Home > Notice of Letting > Contract Detail

July 30, 2021 Letting 12:00 PM
03A-VE055

Plans and Special Provisions
Pay Item Report
Electronic Bidding (EBids)

Bulletin Description

Realign Taxiway A, Phase 1
Region District DBE % VBP % Federal Project #
3 5 12.00 0.00 317SBGPTBD
County(s) IL Project # Airport Sponsor City
  • Vermilion
 DNV 4742 Vermilion Regional Vermilion Regional Airport Authority Danville
Contract Specifics
A voluntary pre-bid meeting will be held on Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 09:00 AM in the Vermilion Regional Airport at 22633 North Bowman Avenue, Suite 1, Danville, IL 61834. Meeting Description - For engineering information, contact Eric Hills, P.E. of Crawford, Murphy and Tilly, Inc. at (217) 572-1150..
The time limit to award this item has been changed from 45 days to 90 days after the scheduled letting.
123 Calendar Days
This project is currently unfunded, but actively seeking discretionary funds.
No More Contract Specifics

Ask Subscribe Questions and Answers (55 Submitted / 55 Answered ) Questions not accepted as of July 20, 2021 04:30 PM.

  • Item 403-6.8. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) The Pay Adjustment Schedule Table (Page 318) mirrors IDOT Highways QCP Table and has nothing to do with PWL. The shown Upper and Lower limits for Voids, VMA and Density make no sense with respect to this Table. 2 of 4
    Disregard 403-8.1(a) in the IDOT Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports. Please reference 401-8.1 Basis of Payment in FAA AC 150/5370-10H. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-6.8. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) The Pay Adjustment Schedule Table (Page 318) mirrors IDOT Highways QCP Table and has nothing to do with PWL. The shown Upper and Lower limits for Voids, VMA and Density make no sense with respect to this Table. 3of 4
    Disregard 403-8.1(a) in the IDOT Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports. Please reference 401-8.1 Basis of Payment in FAA AC 150/5370-10H. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-6.8. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) The Basis of Payment for Mat Density, Voids and VMA is not clear at all. The presentation of Upper and Lower limits in the Table on Page 316 suggests that PWL is calculated from Item 110. 1 of 4
    Disregard 403-8.1(a) in the IDOT Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports. Please reference 401-8.1 Basis of Payment in FAA AC 150/5370-10H. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-6.1. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) Is the intent for this specification to be more restrictive than the FAA specification? If not, this must be an error. 5 of 5
    Please reference the acceptance limits in 403-6.3. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-6.1. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) PWL for joints is clear and mirrors the FAA spec. If joint PWL is below 71%, there is a 5% penalty for the Lot. 4 of 5
    Correct. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-6.1. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons)This specification has a lower density limit of 93.0% for all mix types where the FAA has a lower limit of 92.0% for Base and 92.8% for Surface, therefore this specification is more restrictive than the FAA specification. This specification has an Upper density limit of 99.0% where the FAA specification has no Upper Limit (single sided PWL), therefore this specification is more restrictive than the FAA specification. 3 of 5
    The acceptance limits shall be in accordance with 403-6.3. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-6.1. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) This specification is +/- 1.35% on air voids where the FAA is +/-1.5%. This specification has an Upper and Lower limit on VMA where the FAA VMA spec is only for Quality Control and is not associated with PWL. 2 of 5
    Disregard acceptance limits for VMA in 403-6.3. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-6.1. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) There are many issues with Method II (Over 2,000 tons) PWL is discussed and Upper and Lower limits are shown in a table on Page 316. The Upper and Lower Limits shown in this table are more restrictive than what is listed in the current FAA specification. 1 of 5
    The acceptance limits shall be in accordance with 403-6.3. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-6.1. – Method I (Under 2,000 tons) It seems clear that for Method I (Under 2,000 tons), acceptance is based solely on density. This would also be done by the Engineer by Nuclear Density Gauges (same as old Aero Spec). However, the last paragraph of Method I mentions a set of cores shall be cut on the longitudinal joint and must be 90% of the Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity. There is no mention of what happens if the core is below 90%. What happens if the core is below 90%?
    The pay item quantity for AR403610 Bituminous Base Course is over 2,000 tons. Therefore, Method I does not apply. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-5.5. The control limits shown are more restrictive than the older IDA specifications. The control limits shown are also more restrictive than the current FAA specification. For example, No. 200 +/- 1.5% (FAA +/- 2%) For example, AC Content +/- 0.3% (FAA +/-0.45%). Is this the intent for the smaller airports to have a more restrictive specification than the current FAA P401?
    The intent of the IDOT Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports is not to be more restrictive than FAA AC 150/5370-10H. IDOT will allow the control limits as specified in FAA AC 150/5370-10H. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-5.3. There are references to AASHTO test methods. There are also references to the IDOT Training Program throughout the specification. Are we to assume that testing protocols are done per the standard AASHTO or IDOT Modified AASHTO Methods? The IDOT Manual of Test Procedures outline numerous AASHTO specs that have modifications specific to IDOT.
    The IDOT Manual of Test Procedures shall be utilized. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-3.3 The Special Provision indicates a Target Air Voids of “3%”. This should say 3.0% because anything between 2.5 to 3.4% could be argued to round to “3%”.
    Noted. The intent is for a target air voids of 3.0%. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-3.3 There is no VMA spec for design but there is for Production. Are we referring then to what the VMA is in design for production control? It is required to report the percent of Flat, Elongated and Flat and Elongated Particles, however there is no indication of what is required. What is required? 3 of 3
    The design VMA of the JMF is determined at optimum asphalt content and target air voids during the mix design approval process. An IDOT approved Class “B” quality coarse aggregate will meet the requirements for flat and elongated particles. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-3.3 Are TSRs per the IDOT Modified AASHTO method (this is what IDOT contractors do and may be different than what is specified in MS-2)? There is also no indication of what is required. What is required? Are specific gravities per IDOT’s published values or 3rd party? 2 of 3
    Either the IDOT Training Method or the Asphalt Institute MS-2 Mix Design Manual will be accepted. The IDOT published values for specific gravities will be accepted. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-3.3 The Specification States that the asphalt mixture shall be designed using procedures contained in Asphalt Institute MS-2 Mix Design Manual. Are we doing that or designing per the IDOT Training which is also referenced at many places? There are numerous differences. For example, IDOT does 1 hour aging, MS-2 does 2 hour aging. 1 of 3
    Either the IDOT Training Method or the Asphalt Institute MS-2 Mix Design Manual will be accepted. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-3.2 Contractor QC Testing Facility It is understood AMRL Accreditation is not necessary for the Contractor to perform their own Asphalt mix designs. Please confirm that if a Contractor is approved to do Asphalt mix designs for IDOT, they are also approved to do Asphalt mix designs under this new specification.
    Yes, if a contractor is approved by IDOT to do asphalt mix designs, the contractor is approved to do asphalt mix designs for the Standard Specifications for the Construction of Airports. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-2.3 The table describes the Liquid Binder that is required for various pavement layers. The table is confusing as it calls the Item 403 Base layers “Binder”. This should be changed to avoid confusion. Also, it should be noted that the Liquid Binder Grade Specified for these Airports is significantly more expensive than what has historically been used.
    The “Asphalt Binder Selection” table within 403-2.3 is different from the corresponding table within 401-2.3. The column designated as “Layer” within 401-2.3 has been replaced by the column designated as “Design Aircraft” within 403-2.3. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-2.2 The Specification says “Mineral Filler (Baghouse Fines)”. Mineral filler is not baghouse fines, therefore this should say “Mineral Filler or Baghouse Fines”
    Disregard the term “baghouse fines”. The mineral filler shall be from an IDOT approved source. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-2.1a.2. It is our understanding that this is still “Pending” within IDOT on how to handle this. It is our understanding that the intent of the new specification is to have materials approved within IDOT, however this does not seem possible if the materials are not being currently tested for “B” Quality. Therefore, will IDOT test for these qualities or is testing required by a 3rd Party? 2 of 2
    Per the 2016 IDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 1004.03(b), IDOT currently requires course aggregate to be Class “B” quality or better for surface courses and for SMA surface and binder courses. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-2.1a.2. The Coarse Aggregate is specified as “B” Quality Material. IDOT Currently does not require Coarse Aggregate to be “B” Quality for HMA (may not be tested for “B”) Has this been addressed with IDOT Bureau of Materials? It is our understanding that this is still “Pending” within IDOT on how to handle this. 1 of 2
    Per the 2016 IDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 1004.03(b), IDOT currently requires course aggregate to be Class “B” quality or better for surface courses and for SMA surface and binder courses. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-6.8. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) To determine a “Lot Pay Factor”, the specification would require a Price Adjustment Schedule similar to Table 6 on Page 288 of the current FAA specification. Without this Table, there is no way to determine how much the contractor shall be paid for Asphalt. The specification must be either PWL or “step based” as shown in the Table on Page 249 of the Specifications. Please clarify which one it is because as it stands, the spec's does not make sense.
    The pay item quantity for AR401610 Bituminous Surface Course is under 2,000 tons. Therefore, Method II does not apply. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-6.8. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) The Pay Adjustment Schedule Table (Page 249) mirrors IDOT Highways QCP Table and has nothing to do with PWL. The shown Upper and Lower limits for Voids, VMA and Density make no sense with respect to this Table. This table would require testing data, not PWL calculations to determine the Pay Factor. 2 of 3
    The pay item quantity for AR401610 Bituminous Surface Course is under 2,000 tons. Therefore, Method II does not apply. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-6.8. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) The Basis of Payment for for Mat Density, Voids and VMA is not clear at all. The presentation of Upper and Lower limits in the Table on Page 248 suggests that PWL is calculated from Item 110. 1 of 3
    The pay item quantity for AR401610 Bituminous Surface Course is under 2,000 tons. Therefore, Method II does not apply. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-6.1. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) PWL for joints is clear and mirrors the FAA spec. If joint PWL is below 71%, there is a 5% penalty for the Lot. Is the intent for this specification to be more restrictive than the FAA specification? If not, this must be an error. 5 of 5
    The pay item quantity for AR401610 Bituminous Surface Course is under 2,000 tons. Therefore, Method II does not apply. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-6.1. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) This specification has an Upper density limit of 99.0% where the FAA specification has no Upper Limit (single sided PWL), therefore this specification is more restrictive than the FAA specification. 4 of 5
    The pay item quantity for AR401610 Bituminous Surface Course is under 2,000 tons. Therefore, Method II does not apply. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-6.1. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) This specification has a lower density limit of 93.0% for all mix types where the FAA has a lower limit of 92.0% for Base and 92.8% for Surface, therefore this specification is more restrictive than the FAA specification. 3 of 5
    The pay item quantity for AR401610 Bituminous Surface Course is under 2,000 tons. Therefore, Method II does not apply. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-6.1. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) This specification is +/- 1.35% on air voids where the FAA is +/-1.5%. This specification has an Upper and Lower limit on VMA where the FAA VMA spec is only for Quality Control and is not associated with PWL. 2 of 5
    The pay item quantity for AR401610 Bituminous Surface Course is under 2,000 tons. Therefore, Method II does not apply. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-6.1. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) There are many issues with Method II (Over 2,000 tons) PWL is discussed and Upper and Lower limits are shown in a table on Page 248. The Upper and Lower Limits shown in this table are more restrictive than what is listed in the current FAA specification. 1 of 5
    The pay item quantity for AR401610 Bituminous Surface Course is under 2,000 tons. Therefore, Method II does not apply. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-6.1. – Method I (Under 2,000 tons) It seems clear that for Method I (Under 2,000 tons), acceptance is based solely on density. This would also be done by the Engineer by Nuclear Density Gauges (same as old Aero Spec). However, the last paragraph of Method I mentions a set of cores shall be cut on the longitudinal joint and must be 90% of the Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity. There is no mention of what happens if the core is below 90%. What happens if the core is below 90%?
    There is currently no penalty for a joint density below 90% for Method I (Under 2,000 tons/pay item). (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-5.5. The control limits shown are more restrictive than the older IDA specifications. The control limits shown are also more restrictive than the current FAA specification. For example, No. 200 +/- 1.5% (FAA +/- 2%) For example, AC Content +/- 0.3% (FAA +/-0.45%). Is this the intent for the smaller airports to have a more restrictive specification than the current FAA P401?
    The intent of the IDOT Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports is not to be more restrictive than FAA AC 150/5370-10H. IDOT will allow the control limits as specified in FAA AC 150/5370-10H. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-5.3. There are references to AASHTO test methods. There are also references to the IDOT Training Program throughout the specification. Are we to assume that testing protocols are done per the standard AASHTO or IDOT Modified AASHTO Methods? The IDOT Manual of Test Procedures outline numerous AASHTO specs that have modifications specific to IDOT.
    The IDOT Manual of Test Procedures shall be utilized. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-3.3 The Special Provision indicates a Target Air Voids of “3%”. This should say 3.0% because anything between 2.5 to 3.4% could be argued to round to “3%”.
    Noted. The intent is for a target air voids of 3.0%. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-3.3 There is no VMA spec for design but there is for Production. Are we referring then to what the VMA is in design for production control? It is required to report the percent of Flat, Elongated and Flat and Elongated Particles, however there is no indication of what is required. What is required? 3 of 3
    The design VMA of the JMF is determined at optimum asphalt content and target air voids during the mix design approval process. An IDOT approved Class “A” quality coarse aggregate will meet the requirements for flat and elongated particles. In lieu of an IDOT approved “A” quality coarse aggregate, an IDOT approved Class “B” quality coarse aggregate that meets Class “A” quality coarse aggregate parameters will also meet the requirements for flat and elongated particles. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-3.3 Are TSRs per the IDOT Modified AASHTO method (this is what IDOT contractors do and may be different than what is specified in MS-2)? There is also no indication of what is required. What is required? Are specific gravities per IDOT’s published values or 3rd party? 2 of 3
    Either the IDOT Training Method or the Asphalt Institute MS-2 Mix Design Manual will be accepted. The IDOT published values for specific gravities will be accepted. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-3.3 The Specification States that the asphalt mixture shall be designed using procedures contained in Asphalt Institute MS-2 Mix Design Manual. Are we doing that or designing per the IDOT Training which is also referenced at many places? There are numerous differences. For example, IDOT does 1 hour aging, MS-2 does 2 hour aging. 1 of 3
    Either the IDOT Training Method or the Asphalt Institute MS-2 Mix Design Manual will be accepted. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-3.2 Contractor QC Testing Facility It is understood AMRL Accreditation is not necessary for the Contractor to perform their own Asphalt mix designs. Please confirm that if a Contractor is approved to do Asphalt mix designs for IDOT, they are also approved to do Asphalt mix designs under this new specification.
    Yes, if a contractor is approved by IDOT to do asphalt mix designs, the contractor is approved to do asphalt mix designs for the Standard Specifications for the Construction of Airports. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-2.3 The table describes the Liquid Binder that is required for various pavement layers. The table is confusing as it calls the Item 403 Base layers “Binder”. This should be changed to avoid confusion. Also, it should be noted that the Liquid Binder Grade Specified for these Airports is significantly more expensive than what has historically been used.
    The term “Binder” listed in the “Asphalt Binder Selection” table within 401-2.3 represents an Item 401 surface course material, not an Item 403 base course material. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-2.1b.2. It is our understanding that the intent of the new specification is to have materials approved within IDOT, however this does not seem possible if the materials are not being currently tested for “A” Quality. Therefore, will IDOT test for these qualities or is testing required by a 3rd Party? 2 of 2
    IDOT Central Bureau of Materials is in the process of testing “B” quality fine aggregates for the requirements of “A” quality. An updated list of aggregate producers able to meet “A” quality is forthcoming. In lieu of an IDOT approved “A” quality source, the contractor shall independently test IDOT approved “B” quality fine aggregates for “A” quality parameters. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-2.1b.2. The Fine Aggregate is specified as “A” Quality Material. IDOT Currently does not require Fine Aggregate to be “A” Quality for HMA (may not be tested for “A”) Has this been addressed with IDOT Bureau of Materials? It is our understanding that this is still “Pending” within IDOT on how to handle this. 1 of 2
    IDOT Central Bureau of Materials is in the process of testing “B” quality fine aggregates for the requirements of “A” quality. An updated list of aggregate producers able to meet “A” quality is forthcoming. In lieu of an IDOT approved “A” quality source, the contractor shall independently test IDOT approved “B” quality fine aggregates for “A” quality parameters. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-2.2 The Specification says “Mineral Filler (Baghouse Fines)”. Mineral filler is not baghouse fines, therefore this should say “Mineral Filler or Baghouse Fines”
    Disregard the term “baghouse fines”. The mineral filler shall be from an IDOT approved source. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-2.1a.2 It is our understanding that this is still “Pending” within IDOT on how to handle this. It is our understanding that the intent of the new specification is to have materials approved within IDOT, however this does not seem possible if the materials are not being currently tested for “A” Quality. Therefore, will IDOT test for these qualities or is testing required by a 3rd Party? 2 of 2
    IDOT Central Bureau of Materials is in the process of testing “B” quality coarse aggregates for the requirements of “A” quality. An updated list of aggregate producers able to meet “A” quality is forthcoming. In lieu of an IDOT approved “A” quality source, the contractor shall independently test IDOT approved “B” quality coarse aggregates for “A” quality parameters. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 401-2.1a.2. The Coarse Aggregate is specified as “A” Quality Material. IDOT Currently does not require Coarse Aggregate to be “A” Quality for HMA (may not be tested for “A”) Has this been addressed with IDOT Bureau of Materials? It is our understanding that this is still “Pending” within IDOT on how to handle this? 1 of 2
    IDOT Central Bureau of Materials is in the process of testing “B” quality coarse aggregates for the requirements of “A” quality. An updated list of aggregate producers able to meet “A” quality is forthcoming. In lieu of an IDOT approved “A” quality source, the contractor shall independently test IDOT approved “B” quality coarse aggregates for “A” quality parameters. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 209-2.5b The specification say’s material shall be sampled “in accordance with the current IDOT, Bureau of Materials Policy Memorandum (PM) 11-08, Aggregate Gradation Control System (AGCS), however it then says shall be taken from the “in-place, un-compacted material”. It is our understanding that the AGCS requires the material to be sampled from Stockpiles. Therefore, how should it be sampled (Specification Reference)?
    The samples shall be taken from the in-place, un-compacted material. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 209-2.5a. Contractors could very easily assume that an “IDOT Approved” material is allowable, when in fact it might not be under this new specification. This could cause significant issues. 2 of 2
    IDOT Central Bureau of Materials is in the process of testing “D” quality coarse aggregates for the requirements of “B” quality. An updated list of aggregate producers able to meet “B” quality is forthcoming. In lieu of an IDOT approved “B” quality source, the contractor shall independently test IDOT approved “D” quality coarse aggregates for “B” quality parameters. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 209-2.5a. Is quality testing done by a 3rd party or by IDOT? It is our understanding that the intent of the Specification for the small airports is to simplify this process and have IDOT Bureau of Materials already pre-approve these materials. 1 of 2
    IDOT Central Bureau of Materials is in the process of testing “D” quality coarse aggregates for the requirements of “B” quality. An updated list of aggregate producers able to meet “B” quality is forthcoming. In lieu of an IDOT approved “B” quality source, the contractor shall independently test IDOT approved “D” quality coarse aggregates for “B” quality parameters. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 209-2.3 It is our understanding that this material may be very difficult if not impossible for suppliers to deliver. 4 of 4
    The intent of the IDOT Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports is not to be more restrictive than FAA AC 150/5370-10H. IDOT will allow percent passing of 0-8% on the No. 200 sieve in accordance with the job control grading band tolerance from FAA AC 150/5370-10H. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 209-2.3 Also, the current FAA specification allows for a “Job Control Grading Band Tolerance” which would allow for some production and handling variability. This specification does not allow this tolerance therefore the Standard Specification is more restrictive than the current FAA specification in this respect. 3 of 4
    The intent of the IDOT Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports is not to be more restrictive than FAA AC 150/5370-10H. IDOT will allow percent passing of 0-8% on the No. 200 sieve in accordance with the job control grading band tolerance from FAA AC 150/5370-10H. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 209-2.3 It is our understanding that the producer local to this project cannot make this material Discussions with producers regarding other locations indicate that this material will be very difficult to produce at 0-5% passing the #200 sieve. 2 of 4
    The intent of the IDOT Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports is not to be more restrictive than FAA AC 150/5370-10H. IDOT will allow percent passing of 0-8% on the No. 200 sieve in accordance with the job control grading band tolerance from FAA AC 150/5370-10H. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 209-2.3 The Crushed Aggregate Base is specified as CA 6 however the percent passing the #200 sieve is 0-5% where normal CA 6 is 4-12% passing the #200 sieve. Therefore, this is not really CA 6 as normally specified in Illinois. This may be difficult to compact as the minus #200 material helps with compaction. 1of 4
    The intent of the IDOT Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports is not to be more restrictive than FAA AC 150/5370-10H. IDOT will allow percent passing of 0-8% on the No. 200 sieve in accordance with the job control grading band tolerance from FAA AC 150/5370-10H. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 209-2.2 (Continued) It is our understanding that the intent of the new specification is to have materials approved within IDOT, however this does not seem possible if the materials are not being currently tested for “B” Quality. Therefore, will IDOT test for these qualities or is testing required by a 3rd Party? 2 of 2
    IDOT Central Bureau of Materials is in the process of testing “D” quality coarse aggregates for the requirements of “B” quality. An updated list of aggregate producers able to meet “B” quality is forthcoming. In lieu of an IDOT approved “B” quality source, the contractor shall independently test IDOT approved “D” quality coarse aggregates for “B” quality parameters. (07/28/2021)

  • Regarding the Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports Item 100-07. Contractor QC Testing Facility It is understood AMRL Accreditation is not necessary for Contractor Quality Control. Please confirm that an IDOT approved lab is what the specification is requiring.
    The term “meet requirements” as stated in 100-07(a) does not require approval or certification of the contractor’s laboratory by IDOT. The contractor’s laboratory shall meet the requirements of PM 6-08. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 209-2.2 The Crushed Aggregate Base is specified as “B” Quality Material. CA 6 is normally tested per “D” Quality by IDOT. Has this been addressed with IDOT Bureau of Materials? It is our understanding that this is still “Pending” within IDOT on how to handle this? 1 of 2
    IDOT Central Bureau of Materials is in the process of testing “D” quality coarse aggregates for the requirements of “B” quality. An updated list of aggregate producers able to meet “B” quality is forthcoming. In lieu of an IDOT approved “B” quality source, the contractor shall independently test IDOT approved “D” quality coarse aggregates for “B” quality parameters. (07/28/2021)

  • Regarding the Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports Item 100. There are references to ASTM and AASHTO. There are also references to the IDOT Training Program. Are we to assuming that testing protocols are done per ASTM, the standard AASHTO or IDOT Modified AASHTO Methods? The IDOT Manual of Test Procedures outline numerous AASHTO specs that have modifications specific to IDOT.
    The required testing standard is listed within each construction specification in the Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-6.8. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) This table would require testing data, not PWL calculations to determine the Pay Factor. To determine a “Lot Pay Factor”, the specification would require a Price Adjustment Schedule similar to Table 6 on Page 288 of the current FAA specification. Without this Table, there is no way to determine how much the contractor shall be paid for Asphalt. 3 of 4
    Disregard 403-8.1(a) in the IDOT Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports. Please reference 401-8.1 Basis of Payment in FAA AC 150/5370-10H. (07/28/2021)

  • Item 403-6.8. – Method II (Over 2,000 tons) The specification must be either PWL or “step based” as shown in the Table on Page 318 of the Specifications. Please clarify which one it is because as it stands, the specification does not make sense. 4 of 4
    Disregard 403-8.1(a) in the IDOT Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports. Please reference 401-8.1 Basis of Payment in FAA AC 150/5370-10H. (07/28/2021)

Authorized Bidders

  • 4551 Open Road Paving Company LLC
    1414 W Anthony Drive
    Urbana, IL 61802
    Phone: (217) 356-7280 Fax: (217) 356-1539 Email: cuppinghouse@openroadpaving.com

  • 1250 Cross Construction, Inc.
    3615 N Countryview Rd
    Urbana, IL 61802
    Phone: (217) 367-3526 Fax: (217) 337-3066 Email: closchen@crossconstructioncorp.com

Non Bidders

  • 0379 A & R Mechanical Service, Inc.
    (Pending Authorization)
    711 Kettering Park Drive
    Urbana, IL 61801
    Phone: (217) 367-4227 Fax: (217) 367-4164 Email: jweidner@ar-mech.com

Pay Item # UOM Description Type Quantity Unit Price
AR106910 EACH REMOVE LIGHT FIXTURE Base items 15.000
AR108108 FOOT 1/C #8 5 KV UG CABLE Base items 80.000
AR108158 FOOT 1/C #8 5 KV UG CABLE IN UD Base items 6,420.000
AR108208 FOOT 2/C #8 5 KV UG CABLE Base items 100.000
AR108258 FOOT 2/C #8 5 KV UG CABLE IN UD Base items 660.000
AR108706 FOOT 1/C #6 COUNTERPOISE Base items 6,120.000
AR108960 FOOT REMOVE CABLE Base items 5,670.000
AR110102 EACH DUCT MARKER - IN PAVEMENT Base items 2.000
AR110504 FOOT 4-WAY CONCRETE ENCASED DUCT Base items 75.000
AR125100 EACH ELEVATED RETROREFLECTIVE MARKER Base items 7.000
AR125410 EACH MITL-STAKE MOUNTED Base items 53.000
AR125415 EACH MITL-BASE MOUNTED Base items 16.000
AR125442 EACH TAXI GUIDANCE SIGN, 2 CHARACTER Base items 1.000
AR125443 EACH TAXI GUIDANCE SIGN, 3 CHARACTER Base items 2.000
AR125444 EACH TAXI GUIDANCE SIGN, 4 CHARACTER Base items 1.000
AR125446 EACH TAXI GUIDANCE SIGN, 6 CHARACTER Base items 1.000
AR125904 EACH REMOVE TAXI GUIDANCE SIGN Base items 7.000
AR125913 EACH REMOVE EDGE LIGHT Base items 83.000
AR150510 L SUM ENGINEER'S FIELD OFFICE Base items 1.000
AR150520 L SUM MOBILIZATION Base items 1.000
AR152410 CU YD UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION Base items 12,275.000
AR152490 CU YD CRUSHED AGGREGATE BACKFILL Base items 600.000
AR152515 CU YD SUBGRADE UNDERCUT Base items 1,200.000
AR156510 FOOT SILT FENCE Base items 600.000
AR156513 SQ YD SEPARATION FABRIC Base items 1,150.000
AR156515 FOOT STRAW WATTLE Base items 60.000
AR156520 EACH INLET PROTECTION Base items 3.000
AR209611 S.Y. CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE-11" Base items 11,230.000
AR401610 TON BITUMINOUS SURFACE COURSE Base items 1,540.000
AR401650 SQ YD BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MILLING Base items 1,100.000
AR401655 SQ YD BUTT JOINT CONSTRUCTION Base items 255.000
AR401921 SQ YD REMOVE PAVEMENT Base items 9,900.000
AR403610 TON BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE Base items 2,630.000
AR602510 GALLON BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT Base items 3,430.000
AR603510 GALLON BITUMINOUS TACK COAT Base items 1,840.000
AR620520 SQ FT PAVEMENT MARKING-WATERBORNE Base items 3,900.000
AR620525 SQ FT PAVEMENT MARKING-BLACK BORDER Base items 4,960.000
AR620900 SQ FT PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL Base items 1,370.000
AR701524 FOOT 24" RCP, CLASS IV Base items 10.000
AR701900 FOOT REMOVE PIPE Base items 10.000
AR705524 FOOT 4" PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN W/SOCK Base items 3,945.000
AR705544 FOOT 4" NON PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN Base items 285.000
AR705635 EACH UNDERDRAIN COLLECTION STRUCTURE Base items 2.000
AR705640 EACH UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUT Base items 11.000
AR705645 EACH UNDERDRAIN CONNECTION Base items 2.000
AR705904 EACH REMOVE UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUT Base items 3.000
AR751411 EACH INLET-TYPE A Base items 1.000
AR751900 EACH REMOVE INLET Base items 1.000
AR901510 ACRE SEEDING Base items 11.000
AR904510 SQ YD SODDING Base items 1,710.000
AR905520 CU YD TOPSOILING (FROM OFF SITE) Base items 2,400.000
AR908514 ACRE LIGHT-DUTY HYDRAULIC MULCH Base items 11.000
No More Pay Items

The contract details above are for informational purposes only until the Plans and Special Provisions are posted on this web page. If an addendum is posted, the contract details above may be revised. Please continue to check for addenda.