Bidder Inquiries

Caltrans Bidding Connect Account:

Sign In (Sign in is required to access Project Plans)

Create Account (Click here to create a Caltrans Bidding Connect Account)

Viewing inquiries for 01-0C9704

Submit new inquiry for this project

Inquiry #1: The typical cross sections shown on plan sheet X-1 do not show how we are to handle the cross slope of the Minor Concrete Vegetation Control when going from one side of the flow line to the other. Please provide a detail on how we are to handle the transition from one side to the other.
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2019

Response #1:
(#1)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/18/2019


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/19/2019



Inquiry #2: The typical cross section on plan sheet X-2 shows that the Minor Concrete Vegetation Control will have the flow line approximately 1' off the cable barrier from station 270+97.54 to station 333+50. Is it the intent for this minor concrete vegetation control to actually be a v-ditch that is to convey water to the inlets? If so, an additional item should be added due to the much tighter tolerances to ensure water drains properly than using the bid item Minor Concrete Vegetation Control.
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2019

Response #1:
(#2)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/18/2019


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/19/2019



Inquiry #3: Typical cross sections show (see sheet X-2, at all locations depicted) a new structural section to be constructed in the shoulder between the Existing (E) Edge of Pavement (EP) and the New (N) Edge of Pavement (EP). The depth of the section is defined clearly as 2.35’ deep. The width of the New Structural Section appears to vary based on the difference between the (E) EP and (N) EP.
1- Do the Cross Sections (for Design Study Only) govern when used for layout of the (N) EP and therefore determining the width of the (N) structural shoulder section?
2- While depicted on X-2 as a 5’ wide (N) shoulder section, the scaled distance on the Layout Sheets shows a 4’ wide (N) shoulder section. As an example, the shoulder at A3 Sta 258+00 North Bound scales with the following dimensions: (E)ETW to (E)EP: 5.2’; (E)ETW to (N)EP: 6.6’; (E)EP to (N)EP: 1.4’. None of which match the depicted cross sections on Sheet X-2. Which dimension governs, the Cross Sections (X-2) or the Layout (L-6 is used in the example)?

Inquiry submitted 11/21/2019

Response #1:
(#3)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/21/2019


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to Section 5-1.02, "Contract Components," of the Standard Specifications. Please bid per the current documents.
Response posted 11/22/2019



Inquiry #4: The Cross Sections (for Design Study Only) provided with the bid documents show a different structural section than the Typical Cross Sections on X-2. Presumably, the project Plans supersede the Cross Sections (as they are provided as Supplemental Project Information) in determining the location of the new section.
Please confirm that the Project Plans (which show the width of the new structural section’s subgrade in the shoulder to vary) supersede the Cross Sections (for Design Study Only, which depict the width of the new structural section’s subgrade to be 5' wide, typical) in determining the composition and width of new structural section in the shoulder.

Inquiry submitted 11/21/2019

Response #1:
(#4)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/21/2019


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to Section 5-1.02, "Contract Components," of the Standard Specifications. Please bid per the current documents.
Response posted 11/22/2019



Inquiry #5: A detail on sheet C-1 shows the Geosythetic Pavement Interlayer 0.02' below the top of the OGFC. As the Typical Cross Sections shows 0.10' of OGFC over 0.20' HMA Type A, this would mean that typical paving for the shoulder (over the existing paving section) will be installed in three lifts; 1) 0.10' HMA Type A below the Geosythetic Pavement Interlayer, 2) 0.10' HMA Type A above the Interlayer and then 3) 0.10' OGFC above the Type A. Is this the intent? Or is the intent that the Interlayer is placed below the 0.20' of HMA Type A over the existing pavement section?
Inquiry submitted 12/04/2019

Response #1:
(#5)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/04/2019


Response #2:
An addendum will be issued to address this.
Response posted 12/09/2019


Response #3:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Tuesday, December 10, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2019



Inquiry #6: The Roadway Quantities on sheet Q-2 for “A3” Stationing 255+57.96 to 270+97.54 show a Roadway Excavation quantity of 1,012 cubic yards. The Limits of Excavation depicted in Detail on sheet C-1 limit the area of Roadway Ex to the volume of excavation between the (E ) EP and (N ) EP. Per the cross section on X-1 for this Stationing, the width of the section between (E ) EP and (N ) EP is a varying width between 1’ and 2’ (this dimension is derived from the 5’ shown from ETW to (N) EP, less the varying 3’-4’ width between (E ) EP and ETW). Also, per the cross sections for this Stationing on sheet X-1, the depth of the excavation is equal to, or less than the new structural section of 2.35’.

If we accept the given depth of excavation at the depth depicted numerically on X-1 and assume 2’ as the widest dimension of the varying width at between (E ) EP and (N) EP for the entire given length of the section between 270+97.95 and 255+57.54, a neat volume can be calculated as 536 cubic yards.
This leaves a significant amount of Roadway Ex not identified in this section. Please identify the location and depth of additional Roadway Ex not depicted in the contract documents between A3 Stationing 255+57.96 to 270+97.54.

Inquiry submitted 12/06/2019

Response #1:
(#6)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/06/2019


Response #2:
An addendum will be issued to address this.
Response posted 12/09/2019


Response #3:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Tuesday, December 10, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2019



Inquiry #7: The Roadway Quantities on sheet Q-2 for “A3” Stationing 270+97.54 to 333+50.00 show a Roadway Excavation quantity of 3,857 cubic yards. The Limits of Excavation depicted in Detail on sheet C-1 limit the area of Roadway Ex to the volume of excavation between the (E ) EP and (N ) EP. . Per the cross section on X-1 for this Stationing, the width of the section between (E ) EP and (N ) EP is a varying width between 1’ and 2’ (this dimension is derived from the 5’ shown from ETW to (N) EP, less the varying 3’-4’ width between (E ) EP and ETW). Also, per the cross sections for this Stationing on sheet X-1, the depth of the excavation is equal to, or less than the new structural section of 2.35’.

If we accept the given depth of excavation at the depth depicted numerically on X-1 and assume 2’ as the widest dimension of the varying width at between (E ) EP and (N) EP for the entire given length of the section between 270+97.54 to 333+50.00, a neat volume can be calculated as 1,088 cubic yards.
This leaves a significant amount of Roadway Ex not identified in this section. Please identify the location and depth of additional Roadway Ex not depicted in the contract documents between A3 Stationing.

Inquiry submitted 12/06/2019

Response #1:
(#7)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/06/2019


Response #2:
An addendum will be issued to address this.
Response posted 12/09/2019


Response #3:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Tuesday, December 10, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2019



Inquiry #8: The Roadway Quantities on sheet Q-2 for “A3” Stationing 333+50.00 to 338+33.18 show a Roadway Excavation quantity of 308 cubic yards. The Limits of Excavation depicted in Detail on sheet C-1 limit the area of Roadway Ex to the volume of excavation between the (E ) EP and (N ) EP. . Per the cross section on X-1 for this Stationing, the width of the section between (E ) EP and (N ) EP is a varying width between 1’ and 2’ (this dimension is derived from the 5’ shown from ETW to (N) EP, less the varying 3’-4’ width between (E ) EP and ETW). Also, per the cross sections for this Stationing on sheet X-1, the depth of the excavation is equal to, or less than the new structural section of 2.35’.

If we accept the given depth of excavation at the depth depicted numerically on X-1 and assume 2’ as the widest dimension of the varying width at between (E ) EP and (N) EP for the entire given length of the section between 333+50.00 to 338+33.18, a neat volume can be calculated as 84.1 cubic yards.
This leaves a significant amount of Roadway Ex not identified in this section. Please identify the location and depth of additional Roadway Ex not depicted in the contract documents between A3 Stationing.

Inquiry submitted 12/06/2019

Response #1:
(#8)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/06/2019


Response #2:
An addendum will be issued to address this.
Response posted 12/09/2019


Response #3:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Tuesday, December 10, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2019



Inquiry #9: The Roadway Quantities on sheet Q-2 for “A3” Stationing 270+97.54 to 333+50.00 show a Roadway Excavation (Type Z-2)(Aerially Deposited Lead) quantity of 780 cubic yards. The Roadway Quantities on sheet Q-2 for “A3” Stationing 333+50.00 to 338+33.18 show a Roadway Excavation (Type Z-2)(Aerially Deposited Lead) quantity of 96 cubic yards. The Limits of Excavation (Type Z-2) depicted in Detail on sheet C-1 limiting the area of Roadway Ex (Type Z-2) to the space in the median between (N) EP NB and (N) EP SB. The Special Provisions 14-11.08C Site Conditions contain a table identifying the locations where Type Z-2 material is present on the project, which includes the entirety of the subject Stationing along “A3”. Inspection of the Contract Documents does not reveal an excavation of this magnitude between “A3” Stationing 270+97.54 to 338+33.18. The Typical Cross Sections on X-1 depict a new cross section that is primarily fill. If the Cross Sections (For Design Study Only) supplied as supplemental information are consulted, no excavation of this size can be identified.

Please identify the location, depth and stationing of additional Roadway Excavation (Type Z-2)(Aerially Deposited Lead) not depicted in the contract documents between “A3” Stationing 270+97.54 to 333+50.00.

Inquiry submitted 12/06/2019

Response #1:
(#9)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/06/2019


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/09/2019



Inquiry #10: The Adjust Inlet detail on sheet DD-1 depicts various details related to the Adjust Inlets scope of work. It does not, however, describe the manner in which the existing grates are currently attached to the inlets, nor how they should be attached to the adjusted inlet. How are the existing grates attached to the existing inlets? Is it intended that the grates be attached in the same manner to the new inlets? Please clarify the intent of the Engineer as to the removal and installation of the existing inlet grates.
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2019

Response #1:
(#10)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/06/2019


Response #2:
For details not shown, see Standard Plans.
Response posted 12/09/2019



Inquiry #11: Plan Sheet L-1 depicts the location of the Vegetation Control (Minor Concrete) encroaching upon EP on the Southbound Median at or about Station 1005+80 and continuing inside EP to 1009+68. The Typical Cross Sections for Location 1 on Plan Sheet X-1 do not address this condition, but show a very small gap between EP and the edge of the Vegetation Control (Minot Concrete). Is it the intent of the Engineer that the inside Southbound Shoulder area within that stationing be reduced by the amounts depicted on L-1?
Inquiry submitted 12/13/2019

Response #1:
(#11)-Your inquiry has been received. However, please be aware due to the short time frame between when this inquiry was received and the bid opening, there may not be time to provide a response. If no additional response is posted please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/13/2019



Inquiry #12: Plan Sheet L-3 depicts the location of the ESA in the median encroaching upon on the Southbound ETW at or about Stationing 1036+85 and continuing inside ETW until about 1037+80. Plan Sheet L-3 also depicts the location of the ESA encroaching upon on the Southbound EP at or about Stationing 1039+85 and continuing inside EP until about 1040+10. Is it the intent of the Engineer that the ESA should encroach into the EP and ETW in these areas as depicted on Plan Sheet L-3?


Inquiry submitted 12/13/2019

Response #1:
(#12)-Your inquiry has been received. However, please be aware due to the short time frame between when this inquiry was received and the bid opening, there may not be time to provide a response. If no additional response is posted please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/13/2019



Inquiry #13: The Bid Item List under the Notice to Bidders identifies 210 linear feet of Temp High-Visibility Fence under Item No. 22.

Section 14-1.02 contains a table identifying the location and stationing of Temporary High Visibility Fence which identifies 5,027 feet of “Install High Visibility Fence before work begins.”

Is it the intention of the Engineer that the additional Temp High Visibility Fence be installed by others prior to construction commencing? If not, please clarify the Engineer's intent and how the additional fencing not represented in the Bid Item List will be paid for.
Inquiry submitted 12/16/2019

Response #1:
(#13)-Your inquiry has been received. However, please be aware due to the short time frame between when this inquiry was received and the bid opening, there may not be time to provide a response. If no additional response is posted please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/16/2019

The information provided in the responses to bidder inquiries is not a waiver of Section 2-1.07, "JOB SITE AND DOCUMENT EXAMINATION" of the Standard Specifications or any other provision of the contract, nor to excuse the contractor from full compliance with the contract. Bidders are cautioned that subsequent responses or contract addenda may change a previous response.