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 03-0A5704
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: Will the Standard AASHTO M326 spec liner be allowed in place of CIPP for the following bid items?
135 710390 36" CURED-IN-PLACE PIPELINER LF 890
136 710452 18" CEMENTITIOUS PIPELINER LF 140
137 710456 24" CEMENTITIOUS PIPELINER LF 610
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2019
Response #1:
(#1)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/18/2019
Inquiry #2: Please verify the quantity of Bid Item 89 Structural Concrete, Box Culvert.
Plan sheet No. 205 - DQ-19 (Drainage Quantities Summary) shows 197 CY. Sheet 190 - DQ-4. has no quantities for Structural Concrete Box Culvert.
Inquiry submitted 10/24/2019
Response #1:
(#2)-Please refer to plan sheet 364, Q-4, and review the table, WILDLIFE CROSSING.
Response posted 10/25/2019
Inquiry #3: Is there a specific number of firms to be contacted per trade to satisfy the Good Faith Effort requirement? If so, what is the number?
Inquiry submitted 10/24/2019
Response #1:(#3)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/25/2019
Response #2:
No. Attention is directed to the Notice to Bidders, The DBE Contract goal is 13 percent. Attention is also directed to section 2 of the Standard Specifications and Special Provisions regarding Good Faith Effort.
Response posted 10/30/2019
Inquiry #4: Can you please provide the Mandatory Sign in sheets from the prebid meeting.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2019
Response #1:
(#4)- The mandatory pre-bid meeting attendees can be found at this link.
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-3/d3-programs/d3-construction/d3-future-projects
Response posted 11/04/2019
Inquiry #5: Where in the plans and specs can we find the Water Flow information for the design of the creek diversion???
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2019
Response #1:(#5)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/05/2019
Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/14/2019
Inquiry #6: What is structural section K shown on plan sheet SCD-3?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2019
Response #1:(#6)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/05/2019
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Monday, November 18, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/18/2019
Inquiry #7: The legend on sheet SCD-1 shows different pavement sections than those shown on sheet X-1. It looks like A, B, and C on sheet SCD-1 correspond to 1, 2 and 5 on sheet X-1, less the open grade. However, sections D & E don’t appear to correspond to any section shown on X-1, and F does not appear to be used. Except for leaving off the open grade, why are the pavement sections different between SCD-1 and X-1? Which sections are we supposed to base our bid on – the ones on X-1 or on SCD-1?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2019
Response #1:(#7)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/05/2019
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Monday, November 18, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/18/2019
Inquiry #8: On page 34, the specs state - During blasting activities, you may close SR 20 and stop traffic for periods not to exceed 25 minutes. The appears to conflict with lane closure chart L1. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/08/2019
Response #1:(#8)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/08/2019
Response #2:
The time frame of 9am to 11am is the window in which you are allowed to have such a closure and not necessarily the maximum amount of time in which you can close the road. Page 34, Section 12-4.02C(3)(b), sets the maximum duration of the closure within that window to be 25 minutes.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/12/2019
Inquiry #9: The GDR dated May 12, 2017 discusses alluvial removals at fill areas prior to engineered fill placement. We have not found this addressed in the plans or specs. Will it be required? If so, what are the quantities and are they included in the roadway excavation quantity table?
Inquiry submitted 11/10/2019
Response #1:(#9)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/12/2019
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Monday, December 02, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/02/2019
Inquiry #10: Drainage Plan D-18 calls out for 36" Cementitious Pipeliner at Drainage System 48. DQ-19 and DP-25 calls out for 36" CIPP at Drainage System 48. Can you please provide clarification as to the rehabilitation method for Drainage System 48.
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2019
Response #1:(#10)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/13/2019
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Monday, November 18, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/18/2019
Inquiry #11: Specification Section 10-1.03, TIME CONSTRAINTS, is silent about any time constraints of activities in the creek yet the CDFW Permit states that activities in bed, bank, channel shall be confined to June 1 to October 31 in any year. Will the permit restriction be made applicable to the bridge replacement work and/or the box culvert work? If so, please issue an addendum modifying Specification Section 10-1.03.
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2019
Response #1:
(#11)-Your attention is directed to Section 5-1.20B(1) of the Standard Specifications which states, "Comply with PLACs."
Response posted 11/13/2019
Inquiry #12: Step 2 of Erosion Control (Type 3), calls for RECP (Blanket) but does not call out the type. Is it A, B, or C?
Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/15/2019
Response #1:(#12)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/15/2019
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Monday, November 18, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/18/2019
Inquiry #13: What Alternate Pipe Materials (APC's) are allowed on this project. The table included in the plans (DQ-1) is not clear. Is Corrugated Steel Pipe and acceptable alternate? If so what gage is needed?
Inquiry submitted 11/19/2019
Response #1:(#13)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/20/2019
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Monday, December 02, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/02/2019
Inquiry #14: Can you please verify the earthwork quantities of Roadway excavation and Borrow Embankment. It appears in the electronic files that they have included excavation and placing embankment at the new Dry Creek Bridge Structure.
Inquiry submitted 11/25/2019
Response #1:
(#14)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/25/2019
Inquiry #15: Can you please provide anticipated cross sections with depths for the unsuitable excavation areas? Can you please provide the geotech information for this unsuitable materials?
Inquiry submitted 12/02/2019
Response #1:(#15)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/02/2019
Response #2:
Attention is directed to the Amendment to the Geotechnical Design Report in the Information Handout. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/03/2019
Inquiry #16: Can you please consider extending the bid date? Can you provide the new .dwg Files.
Inquiry submitted 12/02/2019
Response #1:(#16)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/02/2019
Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/03/2019
Inquiry #17: With regards to Addendum #2, Caltrans has significantly changed the scope of the earthwork portion of the project. We request that the bid opening date be pushed to allow for proper evaluation of the imported borrow and roadway excavation (unsuitable) quantities.
Inquiry submitted 12/02/2019
Response #1:(#17)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/02/2019
Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/03/2019
Inquiry #18: Can Caltrans provide the specific locations on the project of anticipated unsuitable excavation in stages 2A and 5?
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2019
Response #1:
(#18)-Attention is directed to the Amendment to the Geotechnical Design Report in the Information Handout. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/03/2019
Inquiry #19: Please provide a soils report defining what kind of "unsuitable material" is anticipated on the project.
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2019
Response #1:
(#19)-Attention is directed to the Amendment to the Geotechnical Design Report in the Information Handout. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/03/2019
Inquiry #20: In order to dispose of the unsuitable material at the correct facility we will need to know what kind of material we will be excavating. Please provide this information.
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2019
Response #1:
(#20)-Attention is directed to the Amendment to the Geotechnical Design Report in the Information Handout. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/03/2019
Inquiry #21: Due to the changes addendum #2 made to the project, and the information still needed for clarification of those changes, we are requesting the bid date be extended in order to put together a complete and accurate bid for the project.
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2019
Response #1:
(#21)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/03/2019
Inquiry #22: In respect to specification section 77-2.02C High Density Polyethylene Pipe and Fittings; currently plans call for HDPE DIP(Ductile Iron Pipe) size. Please consider allowing the use of “IPS†(Inside Pipe Size) for high density polyethylene pipe and fittings. IPS is a more standard type for the industry with greater availability.l
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2019
Response #1:
(#22)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/03/2019
Inquiry #23: Please consider paying materials on hand for HDPE pipe and fitting materials. The HDPE industry historically has large swings in price due to the volatility of petroleum products. The use of MOH payment per Caltrans specifications would protect the contractor and the state from undue risk.
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2019
Response #1:
(#23)-Attention is directed to section 9-1.16C of the Revised Standard Specifications.
Response posted 12/03/2019
Inquiry #24: In review of addendum #1 and #2, please confirm the scope of work for bid item 203.
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2019
Response #1:
(#24)-For bid item 203 the applicable sheets are 388 (E-1) and 391 (EQ-1). Attention is directed to section 87-21.03C of the Notice to Bidders and Special Provisions.
Response posted 12/03/2019
Inquiry #25: Regarding subcontractor listing, Do you need to list any 2nd tier or lower subcontractors for the project? Please clarify the process at bid time.
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2019
Response #1:(#25)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/04/2019
Response #2:
No, only the subcontractors to the prime are listed on the Subcontractor List.
If the 2nd tier subcontractor is a Disadvantaged Business Program (DBE) company, the DBE does need to be listed on the DBE Commitment form (regardless of tier).
This will allow the contractor to claim the DBE to meet or exceed the participation goal of the project.
Response posted 12/05/2019
Inquiry #26: Refer to Addendum 1 Section 12-3-37 of the Special Provisions , Plan sheet 388, and Bid Item 205. The work shown on the addendum plans is not a portable system as per the bid item and specs but it is a permanent system mounted on the pole. Please confirm the changes made in addendum #1 is correct or clarify the changes made by Addendum #1 in relation to what was referenced herein.
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2019
Response #1:
(#26)- For the Portable Radar Speed Feedback Sign Systems your attention is directed to sheet 334A. For plan sheet 388, your attention is directed to section 87-21.03C and Bid Item 203.
Response posted 12/04/2019
Inquiry #27: Can you please clarify the full intention of the "Unsuitable" material that we are to encounter. It appears that the bid item was created as a contingent bid item for over excavation of the alluvial uncontrolled fill. It appears the engineer/designer cannot even provide the proper documentation of each location and is more or less a guesstimate. Also, does the alluvial have to be disposed of? The GDR could be interpreted that the materials are actually decent as the alluvial is more or less an undocumented fill, and could be reused onsite.
Inquiry submitted 12/04/2019
Response #1:
(#27)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/04/2019
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.