJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
In Part D of the SOQ requirements, item 6 it states "provide all contractor evaluations performed by owners (similar to ODOT's C-95 form) at the end of each project."  Please clarify the intent.  These evaluations can be many pages in length for each project.  If these are to be included, will they be counted against the total page count?  Do you want copies of the C-95's for the ODOT projects listed?
  
Smith PavingAaronasmith@spenorwalk.com4196684165
How is the excavation paid on the 1,149 LF of new type 6 curb? Are any elevations available for the proposed structures?
  
KokosingJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz6142281029
1. Section 12.3.1.  MSE Retaining Walls - Please clarify the scope statement that “no utilities shall be placed within the reinforced soil mass of any MSE wall”.   Does this refer only to electric, gas lines, cable, etc. or does it include storm drainage pipes” 
2. Section 10.2.4.  Note No. 10.  - Please clarify the scope statement that “all mainline shoulders shall be 12 feet wide. Mainline roadways are described in Section 10.3.1.” Please note  the following:
a. Does this statement apply to the right or left or both shoulders of the mainline (I-71; I-670 EB) in the direction of travel?
b. Referring to I-670 EB mainline as shown on the Step 7 Engineering (Roadway) plans, it appears that 10 foot-wide paved right shoulders are shown in the direction of travel. Please clarify the required shoulder width.
3. Section 10.3. – Table 10-1 – Design speed for I-670 EB mainline is listed as 60 mph, west of I-71 ramps (or 65 mph east of I-71 ramps). However, per the Step 7 Roadway Plans, the alignment is designed with a 55 mph design speed horizontal curve for I-670 EB mainline (Sta 504+13.42 to 568+90.46).
Please clarify appropriate design speed for I-670 EB mainline. Is the design as shown considered acceptable? If so will proponents be required to obtain a design exception?  
4. Section 10.3. – Table 10-1:  Provides Trucks 24-hr (B+C) percentages. Can you also please provide Td (Peak hour truck factor/percentage)?
5. Section 10.3.  Table 10-2:  - Ramps V5, V6, and Ramp X6 are functionally classified as “ramps” per Table 10-2, with a design speed of 45 mph. However, the roadway plans show Ramp X6 (I-670 EB to I-71 NB); Ramp X3 (I-670 EB to I-71 SB); and Ramp V3 (I-71 NB to I-670 WB) as directional ramps instead. Please clarify.
6. Section 10.4 Design Exceptions. Note 1 states that no additional design exceptions will be permitted other than as provided in Appendix RD-10.  However, the roadway plans show multiple locations with some design features (e.g. paved shoulders;  horizontal stopping sight distance, etc.) not meeting the design criteria per L&D and the Bridge Design Manual.  For example:
a. Ramp X4 (2-lane ramp).  Right paved shoulder in direction of travel is designed for 4 feet. Per ODOT L&D 10 feet is required. Please clarify.
b. I-670 EB mainline (Structure No. FRA-670-0433R – I-670 EB over Cleveland Ave), as designed provides horizontal stopping sight distance with equivalent speed less than 60 mph.
c. We have compiled a list of other locations with similar substandard features.  Please clarify what is expected of proponents with respect to design exceptions in the Step 7 plans as well as design exceptions of a similar or identical nature that might be included through design refinements.
  
Shelly and SandsAndy Leffleraleffler@shellyandsands.com3303516262
With respect to the SOQ submittal:

Are there any specific requirements or preferences for the type of binding to be used?  Is GBC acceptable?

If a back cover is included, does it count against the required page count?

In Part D, Item 6 of the selection criteria, the item states “For projects listed on the form D1 list claims in excess of $100,000 and describe the amount and resolution.  Also provide all contractor evaluations performed by owners (similar to ODOT’s C-95 form) at the end of each project”.  During the SOQ meeting, it was suggested that as an alternative we include the C-95 forms and other testimonials in the Appendix section with the Resumes.  The Evaluation Criteria doesn’t list an Appendix section as the resumes are now to be included in Section F Staff Resumes.  Can you please specify where these evaluation forms should be included in the SOQ? It was also indicated that the evaluation forms would not be counted against the page count, please confirm.

Page 26 of the Proposal, PN 090 states that front cover should indicate the percentage of work that must be self performed by the bidder.  The front cover does not indicate any percentage.  Also, how are the design fees factored into this computation? They will be substantial, but have no work type.




  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Following a review of the CAD files provided by ODOT, several Mircostation DGN and GIS files used to develop the Step 7 Engineering plans were not included. Please clarify and provide CAD files for the following discipline task areas:

1. Environmental – Please provide the GIS files used to generate the graphics, as contained in Appendix EN-2, EN-3 and EN-05.
2. Right-of-way –Please provide the sheet files as contained in Appendix  RW-01.
3. Geotechnical – Please provide the sheet files as contained in Appendix GE-02 and GE-03B.
4. Drainage –Please provide the files used to generate the graphics, as contained in Appendix DR-02, Appendix 1 Exhibits: Sheet 1 and 2.
5. Structures –Please provide the files for the Bridge Type Studies (Site Plan, Transverse sections, etc.), as contained in Appendix ST-03.
6. Aesthetics and Enhancements – Please provide the files for Aesthetics and Enhancements (landscaping plans, lighting plans, etc.), as contained in Appendix AE-02.
7. Traffic Control – Please provide the files for the traffic control, as contained in Appendix TC-01, TC-04, TC-05, TC-10, TC-11, TC-16A and TC-16B.
8. Geopak – Please provide the roadway cross section input data files including criteria files used to generate the conceptual cross sections, as contained in Appendix RD-03.
9. Aerial Photography – Please provide the aerial photography of project area.”
  
KokosingJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Please clarify the Pre-qualification requirements for the Independent Quality Firm.
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
SOQ Oral Interview

As we have team members needing to make travel arrangements, what is the exact time and place of the SOQ Oral Interview?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
SOQ Oral Interview

Will ODOT provide questions in advance that they plan to ask each team for the SOQ Oral Interview?
  
Lane/Mahan JVJim Huiejthuie@laneconstruct.com703 572 8285 extn 106
In reference to “Design Build Selection Criteria” Section 5.0 Oral Interviews, paragraph 5.1 Content. Would it be possible to supply the DBT’s the “specific questions” that will be asked by ODOT referenced in this section prior to the Oral Interview. This will allow us to properly prepare our response.
Also please verify the time and date of this Oral Interview.
Thank You
  
Lane/Mahan JVJim Huiejthuie@laneconstruct.com703 572 8285 extn 106
In reference to “Design Build Selection Criteria” Section 5.0 Oral Interviews, paragraph 5.1 Content. Would it be possible to supply the DBT’s the “specific questions” from ODOT referenced in this section prior to the SOQ Oral Interview. This will allow us to properly prepare the response.
Also please verify the time and date of the SOQ Oral Interview.
Thank You
  
Shelly and SandsAndy Leffleraleffler@shellyandsands.com330 351-6262
The Selection Criteria, Section 5.0, states that DBT's may be asked to perform interviews.  In order to be pre-pared we have the following questions:
1) How will we be notified of the interview request?
2) How will we know if we should be prepared to make the short formal presentation that "may be permitted" as referenced in the SC, Section 5?  Can any clafification be offered as to the intent and format of the interview and or presentation if expected?
3) Will ODOT provide questions in advance of the Monday interview to allow the DBT's time to perpare a responsible response?

  
KokosingJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Once the site is selected for the SOQ Oral Interviews, please clarify what the layout of the room will be.  This will aid in our preparation.  Will audio visual equipment be availalbe for the teams to use?
  
Walsh ConstructionMax Rowlandmrowland@walshgroup.com317-481-4935
For the SOQ Oral Interviews on November 15, 2010, please confirm the location and interview time for each of the Teams that have submitted an SOQ.

Thanks
  
Shelly & SandsBob Huntbobh@shellyandsands.com614-444-5100
ODOT's web site has Addendum 2 posted but not Addendum 1
  
Shelly & SandsBob Huntbobh@shellyandsands.com614-444-5100
The notes on sheets 765 & 766 offer the option of not supplying a RxR protective policy.  This is in conflict with the proposal notes.  Which will apply, the proposal or the plans?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Addendum 3 revised the Selection Criteria document to eliminate the Pre-ATC Meetings.  These meetings would have provided an invaluable and timesaving confidential discussion between ODOT and the DBT of the proposed concepts.   The public forum for pre-bid questions is not the proper tool for proprietary/original concepts.   The communication will likely be so guarded so as to not give away the idea, that this process will not be efficient or effective.  Will ODOT consider putting these meetings back in or allowing another venue for confidential, ATC related questions and answers?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes - RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
DGN Files for Bridge Type Study

Will ODOT please provide DGN files for the bridge drawings included in the Abbreviated Structure Type Study that was included in the RFP?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes - RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Pavement Design Report

Will ODOT please provide the pavement design report including ESAL counts and subgrade CBR values assumed for the recommended pavement sections included in “PV-01 Pavement Composition - Mainline Ramps & Directional Roadways.pdf” in the RFP?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Page 11 of the Project Proposal requires that a PN013 DBE Affidavit be included in the “Price Proposal – Acknowledgements/Miscellaneous” submission.  PN013 as provided on Page 24 of the Proposal does not provide the affidavit form.  Since the DBE firms have not actually performed any work up to this point, is it even necessary to submit this form?  If the affidavit is required, please provide the proper form.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Request for dgn files

Could you please make available the following Microstation dgn files

• Appendix RD-04 – Jack Gibbs Parking Lane
• Appendix RD-05 – Curb ramp Type and Location

Thanks
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
In the revised 104.02B Differing Site Conditions, found on page 70 of the Proposal, it is stated “The first $250,000 of direct costs and associated impact will be the responsibility of the DBT”.  We read this to be the DBT will be responsible for the first $250,000 for the project (events cumulative), not per instance.  Is this understanding correct?
  
Walsh ConstructionMax Rowlandmrowland@walshgroup.com317-481-4935


1. Section 6.7.1.2 refers to Appendix UT-06 for AEP distribution proposed plans.  UT-06 only states that the relocation plans are under development.  Please confirm when plans will be available.
2. Please provide the following missing raster files for the microtunnel information recently posted.
• M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Basemaps\DXF sticks\dlz b-001-0.pdf]
• [M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Basemaps\DXF sticks\dlz b-002-0.pdf]
• [M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Basemaps\DXF sticks\dlz b-003-0.pdf]
• [M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Basemaps\DXF sticks\dlz b-004-0.pdf]
• [M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Basemaps\DXF sticks\dlz b-005-0.pdf]
• [M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Basemaps\DXF sticks\dlz b-006-0.pdf]
• [M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Basemaps\DXF sticks\dlz b-007-0.pdf]
• [M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Basemaps\DXF sticks\dlz b-008-0.pdf]
• [M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Basemaps\DXF sticks\dlz b-009-0.pdf]
• [M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Basemaps\DXF sticks\dlz b-010-0.pdf]
• [M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Boring Program\Final Logs\CTL boring logs.pdf]
• [M:\proj\0221\1004\01\geotechnical\Microtunnel\Basemaps\DXF sticks\dlz b-287-1 log.pdf]
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
The DBT must employ an Independent Quality Firm (IQF) who will be responsible for verifying and documenting all quality related data for the Department including:
A. Design
B. Testing
C. Inspection
D. Geotechnical investigations
E. Environmental activities
F. Maintenance of Traffic plans
G. Survey Verification
H. Computer database of materials testing results

We would like clarification regarding the following points:
1. What is considered ‘quality related data’ with regards to Geotechnical investigations (section 2.1 element D) and what would be considered for verification and documentation for a geotechnical monitor?
2. If the IQF inspection and testing efforts are considered the definitive verification and documentation for acceptance of the work, why is it required for the PQC staff to be qualified and experienced to the same level as IQF staff? Results of PQC tests are to be used by the contractor to control the work up to the point of acceptance are of little value relative to the final acceptance of the work. Only the tests performed by the IQF should be considered valid for acceptance. Requiring duplicate certified testing organizations appear to be duplication of effort that should be avoided.
3. Please clarify what is considered “Point of Acceptance” for the various products that will be incorporated into the project. For example, reinforcing steel, concrete, granular embankment, asphalt, electric wiring, light standards, traffic signals, topsoil, plant material (not an exhaustive list but instead a sampling of ‘products’)

  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
The DBT must employ an Independent Quality Firm (IQF) who will be responsible for verifying and documenting all quality related data for the Department including:
A. Design
B. Testing
C. Inspection
D. Geotechnical investigations
E. Environmental activities
F. Maintenance of Traffic plans
G. Survey Verification
H. Computer database of materials testing results

We would like clarification regarding the following points:
1. What is considered ‘quality related data’ with regards to Geotechnical investigations (section 2.1 element D) and what would be considered for verification and documentation for a geotechnical monitor?
2. If the IQF inspection and testing efforts are considered the definitive verification and documentation for acceptance of the work, why is it required for the PQC staff to be qualified and experienced to the same level as IQF staff? Results of PQC tests are to be used by the contractor to control the work up to the point of acceptance are of little value relative to the final acceptance of the work. Only the tests performed by the IQF should be considered valid for acceptance. Requiring duplicate certified testing organizations appear to be duplication of effort that should be avoided.
3. Please clarify what is considered “Point of Acceptance” for the various products that will be incorporated into the project. For example, reinforcing steel, concrete, granular embankment, asphalt, electric wiring, light standards, traffic signals, topsoil, plant material (not an exhaustive list but instead a sampling of ‘products’)

  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
1. On page 16-9, under section 16.4.7, the note states that “work zone pavement markings shall be reapplied at least once per year or as directed by the Engineer.  Reapplication of work zone pavement markings shall be performed prior to each over-winter condition.”  It would be less subjective if the department would remove the “or as directed by the engineer” note and refer back to specification 614.11 which defines the acceptability and expected duration of the work zone pavement markings. 

2. Please clarify note 16.9.3 in the project scope that defines the lane closure policy for Cleveland avenue.  Currently, the note says the DBT may have lane closures during the designated allowable time frames at a rate of $250 per lane per day (June 1 – September 30) and $500 per lane per day (October 1 – May 31), and outside of the designated allowable time frames at a rate of $300 per hour per lane.  Is it ODOT’s intent to charge a lane rental rate inside the 2-week period to widen Cleveland Avenue?


3. Upon review of  the table in Section 16.4.5 about Message boards we have the following question:
a. For all the places designated as ADV in that chart there is nothing that states how many days in advance the boards are to be placed.  Please clarify.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Considering that size of this project, will ODOT consider adding an allowance for the Construction Sediment & Erosion Control where the Erosion Control items would be paid for at the established SS832 unit prices?  This has been done on other ODOT Design/Build projects and helps eliminate potential conflicts of interest during construction.

  
Walsh ConstructionMax Rowlandmrowland@walshgroup.com317-481-4935
1. Per Section 1.8, please provide the engineering plans for Project 3 – I-71 East Trench.
2. The current design shows 12’ shoulder on left and 4’ shoulder on right of the EB I-670 fly-over structure. Please verify FHWA/ODOT approval of this bridge section.  If not, please clarify the requirements.
3. Do the scope requirements in Section 10.2.3 Item 2 overrule scope requirements in Section 10.2.4 Item 8?
  
CTL Engineering, Inc.Dave Breitfellerdbreitfeller@ctleng.com614-276-8123
Is there a list of firms that have previously worked for the Department on this project? Is there a conflict-of-interest waiver process?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
1. Section 11.4.5 of the Project Scope dictates the DBT’s are to show in plan the Maintenance of Traffic provisions necessary to complete the microtunneling operations.   It then refers to Section 16.8 for ramp closures when developing these plans.  Section 16.8 provides no information south of Broad Street for use in completing this plan.  Please clarify.
2. Section 11.4.5 of the scope, last paragraph states the DBT’s are to verify the tunnel alignment does not conflict with the proposed structures in future East Trench project and East Interchange project.  Due to the limited time frames pre-bid and expected review times do the verification, we assume this will be done post-bid, with necessary changes addressed at that point.  Please verify.
  
CTL EngineeringDave Breitfellerdbreitfeller@ctleng.com614-276-8123
Will SS 898 be utilized on this project?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes - RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Bridge FRA-71-18.31(R) & I-71NB Limit of Work

Section 12.2 of the Project Scope indicates that “all bridges in this project shall be completely new construction, except for bridge number FRA-71-1835L.” This question relates to the adjacent bridge and the limits of work on I-71 NB.  The record plans shows that bridge FRA-71-18.31 (R) carries I-71 NB across Jack Gibbs, and extends approximately from station 163+25 to 164+60.  Table 10-4 in the Project Scope indicates the approximate project limits on I-71 NB extend to Station 174+49 which includes this bridge. However, the Step 7 plan drawings show no work on this bridge, and the profile drawing for I-71 NB shows work finishing at station 163+19.  Please clarify the work limits on I-71 NB and the disposition of bridge FRA-71-18.31 (R).
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes - RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Microtunnel layout south of FRA-71-17.76

We request any proposed or conceptual plans for the future reconstruction projects (Columbus Crossroads Projects 3 & 2) FRA-71-17.14 and FRA-70-14.48 as the microtunnel portion for the FRA-71-17.76 work extends into these roadway contracts. We need these plans so that the microtunnel design we are performing under this proposal does not conflict with future projects.
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes - RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Storm sewer files

Appendices DR-03 and Appendix DR-04 include preliminary storm sewer and microtunnel information and design calculations that are the output from three software programs, ODOT's CDSS, Bentley PondPak and XP-SWMM. Will ODOT please provide the electronic data files used by these programs that were used in preparing the preliminary drainage design?

In addition to the XP-SWMM data files, would ODOT also export the XP-SWMM model files to facilitate analysis with EPA swmm5?

Will ODOT also provide calculations related to inlet spacing and ditch flow as represented in the preliminary design?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes - RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Pay Item Definition and Scope of Work

The last page of the Proposal (p. 88) lists ten Pay Items with an abbreviated description. We do not understand what work should be in pay items with descriptions of “…BR Eligible Bridges”, “…100% City of Columbus Items”, “…New Bridges”, etc. Please provide a complete description of each pay item along with a scope of work that is to be included in the price for that Pay Item.
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Bid Form

Please provide the Bid Form to be supplied by the Department as referenced in Proposal PN 019.
  
E T ELECTRIC COFRITZ TRESSOFRITZT@ET-ELECT.COM419-726-6466
1.) Who has soil boring information?
2.) Detail H shows 10 inch diameter conduit. 6" is largest electrical conduit. Is conduit steel or pvc and is using plumbing pipe accecptable?
3.) What size handholes required?
4.) Is there any other requirement on coaz cable other than 0.875 inch solid aluminum (non-braided) jacked coax cable?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
10.5.2 Roadway Design

C.  For all curved alignments, horizontal stopping sight distance shall be provided in accordance with ODOT L&D, Volume 1, Figure 201-2E. Where necessary to attain required sight distance for roadways with unequal shoulder widths, the wider shoulder shall be placed on the inside of the curve. Additionally, if necessary to attain the required horizontal sight distance, the inside shoulder shall be widened to a minimum of 12 feet”

Does this mean, for example, for a 2-lane directional ramp the wider 10ft right shoulder (in direction of travel) can be placed in the inside curve (left side in directional of travel), and the narrower shoulder of 4 ft can be placed on the right side (in direction of travel).  Would this be considered acceptable or is a design exception for right shoulder of 4 ft required? Please clarify.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
We cannot locate the existing retaining wall plans for the following locations: Ramp from I-71 SB to Spring Street and Ramp from I-71 NB to Hamilton Avenue.  Please provide these plans or tell us what existing plan set they are located in.

  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com4
Storm Sewer Files - Followup

The following question was asked on December 23, 2010 “Appendices DR-03 and Appendix DR-04 include preliminary storm sewer and microtunnel information and design calculations that are the output from three software programs, ODOT's CDSS, Bentley PondPak and XP-SWMM. Will ODOT please provide the electronic data files used by these programs that were used in preparing the preliminary drainage design? In addition to the XP-SWMM data files, would ODOT also export the XP-SWMM model files to facilitate analysis with EPA swmm5? Will ODOT also provide calculations related to inlet spacing and ditch flow as represented in the preliminary design?

The response was “Updated files are located at -> ftp://ftp.dot.state.oh.us/pub/Contracts/Fra71-670/RFP/, in the PBQ-Files directory.”

We reviewed the files on the ftp site on January 4, 2010 and did not find any updated files.  Please confirm the location for the updated files.
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Colored Concrete

Project Scope section 12.2 states that “colored concrete shall be used in all exposed bridge elements…excluding superstructure deck concrete. All surfaces shall be sealed with non-epoxy sealer…” Do you intend that a powdered coloring agent be added to the ready mix concrete at a premium cost of $30 to $50 per cubic yard (potential additional cost of $1,200,000 over normal ready mix concrete for the project) or do you intend that the concrete be colored using a tint in the specified non epoxy sealer.
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Parapet Concrete Coloring

The last sentence of Project Scope section 12.2.14 states that “Superstructure parapets shall be tinted and sealed per section 12.2.” Does the Department intend that the non-epoxy sealer be tinted with the appropriate color or that a powdered coloring agent be added to the ready mix concrete at a premium cost of $30 to $50 per cubic yard?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Painting of Prestressed Concrete Beams

Project Scope section 12.2.4 states that “If prestressed concrete I-beam superstructures are used, they shall be painted….” ODOT BDM figure 302.1.4.3-2 shows the facia girder side and bottom only receiving a sealer. Does the Department require that all the prestressed beams be painted or only the facia girder?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Limit of Work I-71 NB

The following question was asked on December 23, 2010 “Bridge FRA-71-18.31(R) & I-71NB Limit of Work - Section 12.2 of the Project Scope indicates that “all bridges in this project shall be completely new construction, except for bridge number FRA-71-1835L.” This question relates to the adjacent bridge and the limits of work on I-71 NB. The record plans shows that bridge FRA-71-18.31 (R) carries I-71 NB across Jack Gibbs, and extends approximately from station 163+25 to 164+60. Table 10-4 in the Project Scope indicates the approximate project limits on I-71 NB extend to Station 174+49 which includes this bridge. However, the Step 7 plan drawings show no work on this bridge, and the profile drawing for I-71 NB shows work finishing at station 163+19. Please clarify the work limits on I-71 NB and the disposition of bridge FRA-71-18.31 (R).”
The response was “Clarified in Addenda #4.”
Addenda #4 did clarify the work required on Bridge FRA-71-18.31 (R), but did not clarify the limit of work on I-71 NB.  There are no horizontal or vertical changes proposed for the roadway north of station 163+19, yet table 10-4 lists the project limit as 174+49.  Does the project scope require that this 1,100’ of roadway be reconstructed in-place?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Work Limits – Jack Gibbs Boulevard

Table 10-4 indicates the limits of work extend from Station 72+00 to 78+00.  Section 10.3.3 paragraph L requires that “an 8’ wide parking lane with 7’ wide sidewalk adjacent to the curb shall be provided along the south side of Jack Gibbs Boulevard east of Cleveland Avenue. See Appendix RD-04 for conceptual layout.”  The proposed lane extends from station 50+73 to 55+50 on Jack Gibbs Boulevard.  Please clarify the limits of work on Jack Gibbs Boulevard.
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Existing Structure Plans – North High St Bridge Cap

Would ODOT please provide copies of the plans for the North High Street Bridge cap over I-670 in Columbus?  This plan would provide a good example of how utility conduits were incorporated on that cap project. 
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Appendix AE-02 Spring/Long St Landscape  CADD Files

Could you please make available the following MicroStation DGN files?

• Appendix AE-02 - Spring and Long Street Bridge Landscape Enhancement Plan
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
There are several references in the contract documents to the Retaining Wall Type Studies.  We have been unable to locate these in the Appendices.  Please provide the Retaining Wall Type Studies.
  
Walsh ConstructionMax Rowlandmrowland@walshgroup.com317-481-4935
1.  The drainage exhibits provided in Appendix DR-03 show existing storm sewer networks.  77369BU003.dgn appears to be missing which contains much of the existing storm and combined systems.  Please provide this .dgn file.

2. Please confirm the design criteria and reconstruction of the 670 bikeway on the North Side of Jack Gibbs Blvd from Sta. 74+00 to 76+00.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
On page PS 16-3 under the I-670 Westbound Ramps it says that the Jack Gibbs/Cleveland ramp to I-670 WB shall remain open at all times.  On page PS 16-18 in paragraph 16.8.4.2 it says that the Jack Gibbs/Cleveland ramp to I-670 WB may be closed during construction for a maximum of 90 days.  Please clarify which note is correct by addendum.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Page 10 of the proposal states that the Department will only accept a handwritten “Price Proposal – Bid” on a hard copy form supplied by the Department.  Can the Department provide this form electronically so that the DBT can type the bid into the form to eliminate misinterpretations of handwriting in the hard copy?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Q: Page 10 of the Proposal requests that bidders include the following information in their bids:  3) Bridge Renderings.  There are multiple bridges on this project.  Are there specific bridges where renderings are required, are renderings required for each bridge or is the Department looking for a sampling for the various type structures?  Please clarify.
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
MOT and Construction Access Drawing Scale

Design Build Selection Criteria, Section 4.2.A, modified by Addendum #3, states that phased drawings showing construction sequencing of buildable units and method of maintaining traffic for each phase have a scale=40 to 1 (preferred) on 11” by 17” plan sheets.  We estimate that 45 individual drawings would be required to cover the entire interchange area at 40 to 1 scale, which would make understanding and evaluation of the proposal quite complicated.  Would it be acceptable to provide overall drawings at a scale=100 to 1 or a scale= 200 to 1, on 11”X17” plan sheets, with details of major tapers and shifts at a scale =40 to 1 on 11”X17” plan sheets?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
On page PS 5-5 of the scope, in the first commitment box, the note reads “The implementation of any detour routes or closures within or adjacent to the Italian Village historic district, Fort Hayes historic district, Shiloh Baptist Church, Jefferson Avenue historic district, Hamilton Park historic district, and the Ohio Farm Bureau offices is not permitted prior approval of the conceptual Maintenance of Traffic plan by the Department’s Office of Environmental Services – Cultural Resources Section.”  Some of the detours provided in Appendix MT-03 detour traffic through these areas/historic districts already.  On what basis will the DOES-CRS  evaluate the detour routes and closures for Approval?  Please provide more information.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Section 12.2 of the Scope states that Bridge FRA-71-1835L, at a minimum, shall  be widened and receive a new reinforced concrete deck.  The structure type studies at this location show a deck widening, not a deck replacement over the existing beams.  Please clarify if the existing deck is to be replaced for the full width of the bridge.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Section 6.8.1.3 of the scope states that there is an existing City of Columbus Division of Telecommunications aerial facility along the south side of Long Street, attached to utility poles owned by AEP.  Per the scope this line is to be relocated by the DBT.  The utility matrix in Appendix UT-01 lists a line at this location as owned by and relocated by AT&T.  No city telecommunications line or AEP facility is listed in the matrix at this location.  Please clarify this discrepancy.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
There was a prebid question asked on 12/14/2010 14:55 regarding the PN013 DBE Affidavit that is required to be submitted with the bid.  The answer to this question provided a link to a form that does not appear to apply to a prebid situation.  Is the affidavit that is required to be submitted with the bid simply a statement generated by the DBT that we will comply with the DBE requirements for the project?  If not, what is the required information or how do we apply the form the Department provided a link to?

  
BEAVER EXCAVATINGSTAN ALLENsallen@beaverexcavating.com330-353-3703
Will granular backfill be required for the 8" waterline Bid Item 0081 that is under the shared use path as well as the 5' sidewalk. The waterline notes or plans do not address this.
  
Huffs TruckingGeorge Huffhuffstrucking@hotmail.com514-554-4378
Please give me call if you need trucking on the job
  
Mack Industries IncJohn Herl jherl@mackconcrete.com419-353-7081
The back face of the noise wall is required to be coated with the approved graffiti guard system.  Is the specified coating material to be sacrificial or permanent?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
1. In the I-670 Eastbound utility matrix (Appendix UT-01), the stations appear to be 300+00 different from the Step 7 plans.  Please confirm that they should run from 510+95-554+47 instead of 210+95-254+47. 
2. In the I-670 Eastbound utility matrix (Appendix UT-01), the AEP line at station 213+06 (presumably 513+06) under Cleveland Ave is shown to remain.  In Appendix UT-02, the matrices for Ramps V3, X2, X3, and X5 all show this line as being relocated by AEP.  Please clarify this discrepancy.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Section 12.3.3 Other Retaining Wall Types states “No tie-backs or foundation elements will be permitted outside of the permanent Right of Way.”  Is the “permanent Right of Way” listed here the “Ex L/A RW” or the “Ex R/W” shown on the Right of Way Drawings in Appendix RW-01?
  
Walsh ConstructionMax Rowlandmrowland@walshgroup.com317-481-4935
1. The Design-Build scope for the project states that: All other bridges (carrying more than a single lane of traffic) with stringer/girder type superstructure shall have a minimum of five (5) stringer/girder lines when completed.  However, the Group XI Part Studies Part 2 Final document included with Appendix 12 Structures, ST-03 Bridge Type Studies, for the EB670 flyover ramp structure carrying two lanes of traffic shows a superstructure with four (4) girder lines.  Please confirm that the above deviation from the scope is not intended to allow for a design exception.
  
ohio structuresmark shutrumpmark@ohiostructures.com330-533-0084 (x122)
Framing plan 4 of 4 for structure 15 (CUY-21-0909) requires some clarification... Is it correct to interpret that all end crossframes will be replaced, including the ones extending to the fascia beams?  Is it correct to interpret that the angle size for components will be L-4*4*3/8 (as required by GSD-96 for a 54" girder depth)?  If both are true, then the weight shown on sheet 13 quantity table will need to be revised?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
RE: FUEL PRICE ADJUSTMENT ITEMS.
The project proposal contains PN520 Fuel Price Adjustment, intended to minimize risk to the contractor due to fuel price fluctuations that may occur during the contract.  The fuel price adjustment calculation is based upon the sum of quantities of completed and accepted work for specified items.  PN520 typically includes items 203 and 204 Earthwork.  However the proposal note for this project does not include 203 and 204 Earthwork, which will represent significant items of work on this project.  Please include items 203 and 204 Earthwork in the list of items that are eligible for fuel price adjustments for this project.

RE: FUEL PRICE ADJUSTMENTS.
The project proposal contains PN520 Fuel Price Adjustment, intended to minimize risk to the contractor due to fuel price fluctuations that may occur.  The fuel price adjustment calculation is based upon the sum of quantities of completed and accepted work for specified items.  Since the contract for this project is of the design-build method, the majority of items of work are paid as lump sum rather than a specific unit of measure.  Please verify that the basis of calculation and threshold quantities for this project will be based upon the quantities provided by the contractor’s design consultant in the general summary of the approved construction plans.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
1. Are drilled shafts, if used, subject to the requirements of the mass concrete specification?
2. Scope section 12.2 states that colored concrete shall be used in all exposed bridge elements excluding superstructure deck concrete.  Section 12.2.12 states that colored concrete shall be used in superstructure and exposed substructure elements.  There is a conflict in these two statements.  Is colored concrete to be used in deck concrete?
3. One of the alternates in the bridge type studies for Bridge FRA-071-1784B uses concrete box beams.  However section 12.2.4 of the Scope prohibits the use of box beams.  Please clarify if box beams are allowed at this structure.
  
Kokosing Construction Co, IncKevin Ohlkao@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Please clarify that concrete diaphragms poured integrally with the deck do not need to utilize the integrally colored concrete.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
ODOT’s answer to the pre-bid question asked on 01/13/2011 16:25 concerning the scale of the MOT plan sheets was that the 40 to 1 scale is preferred.  Will ODOT allow the DBT to place a full set of MOT drawings at the 40 to 1 scale in the appendix with the 200 to 1 drawings in the Tech Proposal?
  
Wanner Metal WorxRandy Archerrja@wmworx.com740-369-4034
Plan sheet 9/19 lists approved fabricators for the benches and trellis.  We would like to be approved for this work.  We are an ODOT approved fab shop.  Is there anything else we need to submit to get approved.
Thanks
  
Kokosing Construction Co, IncKevin Ohlkao@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
The language in the scope regarding ‘colored tinted concrete’ could be construed as ambiguous.  Will the contractor be allowed to apply any type of surface treatment that tints the concrete?  If the Department expects the contractor to use an integral pigment that is mixed into the concrete by the concrete supplier to meet the required Federal Color Standard #17778, then the language in the scope should be modified to specifically require this.
  
Kokosing Construction Co, IncKevin Ohlkao@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Section 12.3.1 of the Scope states that no utilities shall be placed within the reinforced soil mass of any MSE wall.  Due to the numerous ramps that sit on retaining walls, some storm drainage will need to be placed within the MSE wall backfill.  There is no other way to capture the drainage on parts of this project without using some inlets, catch basins, and storm runs within the MSE wall backfill.  Will the Department modify this requirement?
  
Kokosing Construction Co, IncKevin Ohlkao@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
In Section 14.3.2.2 of the Scope, Table 14.1 lists elements of the project that the DBT will present options for.  Other parts of the Scope are very specific regarding the color schemes for elements of the project.  What does the Department expect the DBT to present per Section 14.3.2.2 in regards to color schemes since the colors for the project appear to be prescribed elsewhere in the Scope?
  
Kokosing Construction Co, IncKevin Ohlkao@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Section 12.2.16 of the Scope states that fencing that complies with the Spring Street and Long Street Bridge Enhancement Plans (AE-02) is required on top of a single slope barrier atop the retaining walls south of Spring Street. 
1. Is the requirement to use fencing as shown on Sheets 59 and 60 of Appendix AE-02? 
2. If so, how is this to be mounted to a single slope barrier?  The details in AE-02 show the fence mounted to the front of the wall, which will cause a hazard on the single slope barrier.  Mounting it to the face will also not work due to the slope of the barrier.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
1. A pre-bid question was asked at 15:38 12/22/10 concerning the maintenance of traffic provisions for the microtunneling operations.  Addendum #5 attempted to resolve the issue by adding weekend closures of I-71 southbound to I-70 eastbound and the ramp from I-70 westbound to I-71 northbound may be reduced to one lane during weekends.  The microtunnel is not constructible using weekend closures.  Due to the area needed to perform the work and the duration at each pit, lane closures on I-71 and affected ramps will be required for several months at each location.  Please revise the MOT restrictions for the prescribed microtunneling operations.


2. NB to WB Question:
16.10.2 gives the improvements needed when I-71 northbound ramp to I-670 westbound is closed for more than 120 days.  There is no mention of what needs to happen after the detour is removed.  Is the DBT required to mill-and-fill the detour route according to 16.4.7?

3. Detour Route:
16.4.10  says that once the detour is removed and traffic returned to its normal pattern, the detour route shall be restored to a condition that is equivalent to that which existed prior to its use for this purpose.  If traffic is shifted from its normal traffic pattern, is a mill-and-fill required per section 16.4.7 to be considered an equivalent condition?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
The project scope document, section 2.6.1.10, Table 2-3, requires NICET Level III in Highway Construction for PCC Paving and Structural Concrete Inspectors. This level of certification (or higher) is only held by five Ohio residents. Obtaining this certification level requires approximately three test sessions which are offered quarterly. Would an industry recognized certification such as ACI Transportation Construction Inspector or licensed Ohio professional engineer be considered equivalent?
  
Walsh ConstructionMax Rowlandmrowland@walshgroup.com317-481-4935

NFPA 502 Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways, 2011 Edition requires engineering analysis of emergency ventilation and supporting egress analysis to demonstrate that a tenable environment can be maintained for evacuation phase for structures over 300 feet. Has an analysis been completed and accepted by authority having jurisdiction and does ODOT have this information available for structure FRA-71-1784B?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
In regards to the Biditems for the project, in the “Reference Item Descriptions” section of the Proposal it states “4/5 Item Special – Misc.  Approximately 50% of Non-BR Eligible Bridge Costs:”, however, under “Pay Items”, Line Number  4 is described as “Special – Misc:  Approximately 50% of New Bridge Costs”.  Please clarify.
  
Kokosing Construction Co, IncKevin Ohlkao@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Addendum 4 added rehab work on Structure FRA-71-1835R. Is painting of the existing structural steel on this bridge required?  If so, the scope should be modified accordingly.
  
Walsh ConstructionMax Rowlandmrowland@walshgroup.com317-481-4935
Section 12.2.2 Substructures of the project scope states: “Steel box beam pier caps are not permitted.”

However, Section 12.2.4 Superstructure of the project scope states: “Structure designs that require fracture critical members are not permitted except for straddle bent.”
 
A Fracture Critical member implies that the straddle bent beam, which would be separated from the substructure by bearings, could potentially be designed with steel members.  If that is the case, can the straddle bent beam be designed to be made out of steel plate sections?

  
Kokosing Construction Co, IncKevin Ohlkao@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Pages 88-89 of Appendix AE-01 show a Parking Lot Screening/Retaining Wall along Cleveland Ave.  Appendix AE-01 is supposed to be general in nature, and the DBT is to follow the intent of its recommendations since it is a reference document.  Since this area is specific in nature, and does not apply to the rest of the corridor, is the DBT required to construct this element?  If so, the scope should be modified accordingly.
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Addendum # 5 deleted Scope 16.2.8.5 which addressed the I-71 Southbound to Broad Street ramp.  The note in the Addendum states that it is ODOT’s intent that this ramp is to remain open at all times.  Scope 10.3.4 requires the DBT to build transition pavement at the South end of the project to transition the proposed profile grade back to existing grade, which is approximately a 6’ grade difference.  This is shown in Appendix GN-01 (Contract Document).   The geometry, width and work limits on the existing I-71 Southbound to Broad Street ramp will not allow part width construction to maintain this ramp at all times, therefore this ramp will need to closed a minimum of 14 days to complete the transition pavement.  Please address this issue.

  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Prebid Question #49 permits the DBT to include 200:1 scale maintenance of traffic drawings in the technical proposal and include the 40:1 scale maintenance of drawings in an appendix.  Providing 200:1 scale MOT drawings in the technical proposal will still require a substantial number of pages (likely 15 – 20 pages) that will be counted against the 75 page limit.  Will ODOT allow 400:1 or 600:1 scale MOT drawings in the technical proposal provided the MOT schemes can be clearly shown?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
If a proposal is submitted that proposes geometric changes that would require a modification to the IMS or is inconsistent with the basic configuration and allowable adjustments, will that proposal be deemed non-responsive?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
The current scope makes no allowances for needed lane closures for Eastbound traffic coming from the northern I670WB/I71 interchange into the merge area with I-670EB.  Will a lane closure be allowed to this EB flow for the construction of new pavement on I-670EB from 562+00 to 574+00?
  
Kokosing Construction Co, IncKevin Ohlkao@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
The color specified for the tinted structure concrete is a lighter shade than normal ready-mix concrete.  According to multiple suppliers, to achieve this color they will need to use white cement as well as use colored pigment in the concrete.  This is going to add at least $150 /cy to the cost of the concrete, or potentially $4,000,000 to the cost of this project. 
The issues include:
a. White cement is twice as expensive as regular cement.
b. There is concern with the availability of enough white cement to supply this and future projects.
c. Even with the use of white cement, a tremendous amount of pigment will be required at a high cost.
d. Consistency of the color will vary over the course of this project due to variability in aggregates, cement, and batch sizes.  Using integrally colored concrete will not result in a consistent product.
e. Patching form tie holes will result in inconsistencies in the look of the final product.  It will not be possible to exactly match the color of the initial pour with hand mixed patch material.
f. The specified Federal Color Standard #17778 references a gloss sheen (the first digit of the Color Standard is the sheen reference).  It is not feasible to make concrete ‘glossy’.
g. We request that ODOT also consider the precedent that is being set on this project for the rest of the corridor.  Our suppliers believe that this specification could add over $20,000,000 to the cost of the first three phases of the 70/71 split reconstruction.
Will ODOT consider revising the scope to allow another method for achieving the same aesthetic results?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
NFPA 502

Section 12.2 of the Project Scope, fifth paragraph begins “All structures must meet the requirements of NFPA 502 … .”  The NFPA 502 Standard was recently updated in 2011.  One of the changes in the new 2011 version of NFPA 502 is Section 6.3 Protection of Structural Elements, 6.3.1 which reads “Regardless of bridge or elevated highway length, all primary structural elements shall be protected in accordance with this standard … .”  Is it ODOT’s intent that the DBTs comply with this standard for all bridges, and if so what specific parameters does ODOT or the Agency Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) require be used in determining the level of protection required?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
MSE Retaining Walls South of Spring Street

Section 12.3.1 of the Project Scope, third paragraph reads “MSE Retaining walls are not permitted south of Spring Street Bridge.”  Appendix ST-03 – Bridge Type Studies for  FRA-1784B Northbound C-D over Ramp V2 shows stub abutments behind MSE walls along both sides of the tunnel, which begins south of and ends north of Spring Street.  Would this requirement apply south of but not within Bridge FRA-1784B?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Sight Distances for I-670 EB, Ramp X3 and Ramp V3 at Cleveland Avenue

The sight distances on the inside of the curves for I-670 EB, Ramp X3 and Ramp V3 over Cleveland Avenue in the Step 7 Engineering Plans are less than required for the design speeds, even with widening the inside shoulder to 12 feet as allowed. In addition, the Step 7 Plans indicate a 5 degree curve on I-670 EB over Cleveland.  The design speed for I-670 at this location is 60 mph, which according to Table 202-2E in the ODOT Location and Design Manual, should be less than 4 degrees 15 minutes.  See summary below.

670 EB X3 EB V3 WB
Design Speed at Cleveland Ave - 60 mph 55 mph 50 mph
Required Sight Distance 570' 495' 425'
Step 7 Plans Sight Distance Provided 309' 336' 378'
Sight Distance w/ 12’ max shoulder  410' 451' 400'

No design exceptions were included for these conditions in the Project Scope.  Correcting this condition would require increasing the radius of these curves, and would significantly extend the westerly construction limits and require additional R/W.  What is ODOT's intent regarding the need for design exceptions for sight distances and the curve radius in these locations?
  
Trumbull-Great Lakes-RuhlinBill Woodfordbill.woodford@trumbullcorp.com412-807-2134
Wayfinding Signs

Section 15.3.5 Wayfinding Signs of the Project Scope refers to TC-19.  Can ODOT clarify that the intent of TC-19 is to replace only the wayfinding signs inside the Project limits?
  
Walsh ConstructionMax Rowlandmrowland@walshgroup.com317-481-4935
On page 15 of the selection criteria document (Section 4.1), if your intent is for the DBT to provide a full updated organizational chart, can the font restriction be waved?  Can we include this updated org chart in the appendix?
  
Kokosing ConstructionJohn Householderjdh@kokosing.biz614-228-1029
Will the contractor be responsible for maintenance of the existing asphalt, striping, and bridge structures in their current condition as of the date of contract signing?

1 - 100Next