My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Absher/Stellar J Joint Venture 12/8/2025 (3)
>
Contracts
>
Capital Contract
>
Capital Construction Contracts and Change Orders
>
Absher/Stellar J Joint Venture 12/8/2025 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/9/2025 4:01:59 PM
Creation date
12/9/2025 3:59:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Contracts
Contractor's Name
Absher/Stellar J Joint Venture
Approval Date
12/8/2025
Council Approval Date
11/19/2025
Department
Public Works
Department Project Manager
Zach Brown
Subject / Project Title
Port Gardner Storage Facility – Facility Construction Package Addenda
Tracking Number
0005035
Total Compensation
$0.00
Contract Type
Capital Contract
Contract Subtype
Capital Construction Contracts and Change Orders
Retention Period
10 Years Then Transfer to State Archivist
Imported from EPIC
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
Port Gardner Storage Facility Volume 7 Attachment O <br /> Page 16 <br />CITY OF EVERETT ⋅ 3200 Cedar Street ⋅ Everett, WA 98201 ⋅ (425) 257-8800 ⋅ Fax (425) 257-8882 <br /> <br />Q74 - Drawing GX-20-3001, Section 3 indicates to saw cut two new openings, but not <br />the wall between them, nor the shelf slab. Section 1 indicates the middle wall and shelf <br />slab are to be demolished too. This shelf slab is not shown on Drawing GX-20-1001, <br />Upper Demolition Plan either. Which is correct? <br />Section 3, Drawing GX-20-3001 section does not pass through a “shelf slab”. <br />Section 1, Drawing GX-20-3001 is showing demolition of 4’-4” of the interior wall <br />outside of the second vault, which is consistent with the plan. Drawing GX-20- <br />1001, Upper Demolition Plan is not showing deck demolition, which is shown on <br />Drawing GX-20-1002. While some sections are showing “beyond” demolition not <br />necessarily through the specific section cuts, no inconsistencies were found in <br />the referenced plans and sections. <br />Q75 - Drawing GX-30-3002, Details A and Section 2. After removal of surface concrete <br />to the expected depth, what is the finish required at the new surface elevation and <br />edges? <br />See Section 03 01 00 – Concrete Repair, Paragraph 3.03.F.3. Roughen surface of <br />concrete to a minimum ¼-inch amplitude. Use Section 03 01 00 in general for <br />concrete repair and preparation prior to new Work. <br />Q76 - Micropile casing requirements: 31 66 33 2.01 B. 1. states that casing requires mill <br />certs. Mill secondary steel pipe without certs is typically acceptable for Micropile casing, <br />provided that coupon testing confirms minimum yield strength of 80 ksi and meeting the <br />requirements of ASTM A519, A106 or A252 or API N80. Please clarify if casing with <br />coupon testing is acceptable, even if mill certs are not available. <br />Coupon testing from vendor may be used in lieu of mill certificates, as noted in <br />Section 31 63 33 Drilled Micropiles, Part 1.05.A.5. <br />Q77 - Specification 31 63 33 | Article 2.01.B.1: Specification requires mill certificates for <br />the casing. Micropile casings do not come with mill certs. The industry standard <br />micropile casings come with test coupons and a letter of conformance from vendors. <br />Will these documents be accepted in lieu of mill certificates? <br />Coupon testing from vendor may be used in lieu of mill certificates, as noted in <br />Section 31 63 33 Drilled Micropiles, Part 1.05.A.5. <br />Q78 - GC 2.4 and 3.2 – Under GC 2.4, Owner or Owner’s Representative may extend <br />time to respond to a Submittal. Please clarify that if such time is extended, Contractor <br />shall be permitted to claim schedule and price relief for impacts of such extension, <br />because it is not possible for bidders to account for the nature and extent of such <br />extensions in their respective schedules and planning of the work. On a related note, <br />under GC 3.2, the Contractor has an obligation to “allow sufficient time for Owner’s <br />review of Submittals… so as not to delay the Work”. Please clarify in GC 3.2 that 30 <br />days (as contemplated by GC 2.4) will be deemed sufficient for the purposes of GC 3.2.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.