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 03-1E0504
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: Section 14-6.03D(1) of Special Provisions states "1. Monitor regulated species within the project area" and "2. Ensure that construction activities do not result in the take of regulated species". Does this imply full-time monitoring throughout the duration of the construction period, monitoring during construction within Species Protection Areas (section 14-6.03A), or other? PLACs are not included in the information handout or otherwise.
Inquiry submitted 04/03/2020
Response #1:(#1)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 04/06/2020
Response #2:
Section 14-6.03D(1) specifies the duties of a Contractor Supplied Biologist (CSB), where as section 14-6.03A specifies the species of concern and the areas they are likely to occur. So, Nesting Bird surveys would be required at (Species Protection Area SPA-4) all locations 7-10 days prior to working at that specific location, Monitoring would only be required if a nest is located within a 100 feet (standard specification 14-6.03A). For Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs (FYLF), immediately prior to starting work (each morning) at a specific location the CSB will need to look for FYLF. If any are found they need to notify the engineer to contact environmental so we can evaluate/relocate the frogs. If the CSB determines no FYLF are likely to occur (no surface moisture in the area) then no additional monitoring would be required at that location. The Coastal Horned Lizard would also require a first thing in the morning inspection at each location prior to any additional access to the site. However, unless one is located, no additional monitoring would be required.
Note for the Species Protection Areas SPA-1, SPA-2 and SPA-3 the CSB should be monitoring the protection measures for those areas.
Response posted 04/10/2020
Inquiry #2: Regarding Pipelining (71-3.08/71-3.10), will Cementitious Pipeliner (71-3.10) be allowed for use on drainage systems currently identified for Cured-In-Place Pipelining (71-3.08).
Specifically, can Cementitious Pipelining (71-3.10) be used in bidding items 36-39?
Inquiry submitted 04/08/2020
Response #1:(#2)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 04/08/2020
Response #2:
Cementitious Pipelining will not be allowed for bid items 36-39. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 04/10/2020
Inquiry #3: Can the bid date be extended 1 week to April 28th?
Inquiry submitted 04/09/2020
Response #1:
(#3)-The request to delay the Bid Date is with no justifiable reason. Therefore no extension should be granted.
Response posted 04/10/2020
Inquiry #4: regarding Drainage System #16
start 18 inch for 70 ft and then 30 inch for 262ft, lining a tapered of 18" and 30" will not be an option, and digging a DI or trenching out the 18" and replace it with 30" pipe it might risk the HWY integrity, since we are talking about 30 ft of soil above the pipe.
can we do an 18 inch all the way down, with annular grouting
please advise if this acceptable or if you have another workable idea since we didn't see any item for replacing this 18 inch or digging a DI at the HWY shoulder.
Inquiry submitted 04/14/2020
Response #1:(#4)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 04/14/2020
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Friday, May 1, 2020. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 05/04/2020
Inquiry #5: Several of the culverts to be CIPP lined are extremely deep, 40'-90' under the roadway. The CIPP design requirements state to assume ground water at 1/2 pipe depth, if not described otherwise. This requirement results in extremely thick CIPP liners due to the assumed groundwater height. Most, if not all of these locations would very likely not have groundwater as high as the assumed depth, given the nature of the raised roadways. Can the Owner please provide expected groundwater elevations at the culvert locations so that the CIPP liner thickness designs can be formulated with actual data? In lieu of actual groundwater elevations, will the Owner consider an alternative design criteria for groundwater depth such as 1/4 of pipe depth at locations in excess of 40' design depth?
Inquiry submitted 04/16/2020
Response #1:(#5)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 04/16/2020
Response #2:
No additional information is available. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 04/20/2020
Inquiry #6: In regards to Drainage System 16, where the drawings call for CIPP lining of 18" x 70 LF transitioning to 30" x 262 LF in a culvert with almost 100 feet of fall and where there is no manhole or DI to provide a direct access opening into the pipe at the diameter transition point, we agree with inquiry no. 4 that this diameter transition in this culvert cannot be lined with CIPP without a direct access opening into the pipe at the diameter transition. Would it be acceptable at this location to line the pipe with cementitious pipeliner in lieu of the CIPP?
Inquiry submitted 04/16/2020
Response #1:(#6)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 04/20/2020
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Friday, May 1, 2020. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 05/04/2020
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.