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 03-0H10U4

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Specification Section 2-1.06A states, “Forms for the total base bid are forms without with additive item 1 in the form name. Forms for the total base bid with additive item 1 are forms with additive item 1 in the form name.” Please provide forms as stated above. No forms with any reference to “additive item 1” are included with the bidding documents. Additionally please clarify how the bidders are to provide pricing for additive item 1 as this item does not appear in the bid schedule.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019

Response #1:
(#1)-An addendum is being prepared to address this inquiry.
Response posted 01/22/2019


Response #2:
Addendum No. 1 issued on Thursday, January 24, 2019 updated the electronic bid software to allow the additive bidding.
Response posted 02/14/2019




Inquiry #2: Specification Section 2-1.10 states, “Submit a Subcontractor List for the total base bid and a Subcontractor List for the total base bid with additive item 1. On the Subcontractor List for the total base bid with additive item 1, show the percentage and description of the subcontracted work for additive item 1.” The electronic bidding system only provides for one subcontractor listing section. Please clarify how the bidder is to provide for a separate list of subcontractors that will include the base bid with additive item 1 in addition to the standard subcontractor listing tab on the electronic bid software.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019

Response #1:
(#2)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/22/2019


Response #2:
Addendum No. 1 issued on Thursday, January 24, 2019 updated the electronic bid software to allow the additive bidding.
Response posted 02/14/2019




Inquiry #3: Specification Section 2-1.12B (2) states, “Submit a DBE Commitment and a DBE Confirmation form for the total base bid and a DBE Commitment form and a DBE Confirmation form for the total base bid with additive item 1. Include the information specified in section 2-1.12B (2) with each form.” Producing the required paperwork for the Commitment forms and the Confirmation forms for a $280 million contract is an extensive undertaking. Requiring that this essentially be done twice (1 for the base bid and 1 for the base bid and additive item 1) and be included in the larger Good Faith Effort documentation within 3 business days of bid opening is going to raise the possibility of incomplete or incorrect paperwork. The last time this project bid, issues with Good Faith Efforts led, in part, to rebidding this job. Requiring the contractor to do twice the work in the same amount of time only increases the possibility that this project will end, again, in lengthy bid protests. Please consider extending the time allotted for contractors to produce this paperwork or require only one set of documents that includes the additive item to make things simple.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019

Response #1:
(#3)-We are not able to extend the amount of time the bidder has to provide the Department with the DBE documentation.

This is a standard Federal Requirement, and we are constrained to the 5th day after bid opening.

The requirement for providing a DBE Commitment and a DBE Confirmation forms has been a part of all of the Additive bid contracts advertised.

Response posted 01/22/2019




Inquiry #4: Specification Section 2-1.12B (3) states, “ Under the conditions specified in section 2-1.12B(3), submit a DBE Good Faith Efforts Documentation form for the total base bid and a DBE Good Faith Efforts Documentation form for the total base bid with additive item 1.” Producing the required paperwork for the DBE Good Faith Efforts Documentation form for a $280 million contract is an extensive undertaking. Requiring that this essentially be done twice (1 for the base bid and 1 for the base bid and additive item 1) and be submitted within 5 days (3 business days) of bid opening is going to raise the possibility of incomplete or incorrect paperwork. The last time this project bid, issues with Good Faith Efforts led, in part, to rebidding this job. Requiring the contractor to do twice the work in the same amount of time only increases the possibility that this project will end, again, in lengthy bid protests. Please consider extending the time allotted for contractors to produce this paperwork or require only one set of documents that includes the additive item to make things simple. In addition please clarify if Caltrans expects the contractor to have separate solicitations for the two required Good Faith Efforts. Caltrans is requiring us to submit two separate DBE Good Faith Efforts presumably because the additive item created the possibility of two separate and distinct scopes of work. In addition to separate Good Faith Effort Documentation is the Contractor expected to have separate solicitations to the separate scopes of work? If so does this extend to separate advertisements, outreach phone calls, faxes and mailings?
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019

Response #1:
(#4)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/22/2019


Response #2:
(1) Please consider extending the time allotted for contractors to produce this paperwork.

The time allotted is a Federal Requirement, can not extend the time for submittal of the DBE documentation.

(2) Or require only one set of documents that includes the additive item to make things simple.

The Department needs to evaluate the base contract, as well as the (Base + additive) contract. This requires separate submittals, one for the base contract, and one for the (Base + additive) contract.

(3) In addition please clarify if Caltrans expects the contractor to have separate solicitations for the two required Good Faith Efforts.

Per section 2-1.12B(3), a Good Faith Efforts documentations is required for both the base contract as well as the (Base + additive) contract.

(4) Caltrans is requiring us to submit two separate DBE Good Faith Efforts presumably because the additive item created the possibility of two separate and distinct scopes of work. In addition to separate Good Faith Effort Documentation is the Contractor expected to have separate solicitations to the separate scopes of work?

The solicitations for the scope of work for the base contract, and one for the base + additive contract can be part of one solicitation or two separate solicitations, this is a business decision that needs to be made by the bidder.

(5) If so does this extend to separate advertisements, outreach phone calls, faxes and mailings?

This is a business decision that needs to be made by the bidder. As long as the Department receives a Good Faith Efforts documentation for the base contract, and another for the base + additive contract, how this is handled is up to the bidder.

Response posted 01/22/2019




Inquiry #5: Please confirm this contract is not an A+B (cost + time) project. When this project previously bid it was an A+B and had a Lump Sum TRO Bid Item. The current project does not have any indication it is intended to be an A+B but it still has a Lump Sum TRO Bid Item. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019

Response #1:
(#5)-This contract is not an A+B (cost + time) project. TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD (LS) bid item will be revised in a forthcoming addendum to working days.
Response posted 01/22/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Thursday, January 24, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/24/2019




Inquiry #6: Regarding Special Provisions Section 39-2.09A(3)(e) Sample; Does this need to be sampled after the Start-Up Production sample? And/or, is the contractor to assume this is for every sub-lot of material sampled or just provide a sample one time during the project for each Long Life HMA material produced? Please provide clear guidance as to when these samples should be taken.
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2019

Response #1:
(#6)-(1). Does this need to be sampled after the Start-Up Production sample?

Yes, the samples need to be collected after the start-up production.

(2). Is the contractor to assume this is for every sub-lot of material sampled?

No, the every day samples are not for every sub-lot, just once per day per mix.

(3). Just provide a sample one time during the project for each Long Life HMA material produced?

No. There are one time samples, and there are every day samples.

Response posted 02/01/2019




Inquiry #7: Special Provisions page 109, Section 39-2.09A(4)(c)(iv)(C) Lot Acceptance Based on Quality Factors; Regarding the factors for the QFqci related to i = 1 through 5, are the specifications referring to the 5 index numbers in the table listed on page 108, Section 2.09A(4)(c)(iii) or the five (5) factors listed on page 104, Section 2.09A(b)(x)(A)?
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2019

Response #1:
(#7)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/01/2019


Response #2:
The specifications referring to the 5 index number in the table listed on page 108, relates to Section 2.09A(4)(c)(iii).
Response posted 02/01/2019




Inquiry #8: Special Provisions page 109, Section 39-2.09A(4)(c)(iv)(D) Payment Adjustment; Is the payment adjusted by the Acceptance Table on page 108. Section 2.09A(4)(c)(iii) or by the Statistical Evaluation Calculations shown on page 104, Section 2.09A(4)(b)(x)(C)?
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2019

Response #1:
(#8)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/01/2019


Response #2:
The payment is adjusted by both. The information from the two Sections cited is used in the equation found in Section 39-2.09(4)(c)(iv)(D) Payment Adjustment.
Response posted 02/01/2019




Inquiry #9: Please provide the bidders a list of all testing laboratories in California qualified under the IAP which are eligible to perform the Third Party Testing.
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2019

Response #1:
(#9)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/01/2019


Response #2:
Please use the link/path to the State Independent Assurance Database website for a listing of testing laboratories within California:

https://sia.dot.ca.gov/

Response posted 02/01/2019




Inquiry #10: Regarding the verified JMFs for the Long Life HMA mixes, are the JMFs valid for twelve (12) months form the date of verification? If the same mix is used in consecutive years will the contractor be required to renew the JMFs and all HMA Long Life Performance Requirements via UCPRC in order to pave the second year?
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2019

Response #1:
(#10)-Yes. And the allowance for free JMF verification and non-verification tests are reset for the renewal.
Response posted 02/01/2019




Inquiry #11: Regarding RAP in the Long Life Mixes, is a change in RAP content, during production, of up to +/- 3% (from what is listed on the approved JMF) acceptable as is the case with Type A mixes.
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2019

Response #1:
(#11)-Yes, please refer to Pg. 98 of the Special Provisions.
Response posted 02/01/2019




Inquiry #12: 39-2.08A(4)(b)(vii) – Action Limits and Corrective Actions: Should the Contractor assume the corrective action limits for HMA-Long Life Pavement are the minimum values listed within HMA-LL Performance Requirements table within Section 39-2.09B(2) or does Caltrans have other corrective action limits that should be applied? Should this table account for production variability during placement of the LLP similar to air voids and asphalt content?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#12)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
1. No, the "HMA-LL Performance Requirements" table is only applicable for JMF approval. Please refer to Section "39-2.09A(4)(e) Department Acceptance" for the applicable limits.
2. The limits in the "HMA-LL Performance Requirements" table were developed after accounting for laboratory testing variabilities. Since the table is not applicable during placement, it does not need to account for the production variability.

Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #13: 39-2.08A(4)(b)(vii) – Action Limits and Corrective Actions: If the Contractor is out of specification in one or more of the corrective action limits for HMA-Long Life Pavement will the material be accepted if corrective action is taken? Should it be assumed that the acceptance will be based on Section 39-2.09A(4)(e) Department Acceptance which does not include permanent deformation or fracture potential test?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#13)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Thursday, March 07, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #14: 39-2.09A(4)(b)(x) – Statistical Evaluation: This section only mentions the #8 and #200 sieves to determine a lot’s composite quality factor QFc whereas the Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Long Life) Acceptance Table in Section 39-2.09A(4)(c)(iii) also requires the #4 sieve to determine quality characteristics of the HMA Long Life Pavement. Can Caltrans clarify these requirements among these two sections of the specifications?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#14)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Thursday, March 07, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #15: 39-2.09A(4)(c)(i) – Department Acceptance – General: This section notes the department samples the HMA for asphalt binder content and air voids. This same testing is noted in Section 39-2.09A(4)(b)(x) – Statistical Evaluation. However, air voids are not mentioned in 39-2.09A(4)(c)(iii) – Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Long Life) Acceptance Table. Can Caltrans clarify why the requirements are different among three sections of the specifications?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#15)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Thursday, March 07, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #16: 39-2.09A(4)(c)(iii) – Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Long Life) Acceptance Table: The top and intermediate layers have an LSL value of 94 percent for density cores. Was this requirement developed considering both contractor and agency risk and is there sufficient data to indicate this requirement is achievable for HMA Long Life Pavement mix designs?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#16)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
Yes. Contractor risk was assessed based on past experience on previous long life projects. This is the same density requirements that has been used on all other long life projects:
I-710 Long Beach
I-5 Red Bluff
I-5 Weed
I-80 Solano
Agency risk was assessed based on mechanistic-empirical analysis. Hitting this density is a part of the structural design to achieve long life.

Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #17: 39-2.09A(4)(c)(iii) – Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Long Life) Acceptance Table: The rich bottom layer has an LSL value of 97 percent for density cores. Was this requirement developed considering both contractor and agency risk and is there sufficient data to indicate this requirement is achievable for HMA Long Life Pavement mix designs?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#17)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
Yes. Contractor risk was assessed based on past experience on previous long life projects. This is the same density requirements that has been used on all other long life projects:
I-710 Long Beach
I-5 Red Bluff
I-5 Weed
I-80 Solano
Agency risk was assessed based on mechanistic-empirical analysis. Hitting this density is a part of the structural design to achieve long life.

Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #18: 39-2.09A(4)(e) - Department Acceptance: Can Caltrans confirm that the notes listed at the bottom of the table (a, b, d and g) refer to the “Type A HMA Acceptance In Place” table within Section 39-2.02A(4)(e) of the 2018 Standard Specifications, as follows:
a) Prepare 3 briquettes. Report the average of 3 tests.
b) The Engineer determines the bulk specific gravity of each lab-compacted briquette under AASHTO T 275, Method A, and theoretical maximum specific gravity under AASHTO T 209, Method A.
d) The Engineer determines the laboratory-prepared Type A HMA value for only mix design verification.
g) For lime-treated aggregates, the dust proportion requirement is 0.6–1.5.

Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#18)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued. Please refer to Addendum no. 4, issued March 7, 2019.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #19: Section 39-2.09A(4)(e) – Department Acceptance: This section states “Testing for permanent deformation, fatigue/stiffness, and fracture potential must be performed by a laboratory qualified under the Caltrans Independent Assurance Program (observed by the UCPRC)”. Other than UCPRC which cannot perform testing for the contractor, we are not aware of any other lab that meets this requirement. Is Caltrans aware of any lab that is qualified under the Caltrans Independent Assurance Program to perform this testing?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#19)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
At this time there is no laboratory qualified by the Caltrans IAP to perform this testing in California. However, the University of California Pavement Research Center (UCPRC) will perform just-in-time training for contractors or subcontractors to run these tests during production.
Response posted 03/13/2019




Inquiry #20: What is the basis for the requirements in Table HMA-LL Performance Requirements in Section 39-2.09B(2)? Were these requirements developed considering both contractor and agency risk and is there sufficient data to indicate they are achievable using locally available aggregates and liquid asphalts?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#20)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
The requirements in the table are based on testing of a mix made with locally available materials being used at the time in the region. Aggregates and RAP were sampled from all available sources that could be identified within reasonable trucking distance of the project location, and all available binder sources, including different grades that could likely be used. The materials were sampled and tested in the late summer and fall of 2017. The results from the testing of a mix made from materials selected from those sampled were used to set the requirements. The requirements were set using statistical analysis to have Caltrans taking most of the risk of specimen preparation and test variability by setting the requirements for the contractor's average test values at the 2.5th percentile confidence interval from the testing results.
Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #21: Section 39-2.09A(4)(a) – Quality Assurance: This section states “In addition to JMF verification, you may request the Department may also verify up to 2 times for each of the tests included in the "HMA-LL Performance Requirements" table for each HMA-LL mix type”. Is the intent of this language to allow the Contractor to re-test the same material which failed previously during verification testing or is it to allow the Contractor to reproduce the material at the plant and only re-test the properties that failed?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#21)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
Please refer to Addendum no. 4, issued March 7, 2019. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #22: Section 39-2.09A(4)(a)(i) notes that after acceptance of the JMF submittal, the Department verifies the JMF within 30 days of receiving all verification samples. We need clarification on the following:
a. For the mix verification testing (hot drop), does the department verification include those tests outlined in the “HMA-LL Performances Requirements Table” shown in 39-2.09B(2)?
b. For the mix verification testing (hot drop), does the contractor need to perform those tests outlined in the “HMA-LL Performances Requirements Table” shown in 39-2.09B(2) and submit them the Caltrans as part of the verification process?
c. If required to be tested by the Contractor as part of the mix verification process and given that AASHTO T 321 is not required during production, is it really Caltrans intention that the Contractor purchase, install and train staff for this test (AASHTO T321) that would only be needed for the mix verification phase (hot drop)?

Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#22)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
a. Yes, note that there are additional tests that are not listed in the "HMA-LL Performances Requirements" Table
b. Yes, contractors need to submit test results for those tests, they can use UCPRC for these tests but will count towards the number of free tests allowed.
c. No, It is not the intention for contractor to run AASHTO T 321. It is up to the contractor to weight the cost of having UCPRC running the test vs. running them in house.

Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #23: As outlined in precision and bias statements in AASHTO T378, the Permanent Deformation test method has a high degree of variability (both within and between labs). Was this requirement developed considering both contractor and agency risk and is there sufficient data to indicate this production requirement is appropriate based on the high degree of variability of the AASHTO T378 test method?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#23)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
The variability of the test and the risk to the contractor was considered by requiring the contractor's average results to meet the 2.5th percentile of the test results for the baseline mix properties. This takes most of the risk of test variability off of the contractor and puts it on the agency. Graphical analysis for this risk was presented at the pre-bid meeting for the project.
Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #24: There are no precision and bias statements available for AASHTO TP 124, the Semicircular Beam Fracture Potential test method. Was this requirement developed considering both contractor and agency risk and is there sufficient data to indicate this production requirement is appropriate based on no precision or bias statement being currently available for the TP 124 test method?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#24)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
The variability is based on analysis of precision and bias from test results available to date although not from a formal study, and then lowered to risk smaller than 2.5th percentile. Additionally, See response to BI # 23.
Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #25: On the Caltrans website for the “Sac 5 Corridor Enhancement Project” there is a document titled “Long-Life Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement Presentation.” On page 20 of this document there is a flow chart. There is a “No” option next to the “Contractor Believe JMF is Ready” flow chart step. If “No” is chosen, it is assumed the next steps indicate that UCPRC will be available to assist with the JMF mix design development testing for AASHTO T321, T378 and TP 124 prior to performing the official JMF verification. Is this assumption correct?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#25)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
Correct.
Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #26: Regarding Section 39-2.09A(3)(e) – Samples: Is the 600 lb. sample for AASHTO T 378 (Modified) and AASHTO TP 124 to be taken once per day or once per Sublot?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#26)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
Once per day.
Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #27: The Special Provisions have deleted parts of, and added the following text to, section 39-2.01C(4)(a) “Place HMA on adjacent traveled way lanes such that at the end of each work shift, the distance between the ends of HMA layers on adjacent lanes is from 5 to 10 feet.” In addition Section 39-2.01C(4)(b) has been deleted. These changes will now require the contractor to square up all paving each shift all the way across the highway, because it no longer allows the use of the tapered notched wedge or allow drop offs 0.15’ and less. This requirement will greatly increase the cost, as well as the number of days needed to complete the project. Many areas of the project will have 5 to 6 lanes of traffic in its final configuration, plus an inside and outside shoulder. This will mean that on many paving shifts the paver will have to back up and pave the next lane up to 8 times in a single shift. This will greatly reduce the production rate of paving and in many cases it will cause the production to be up to 4 times slower than that achieved the first time this project bid. Other issues will be impacted as well with this change in the specification; such as the need to constantly short feed the paver to get shoulders paved with mainline the same night and greatly reducing the length of the highway that is completed each night. These issues will produce a less than optimal quality and ride-ability of the paved surface. Additional bump grinding will be required, further adding to schedule delays and overall cost. Although Caltrans may view the elimination of the tapered notch wedge as a public safety issue, if done properly it will ensure the traveling public will have to drive through this portion of the work for many less days thus providing less overall risk to the traveling public. Please consider allowing the 0.15’ drop off (standard specification 2018 language for Section 39-2.01C(4)(a)) and the tapered notched for the leveling, long life overlay work and the OGFC overlay work at a minimum. The impact of this small specification change cannot be overstated.
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2019

Response #1:
(#27)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/08/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Monday, February 25, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 02/25/2019


Response #3:

An addendum has been issued. Please refer to Addendum no. 4, issued March 7, 2019.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #28: Section 39-2.09 states "includes specifications for designing, producing and placing Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)
(Long Life) using statistical pay factors." SPF spec is still under development in the PMPC and is not street ready, will Caltrans remove the SPF requirements acknowledging it is not street ready?

Inquiry submitted 02/11/2019

Response #1:
(#28)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/11/2019


Response #2:
The Statistical Pay Factor was modified 1) to mimic the old and proven QC/QA specification and 2) to meet the specific district needs of this long- life project.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #29: Section 39-2.03(1) #5 states " Sampling and conducting selected performance tests at specified intervals, or sublots and provide
split sample to Department for parallel testing, to demonstrate the capability of running these tests
during production." Can cal trans please clarify "demonstrate the capability of running these tests?

Inquiry submitted 02/11/2019

Response #1:
(#29)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/11/2019


Response #2:
Caltrans is developing performance related specifications that will include performance test results as part of the acceptance criteria during production. As a first step, Caltrans has included AASHTO T 378 and TP 124 as part of the required performance tests during production but are not using the test results for acceptance. UCPRC will conduct parallel testing using split samples. Caltrans will evaluate whether the Contractors can run these tests correctly and consistently.
Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #30: Section 39-2.09A(3)(b) Caltrans quality control manual is till under revisions and development in the SPF PMPC WPG, will this manual be approved and published for use at time needed? Or will caltrans remove this requirement?
Inquiry submitted 02/11/2019

Response #1:
(#30)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/11/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Monday, February 25, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 02/25/2019




Inquiry #31: Where can the list of attendees to the Mandatory Pre-Bid be located?
Inquiry submitted 02/11/2019

Response #1:
(#31)-The sign-in sheet is posted at the project website under News/Events and is labeled as Pre-Bid Meeting Roster. http://dot.ca.gov/d3/projects/subprojects/0H10U/files/pdfs/Prebid/Pre-Bid%20Meeting%20Roster.pdf
Response posted 02/13/2019




Inquiry #32: Bid item 152(F) Furnish Sign Structure (Truss) Please clarify if all of the single post trusses require walkways or not? Caltrans has been removing walkways from nearly every project either before they bid or writing CCO's after they are fabricated to remove them. We just want clarification what is needed for all of the single post (cantilever) trusses as they do not show or call walkways out.
Inquiry submitted 02/13/2019

Response #1:
(#32)-Walkways are required. Please refer to standard plan sheets RSP S16, RSP S17, S17A, and S18.
Response posted 02/13/2019




Inquiry #33: Pay weight on bid item 152(F) Furnish Sign Structure (Truss) appears to be missing the pay weight shown on drawing 1520 of 2208. These 2 trusses are not included in the summary shown on sheets 1509-1512 and the bid item 152 pay weight matches only the summary total on drawing 1512. The correct pay weight should be 901,715 LBS + 39,721 LBS = 941,436 LBS (when job bid in August 2018 this matched identically the pay weight of 941,436 LBS and it was rounded up to 942,000 LBS on the bid schedule).
Inquiry submitted 02/13/2019

Response #1:
(#33)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/13/2019


Response #2:
The Total for all items on sheet 1520 of 2208 are non-pay quantities and provided as information used in the Lump Sum bid for the additive portion of the project.
Response posted 02/13/2019




Inquiry #34: All works shown on Plan sheets SC-188 thru SC-192 seems covered on plan sheets SC-177 thru SC-187. Please confirm to disregard SC-188 thru SC-177.
Inquiry submitted 02/13/2019

Response #1:
(#34)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/13/2019


Response #2:
Plan sheets SC-188 thru SC-192 show work locations of the project. Plan sheets SC-177 thru SC-187 show work locations of the additive portion of the project. Please refer to all Project plans sheets for work and additive work.
Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #35: Bid Item No. 162 "Remove Asphalt Concrete Surfacing", please indicate the locations of removed asphalt concrete surfacing since locations and quantities are not shown on any of the quantity sheets.
Inquiry submitted 02/13/2019

Response #1:
(#35)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/13/2019


Response #2:
Please see Sac 5 Road Rehabilitation section sheets 1/17 and 6/17 under Structure Plans of the Project Plan set.
Response posted 02/19/2019




Inquiry #36: Bid Item No. 332 "Additive Item 1", Will there be any quantity adjustment payment for over and under run of quantities from what shown on Q sheets Q-42 thru Q-47 for all various items of work under bid item no. 332? If so, what is the method of payment?
Inquiry submitted 02/13/2019

Response #1:
(#36)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/13/2019


Response #2:
Please refer to Section 9 of the Specifications.
Response posted 02/15/2019


Response #3:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum no. 4, issued March 7, 2019. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #37: There are no typical cross sections on route 5 from station 609+83 to 619+22, 634+86.9 to 644+17, 660+35 to 665+77, 672+97 to 678+77 and 703+25 to 713+00. Please provide typical cross sections.
Inquiry submitted 02/13/2019

Response #1:
(#37)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/13/2019


Response #2:
B1 Sta: 609+83 to 619+22 - See sheet C-168,
B1 Sta: 634+86.9 to 644+17 - See sheet C-178,
B1 Sta: 660+35 to 665+77 - See sheet C-179,
B1 Sta: 672+97 to 678+77 - See sheet C-180,
B1 Sta: 703+25 to 713+00 - See sheet C-181,

Please see construction detail sheets for typical sections through the precast concrete section limits.

Response posted 02/14/2019




Inquiry #38: Special provision section 49 "Piling", Dynamic monitoring Bridge # 24-0388 Bent No. 5 is missing on the control ZONE schedule. Please respond Dynamic monitoring location should be used for Bent No.5.
Inquiry submitted 02/13/2019

Response #1:
(#38)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/13/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Monday, February 25, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 02/25/2019




Inquiry #39: Response # 2 to Bidder Inquiry # 1 posted 2/14/19……. “updated the electronic bid software to allow the additive bidding.” Although the prime contractors are familiar with Caltrans electronic bid software many subcontractors and suppliers have no reason to use this software and in many cases are completely unaware of it. Prime contractors will likely not get pricing from subcontractors and suppliers for the work included in the additive item as they are not aware how to price this work if they do not see a bid item in the bid schedule for it. Please issue and Addendum updating the bid schedule to include a bid item for the additive work scope.
Inquiry submitted 02/14/2019

Response #1:
(#39)-Prime contractors seeking pricing from subcontractors and suppliers for the work included in the additive item should direct them to the contract plans designated as "ADDITIVE". These plan sheets show the specialty and roadwork items which compose the lump sum amount for the additive bid item.
Response posted 02/14/2019




Inquiry #40: The Special Provisions does not include Section 9 Payment which lists the items that are eligible for progress payment. The Special Provisions includes Section 9-1.16C Material on Hand. Section 9-1.16C of the 2018 Standard Specifications state the following::
Material on hand but not incorporated into the work is eligible for a progress payment if: 1) LISTED in the Special provisions as eligible and is in compliance with other Contract parts. Are all materials in excess of $50000 / $25000 for DBE&DVBE eligible for Material on Hand Payments for this project ?

Inquiry submitted 02/14/2019

Response #1:
(#40)-The "Notice to Bidders and Special Provisions" contain the Special Provisions and the Revised Standard Specifications. The Special Provisions (Begin on page 20) do not have a Section 9. The Revised Standard Specifications (Which begins on page 254) includes Section 9-1.16C Materials on Hand (page 8 of 68). Per Section 9-1.16C, "Materials On Hand", all eight listed conditions must be met in order to be eligible for materials on hand payments.
Response posted 02/15/2019




Inquiry #41: Special provision section 3-1.02A states 3 different scenarios for comparing bids. This appears to be in conflict with Section 10126(C) of public contract code which states "Whenever additive or deductive items are included in a bid, the bid solicitation shall specify only ONE method to determine the lowest bid." Please clarify if the determination of the lowest bid is base bid plus the additive item or total base bid only.
Inquiry submitted 02/15/2019

Response #1:
(#41)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/15/2019


Response #2:
The lowest bid is the sum of the item totals plus the additive item, if less than or equal to funds available. Otherwise lowest bid is the item totals without the additive item.
Response posted 02/22/2019


Response #3:
The language in 3-1.02A complies with PCC 10126(C).
Response posted 02/25/2019




Inquiry #42: Plan sheet No. 1922 "Foundation Plan No. 1" under Legend notes, indicates 60" storm drain to be relocated by others prior to start of construction. Plan sheet N0. 747 "U-25" and SD-1 indicates 60" storm drain to be relocated during the construction by this contract. Please confirm who will be relocating the 60" storm drain.
Inquiry submitted 02/22/2019

Response #1:
(#42)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/25/2019


Response #2:
Please refer to sheets U-25 and SD-1 for City of Sacramento 60 Storm Drain relocation.
Response posted 03/01/2019




Inquiry #43: Summary of Quantities Sheet Q-24 indicates the Type 842A Barrier is not part of a separate pay item. Is this barrier not paid for in Item 306 – Concrete Barrier (Type 842A)??
Inquiry submitted 02/22/2019

Response #1:
(#43)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/25/2019


Response #2:
Item 306 Concrete Barrier (Type 842A) quantity is shown on sheet Q-33.
Response posted 03/01/2019




Inquiry #44: Summary of Quantities Sheet Q-24 indicates there is 50,397 LB of Miscellaneous Iron and Steel, within the slope paving, that is not paid under a separate pay item. The plans do not provide a location or detail for the stated Miscellaneous Iron and Steel. Please provide plans with details and locations for the Miscellaneous Iron and Steel stated on sheet Q-24.
Inquiry submitted 02/22/2019

Response #1:
(#44)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/25/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum no. 4, issued March 7, 2019. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #45: Bid Item #40 – Temporary Wetland Protection Mat is a lump sum bid item. The project plans do not delineate the location of the required mat placement. Please provide the limits of work for this item.
Inquiry submitted 02/25/2019

Response #1:
(#45)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/25/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum no. 4, issued March 7, 2019. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #46: We are in receipt of Addendum 2 issued today with over 280 plan sheet changes, several bid item changes and many, many other files (8 working days before bid day). This addendum has also changed the Additive Bid Item 332 added by Addendum 1. There is not enough time between now and the current bid day of March 6th (8 working days) to perform a thorough review to understand and share/outreach this information to our subs and DBE's firms. We will need more time to review ALL of the new addendum documents received today. Please consider a 2 week postponement to the current bid date.
Inquiry submitted 02/25/2019

Response #1:(#46)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

(#46) - The Department will be postponing the bid opening and an addendum is forthcoming.

Response posted 02/25/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Friday, March 1, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/04/2019




Inquiry #47: In reviewing Addendum #2 the changes made are significant and will have a material impact on the bid. The removal of the concrete barrier slab and issuance of new cross sections is a major change. We can not properly evaluate all the changes and provide a responsible bid by March 6th. We respectfully request a minimum two week extension to the bid date.
Inquiry submitted 02/25/2019

Response #1:
(#47)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
The Department will be postponing the bid opening and an addendum is forthcoming.

Response posted 02/25/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Friday, March 1, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/04/2019




Inquiry #48: ITEM #291, SEVERE DUTY CRASH CUSHION, SCI 100GM:
The above Bid Item name has been changed in Addendum #2, and would appear to refer to one specific make of crash cushion. However, Section 83-5.05 was not changed and specifies crash cushions from two manufacturers, or equal.
Is the Engineer specifying only one Type of Severe Duty CC, or are both Types of CCs, or equal, still acceptable?

Inquiry submitted 02/25/2019

Response #1:
(#48)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/25/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum no. 4, issued March 7, 2019. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #49: PLAN SHEET #86, L-2:
Addendum #2 added Notes #9 & 10. Note #10 directs the addition of a 10inch deep, A76B Barrier Footing for the entire length of Concrete barrier.
Is this to be done for ALL Concrete Barriers? Just Type 60M Series Concrete Barriers? All Median Barriers? All Shoulder Barriers? Even Barriers detailed in the Construction Detail Plans?

Inquiry submitted 02/25/2019

Response #1:
(#49)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/25/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued. Please refer to Addendum no. 4, issued March 7, 2019.
Response posted 03/11/2019


Response #3:
No, Construct Concrete Barriers per plans, construction details and Standard Plans.
An addendum has been issued. Please refer to Addendum no. 4, issued March 7, 2019.

Response posted 03/12/2019




Inquiry #50: What is the material specification and method of payment for the expanded polystrene backfill shown on addendum # 2 plan sheets C-384 thru C-390?
Inquiry submitted 02/26/2019

Response #1:(#50)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

(#50) - Please refer to section 83-3.02G and 51-2.01B(1).
Response posted 02/26/2019




Inquiry #51: The changes made in Addendum #2 are significant and will have a significant impact on the bid. We can not properly evaluate all the changes and provide a responsible bid by March 6th. We respectfully request an extension to the bid date of at least 14 calendar days.

Inquiry submitted 02/26/2019

Response #1:(#51)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

(#51) - The Department will be postponing the bid opening and an addendum is forthcoming.

Response posted 02/26/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Friday, March 1, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/04/2019




Inquiry #52: Addendum No. 2 has made significant changes to the plans and unfortunately most of the plan sheets do not have the changes identified with a DELTA 2. This has created the very time consuming task of comparing every page to search out the changes that have been made. Additional time is needed to assure all the changes have been identified, please extend the bid date a minimum two weeks.
Inquiry submitted 02/26/2019

Response #1:(#52)- Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/27/2019


Response #2:
(#52) -The Department will be postponing the bid opening and an addendum is forthcoming.


Response posted 02/27/2019


Response #3:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Friday, March 1, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/04/2019




Inquiry #53: At bridge 24-0296 (5/160 Separation) Abutment #6, due to the difficulty and public safety concerns of SPLICING a Class 140 Alt. X Concrete BATTER Piles @ 85' long under power lines, can the (7) BATTER Piles be revised as Plumb Piles?
Inquiry submitted 02/27/2019

Response #1:(#53) Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

(#53) - No, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/27/2019




Inquiry #54: On sheet nos. 2185 & 2186, the CMU Architectural Pattern, please provide the color for the precast "CROWN CAP" (1) & (4).

Thanks,

Inquiry submitted 02/27/2019

Response #1:
(#54) Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/27/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Thursday, March 07, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #55: What is the break up for the Bonded Fiber Matrixes? Bid item # 63-65.
Inquiry submitted 02/27/2019

Response #1:
(#55)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 02/28/2019


Response #2:
Please see 2018 Standard Specifications section 21-2.02J Bonded Fiber Matrix.
Response posted 03/08/2019




Inquiry #56: 1. Please clarify which bid line item(s) includes the Additive Erosion Control Quantities, as shown on sheet ECQ-5.
2. Please clarify size of Fiber Rolls. Sheet Q-40 references 6" and sheet ECD-1 references 8" to 10" diameter.
3. Please provide quantity breakdown for Type 1 and Type 2 Fiber Rolls.

Inquiry submitted 03/01/2019

Response #1:
(#56)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/01/2019


Response #2:
1. Additive Bid Item #336. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, Special Provisions Section 2-1.09, issued on Thursday, March 7, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.

2. Please see applicable sections of Standard Specifications for Bid Item #130640 Temporary Fiber Roll shown on plan sheet Q-40.

3. Please reference Standard Specification Section 21 for Fiber Roll Installation Type.

Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #57: ITEM #294, CONCRETE BARRIER, TYPE 60MC:
Addendum #2 added a significant quantity of Type 60MC Barrier. Construction Details were added on sheets 537b - 537g, C-384 to 389. As per Standard Plan A76A, is the reinforcing bar stirrup shown on the details required only if the "c" vertical offset is equal to, or greater than 12 inches?
If this is not the case, will the Engineer add a Bid Item for Concrete Barrier, Type 60MC Modified?

Inquiry submitted 03/01/2019

Response #1:
(#57)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/04/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Thursday, March 07, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #58: For the pump stations listed on GP-1 thru GP-5, do you intend on running the new submersibles on VFDs?
Inquiry submitted 03/05/2019

Response #1:
(#58)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/05/2019


Response #2:
Attention is directed to plan sheets 2105 (GP-1), 2114 (GP-2), 2122 (GP-3), 2130 (GP-4), and 2138 (GP-5) for equipment schedules for the pumps. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 03/06/2019




Inquiry #59: Plan sheets 2105 (GP-1), 2114 (GP-2), 2122 (GP-3), 2130 (GP-4), and 2138 (GP-5) appear to reference reduced speeds to achieve the specified flow rates, however these sheets also list the pumps as 60 hz. Per the following formula, please clarify the speed, frequency, and number of poles needed to achieve the desired flows.

The synchronous speed can be calculated as:

n = f (2 / p) 60 (1)

where

n = shaft rotation speed (rev/min, rpm)

f = frequency of electrical power supply (Hz, cycles/sec, 1/s)

p = number of poles

Inquiry submitted 03/06/2019

Response #1:
(#59)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/06/2019


Response #2:
Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 03/08/2019


Response #3:
Attention is directed to Addendum # 5 dated March 12, 2019, Plan sheets GP-1 & GP-4, Equipment schedule, for the revised equipment schedule. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 03/18/2019




Inquiry #60: Plan sheets 2105 (GP-1), 2130 (GP-4), and 2138 (GP-5) - equipment schedules for the pumps show speeds 600RPM, 355RPM and 700RPM which cannot be achieved at 60HZ ; the pump would need a variable frequency drive (VFD). Please confirm you intend on using a VFD with the pumps.
Inquiry submitted 03/06/2019

Response #1:
(#60)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/06/2019


Response #2:
Attention is directed to Addendum # 5 dated March 12, 2019, Plan sheets GP-1 & GP-4, Equipment schedule, for the revised equipment schedule.
Response posted 03/15/2019




Inquiry #61: On Sheet 2186 It calls out for the CMU 1 and 4 to be a precast Crown Cap. I believe most all Masonry Contractors bid The CMU Crown Cap from the same supplier as the rest of the Block. Is this acceptable or do we need to bid Precast as is called out?
Inquiry submitted 03/06/2019

Response #1:
(#61)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/06/2019


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #62: On Sheet 2185 for Block 2 It calls for Split Face both sides and 1 end and to be 6 taper scored. The block manufacturer can make the Split face 3 sides but not in 6 taper score. They can make Split Face 2 sides and 6 taper scored. Is it acceptable for the end not to be split face or how do we proceed as the block called out is can not be made?
Inquiry submitted 03/06/2019

Response #1:
(#62)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/06/2019


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2019




Inquiry #63: Bid Item #124 (Structural Concrete, Drainage Inlet) has a total quantity of 267 CY. Per the “DQ” sheets it appears this 267 CY is comprised of +/- 7 CY to be compensated under Bid Item #332 (Additive Item #1) and the balance of +/- 260 CY would be compensated under Bid Item #124 (Structural Concrete, Drainage Inlet). It appears the total for the project should be 267 CY and currently there’s an overlap / double up of quantities between Item #124 and #332. Please confirm and reduce the quantity of Bid Item #124 to reflect this.
Inquiry submitted 03/06/2019

Response #1:
(#63)-Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Monday, February 25, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 03/06/2019




Inquiry #64: Bid Item #231 (Miscellaneous Iron & Steel) has a total quantity of 53300 LB. Per the “DQ” sheets it appears this 53300 LB is comprised of 1956 LB to be compensated under Bid Item #332 (Additive Item #1) and the balance would be compensated under Bid Item #231 (Miscellaneous Iron & Steel). It appears the total for the project should be 53300 LB and currently there’s an overlap / double up of quantities between Item #231 and #332. Please confirm and reduce the quantity of Bid Item #231 to reflect this.
Inquiry submitted 03/06/2019

Response #1:
(#64)-Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Monday, February 25, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/06/2019




Inquiry #65: Bid Item #224 (Minor Concrete - Miscellaneous Construction) has a total quantity of 2700 CY. Per the “DQ” sheets it appears this 2700 CY is comprised of 66 CY of inlet aprons to be compensated under Bid Item #332 (Additive Item #1) and the balance would be compensated under Bid Item #224 (Minor Concrete - Miscellaneous Construction). It appears the total for the project should be 2700 CY and currently there’s an overlap / double up of quantities between Item #224 and #332. Please confirm and reduce the quantity of Bid Item #224 to reflect this.
Inquiry submitted 03/06/2019

Response #1:
(#65)-Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Monday, February 25, 2019.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/06/2019




Inquiry #66: Bid Item#194 18" Slotted Pipe, the Plans do not call out the type (Strait or Trapezoid Grate) or the grate Height for the item. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 03/08/2019

Response #1:
(#66)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/12/2019


Response #2:
Please refer to Standard Plans and plan D98B.
Response posted 03/12/2019




Inquiry #67: Please confirm the Bidders are required to follow the Electronic Bidding Guide dated 2/20/2019?
If so, please clarify how bidders are required to provide the item, percentage and description information in the subcontractor listing form for Bid Item 336 Additive 1?

Inquiry submitted 03/11/2019

Response #1:
(#67)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/12/2019


Response #2:
Yes, bidders are expected to follow the Electronic Bidding Guide dated 2/20/2019.
Follow the guidance on page 12-14 of the guide, just include Ad-1 as part of the description.

Referring to page 14 of the EBG:

Additive bid item 1 is currently item 336 in the e-bid system.
The bidder would put the bid item 336 in column one.
The bidder would put the % of the work the subcontractor is doing under the 2nd column.
Under the description they would put in ad-1 and the work that the sub is doing that corresponds to the % in column #2.

If a subcontractor needs more than five lines, on the following list, select YES to list this subcontractor. Fill in the Business Name, Location City, and State matching the previous entry and continue with the next five items.

Response posted 03/19/2019




Inquiry #68: Will the Department have the updated information for the previously approved vendor software for Quality Factors and the HMA Pay program (as mentioned on page 27 of the QC Manual from Addendum #2) before the job bids on March 20, 2019? At this time, it appears neither link takes us to this information on the Department’s Construction/HMA homepage.
Inquiry submitted 03/11/2019

Response #1:
(#68)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/12/2019


Response #2:
The Caltrans Construction has posted the information on the HMA Construction homepage.
Response posted 03/18/2019




Inquiry #69: Bid item #111 is listed as “(60” Concrete Cast in Hole Concrete Pile, (Sign Structure), (Wet Pour)”.
While we are aware of many risks and complexities of wet hole piles, Gamma Testing, C.S.L. testing, slurry properties, casings as well as various other specifications and requirements that go along with them, we are not familiar with this particular bid item as written. I was not able to find any further definition of this bid item In the Contract Documents. Will the department further define this bid item? Is the department saying that all of these piles will require test tubes, and Gamma proofing, regardless of whether or not that will be required to pour as slurry displacement piles?

Inquiry submitted 03/12/2019

Response #1:
(#69)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/12/2019


Response #2:
Please refer to Addendum No. 6, issued on Wednesday, March 13, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/13/2019




Inquiry #70: 39-2.09B(2) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Long Life) Mix Design: In the HMA-LL Mix Design Requirements Table there is a requirement for air voids to have an N-initial value greater than 8.0 and a N-max value greater than 2.0. For Rich Bottom and other LLP mix designs these limits seem like they may not be appropriate based on the fact that air voids are determined from the performance testing requirements and not on a standard value like 4.0. Does Caltrans have supporting data to indicate these limits are reasonable for LLP mix designs?
Inquiry submitted 03/13/2019

Response #1:
(#70)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.


Response posted 03/14/2019


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued. Please refer to Addendum no. 7, issued March 15, 2019
Response posted 03/18/2019




Inquiry #71: Add to the end of the 3rd paragraph of section 39-2.01A(4)(h)(i) with:
AASHTO T 283 and AASHTO T 324 (Modified) test results may not represent more than 5,000 tons. Does this requirement only apply to Long Life Pavement mixes and if so, should this be added to the table “Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Long Life) Production Testing Frequencies” located in Section 39-2.09A(4)(b)(vi)?

Inquiry submitted 03/13/2019

Response #1:
(#71)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/14/2019


Response #2:
This requirement applies to HMA-LL mixes. These tests are optional during production so are not included in the table "Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Long Life) Production Testing Frequencies". It is however included in the table "Type A HMA Non Pay Factor Quality Characteristics" in Section 39-2.09A(4)(c)(iii).
Response posted 03/18/2019




Inquiry #72: Section 39-2.02A(4)(e) and Section 39-2.02B(2): For the tables shown at the beginning of Section 39 (Addendum No.4) - Are the values listed for AASHTO T283 limits for RAP substitutions less than or greater than 15% appropriate for Long Life Pavement mix designs which are already designed to meet stringent LLP mix stiffness design criteria?
Inquiry submitted 03/13/2019

Response #1:
(#72)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/14/2019


Response #2:
Please refer to Section 39-2.09A(4)(a) for applicability of these limits to HMA-LL mixes.
Response posted 03/18/2019




Inquiry #73: 39-2.09A(4)(a)(i) Job Mix Formula Verification and Production Start Up Evaluation: The HMA-LL Additional Requirements table states that Long Life Pavement shall have an asphalt binder content ranging +/- 0.30 from the JMF design value. The current 2018 Standard Specifications allow a range of -0.30 to +0.50 for asphalt binder content from the JMF design value. Was this requirement developed considering both contractor and agency risk and is there sufficient data to indicate this requirement is achievable for HMA Long Life Pavement mix designs and production testing?
Inquiry submitted 03/13/2019

Response #1:
(#73)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/14/2019


Response #2:
Binder content range developed from Caltrans long life pavement projects.
Response posted 03/18/2019




Inquiry #74: 39-2.09A(4)(c)(iii) Acceptance Criteria: The Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Long Life) Pay Factor Acceptance Table states that Long Life Pavement shall have an asphalt binder content ranging +/- 0.30 from the JMF design value. The current 2018 Standard Specifications allow a range of -0.30 to +0.50 for asphalt binder content from the JMF design value. Was this requirement developed considering both contractor and agency risk and is there sufficient data to indicate this requirement is achievable for HMA Long Life Pavement mix designs and production testing?
Inquiry submitted 03/13/2019

Response #1:
(#74)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/14/2019


Response #2:
Binder content range developed from Caltrans long life pavement projects.
Response posted 03/14/2019




Inquiry #75: Regarding, Bid Item #78 High Friction Surface Treatment. Is the HFST applied in one (1) layer or two (2) layers?

Regarding, Bid Item #167 High Friction Surface Treatment (Bridge). Is the HFST applied in one (1) layer or two (2) layers?

Inquiry submitted 03/13/2019

Response #1:
(#75)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/14/2019


Response #2:
Bid Item #78: High Friction Surface Treatment applied as specified in Special Provision Section 37-7.

Bid Item #167: Attention is directed to in Addendum No.7 dated 3/15/2019, Special provisions Section 60-3.06. High Friction Surface Treatment for bridges should be applied in 2 layers.
Response posted 03/15/2019




Inquiry #76: The bid item list from Addendum 4 - is it replacing all of the bid item list, or is in addition to the list?
Inquiry submitted 03/14/2019

Response #1:
(#76)-No, it does not replace the bid item list. Addendum 4 provides an Additive Item 1 schedule of values which are listed on pages 4 through 8 of addendum 4. The Information handout also lists the schedule of values for bid item 1.
Response posted 03/14/2019




Inquiry #77: Bid Item 10 Temporary Traffic Stripe, is the line removal required between the traffic handling phases of the temporary painted traffic Stripe Incidental to this bid item? or is Caltrans going to substantially overrun bid item 322 remove painted traffic stripe?
Inquiry submitted 03/15/2019

Response #1:
(#77)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 03/15/2019


Response #2:
Traffic stripe removal item between Traffic Handling phases is not part of temporary traffic stripe item but it is part of remove painted traffic stripe item.
Response posted 03/18/2019




Inquiry #78: Bid Item #305 - 60MGF Mod. Barrier is shown on L-60 (Sheet 144) that says see construction details. We are unable to find a construction detail for this item. Could the State please provide a detail or refer us to a sheet number.
Inquiry submitted 03/18/2019

Response #1:
(#78)-Please see Construction Detail C-229, Sheet 384.
Response posted 03/18/2019




Inquiry #79: RFI #1:
On page E-48 & E-49, STA 826 + 50.00 thru STA 838 + 25.00, 2-4” C in the Barrier is called for. However, per Addendum 4, the concrete barrier has changed to the Type 60 series which does not include conduit sleeve in its details. How is this to be resolved for the needed conduit?


:

Inquiry submitted 03/18/2019

Response #1:
(#79)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/18/2019




Inquiry #80: For the remaining Type 842 Barrier Slabs per the table on roadway plan sheet SDB-2, there is a call out for the installation of (2)-- 4" conduits in the roadway plan sheets SDB-1 through SDB-5, what type conduit is required for these slabs?
Are these sleeves for the (2) 1 1/2” HDPE FO conduits?
Will HDPE, PVC or Rigid Galvanized Steel conduit be required?

Inquiry submitted 03/18/2019

Response #1:
(#80)-Refer to E-1 and bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/18/2019




Inquiry #81: In regards to the response posted for Inquiry #56 and clarification regarding the Additive Erosion Control Quantities, as shown on sheet ECQ-5, please advise on the following:

1. There is no Additive Bid Item #336 nor a main bid item #336. It appears the Additive erosion control quantities fall under Additive Bid Item List #31. Please confirm.
2. Is the component breakdown exactly as shown in the main bid for Bonded Fiber Matrix (Type 1) sheet ECL-1?

Inquiry submitted 03/18/2019

Response #1:
(#81) 1. Bid Item List was updated per Addendum #2 dated February 25th, 2019 and now contains 335 base bid items (#1-335) and one Additive Item (#336). Item #336, Additive Item 1, appears under Bid Item List 2 in the EBS system. All additive work is covered under this lump sum item. As part of Addendum #4 dated March 7, 2019, the schedule of values for the additive bid item work was added to the end of Special Provisions Section 2-1.09.

2. Yes, as shown on ECL-1.
Response posted 03/19/2019


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.