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 02-4F2204
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: Is AASHTO M-326 Pipe liner adequate for bid items 75 and 76 PERMANENT STEEL CASING?
Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2020
Response #1:(BI#1)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/12/2020
Response #2:
(BI#1)-Please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/19/2020
Inquiry #2: Deliveries of precast girders along Highway 3 has been investigated and approaching jobsite from the south and Stuart Fork Bridge (post mile 43.932 bridge number 05-0055) is only rated for legal loads. To the North Caltrans has a portion that does not allow through moves hence no access to jobsite from this direction.
Can the department review the capacity of the Stuart Fork Bridge for proposed delivery of girders and clarify if hauling permit to deliver girders will be provided at time of delivery? Axle loads, axle quantity and axle spacing can be provided.
Inquiry submitted 12/02/2020
Response #1:(BI#2)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/03/2020
Response #2:
(BI#2)-The contractor must follow the permit process. The number of girders that can be transported simultaneously will be determined during the permit process. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/11/2020
Inquiry #3: Regarding Bid Item 114 & 118. Bid items 114 & 118 call to remove and rest RSP at location A & B, see plan sheet L-4. Where is the existing 2250 CY's of RSP to be removed from? There is Existing RSP on the west side of the existing Swift Creek Bridge. There does not appear to be any additional RSP shown for most of RRRSP Location A and B.
What is the depth of the RSP when it is reset? Will the State please provide a detail showing the areas for removal of RSP and resetting the RSP?
Inquiry submitted 12/14/2020
Response #1:(BI#3)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/14/2020
Response #2:
(BI#3)-See addendum #3, dated 1/14/21. quantities for placing, removing, resetting RSP have been updated on plans. RSP details provided on sheet C-2.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Inquiry #4: Regarding Drainage System 9.
Plan sheet DQ-1 shows 272.8 CY's of 1/4 Ton RSP and one 48" RSP Flared End Section for 9a "RSP V-Ditch".
The chart on Plan Sheet L-2 says *178.8 CY's for the "Borrow Site Ditch".
Plan Sheet Q-3 summarizes DQ-1 and L-2 quantities as 566.9 CY's.
Is there additional work to be done at drainage system 9a that is not shown on the plans?
Inquiry submitted 12/14/2020
Response #1:(BI#4)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/14/2020
Response #2:
(BI#4)-See addendum #3, dated 1/14/21. Work related to drainage system #9 has been clarified on updated sheets L-2, DQ-1 & Q-3.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Inquiry #5: Sheet DP-3 identifies the RSP portion of the Infiltration Trench as 1/4 ton Class V. However, the detail SOQ on sheet DD-5 shows RSP 20lb, Class I.
Please clarify the Engineer's intent.
Inquiry submitted 01/05/2021
Response #1:(BI#5)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/06/2021
Response #2:
(BI#5)-See addendum #3, dated 1/14/21. Sheets referenced in inquiry updated.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Inquiry #6: Do to other projects bidding on the same date with a similar scope; and to allow additional time for subcontractor and DBE participation will Caltrans postpone this project for one week?
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2021
Response #1:(BI#6)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/06/2021
Response #2:
(BI#6)-The Department will be delaying bid opening. The Addenda is in progress.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Inquiry #7: Bid Item 117 RSP 20lb, Class 1 shows a qty of 360 cy.
Sheet Q-3 identifies two locations for this material: “Borrow Area (SHEETS L-1, L-2) and “from Sheet DQ-1â€
Sheet DQ-1 shows 250CY of 20lb RSP for Drainage System 9-b “RSP Check Dams.†Sheets DP-4 and DP-5 confirm that the material identified as 250 CY is the same material identified as the 20 RSP Berms shown on Sheets L-1 and L-2 and quantified there as 109 CY. This can be verified by counting the number of berm instances (20) and multiplying that qty by 5.3CY per berm as shown in the legend on L-1.
It appears that the subtotal of 20lb RSP on DQ-1 is calculated incorrectly at 250 CY (see legend on sheet L-1 for RSP Berm) or is installed at a location not identified on the plans, then added to the 109 CY from sheets L-2 and Q-3 to arrive at the EE’s qty of 360CY.
Please clarify the Engineer’s intent regarding the location and quantity of installation of the 20lb RSP.
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2021
Response #1:(BI#7)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/06/2021
Response #2:
(BI#7)-See addendum #3, dated 1/14/21. Work related to drainage system #9 have been clarified on updated sheets.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Inquiry #8: In regard to the answer for question #2, the issue is that we cannot deliver girders to the site as the bridges leading up to the site are not rated for these weights. The bridge on the North side (#05 0055) was re-rated in 2018 reducing it's capacity. If we come from the south side there is a bridge that Caltrans will not allow travel over. Basically at present the only way to access the site is to reduce the weight of the girders, to do this we would need to use lightweight concrete. If lightweight concrete girders are used, the bridge girders need to be re-designed based on the AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications. The design codes treat lightweight concrete (with factors) different from normal weight concrete. I am not sure if the same girder size and same number of strands will still work for the new design. Is there any other solution?
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2021
Response #1:(BI#8)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/06/2021
Response #2:
(BI#8)-The State maintains that the load ratings for precast girders are allowed on Stuart Fork Bridge (# 05-0055). There may be situations where speed and traffic restrictions, and variant permit application may be needed. The contractor must follow the permit process.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #9: Would Caltrans consider redesigning the bridge girders to 3'-6" at an 8' spacing (max)? This would reduce the weight of the girders enough to allow access to the site.
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2021
Response #1:(BI#9)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/06/2021
Response #2:
(BI#9)-There is no issue with transportation of girders (per contract plans) to project site. Therefore, there is no need to consider redesign. Refer to the response to bidder inquiry #8. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 02/08/2021
Inquiry #10: Special Provisions 14-6.08 D references BAAQMD. Should this read North Coast Unified AQMD?
Sheet D-3 profile has line work that indicates a structure above the 8x8 box that is not called out. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2021
Response #1:(BI#10)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/06/2021
Response #2:(BI#10)-See addendum #3, dated 1/14/21. Work related to drainage system #2 has been updated as shown on sheet D3.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #3:(BI#10)-Special Provisions section 14-9.02 references BAAQMD, please refer to addendum 3, dated 1/14/21.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Inquiry #11: The length of the culvert to be removed in Drainage System 8b is shown on sheet DS-1 as 90 feet. On sheet D-6 the length of the culvert is called out as 66.1 feet and scaling the depiction of the remove culvert from the profile on D-6 results in a length of 77.7 feet. Please clarify the Engineer’s intent for the amount of culvert to be removed in Drainage System 8. Is there culvert that needs to be removed that is not depicted on sheet D-6?
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2021
Response #1:(BI#11)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/07/2021
Response #2:
(BI#11)-See addendum #3, dated 1/14/21. Work related to drainage system #8 have been clarified on updated sheets.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Inquiry #12: Bid Item 115 ¼ Ton RSP, Class V shows a qty of 570 cy.
Sheet Q-3 identifies two locations for this material: “Borrow Area (SHEETS L-1, L-2) and “from Sheet DQ-1.â€
Sheet DQ-1 shows 272.8CY of ¼ Ton RSP for Drainage System 9-a “RSP V Ditch,†however, Sheet L-2 shows the quantity of ¼ Ton RSP for the “Borrow Site Ditch†as 178.8 CY.
Please clarify the Engineer’s intent regarding the location and quantity of installation of the ¼ Ton RSP in the Borrow Area/Drainage System 9.
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2021
Response #1:(BI#12)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/07/2021
Response #2:
(BI#12)-See addendum #3, dated 1/14/21. Work related to drainage system #9 have been clarified on updated sheets.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Inquiry #13: The Earthwork Volume Per Stage table on Sheet SCQ-1 has several separate descriptions of Station Range that are marked with a double asterisk. However, no key is given under the table to identify the significance of the double asterisk notation. Please identify the purpose of the double asterisk notation on the Earthwork Volume Per Stage table on Sheet SCQ-1.
Inquiry submitted 01/07/2021
Response #1:(BI#13)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/07/2021
Response #2:
(BI#13)-See addendum #3, dated 1/14/21. Work related to earthwork volume have been clarified on updated sheet SCQ-1.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Inquiry #14: The Earthwork Volume Per Stage table on Sheet SCQ-1 has several separate descriptions of Station Range that are marked with a double asterisk. However, no key is given under the table to identify the significance of the double asterisk notation. Please identify the purpose of the double asterisk notation on the Earthwork Volume Per Stage table on Sheet SCQ-1.
Inquiry submitted 01/07/2021
Response #1:(BI#14)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/07/2021
Response #2:
(BI#14)-See addendum #3, dated 1/14/21. Work related to earthwork volume have been clarified on updated sheet SCQ-1.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Inquiry #15: Regarding Bidder Inquiry Number 3.
The response provided by the State neither addresses the question or provides any explanation of the question(s).
Addendum Number 2 does not address the questions as well.
Plan Sheet C2 is a detail for a Vehicle Maintenance Pullout.
Again, where is the material for the RRRSP to come from? Please provide a detail for the depth and limits of replacement.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:(BI#15)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:
(BI#15)-Refer to addendum #3, dated 1/14/21. Detail C-2 clarifies RRRSP work.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Inquiry #16: Is there any additional information regarding the soil conditions at the borrow site other than what is provided in the information handout, such as soils tests & bore logs?
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:(BI#16)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:
(BI#16)-All available soil information has been provided as part of the supplemental project information. Please bid per contract documents.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Inquiry #17: Special Provision Section 49-1.01A clearly states that pilee are not end bearing. Section 49-1.01C(1) requires a bottom cleaning consistent with end-bearing piles. Why is this necessary?
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:(BI#17)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:
(BI#17)-Refer to Addendum #6, dated February, 5, 2021.
Response posted 02/08/2021
Inquiry #18: Is temporary casing allowed in the rock socket portion of the CIDH piling?
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:(BI#18)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:
(BI#18)-Refer to Addendum #6 dated February 5, 2021.
Response posted 02/08/2021
Inquiry #19: Can a bid item for Place Embankment be provided? Excavation for the borrow site is currently a bid item quantity of 60,700 CY and Roadway Excavation is currently 1,810 CY. Based on Caltrans Standards Placement of Embankment is currently paid under Roadway Excavation. Placing 60,700 CY of Embankment in a bid item that currently only has a quantity of 1,810 CY will inflate the unit price.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:(BI#19)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:
(BI#19)-See addendum #5 dated 01/29/21 in reference to this inquiry.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #20: Bid item 160 is for the placement of Construction Mats. Plan Sheet L-4 (page 13 of 174) has a call out for Temp Construction Mat See Note 3 - Note 3 states that exact location to be determined by engineer. Can Caltrans quantify how many construction mats or what location mats are required, such as are all access roads, coffer dams, points of entry to the creek to have construction mats or are construction mats only required at bridge abutment & pier where the crane & drill rig is used?
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:(BI#20)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:
(BI#20)-See addendum #5 dated 01/29/21 in reference to this inquiry.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #21: Responses for Bidders Inquiry Nos. 3, 4 and 10 reference updated plan sheets supplied as part of Addenda #2, issued January 8. Addenda Two did not include any additional plan sheets to clarify these items and was issued to only revise Federal Minimum Wage.
Will an additional Addenda be released to issue the referenced updated sheets?
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:(BI#21)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:
(BI#21)-See addendum #3, dated 1/14/21.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Inquiry #22: What are the limits of the Existing Swift Creek Bridge Removal? How far below grade does the footing for Existing Abutment #1 & Abutment #3 need to be removed? How far below grade does the Existing Pier Footing at Pier 2 need to be removed? Can existing wing wall foundations and footings stay in place? The special provisions only mention removal of existing bridge, pier and footing but don't provide any limits.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:(BI#22)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:
(BI#22)-Please refer to section 60-2 of the 2018 Standard Specifications which states: “Remove piling, piers, abutments, footings, and pedestals to 1 foot below the ground line or 3 feet below finished grade, whichever is lower.†In addition, refer to section 2-1.06B of the special provisions and 2018 Standard Specifications for bridge as-builts of the bridge to be removed, including wingwall foundations and footings.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Inquiry #23: Currently, Caltrans has 9 projects scheduled to bid on January 20th. Many of the projects will have similar scopes. As requested in Inquiry #6, please extend the bid date 1 week to allow additional time for subcontractors and DBE participation.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:(BI#23)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:(BI#23)-The Department will be delaying bid opening. The Addenda is in progress.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Response #3:
(BI#23)-Bid opening has been postponed to 2/10/21 as per addendum #4, dated 1/19/21.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #24: Will the contractor have the opportunity to drop all of the trees prior to February 1st 2021? If not will the project be postponed a year or will the necessary surveys and effort to protect any existing nests be considered extra work?
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:(BI#24)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:
(BI#24)-Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Inquiry #25: Item 108 - Infiltration Trench 390 CY
Take off quantities indicate a much greater trench excavation and backfill volume when using the depth of trench shown on sheet DP-3 profiles.
Ditch Excavation (N) in the table on sheet DD-5 is not identified in details or on the DP-3 Profiles.
1/4 ton and Permeable backfill rock quantities in the table do not total the quantity for infiltration trench, shown in the 6'x4' detail on the same sheet.
Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2021
Response #1:(BI#25)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Response #2:
(BI#25)-See addendum #3, dated 1/14/21.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Inquiry #26: Sheet Q-1 Shows a total Embankment Quantity of 67,922.31 CY. With 60,647 CY coming from the Borrow Site and the delta coming from Import borrow there appears to be a significant additional amount of import borrow that isn't needed for the project but is part of the bid quantity. Please explain where the additional material is needed or will and addendum be issued to balance the quantities?
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2021
Response #1:(BI#26)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #2:(BI#26)-Attention is directed to paragraph 2 of section 5-1.02 of the Standard Specifications. Please bid per contract documents.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Response #3:
(BI#26)-Attention is directed to the grading factor shown on Sheet Q-1 which accounts for the difference between roadway excavation, embankment and import borrow quantities. See addendum #5 dated 01/29/2021 regarding updated information on this inquiry
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #27: Sheet D-3 profile has line work that indicates a structure above the 8x8 box that is not called out. It begins at aprox. Edge of Shoulder "D" left and continues to the right and ends aprox. five feet past the headwall of the box culvert. Please clarify the intention of this line work. Is there additional structure or work at this drainage that is not identified? If not, what is the purpose of this line work?
Inquiry submitted 01/15/2021
Response #1:(BI#27)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Response #2:
(BI#27)-See addendum #5 dated 01/29/2021 in reference to this inquiry.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #28: In Regards to the Arch Culvert Structure shown for the Rancheria Creek Crossing:
The specified structure is an AASHTO “long span†(Sec 12 and Sec 26). Per AASHTO, these long span structures require “special features†for stiffening the structure, such as reinforced cast in place concrete longitudinal thrust beams. These stiffeners are not shown or detailed in the plans but are required per AASHTO standard specifications and they have a significant cost associated with them. Because of this we have the following questions:
Q1 – Are stamped design calculations meeting AASHTO standards be required for the specified structure?
Q2 - Will an addendum be released to provide notice of the need for added stiffener component required by AASHTO?
Inquiry submitted 01/15/2021
Response #1:(BI#28)-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 01/15/2021
Response #2:
(BI#28)-Please bid according to the following:
1. The contract documents does not specify a sole source or proprietary bid item for Bid Item #110
2. Bid in accordance with Section 67-2.01C and submit the Certificate of Compliance and Manufacture’s Assembly Instructions.
3. Bid in accordance with Section 67-2.03 requiring assembly per manufacture’s Assembly Instructions.
4. Bid in accordance with Section 67-2.02A to meet all AASHTO Requirements.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #29: Regarding the geotechnical report dated October 25, 2016 for this project.
The geotechnical report references 2 borrow locations. Borrow Site 1, north of the bridge and borrow site 2, south of the bridge.
Electronic data provided by the State is for Borrow Site 1. Borrow site 2 is shown on the plans. Did the State use borrow excavation quantities from borrow site 1 to calculate import borrow quantities?
Are both borrow site 1 and 2 available for this project?
The geotechnical report states that borrow site 2 has a grading factor of 0.93. Plan sheet 106 (Q-1) has a ** note under the earthwork quantities that states "EXCAVATION TO EMBANKMENT QUANTITIES ESTIMATED AT A RATIO OF 1.30:1".
Why is there such a large discrepancy from the geotechnical report and the plans?
Inquiry submitted 01/15/2021
Response #1:(BI#29)-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 01/15/2021
Response #2:(BI#29)-1.Please refer to the State's response to addendum #26 for the response to the question about grading factor.
2.Disregard Borrow Site Numbers in the Supplemental Project Information. Use Borrow Site Postmiles in the Supplemental Project Information to identify the location of Borrow Sites. This will be consistent with the locations shown on the plans. Attention is directed to paragraph 2 of section 5-1.02 of the Standard Specifications. Please bid per contract documents.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Inquiry #30: According to the as-built drawings for the existing bridge, abutment 1 bottom of footing is at elevation 2450 and pier 2 bottom of footing is at elevation 2440.7. Pier 2 is approximately 11’ below the creek elevation and abutment 1 is at creek elevation, both within 5’ to 10’ of creek. Can abutment 1 and pier 2 be removed to 2’ from proposed finish grade? If not, are large excavations permitted up to 11’ in depth within 5’ of creek for removal all pier 2 concrete?
Inquiry submitted 01/15/2021
Response #1:
(BI#30)-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 01/15/2021
Inquiry #31: Inquiry #10: Special Provisions 14-6.08 D references BAAQMD. Should this read North Coast Unified AQMD?
Inquiry submitted 01/19/2021
Response #1:(BI#31)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Response #2:(BI#31)-Please refer to addendum #3, dated 1/14/21.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #32: Inquiry #25: Item 108 - Infiltration Trench 390 CY
Take off quantities indicate a much greater trench excavation and backfill volume when using the depth of trench shown on sheet DP-3 profiles.
Ditch Excavation (N) in the table on sheet DD-5 is not identified in details or on the DP-3 Profiles.
1/4 ton and Permeable backfill rock quantities in the table do not total the quantity for infiltration trench, shown in the 6'x4' detail on the same sheet.
Please clarify.
Please note that addendum #3, dated 1/14/21 DOES NOT address this work.
Inquiry submitted 01/20/2021
Response #1:(BI#32)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Response #2:
(BI#32)-Clarification for ditch excavation is covered by addendum #6. The final volume for Non-bid item “EXCAVATION FOR INFILTRATION TRENCH (N)†is to be determined by the contractor’s method and means of excavation and shoring. The quantity shown on the plans factored in a reasonable amount of excavation to complete the construction.
Response posted 02/08/2021
Inquiry #33: Is there a way to request previous Caltrans projects bid results in excel format (not in pdf format...)
Inquiry submitted 02/02/2021
Response #1:(BI#33)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/02/2021
Response #2:
(BI#33)-At this time AWARDS does not provide an excel version of bid results however, the PDF versions we post are not locked and can be exported to excel in Adobe.
Response posted 02/03/2021
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.