Bidding Documents Question and Answer Board

Back to Contract Announcements

Contract Number: 16-270-3P  
Contract Description: COVERED COMPOSTING SYSTEM AT THE CALUMET WATER RECLAMATION PLANT  

The District's responses to questions presented on this page are NOT binding to the bidding documents.

Any official interpretation or change to the bidding documents will be made only by an addendum
duly issued to all plan holders on record by the Director of Procurement and Materials Management








 
 

Subject64:  Section 31 25 00
Question: Please provide erosion control plan.
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 3:10:37 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Contractor is responsible for the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan per Specification 31 25 00.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 9:34:35 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject63:  E-008, E-009
Question: Pavement removal for proposed duct bank not shown. How will pavement removal for duct bank be addressed?
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 3:09:45 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by an addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 11:06:58 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject62:  Geotechnical design Report, Page 4-1 & 4-2
Question: Geo report states "It may be possible to reuse portions of existing pavement materials as fill" Question- Can existing pavement be used as fill? If so please provide guide lines for using existing pavement materials for fill.
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 3:08:53 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Contract documents do not include pavement materials reuse. Bid as shown.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 9:06:56 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject61:  C-016
Question: Note # 7 "Provide water connection" Please provide connection point and routing for water connection.
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 3:07:40 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This will be addressed by Addendum
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 9:39:08 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject60:  C-014
Question: Please provide pavement cross section for pavement replacement areas.
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 3:06:55 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by an addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 11:09:17 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject59:  C -010
Question: Pavement removal for proposed manholes and 8" leachate lines are not shown. How is this pavement removal being addressed ?
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 3:06:14 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This will be addressed by Addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 11:11:08 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject58:  C-009
Question: Pavement removal for proposed 6" potable water are not shown. How is this pavement removal being addressed?
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 3:05:19 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This will be addressed by Addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 11:12:44 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject57:  C-005 & C-006
Question: Sheets C-005 and 006: Existing utility removals & cap of existing utilities extend beyond pavement removal limits shown. Please issue a sheet that captures all pavement removal or indicate how additional removal then what shown will be addressed.
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 3:04:20 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This will be addressed by Addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 9:37:14 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject56:  Appendix L
Question: Please provide more product and shipping information regarding the negotiated GORE Equipment. Information such as unit lengths, weights, how they are delivered, number of shipments or will it all be delivered in one shipment, etc. This question applies to all equipment but primarily interested in the aeration trench, blower, and blow pipe.
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 2:58:41 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This will be addressed by Addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 11:28:10 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject55:  Protective Coatings
Question: Refer to spec sections 099600 and 099605. Please confirm that protective coatings are not required on any concrete surfaces.
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 2:48:21 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This will be clarified in Addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 1:12:02 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject54:  Protective Coatings
Question: Refer to spec sections 099600 and 099605. We only find this spec referenced within other spec sections and not in the drawings. It appears the spec is issued for in shop application and for field touch up. Please confirm this is the case.
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 2:45:12 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   All coatings used in the project shall comply with the requirements of Specification Sections 099600 and 099605 whether applied in the shop or in the field. Bid as shown.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 11:59:29 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject53:  31 23 15 - Undercuts
Question: Specification Section 31 23 15 -1 1.2B states the “undercut will be determined …by geotechnical engineer” Will the undercut work be paid under the unit prices listed on page P-6 of the proposal form?
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 10:08:08 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by an addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 9:09:23 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject52:  Bid Date Extension
Question: We request a bid extension of 2 weeks to allow sufficient time for potential subcontractors, MBE's, WBE's, and SBE's to analyze the bid documents; as well as, the recently issued addendum. 
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 9:49:10 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Bid as shown.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 10:39:41 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject51:  P-301, 302 & 303
Question: Can requirements for the installation of the custom Aeration & Leachate trench be provided? The unit lengths, weight and how the sections of trench attach together are important details that are needed to properly price installation.
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 9:39:17 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This will be addressed by Addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 11:25:03 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject50:  E-002, E-012
Question: Ductbank details do not indicate grounding conductor encased in concrete ductbank. Is one required? or is grounding conductor pulled in conduit sufficient.
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 7:28:59 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   A grounding conductor encased within the duct bank concrete is not required. Bid as shown.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 11:36:08 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject49:  E-002,E-012
Question: Do Ductbanks have to be formed and poured , or can they be trench poured?
Date of Question: 10/23/2017 7:24:30 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Specification section 26 05 43 does not specify whether the ductbanks require formwork or trench pouring. Either is fine with us and would be approved during construction. This is means and method for the Contractor.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 1:26:26 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject48:  Plan Set
Question: Can AutoCAD files or at least the original PDF plan file be may available to the contractor? The copied PDF plans provided do not scale properly.
Date of Question: 10/21/2017 12:26:41 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Per contract documents AutoCAD files of contract drawings will be delivered to successful bidder. Better quality PDF files (24”x36”) of contract drawings will be uploaded to web page as part of Addendum No. 2.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 11:51:31 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject47:  Spec Section 41 21 25
Question: Use of American Iron and Steel The named manufacturers are both based in Ireland and I have been informed that the equipment is fabricated in Ireland. How are we to comply with this requirement? This may apply to other equipment manufacturers as well in other Spec Sections.
Date of Question: 10/20/2017 3:39:39 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  2:   This comment will be addressed by an addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 2:05:54 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Mobile conveyor is produced outside of US and will have to be exempt from American Iron and Steel.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 11:33:00 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject46:  IC-101 and IC-103
Question: The above mentioned drawings shows DCS Workstation Enclosure. Please confirm that Schneider Electric scope does not include the supply of workstation enclosure. Also, IC-103 shows two monitors by Foxboro. Schneider Electric (Foxboro) scope includes only one monitor and NOT two.
Date of Question: 10/20/2017 2:32:50 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Schneider Electric is responsible for providing the DCS Enclosure shown on drawing IC-103. The DCS Workstation Enclosure that houses the monitors and workstation is to be provided as part of the Contract. Schneider Electric shall provide two (2) monitors as shown on drawing IC-103, as specified in Specification Section 40 94 53, 2.3.E.1, and as specified in Appendix M, Page 12.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 2:55:21 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject45:  Mobile Feed Conveyor
Question: Per Section 41 21 25 Part C - Contractor is subject to the "Use of American Iron & Steel" requirements as contained in Section 436 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, further described in paragraph 11 of appendix I, as well as all provisions of the "Steel Products Procurement Act", and further described in paragraph 9 of the General Specification. However, the 2 approved manufacturers listed in Part 2, 2.1 Telestack & Edge appear to both be based in Northern Ireland, UK with limited distributors available throughout USA. Please clarify as to if these manufacturers are exempt from Part C.
Date of Question: 10/20/2017 2:30:28 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  3:   This comment will be addressed by an addendum..
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 2:01:03 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  2:   Mobile conveyor is produced outside of US and will have to be exempt from American Iron and Steel.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 11:35:36 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Mobile conveyor is produced outside of US and will have to be exempt from American Iron and Steel.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 11:35:29 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject44:  IC-103
Question: IC-103 Drawing shows an E-STOP push button on Schneider Electric DCS Enclosure. Need Functional description for this E-STOP.
Date of Question: 10/20/2017 1:53:29 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by an addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 11:27:47 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject43:  Bid Date Extension
Question: We have received requests from several named equipment manufacturers/suppliers that the bid date be postponed a minimum of (2) two weeks to allow them sufficient time to develop their proposed preliminary designs & proposals. As such, we herewith request that the bid date be postponed accordingly.
Date of Question: 10/20/2017 12:23:48 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Bid as shown.
        Date of Answer:   10/20/2017 3:27:09 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject42:  E-022, IC-102 & IC-103
Question: There are instrumentation devices which are called out on the noted drawings but not all of them appear on a floor plan. Please spot the respective devices on the drawings and provide the appropriate cable and conduit tags in order to provide the required amount of conduit and cabling.
Date of Question: 10/20/2017 10:56:30 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This question was addressed by Addendum #1, Sheet E-101.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 1:49:27 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject41:  IC-103,E-102
Question: There is a fiber optic cable from the DCS Panel at the receiving and mixing area to the DCS Foxboro H92 workstation. This run does not appear on the contract drawing other than what is shown on IC-103. Please identify the cable and conduit tag associated with this run.
Date of Question: 10/20/2017 10:45:28 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by an addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 11:30:09 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject40:  Concrete Mixtures
Question: 1. The specification indicates cement C3A must be less than 5%, which is not typical of locally available cements. The typical value is near 6% for Type I-II low alkali cements and up to 8% max for normal Type I cements . Can we use a low alkali cement with > 5% C3A in combination with fly ash or slag if it can be shown that the sulfate resistance requirement can be met ? 2. Specification section 2.1.B.3 indicates that aggregates must be tested for reactivity in accordance with ASTM C289. This standard has been withdrawn by ASTM in 2016 with no replacement. ASTM C33 states that aggregates that may be deleteriously reactive are not prohibited from use when used with a cement containing less than 0.60% alkalis (ASTM C33/C33M-08 section 7.3 and 11.2). IDOT also acknowledges that the natural sands found in our local service area are typically reactive when tested in accordance with ASTM C1260 with an expansion value of between 0.17% and 0.27% (limit is 0.10%) at 14 days. However IDOT also has an acceptable mitigation plan by using a low alkali cement. RFI – with the referenced ASTM C289 standard being withdrawn and having no replacement in conjunction with both ASTM C33 and IDOT ASR Mitigation plans being used, will this be considered an adequate method of ASR Mitigation? 3. Different sizes of topsize aggregates are specified based on the thickness of the member. RFI – which sizes of aggregates will be required for each class of concrete, assuming the classes of concrete to be used shall be RA, TA, PA? 4. RFI – will any concrete on this project be considered Mass Concrete? 5. Class PA states that the concrete shall be designed to conform to shrinkage limit, but no shrinkage limit is discussed for this class of concrete. RFI – is class PA concrete required to conform to a shrinkage limit and if so what is the shrinkage limit? 6. Class PA concrete specification indicates that water soluble chloride ion content must be limited to 0.10% unless otherwise specified. However this does not conform to ACI 318 based on the exposure class listed in the specification of F2S2P1C1 which defines the water soluble chloride ion limit of this class of concrete to 0.30% for reinforced concrete, and 0.06% for prestressed concrete. RFI – based on the specified class of concrete shouldn’t the water soluble chloride ion content be 0.30% instead of 0.10%? No other classes of concrete specify a water soluble chloride ion content, although class TA specifies the same exposure class as class PA. Will testing be required for class TA and if so will the limit be 0.30% based on the specified exposure class? 7. It is likely that the concrete will have a water soluble chloride ion content (CI) of more than 0.10% and it is possible it may have a CI of greater than 0.30%, although unlikely but there is no indication that mitigation of the CI is acceptable. RFI – Ozinga requests that the addition of a Corrosion Inhibitor be accepted for use in mitigation of excess water soluble chloride ion content above the specified limit based on the attached technical bulletin from its admixture supplier. 8. Based on the shrinkage limit of class TA concrete and possibly class PA concrete of 0.04% it is likely that the mixtures may exceed this limit. The specification (2.5.D.5) states that if the concrete exceeds this limit the aggregate will be rejected. The causes of drying shrinkage are widely debated but in most cases it is agreed upon that the cementitious materials or mortar fraction are the portion of the concrete that shrinks during the drying phase of the concrete and the aggregates themselves do not. The mixture proportions can limit the drying shrinkage to some extent but the largest contributing factors to drying shrinkage are paste volume, mortar fraction, cementitious materials selection, and water to cementitious ratio. Many of these factors however are prescribed such as cementitious content, required compressive strength (affecting required cementitious content), aggregate size and proportion, and water to cementitious materials ratio and therefore may limit the ability of Ozinga to develop a low drying shrinkage concrete mixture. There is however no discussion of the use of admixtures to mitigate drying shrinkage. RFI – Will testing of a control mixture and a mixture with the addition of a Shrinkage Reducing Admixture (SRA) be allowed to show that a mixture with the addition of the SRA is acceptable for use in the project? 9. The specification is prescriptive by way of specifying MWRD GSC mixtures Class RA, PA, and TA. Ozinga is confident that it can provide mixtures that will perform as good if not better than the specified mixtures more economically providing the owner savings and increased performance as well as providing the concrete contractor with mixtures that are more easily placeable and finishable. RFI – will the owner accept performance based concrete mixtures that meet or exceed the performance requirements of 03 30 00 Section 2.5 even though they may violate certain limits such as minimum cementitious contents or maximum water to cementitious material ratios?
Date of Question: 10/20/2017 10:41:05 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   1.This comment will be addressed by an addendum. 2.This comment will be addressed by an addendum. 3.Concrete Class PA: The size of the aggregate is dependent upon member thickness per Specification Section 03 30 00, 2.1.B.2. Concrete Class TA: The maximum size of coarse aggregate is 3/8 inches per Specification Section 03 30 00, 2.5.C.3. Concrete Class RA: Not specified for this project. 4.Bid as Shown. 5.Refer to Specification Section 02 20, 2.5.D.4 and 2.5.D.5. 6.This comment will be addressed by an addendum. 7.This comment will be addressed by an addendum. 8.This comment will be addressed by an addendum. 9.Bid as shown.
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 9:49:28 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject39:  03 21 00 REINFORCING STEL
Question: at the bunker trench detail ( 3/S-312 ) the rebar shown at the 9" curb fill concrete & the 5'-10" wide center fill concrete 2nd pours does not show the vertical reinforcement extending into the base slab. Is that correct .... there are no dowels coming out of the base slab ? ( only the #5 horizontals @ 12" are required at the 9" curbs ? ? )
Date of Question: 10/20/2017 9:50:08 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   There are no vertical reinforcement dowels coming out of the base slab into the 9” curb fill concrete or the 5’-10” center fill concrete. Only the #5 horizontals are required at the 9” curbs. See A/S-310 & 3/S-312. Work is shown correctly on the contract drawings
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 11:43:48 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject38:  C-005 & 006 HMA Pavement Removal
Question: Is the existing HMA pavement below the bunkers required to be removed if not in conflict with the permanent structure?
Date of Question: 10/20/2017 9:33:15 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Bid as shown.
        Date of Answer:   10/20/2017 3:03:45 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject37:  7/S312
Question: Is the polymer conc sidewall cap on the bunckers to be grouted by contractor?
Date of Question: 10/19/2017 2:52:27 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by an addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 10:15:48 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject36:  Vol 1 Contract Agreement
Question: Please reference page P-9 in Vol 1. The Last sentence under the "Sole Source Sustainable Generation Agreement" paragraph appears to conflict with Sustainable Generation Proposal. Please clarify who is to provide the Sustainable Generation equipment.
Date of Question: 10/19/2017 2:29:09 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/20/2017 2:39:14 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject35:  44.55.33
Question: Specification section 44.55.33 Part D indicated the consecutive 60 day performance test will start when all phase 1 bunkers have been filled and started the composting process. Spec section 44.55.33 also appears to indicate temperature restraints as it relates to cold weather processing. The current project time under the agreement section (A-14) is 365 day final completion including the 60 day performance tests. We request the district to review its current final completion duration and add 180 days to avoid cold weather conditions during performance testing.
Date of Question: 10/19/2017 2:24:50 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Bid as shown.
        Date of Answer:   10/20/2017 2:09:30 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject34:  Leachate
Question: What keeps the exposed leachate drainage from freezing?
Date of Question: 10/19/2017 2:07:26 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Bid as shown. The leachate trenches are covered with compost once the bunkers are in operation.
        Date of Answer:   10/23/2017 11:24:37 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject33:  Freezing Sludge
Question: What keeps the sludge feed from freezing?
Date of Question: 10/19/2017 2:06:42 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Conveyors will be covered per specification 41 21 23 section 2.12. Bid as shown
        Date of Answer:   10/24/2017 9:32:10 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject32:  44 55 33 Covered Composting System
Question: Please clarify Sustainable Generation proposal page 8 section 2.8 spare parts, are they to be included or excluded in the lump sum negotiated price of $5,097,250 total?
Date of Question: 10/19/2017 2:04:16 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Refer to Appendix L page 8 and quantity of spare parts provided which is zero. Spare parts are not included in this proposal.
        Date of Answer:   10/20/2017 11:21:15 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject31:  Section 260543
Question: Please Reference section 260543-5. Part 3.1 paragraph I notes, "Provide ductbanks with No. 5 reinforcing, spaced 12 inches on center." However, detail 9/E-002 calls for #15 @ 12" o.c. reinforcing. Please clarify whether #15 or #5 reinforcing is required.
Date of Question: 10/19/2017 9:27:23 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum
        Date of Answer:   10/19/2017 10:50:01 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject30:  Time Extension
Question: We request a bid extension of 3 weeks to allow sufficient time for the contractor and potential subcontractors, DBE's, WBE's, & SBE's, to analyze the bid documents as well as the forthcoming addendum as indicated in MWRD responses.
Date of Question: 10/18/2017 4:10:18 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Bid as shown.
        Date of Answer:   10/20/2017 10:56:16 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject29:  Pavement Removal C-005 & C-006, Final Grading C-007 & C-008
Question: Final grading plan sheets show new grade lines which extend beyond pavement removal limits shown on C-005 & C-006. Should pavement removal extend to limits of grading? As well, what HMA pavement section should be used for areas which are not part of maintenance or drive alleys?
Date of Question: 10/18/2017 3:10:34 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Question will be addressed by addendum
        Date of Answer:   10/19/2017 10:20:23 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject28:  Drawing C-010 8" Drain Lines
Question: Please specify what type/classification of piping is utilized for the 8" drain lines that attach to the 4" Leachate outfalls and tie into the proposed manholes & inlets.
Date of Question: 10/18/2017 9:06:35 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Refer to Section 33 05 50 page 10 for specified pipe materials.
        Date of Answer:   10/20/2017 11:19:19 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject27:  Drawing(s) C-009, C-010, C012 & C-013 6" Potable Water Main
Question: Please specify what type of material will be utilized for the 6" Potable Water Main. At this time, we cannot find what type of material & classified are specified; DIP, PVC, etc.
Date of Question: 10/18/2017 8:58:46 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Refer to Section 33 05 50 page 10 for specified pipe materials.
        Date of Answer:   10/20/2017 11:17:21 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject26:  Drawing C-010 8" Drain Lines & Precast Drainage Structures
Question: Please confirm if a union pipefitter(s) will be required to install the specified Inlets, Manholes, 8" drain lines, tie-ins to 4" Leachate lines and tie ins to existing 24" & 18" CSS. We will be employing our standard Operators and Laborers - however since this work is being performing in a MWRD facility - we'll need to know if a pipefitter is required for the above stated installation.
Date of Question: 10/18/2017 8:33:07 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Refer to Multi-Project Labor Agreement. Bid as shown.
        Date of Answer:   10/20/2017 3:00:34 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject25:  Drawing C-009 6" Potable Water Main
Question: In reference to the installation of the specified 6" Potable Water Main, please verify if the installing contractor will be required to employ the services of a union pipe fitter (in addition to our standard union plumber) in order to install the specified 6" water main for this project.
Date of Question: 10/18/2017 8:28:30 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Refer to Multi-Project Labor Agreement. Bid as shown.
        Date of Answer:   10/20/2017 2:58:19 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject24:  Reference Section 26 05 43-4, – Underground Electrical Distribution System
Question: Part 3.1, Paragraph Item I as noted “Provide duct-banks with No. 5 reinforcing, spaced 12 inches on centers,.. “ However, Detail drawing 9 on plan sheet E-002, indicates “#15 AT 12””, for the reinforcing bar. Please clarify whether the rebar should be #5 or #15.
Date of Question: 10/18/2017 8:27:35 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum
        Date of Answer:   10/18/2017 2:09:30 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject23:  E-009, E-013, E-016
Question: The mechanical feeds shown on E-016 from DP-1 such as 1DP9-9C-16-16C-14 & 15 are listed in the cable and conduit schedules as 3/4" conduits. The duct banks "AO" and "AP" on drawings E-009 and E-013 indicate these feeds as 2" conduit. Which is correct.
Date of Question: 10/17/2017 8:34:57 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Refer to drawings E-009, E-013, E-016. Both sizes are correct. All exposed (non-concrete encased) conduit associated with the conduit tags above shall be ¾” as shown on the contract drawings. Once wire associated with a given conduit tag transitions into concrete encased ductbank, the conduit size may change to allow for future expansion. This will be clarified in the Addendum
        Date of Answer:   10/18/2017 10:04:08 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject22:  E-009, E-013, E-016
Question: E-016 shows the mixer discharge belt conveyor BC-3 being fed from DP-1 with a cable and conduit tag of 1DP11. This feed is not shown in duct banks "AO" or "AP" on E-009 and E-013. Please provide the required information.
Date of Question: 10/17/2017 8:15:27 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Wire tag 1DP11 for BC-3 is located on sheet E-102. Conduit and wire associated with this equipment is not routed through duct banks AO or AP. Refer to sheet E-010 for correct conduit sections.
        Date of Answer:   10/18/2017 8:54:11 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject21:  existing bituminous pavement
Question: Please confirm that the existing bituminous pavement to be removed can be crushed/processed on site, to meet IDOT CA-6 gradation, and be used as Structural/Select backfill for the project. And if crushing is allowed will additional area be available at the north end of the drying beds for the crushing operation. An area of 100 ft by 150 ft would be required.
Date of Question: 10/16/2017 3:57:47 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Bid as shown
        Date of Answer:   10/17/2017 9:07:44 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject20:  E-104, E-017 & E-018
Question: Please confirm that the grounding noted for panels DP2 through DP5 do NOT tie into the grounding bus shown on E-104 and can be accomplished with a 3/4" x 10'-00" stainless steel ground rod tied to a #4/0 tail near the respective panel.
Date of Question: 10/16/2017 12:02:57 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Refer to sheets E-016 and E-104. Ground conductors associated with panels DP-2 through DP-5 are tied into the ground bus through the DP-1 ground bus. Therefore, ground rods and associated equipment are not required at the DP-2 through DP-5 panel locations.
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 3:12:10 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject19:  E-009, E-013 & E-101
Question: On drawing E-013, feeder 1DP15A enters handhole EH-6 as noted in section AO on E-013. It does not leave the handhole as noted in section AP on E-013, but on drawing E-101 feeder 1-DP15A leaves the junction box to feed the BC-1 disconnect switch. Please locate feeder 1-DP15A within the ductbank AP.
Date of Question: 10/16/2017 9:04:34 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 12:14:48 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject18:  E-018 & E-005
Question: Conduit 5DP6A is not listed in the cable and conduit schedule. Please provide the missing information
Date of Question: 10/16/2017 8:49:19 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  2:   Please disregard Answer 1. Conduit 5DP6A is listed in row 2 on the schedule, sheet E-005
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 12:22:05 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 12:14:09 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject17:  NEMA 9 Electrical Enclosures
Question: Will the pre-negotiated composting system supplier furnish pre-drilled and tapped enclosures for conduit entry for their enclosures that are required to be NEMA 9 (Class 2 Div 1 & 2)?
Date of Question: 10/16/2017 7:54:41 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Refer to Appendix L - Gore Equipment Negotiated Price Proposal for scope of work provided by Gore. Class 2 Div 1 & 2 area classification will be clarified in Addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 1:05:09 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject16:  Conduit/Cable 1DP7A & 1C19
Question: 1DP7A & 1C19 appear on several of the electrical ductbank sections yet they do not appear on the conduit/cable tabulations. What is the conductor count, size and from & to?
Date of Question: 10/16/2017 7:35:51 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 11:48:36 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject15:  Drawing Discrepencies
Question: Drawing E-012 Sec F does not match Sec G which is the match line. Which is correct?
Date of Question: 10/16/2017 7:33:14 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 11:47:57 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject14:  Drawing E-010
Question: At the phase 1 unloading bunker, the feed between the disconnect and the mixer discharge belt is listed as 1M17. This tag does not appear in the cable and conduit schedules. Please provide a description for this tag.
Date of Question: 10/12/2017 2:07:13 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 10:31:07 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject13:  Drawing E-013
Question: Detail AO & AP calls for all 3/4" RTRC conduits but conduits 1C11, 1C14, and 1C14A are listed in the cable and conduit schedule, drawing E-006 as a 1" conduit. Likewise, detail AQ also calls for all 3/4" RTRC conduits but conduit 1C17 also on drawing E-006 is listed as a 1" conduit. Which size is correct?
Date of Question: 10/11/2017 2:25:20 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 10:30:28 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject12:  Drawings E-013
Question: Drawing E-013 detail AO calls out cable and conduit tags 3N4 and 114B as 3/4" conduits. These tags are not listed on the current cable and conduit schedules E-004 through E-006. Will these conduits be empty/spare or will cabling be required. Please advise.
Date of Question: 10/11/2017 2:16:31 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 10:29:59 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject11:  Drawings E-013 & E-004
Question: Drawing E-013 detail AM calls for all 2" RTRC conduits while the cable and conduit schedule on E-004 conduit tag 1DP11A references a 2 1/2" conduit. Which is correct?
Date of Question: 10/11/2017 2:09:18 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum.
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 10:23:41 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject10:  Drawings E-012 & E-004-005-006
Question: Detail B on E-012 references conduit and wire tag 1DP7A and 1C19 which are each to be 2 1/2" conduits. These conduit and wire tags are not noted on E-004 and E-006 respectively. Are these two conduits correct as empty/spare 2 1/2"conduits? Please confirm.
Date of Question: 10/11/2017 11:48:54 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 10:21:25 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject9:  Self-Perform Requirement
Question: Is the 25% self perform requirement based on the total bid or the bid less the contracts already negotiated by MWRD?
Date of Question: 10/11/2017 8:36:53 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   “As stated in the Agreement page A- 11 25% self performed work requirement is based on the total value of work performed under this contract (total bid)." “SUBLETTING WORK The bid money value of all materials purchased directly by the CONTRACTOR, together with the bid money value of all work performed by personnel and facilities provided directly by the CONTRACTOR, shall be not less than 25% of the money value of all work performed under this Contract. Any bid money value of work performed by the sub-contractors, for work on the job site utilizing sub-contractors' materials, labor and facilities, cannot be included in the percent of work to be completed by the CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR shall comply with all requirements of Articles 19 and 20 of the General Conditions.”
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 10:16:25 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject8:  Drawings E-102 note 1, the equipment mounting rack, and drawing E-104 notes 1 & 2.
Question: There is no detail showing the materials required for the equipment rack. Please provide a detail especially depicting the mounting of the various panels and the 300A ground bus.
Date of Question: 10/10/2017 9:11:27 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This comment will be addressed by addendum
        Date of Answer:   10/13/2017 3:56:15 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject7:  Drawings E-018 & E-005
Question: Conduit and wire tag 5DP6 is not listed in the cable and conduit schedule. Please provide the missing information.
Date of Question: 10/10/2017 8:37:45 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   1. Conduit 5DP6 is shown on sheet E-005. It is a 2” conduit with 4#12 wires within. Tag of 5DP6 is shown on sheet E-018.
        Date of Answer:   10/13/2017 3:19:30 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject6:  Drawings E-012 & E-101
Question: Drawing E-012 detail A does not match the duct bank listed on drawing E-101. The duct bank on E-101 shows a conduit for 4N1 while detail A on E-012, middle row of conduits calls for a spare, 4N2 and a spare. Which is correct?
Date of Question: 10/10/2017 8:33:24 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This question will be addressed in an addendum
        Date of Answer:   10/16/2017 10:02:20 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject5:  Area Classification
Question: Per Specification 26 05 00 Part 1.2 B and C define area classifications as Class 2 Div 1 and Class 2 Div 2 respectively. However, these boundaries are not clearly defined on the plan drawings. Is it correct to apply these boundaries to any hopper, conveyor, mixer and bunker?
Date of Question: 10/9/2017 10:07:23 AM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   This question will be addressed in an addendum
        Date of Answer:   10/13/2017 3:52:29 PM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject4:  Substantial Completion
Question: The proposal establishes final completion as "365 calendar days after approval of the Contractor's bond", but does not define substantial completion. Please define substantial completion as to requirements and allowable duration.
Date of Question: 10/4/2017 1:21:58 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Substantial completion is defined in Section 1 General Specifications, in paragraph 1.3.AAA on Page 6 in Section 01 32 16 and in Progress Schedule on Page 17 in Section 01 32 16.
        Date of Answer:   10/5/2017 8:44:47 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject3:  Unit Price Bid Quantities
Question: In the event the actual quantity exceeds what is identified in the proposal, will the bidder/contractor be paid at the proposed unit rate for the total quantity of work performed?
Date of Question: 10/4/2017 12:59:49 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Unit price items will be paid for the actual quantities of work performed as specified on page R-1 in Bidding Requirements and Instruction to Bidders, page P-5 in Proposal and page A-22 in Agreement.
        Date of Answer:   10/5/2017 9:35:59 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject2:  Pre-Negotiated Equipment
Question: Can you please have the supplier provide a model number of the Aco trench drain being provided on the project
Date of Question: 10/2/2017 9:19:05 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   The ACO trench drain (aeration and leachate trench) used in the SG Mega SystemTM is a custom component exclusively made for Sustainable Generation and does not have a model number. Details and dimensions of the aeration and leachate trench are shown on the drawings P-301, P-302, and P-303. Per specification section 44 55 33-7, 2.3.A.1, the aeration trench is part of the SG Mega SystemTM and part of the package provided by the Sustainable Generation.
        Date of Answer:   10/6/2017 7:00:18 AM

                     
                                                                                                 
 

 
 

Subject1:  Demolition
Question: Is there any demolition work and/or asbestos abatement with this project?
Date of Question: 9/27/2017 2:43:33 PM
 
         MWRDGC RESPONSE  1:   Site demolition work is shown on Civil sheets. District is not aware about any asbestos present at the site.
        Date of Answer:   9/27/2017 3:42:49 PM