Please wait...
An error occurred while executing an action
(Check error messages on the page)

View Enquiry: BE 2014-2003-013


Contract Details
Contract Number
2014-2003
Region
Central
Tender Owner
MTO Capital
Location
Highway 9 Replacement of Holland Drainage Canal Bridge - Site #37-030
Highway
9
Length
0
QMS Declaration
Yes
Option A or B bidding
No
Contract Description
DESIGN BUILD - Highway 9 Repacement of Holland Drainage Canal Bridge - Site#37-030
Tender Instructions
EXPRESSION of INTEREST must be received electronically as prescribed in the Expression of Interest document by 1:30:00 P.M. local time on March 05, 2014.
Contract Dates
Tender Advertise
29-Jan-2014
Tender Opening
28-May-2014 at 01:30:00 PM
TRF Submission Opening
30-Apr-2014
TRF Submission Closing
23-May-2014 at 12:00:00 PM

Enquiry Details
Enquiry Date
01-May-2014 at 02:17:54 PM
Type
Other
Subject
Muck Excavation Limits
Enquiry
The RFP states: “Construction of the new bridge and highway will require the complete removal of muck (organic silt/peat) in accordance with Ministry standards. The removal of muck will require sub-excavation and backfill prior to construction of the new roadway embankment. Roadway protections systems will be required to complete this work.” The Preliminary Foundations Investigation and Design Report (PFIDR) prepared by Stantec states: a. “Boreholes drilled through the roadway platform show that the organic silt east of the canal was excavated beneath the existing roadway embankment and replaced with silty sand to sandy silt soils”; and b. “It is anticipated that organic silt removal will extend to between 2.0 and 4.0 m below the road profile; this height can generally be supported by cantilevered sheet piles.” The subsurface profiles illustrated on Cross-Sections A-A’ and B-B’ provided within the PFIDR illustrate the lower muck interface elevation near elevation 216 m and the existing road grade is at about elevation 221.5 m. This information combined with the “Design Typicals” provided as part of the October 2013 Preliminary Engineering Report prepared by Stantec or the Schematic Roadway Protection sketches in the PFIDR result in a supported height of about 5.5 m. These design cross-sections also conflict with OPSD 203.020. The cross sections assumed for stability analyses in the PFIDR illustrate a subsurface muck/existing fill interface slope of about 2 horizontal to 1 vertical and this assumption conflicts with the borehole data. There is insufficient information to characterize the amount and limits of muck excavation or carry out appropriate temporary or permanent slope stability analyses as necessary for bidding. Please clarify the cross-section (transverse to the road centerline) boundary between the muck and existing roadway fill to be used for bidding purposes.

Response Details
Response Status
Completed
Response Date
06-May-2014 at 01:36:00 PM
Response
Subsurface conditions are known only at the locations of BHs. It is the DB contractor’s responsibility to interpret the soil conditions utilizing the available information. Note that Section 1.6 of the RFP provides information on additional investigations and studies that may be undertaken by the proponent in advance of RFP submission.