HomeMy WebLinkAboutQuestions & Answers No. 2Page 1 of 3
RAINIER AVE S CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 4
(S 3RD ST TO NW 3RD PL)
September 27, 2022
The responses to bidder inquiries, unless incorporated into a formal addendum to the contract, are not
part of the contract and are provided for the bidders’ convenience only. The responses may be
considered along with all other information furnished to prospective bidders for the purpose of bidding
on the project. The use of information provided in the responses to bidder inquiries is not to be
construed in any way as a waiver of the provisions nor excuse the contractor from full compliance with
the contract requirements. Bidders are cautioned that subsequent responses or contract addenda may
affect or vary a response previously given and any such subsequent response or addenda should be
taken into consideration when submitting a bid for the project.
Questions and Answers No. 2
1. Question: Please clarify if the contractor is to complete the fiber work or if this work will be done
by others? Plans and specifications are in conflict. See plan sheet 213 note 11 “Fiber Optic Cable to
be connected by others” and note 27 “Cable(s) to be re‐pulled into conduit and spliced in small
cable vault by others. See also spec book 8‐20.3(19) Fiber Optic Network.
Answer: Contractor to complete the fiber work. This includes installation of fiber optic cable,
pulling cable, and splicing the fiber into the transportation network. Plan sheets 213, 216, 218,
221, 223 have been updated and special provision section 8‐20.3(8) Wiring has been updated for
consistency and will be issued in Addendum No. 2.
2. Question: Can you please clarify something about this project? On sheet 203 of the plans Lum#
14 Is per COR std plan 117.1A a small cell deco luminaire pole, however when looking at the
luminaire schedule it appears to be more in line with the luminaires per 117.2 a deco pedestrian
pole. Can you clarify what the appropriate pole and fixture is for Lum# 14?
Answer: Luminaire 14 should be a decorative roadway small cell luminaire assembly per COR
standard 117.1A. The luminaire arm length and mounting height shown on the plans have been
corrected. Arm length should be 10’ and Mounting Height should be 35’. Revised sheet 203 will be
issued with Addendum No. 2.
3. Question: Bid item A61: Storm Round Frame and Cover & Bid item A62: Storm Rectangular Solid
Metal Cover –Please clarify if these are additional castings, or are these the solid covers called for
with construction note 16 on the plans?
Answer: Bid item A61: Storm Round Frame and Cover & Bid item A62: Storm Rectangular Solid
Metal Cover are the solid covers called out in construction note 16 on the plans.
Page 2 of 3
4. Question: Bid item A156: Tree Grate – Please clarify the size of tree grate? Plans and spec.
conflict on size. Please note that these do not come in 8 pieces also please note the opening size
for the tree. The plans/spec. conflict on the opening size as well.
Answer: Bid item A156: Tree Grate size should be 4’x6’ tree grate style. Tree grate shall be
rectangular with a 15.5” diameter single tree opening, cast in 4 pieces. Spec section 8‐28.2
Materials and plan sheet note #3 on sheets 251, 253, 254 have been updated for 4’x6’ tree grate
and will be issued with Addendum No. 2.
5. Question: On bid items A45 & A46 is the ductile iron pipe for the storm supposed to be CL50 or
CL52 pipe, as spec section 7‐04.2 specifies both? And does it all need to be polywraped?
Answer: For bid items A45 & A46 for ductile iron storm sewer pipe, please refer to WSDOT Spec
9‐05.13 that specifies CL50. The CL52 pipe shall be used when polywrap is specified in plans,
however we currently have no pipe specified for polywrap for this project.
6. Question: On bid item A47 & A48 is the PVC storm sewer pipe supposed to be SDR35 or C900
PVC?
Answer: For bid items A47 & A48, the PVC storm sewer pipe shall be per WSDOT Spec 9‐05.12(1)
which specifies ASTM D3034 SDR35 for pipes up to 15 inches and ASTM F679 with a min pipe
stiffness of 46 psi for pipes 18 inches to 48 inches. Special provision 7‐04.2 has been revised for
more clarity and will be issued with Addendum No. 2.
7. Question: On the Water Plans it shows all of the ductile iron fittings as MJ, but note 10 in the
general water notes below says that all water pipe and fittings shall have restrained joints per 9‐
30.2(6), which says that you can’t use “Megalugs”, and that it needs to be the same restraint joint
system as the pipe, except where it can’t be furnished. Are MJ fittings with Megalugs acceptable
to use on the WHOLE project, as it is shown on the plans? Or are all (or some) of the MJ fittings
supposed to be RJ fittings per spec 9‐30.2(6) below?
Answer: According to general note 13 on the water plans, Megalugs are acceptable for use on all
mechanical‐joint (MJ) fittings and on all valves with (MJ) ends.
8. Question: Do the flange gaskets on the ductile iron water main need to be/meet NSF61? If so,
would a NSF61 rated SBR flange (Flange‐Tyte) gasket be acceptable?
Answer: Flange gaskets on the ductile iron water main must verify that the proposed NSF61 rated
SBR flange gaskets meet the requirements of section 9‐30.2(1) (on page SP‐390) of the special
provisions.
9. Question: The pedestrian lighting poles per construction note #2 in the illumination plans are
listed to follow std 117.2 which shows a 16.6’ luminaire mounting height vs the luminaire
schedules in the plan listing a 14’ mounting height.
The same is for the dual function lighting poles per construction notes #1 & 25. The listed Renton
std 117.1 & 1171A both show the pedestrian fixture mounting height at 16.6’ vs the 14’ in the
plans.
Page 3 of 3
Can you advise the confirmed required mounting height of the pedestrian fixtures.
Answer: Mounting height of the pedestrian fixtures should be 16.6’. Revised illumination plan
sheets 200‐209 will be issued with Addendum No. 2.
10. Question: The Specs state there is Oil cost Price Adjustment for this project but I cannot find it in
the bid schedule. Will this be added in as a bid item?
Answer: Asphalt cost price adjustment bid item will be added into the Revised proposal bid tab
item A35 5‐04 Asphalt Cost Price Adjustment 1 CALC and will be issued with Addendum No. 2.
11. Question: Special Provision 8‐28 Tree Grate and detail plan sheet 260 give specifics on the 4’x8’
tree grates, however, neither location identifies a manufacturer. The manufacturer that I have
reached out to who provides tree grates does not have the specified design, nor are they aware of
a place who does. The below images are designs that I have found matching the size specified, but
do not match the design specified. Is the design open for revision or substitute? If not, please
specify the manufacturer(s) who can provide the specified design.
Answer: Bid item A156: Tree Grate size should be 4’x6’ tree grate style. Tree grate shall be
rectangular with a 15.5” diameter single tree opening, cast in 4 pieces. Spec section 8‐28.2
Materials and plan sheet note #3 on sheets 251, 253, 254 have been updated for 4’x6’ tree grate
and will be issued with Addendum No. 2.
12. Question: The project documents reference Std Plan F‐45.10.02 for the DWS but do not specify a
specific type such as cast in place or surface applied. Is this accurate?
It also appears as though there are no manufacturers or materials specified in the project
documents. I searched for and was unable to find this information on the Renton website as well.
If I overlooked this information, please let me know where I can find it or who I should contact.
Answer: Per WSDOT std plan F‐45.10 note 8 glues or stick down DWS are allowed only for
temporary work zone applications.
Due to the federal funding for the project we are unable to identify specific manufacturers. If
there is a proprietary item for the project, it is listed by brand name in the project’s plans/specs
and is noted as the given brand name or as an approved equal.
End of Questions and Answers No. 2