Hickman Co. SR-50

Bridge replacement on SR-50 over the Duck River (PIN 124399.00)

Review Dates:    November 3, 2026

Deadline to Submit Letter of Interest: October 16, 2026       

 

Letter of Interest - Hickman Co. 124399.00 - Constructability Review

Note: Participation in this review is voluntary, non-compensable, and will not prevent you from submitting a bid for the project.  Anything you choose to share will remain in confidence.  Any Contractor that is prequalified with TDOT's Construction Division may request participation by completing and submitting a Letter of Interest to Matt Lesko at Matt.Lesko@tn.gov.

 

124399.00 Project Location 1

Project Details

  • Proposed 9 Span Structure
  • Two (2)-Twelve (12) foot lanes with eight (8) foot shoulders    

Major Issues & Challenges

  • Tight construction phasing for bridges
  • Traffic control
  • Environmental impact

Questions to Discuss

  1. Does the contractor have enough means to construct within the limited construction phasing?
  2. Are there any expected challenges with lead times for bridge beams or other items?
  3. Do you see any challenges with the current haul road layouts?
  4. What are the greatest challenges of this project?
  5. What are the greatest opportunities for improvement?
  6. Are there any concerns regarding protection of the existing waterline that is exposed where it emerges from the bank and crosses the river, considering it lies beneath the haul road and will remain in place under a coordinated protection plan?
  7. Can demolition be completed without the use of blasting? If so, what methods would be utilized, and what would the expected demolition timeframes be?
  8. Are there any concerns related to bridge removal or staging areas?
  9. Are there any anticipated challenges with maintaining access to the Ferrell Gas facilities in the southwest quadrant during construction?
  10. Do you foresee any concerns associated with working in the water during construction activities?
  11. Do you anticipate any challenges with setting the bridge beams?
  12. Do you anticipate any challenges with delivering beams to the site?
  13. Do you believe additional right‑of‑way will be needed?
  14. Are there any concerns with planned utility relocations?
  15. Do you see any opportunities to improve the current traffic phasing plan?
  16. Are there any concerns regarding the 1‑foot gap between the proposed structure and existing structure during Phase 1?
  17. Based on estimated quantities, are there any specialty items you recommend including?
  18. Are there any concerns with the Phase I demolition work, particularly since this phase involves removing the 1976 widening section while retaining the original 1950 bridge, whose deteriorated bents and piers must support Phase I traffic without sustaining additional damage?