1 / 34

IR75 and Hopple Reconstruction Project

IR75 and Hopple Reconstruction Project. Objective. Discuss the following: Hopple Project – Items addressed in Plans that are typically missed and avoided substantial change orders. Issues encountered to date. Common Constructability Issues. Items Addressed.

tannar
Télécharger la présentation

IR75 and Hopple Reconstruction Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IR75 and Hopple Reconstruction Project

  2. Objective • Discuss the following: • Hopple Project – • Items addressed in Plans that are typically missed and avoided substantial change orders. • Issues encountered to date. • Common Constructability Issues

  3. Items Addressed • Existing Abandoned Pedestrian Underpass • Located Underneath Central Parkway Near Cincinnati State

  4. Items Addressed

  5. Items Addressed • Contractor anticipating 175 CY of Low Strength Mortar will be needed to fill the abandoned underpass. • Based on a bid price for a similar item of work on the project, this translates to an approximate cost of $43,750

  6. Items Addressed • Existing Retaining Wall Near Pier 3 of Structure HAM-52-2044

  7. Items Addressed

  8. Items Addressed

  9. Items Addressed • Contractor’s Means and Methods to install proposed sheeting, and to remove retaining wall, was to “stab in” sheeting until they rested on footer of existing retaining wall. Retaining wall footer was then to be removed so sheeting could be installed to tip elevation.

  10. Items Addressed • During this process, the south side of the sheeting shifted into the location of the proposed footer.

  11. Items Addressed • The south footer was redesigned to take into account the as-built location of the sheeting. The contractor filed a claim through the Dispute Resolution Process to receive compensation for this work. • The approximate cost of the claim was $40,000

  12. Items Addressed • Removal of Existing Retaining Wall P Structure

  13. Items Addressed • Contractor encountered the old H-Piling of the retaining wall while excavating for proposed MSE Wall 31.

  14. Items Addressed • Contractor initial position was that this was a changed condition due to the fact the piling was not shown in the plans. • The piling is accurately shown in the plans that are referenced in the As Per Plan Note.

  15. Items Addressed • Shoring for MSD Items

  16. Items Addressed • Contractor implemented their own shoring design for Junction Chamber 9, which ultimately failed.

  17. Items Not Addressed • Abandoned Subway Tubes

  18. Items Not Addressed • Contractor proposed installing 36” storm conduit across Central Parkway to maintain drainage on the Connector Road

  19. Items Not Addressed • The City of Cincinnati granted permission to close Central Parkway over a weekend to complete this work.

  20. Items Not Addressed • While installing the storm conduit, the contractor encountered the abandoned subway tubes.

  21. Items Not Addressed • Revised plan pages were provided to address conflicts. • Manhole at Station 121+50 was moved approximately 35’ east to avoid subway tubes

  22. Items Not Addressed • The Department settled the Dispute Resolution Process with the contractor for approximately $70,000.

  23. Items Not Addressed • Shoring – HAM-52-2044 Pier 1

  24. Items Not Addressed

  25. Items Not Addressed • A change order was written for approximately $150,000 to install sheeting for the construction of the substructure for Pier 1.

  26. Items Not Addressed • Shoring – HAM-52-2044 Forward Abutment

  27. Items Not Addressed

  28. Items Not Addressed • A change order was written for approximately $100,000 to install a temporary SPL Wall for the Phase 2 construction of MSE Wall 31

  29. Items Not Addressed

  30. Items Not Addressed • Existing Curtain Wall and Substructure Near HAM-52-2044 Forward Abutment

  31. Items Not Addressed • During excavation for proposed MSE Wall 31, several substructure units (columns, footers, curtain wall, etc.) were encountered. • These items were referenced in the St. Clair Extension project plans. However, no reference was made to these items in the plans.

  32. Items Not Addressed • The project tried to salvage/use the existing retaining wall, but it ultimately failed and had to be removed.

  33. Items Not Addressed • It is estimated that $50,000 will be spent removing this retaining wall and other substructure units.

  34. Common Construability Issues • Maintaining Drainage during MOT • Shoring • Cement Stabilization Width • Existing Elevations • Utility Conflicts

More Related