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 03-2F3404
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: Please allow more time (72 hours or greater) for the contractor to pave the RHMA-O after the cold plane operation is performed. Currently the special provisions are silent on this issue and it automatically defaults to requiring the contractor to paveback the milled surface during the same shift. Since crackfill is required in between the cold plane operation and RHMA-O operation, and the Crackfill material needs to cure prior to RHMA-O paving, productivity (short paving window) and quality issues (smoothness - added joints) will arise.
Inquiry submitted 11/21/2018
Response #1:(#1)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/21/2018
Response #2:
Your inquiry doesn't appear to be applicable to this contract. There is no RHMA-O or crack treatment included in the plans or estimate. In addition, per section 39-3.04A of the Special Provisions, the contractor does have 72 hours to pave after cold planing as long as the milled surface is covered prior to the weekend.
Response posted 11/29/2018
Inquiry #2: The electrical sheets 314 through 391 are very faint (light) and it's difficult to determine what's existing and what's new, is there anyway a clearer scan can be loaded for these sheets that bolds the new and the faint (light) is existing? On the modified standard and equipment schedule the * denotes new equipment, if the * shows up for a new pole is all the equipment new as well? For example on sheet E-3, sheet 616 of 459 * pole "A" 26-4-100 are the (2) MAS, SV-1-T, SP-1-T and Roadway 1 luminaire all considered to be new?
Thank you
Inquiry submitted 11/27/2018
Response #1:(#2)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/27/2018
Response #2:
1. The light print on the electrical plan sheets is due to the printer. The plans were printed and reviewed in response to this inquiry and no printing issues were found. Your attention is directed to RSP ES-1B to show further differences between what is existing and what is new.
2. Yes, the * denotes all new equipment.
Response posted 11/29/2018
Inquiry #3: There is no detail for the "repair failed areas" and therefore the thickness of the HMA Type A is unknown. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2018
Response #1:(#3)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/07/2018
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/24/2018
Inquiry #4: Please verify the quantity on bid item #69 (Geosynthetic Pavement Interlayer- Paving Fabric) listed as 10,300 SQYD. Our calculations are considerably different.
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2018
Response #1:(#4)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/12/2018
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/24/2018
Inquiry #5: Reference Bid Item #123 - Adjust Utility Cover to Grade. Basis / scope for quantities is unclear or considerable adjustment of bid item quantity is needed. There appears to be 47 each called out by individual lines tied to each "adjust" note on the "Utility Plan" sheets. Many have multiple lines pointing to adjust locations, however only Sheets U-16 and U-18 specifically note more than 1 adjustment in the note verbiage. The note callout per sheet to "adjust" is also considerably higher that the bid item quantity of 12 each. Please clarify the basis of the quantity, correct the bid item quantity as required and include a summary table detailing the adjustments and which utility type the cover belongs to (water, sewer, etc,..).
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2018
Response #1:(#5)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/12/2018
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/24/2018
Inquiry #6: Reference Bid Item #122 - Adjust Manhole to Grade. Please clarify where these 2 each are located.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2018
Response #1:(#6)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/12/2018
Response #2:
For bid item 122-Adjust Manhold to Grade, there is only one. Location is shown on C-56 and U-16. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/24/2018
Inquiry #7: Reference Bid Item 46 - Remove Water Meter and Cap Service. Please clarify where this work is located.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2018
Response #1:(#7)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/12/2018
Response #2:
Location is shown on U-17. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018.
Response posted 12/24/2018
Inquiry #8: Reference Detail titled "Reinforced Concrete Collar" on Plan Sheet DD-1. Does this detail only apply to those "concrete collars" called out on the bottom table of Sheet DQ-9 for DS #11 (also shown on Sheet DP-3)? Or does this reinforced concrete collar detail also apply to all pipe to pipe connections required for the project which are not referenced in the drainage summary tables and / or drainage profiles (ie., DS #33b, DS #12c, DS #12d, DS #17f, DS #17g, etc,..)? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2018
Response #1:(#8)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/12/2018
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/24/2018
Inquiry #9: Reference Plan Sheet DQ-5. The rows for DS #21d and DS #21f call for a 24" CFES, however the "description" column for each calls for an 18" CFES. It is assumed the CFES should be 18" since DS #21e is 18" RCP. Please clarify this assumption or revise DS #21e to match with 24" RCP and adjust quantities as necessary.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2018
Response #1:(#9)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/12/2018
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/24/2018
Inquiry #10: Reference Plan Sheet DP-7. DS #28b calls for 14' of concrete backfill, however this backfill height does not appear correct based on the profile shown. The concrete backfill quantity on Plan Sheet DQ-6 also does not appear to reflect this. This information is needed as this is a final pay item and also impacts the bid item that the pipe installation pays under. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2018
Response #1:(#10)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/12/2018
Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/24/2018
Inquiry #11: Reference Plan Sheet DP-8. DS #33b calls for 11' of concrete backfill, however this backfill height does not appear correct based on the profile shown. The concrete backfill quantity on Plan Sheet DQ-7 also does not appear to reflect this. This information is needed as this is a final pay item and also impacts the bid item that the pipe installation pays under. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2018
Response #1:(#11)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/12/2018
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/24/2018
Inquiry #12: Reference Plan Sheet DQ-7. The row for DS #34b calls for 12" Alternative Slotted Pipe, however the "description" column for this row calls for 12" SCSP. Please clarify that steel pipe is not required and that HDPE pipe is allowed per the callout as "alternative" slotted pipe.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2018
Response #1:(#12)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/12/2018
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/24/2018
Inquiry #13: What type of headwall and Caltrans standard detail is required for DS #20h?
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2018
Response #1:(#13)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/12/2018
Response #2:
Circular pipe culvert headwall - see RSP D89.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Inquiry #14: Reference Plan Sheet DD-1 detail for "Underdrain Modified Cleanout Cover" and Bid Item #103 (8" Perforated Plastic Pipe Underdrain). There is no project specific detail for the underdrain pipe installation, therefore it is assumed that Standard Plan D102 applies which calls for fabric lined trench and permeable material backfill over top of pipe up to the grading plane. However the project specific detail on DD-1 calls for "Conc Backfill (Pipe Trench)" around the vertical riser. Please clarify the intent (dimensions, where required, etc,..) of the concrete backfill since the standard plans do not require any concrete backfill above / around the pipe trench. Additionally, please clarify the quantity of underdrain cleanouts required per detail on DD-1 or minimum requirements to assume (maximum feet spacing between cleanouts, all angle points, etc,..). The project plans and standard plans / specifications do not clarify this requirement and therefore the bidder can't quantify / determine costs accurately since incidental to the LF underdrain pipe cost.
Inquiry submitted 12/17/2018
Response #1:(#14)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/17/2018
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/24/2018
Inquiry #15: For Bid Item #46 - Remove Water Meter & Cap Service, is the requirement to cap the service at the meter or at the mainline pipe? Information is not provided and impacts costs.
Inquiry submitted 12/17/2018
Response #1:(#15)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/17/2018
Response #2:
Due to the fact that the bank will be excavated to accommodate the new turn lane, and the additional structural section that will be placed, it will be best served to cap the service at the mainline pipe.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Inquiry #16: Addendum #1 re-issued Plan Sheet C-56. This detail updated the details for "adjust manhole to grade" and "adjust utility cover to grade". Both of these details show rapid setting concrete being required in the collars around the utility, therefore it would appear they are required for the 1 EA manhole and all 47 EA utility covers. However the note under the utility cover detail says to "See Sheet U-16 and U-18" which would imply only the utility covers on those sheets get adjusted per this rapid setting concrete detail. The vast majority of the 47 EA are on other "U" sheets, therefore clarification is needed as it impacts costs considerably. Please clarify if the new details on Sheet C-56 (specifically for rapid setting concrete) apply to all manholes / utility covers being adjusted as part of the project under Bid Items #122 and #123.
Inquiry submitted 12/27/2018
Response #1:(#16)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/31/2018
Response #2:
There are 47 total Utility Covers to Adjust to Grade. The only covers requiring the rapid set concrete are found on sheets U-16 and U-18 as per Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018.
Response posted 01/07/2019
Inquiry #17: On Sheet C-56, there is a "BOX" detail in the upper right corner which requires rapid setting concrete. What does this detail apply to and where is this work located?
Inquiry submitted 12/27/2018
Response #1:(#17)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/31/2018
Response #2:
"BOX" detail has been removed from C-56. Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Thursday, January 17, 2019.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Inquiry #18: For Bid item #42 (Concrete Backfill over Existing NID Pipe), additional information is needed to clarify the CY of backfill. The detail provided on Sheet C-56 does not provide set dimensions for the pipe backfill / cap. This information is critical since this is a final pay item. Please see the following questions:
1) What is existing NID pipeline outside diameter that bidders should assume (concrete cap width required to be pipe outside diameter plus 4' minimum)?
2) What is existing NID pipeline depth that bidders should assume (concrete cap required to start at 6" above the pipe and be poured up to within 0.20' of finished grade)? Assuming a typical minimum depth (+/- 2' to 3'), it appears the bid item quantity is considerably low for CY of backfill needed.
Inquiry submitted 12/27/2018
Response #1:(#18)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/31/2018
Response #2:
1) Outside Diameter is 18". Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Thursday, January 17, 2019.
2) The depth ranges from 17" at the Northeast corner to 44"(within hillside bank that will be excavated) at the Southeast corner at Shale Ridge Road. Depth of pipe at Locksley Lane is 28". Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Thursday, January 17, 2019
Response posted 01/17/2019
Inquiry #19: Follow up clarification is needed to Inquiry #14. Please see the following questions:
1.) For the underdrain, confirm Standard Plan D102 applies which calls for a fabric lined trench and permeable material backfill over top of pipe up to the grading plane. If not, please provide a detail or clarify which standard plan applies.
2.) For the "Underdrain Modified Cleanout Cover" on Sheet C-56, it is assumed this applies to all 18 EA cleanout risers required. Is the intent of this detail to install an 8" tall concrete backfill collar around each riser pipe, approx. 2" thick in between each riser and frame?
3.) For the "Underdrain Modified Cleanout Cover" on Sheet C-56, please confirm no concrete backfill is required above the mainline pipe trench (pipe backfill, pipe cap, etc,..) with exception for the small collar between riser pipe and frame referenced in previous question #2 of this inquiry.
Inquiry submitted 12/27/2018
Response #1:(#19)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/31/2018
Response #2:
For the underdrain, Standard Plan D102 is applied. Bid as per Drainage Detail Sheet DD-1 provided in Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, December 21, 2018.
Response posted 01/07/2019
Inquiry #20: Please clarify the thickness of the PCC Ditch referenced in Bid Item 130.
Inquiry submitted 01/03/2019
Response #1:(#20)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/03/2019
Response #2:
6" thickness applies to Bid Item 130. Quantities shown on SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES sheet Q-7.
Response posted 01/07/2019
Inquiry #21: Bid Item 83 - Architectural Treatment: Can you please provide a specification section for the type of thin veneer brick with color and bonding material to be used.
Inquiry submitted 01/08/2019
Response #1:(#21)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/09/2019
Response #2:
NSSP and SSP have been added for architectural treatment in Addendum #3 issued Thursday, January 17, 2019. Formed relief concrete surface texture has been used instead of veneer brick and mortar. Revised retaining wall plan sheets are in addendum #3.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Inquiry #22: Contract drawling ED-1 shows a 12 strand local fiber cable running from cabinet to cabinet. Spec page 93 87-19.02A General states only to install a 96 SMFO cable. Can you please clarify if the local fiber cable is part of this project?
Inquiry submitted 01/10/2019
Response #1:(#22)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/10/2019
Response #2:
Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Thursday, January 17, 2019. There is 96-SMFO Fiber connecting Master Cabinet to Master cabinet. There is 12-SMFO Fiber connecting each cabinet together.
There will be 96-SMFO and 12-SMFO in all the FO conduits.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Inquiry #23: Fiber Optic Scope of Work - E Drawings indicate a 96 SMFO trunk cable along the project. At most locations but not all they indicate a splice enclosure to be installed in 6E boxes. No where does it indicate except 1 location that a drop cable be installed from the cabinet to the 6E where the splice is housed. I am assuming you would like a drop cable installed? ED-1 Through ED-3 Indicate that most cabinets get 24 strand terminations and 3 cabinets get 48 strand terminations. Is this correct? ED-4 indicates that there is just 1 -12 strand incoming to the cabinet (even though it shows 2-12 strands in the picture) then says to terminate all fibers in the cabinet and only splice the strands needed at the splice location. With all that said do you just want 1- 12 strand drop cable installed from the splice vault to the cabinet and terminate all 12 strands as that would take care of the needs of all the needed fiber circuits in the cabinets. Could the drop cable requirement for each location be added to the drawing set?
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2019
Response #1:(#23)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/14/2019
Response #2:
Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Thursday, January 17, 2019. Splice Enclosure will be installed in 6E boxes at Location on sheet E-5 and at Location on sheet E-68. No splice enclosure anywhere else.
There is 96-SMFO Fiber connecting Master Cabinet to Master cabinet. There is 12-SMFO Fiber connecting each successive cabinet together.
There will be 96-SMFO and 12-SMFO in all the FO conduits.
There will be no drop cable installed.
ED-1 Through ED-3 indicate that most cabinets get 2-12 SMFO cable terminations and 2 Master cabinets get 2-96 SMFO and 2-12 SMFO cable terminations.
ED-4 will have FO Cable terminate in the cabinets. Only splice locations are on E-5 and E-68.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Inquiry #24: 1. On plan sheet C-2, cross section B-B indicated the contractor is to match the existing stamped concrete. Is the contractor to match the stamp on the concrete? If so, please provide the stamp pattern.
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2019
Response #1:(#24)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Response #2:
Yes, the contractor is to match the stamp on the concrete. There is no additional information available. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/23/2019
Inquiry #25: The drainage plans show multiple culverts crossing the highway. What stage are these crossings to be constructed?
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2019
Response #1:(#25)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/23/2019
Inquiry #26: Referencing Bid Item #82, please clarify the thickness of the Retaining Curb Assy shown on C-52. Also, please clarify the quantity of concrete to be paid for this item, does this item include the full detail shown on C-52 including the sidewalk curb & gutter?
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2019
Response #1:
(#26) An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Thursday, January 17, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Inquiry #27: ITEM #167, CABLE RAILING:
Standard B11-47 Cable Railing is called out along the top of Retaining Walls. However, Pilasters extending higher than the top-of-Walls are also constructed a @ 24LF spacings. Please provide details for Cable Railing installation at the Pilasters.
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2019
Response #1:(#27)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Response #2:
Use post pocket detail as shown in B11-47 for Cable Railing Installation at the Pilasters.
Response posted 01/23/2019
Inquiry #28: Regarding Bid Item 33 Sampling and Analysis Plan (Naturally Occurring Asbestos): does Caltrans have any guidance on what sampling strategy and ultimate goal of the plan is expected to be, given that the project is about 6 miles long. And, does Caltrans have any pre-existing geological studies of the project area that would provide useful information for developing/producing the plan? Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2019
Response #1:(#28)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Response #2:
Bid item #33 was deleted in Addendum #3, issued January 17, 2019. All available information regarding NOA is located in section 14-11.10 of the Special Provisions.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Inquiry #29: Please provide the type of EC blanket for bid item #19
Inquiry submitted 01/17/2019
Response #1:(#29)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Response #2:
Please refer to Standard Plan T-54 and bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Inquiry #30: Regarding Department-furnished electrical materials described in Section 6, can you be more specific about "Components of battery backup system?" Is this all-inclusive, or applicable to only certain components?
Inquiry submitted 01/17/2019
Response #1:(#30)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Thursday, January 17, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Inquiry #31: ITEM #167, CABLE RAILING:
Standard B11-47 Cable Railing is called out along the top of Retaining Walls. However, Pilasters extending higher than the top-of-Walls are to be constructed at @24 LF spacings. Please provide details for Cable Railing at the Pilasters.
Inquiry submitted 01/17/2019
Response #1:(#31)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Response #2:
Use post pocket detail as shown in B11-47 for Cable Railing Installation at the Pilasters.
Response posted 01/23/2019
Inquiry #32: ITEM #173, CONCRETE BARRIER, TYPE 60MA:
CB60MA is called out left & right of Sta.205+_ on sheet 26, L-16 of the Plans, and quantified on Sheet 255, Q-2, on the Concrete Barrier Quantity Chart. What does the CB60MA sit on? Is it dowelled into an existing box culvert? If so, please provide dowelling details.
Sheet 8, Typical Sections X-7, show Type 60M Barrier being installed NB (SB not shown) at this location.
What is correct?
Inquiry submitted 01/17/2019
Response #1:(#32)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Response #2:
Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Thursday, January 17, 2019, and Addendum #4, issued on Tuesday, January 22, 2019. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/23/2019
Inquiry #33: We have reviewed Addendum 3 issued yesterday for this project. It appears that Caltrans has added new subcontractor scope of work to the bid that requires qualified firms to perform the new scope of work. The contractor has had no opportunity to outreach for this new scope to any Non-DBE or DBE qualified firms for this new work. We request a bid postponement of at least 1 week to allow for time to search for, outreach to and verify sub firms that are qualified to bid for and perform the added scope of work.
Inquiry submitted 01/18/2019
Response #1:(#33)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/18/2019
Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Tuesday, January 22, 2019.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #34: Reference Inquiry #4 Qty for BI #69 Geosynthetic Pvmt Interlayer.
The quantity was addressed in Adden01 and revised to 1,150 SQYD; however, the proposal in Expedite Bid reflects the Quantity
as 11,500 SQYD
Please correct Expedite Proposal Quantity to reflect Adden01 Revised Plan Sheet Q-2
Inquiry submitted 01/18/2019
Response #1:(#34)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/18/2019
Response #2:
Please download Addendum 3 (.003), dated January 17, 2019.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #35: Typically most Caltrans projects include the Alternative Crash Cushions (Item 171) in Section 9 progress payment . Based on the duration of this project and since the distributors quotations are generally only valid for 30 days can the Alternative Crash Cushions be added to Section 9? .
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:(#35)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/29/2019
Inquiry #36: The "Repair Failed Areas Quantities" table shown on plan sheet Q-7 (260/459), is showing incorrect/overstated quantities for the HMA (Type A) tonnages. Our calculations indicate the quantities are overstated by a factor of around (1.5). This issue has not been addressed on addendums 1, 2 or 3. Please issue a revised plan sheet depicting the correct HMA (Type A) tonnages for this work.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:(#36)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/29/2019
Inquiry #37: Are the power and utility poles located within the Right a Way?
What is the typical distance from Right a Way are the poles located?
Can or will the overhead power and utility lines be moved to eliminated overhead obstruction for shoring the retaining wall area?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2019
Response #1:(#37)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/23/2019
Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Your attention is directed to section 5-1.36C(3) of the Standard Specifications and Special Provisions. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/29/2019
Inquiry #38: Item 84(F) seems to be grossly underweight. There are 5 walls the weight is nearly 500,000. pounds is there a way to address this on the bid item list?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2019
Response #1:(#38)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/25/2019
Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/29/2019
Inquiry #39: Plan Sheet 266 was reissued by Addendum No. 3. Sections A-A, B-B and C-C all have addendum no. 3 designations yet appear no different that the original plans. Please clarify the intention of adding the "3"s in the sections. Also, the notes indicate that the pedestal bars are "additional". What are they in addition to? Lastly, the details call out #13 and #16 bars in the pedestal and top reveals. These designations appear to be referring to metric sized rebar as there is no such thing as "English Units" #16 bar and #13 bar appears to be excessive for reveal work. Please comment on these issues.
Inquiry submitted 01/24/2019
Response #1:(#39)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/25/2019
Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/30/2019
Inquiry #40: In Bidder Inquiry #22 and #23 the response states that "Master cabinets get 2-96 and 2-12 strand terminations." This is a total
of 216 terminations at the Master locations. Is this what CT wants? Drawings ED-1 thru ED-3 clearly show that each location has a total of 24 strands (2-12 cables) and Mater locations get and additional 2-12 strand drops (RED TUBE (DROP), from the 96 Trunk). Also stated "Only splice locations are located on E-5 and E-68." On the "E" drawings, twelve of the seventeen locations have a note "SPLICE ENCLOSURE INSIDE..." If each Master location is using a 12 strand drop from the 96 trunk it goes to reason that these locations will need a splice enclosure as well as BOTH ends of the 96 fiber Trunk installation. Is this what CT wants?
Inquiry submitted 01/25/2019
Response #1:(#40)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/25/2019
Response #2:
There are a total of 216 terminations at the Master locations.
Master locations will need splice enclosure as well as both end of the 96 fiber Trunk.
Response posted 01/30/2019
Inquiry #41: Can you confirm that the TYPE 60 Barrier, bid items #172,173 & 174 require epoxy coated rebar.
Inquiry submitted 01/25/2019
Response #1:(#41)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/25/2019
Response #2:
Your attention is directed to section 83-3.02C of the Standard Specifications. "In freeze-thaw areas, bar reinforcing steel for concrete barriers must be epoxy coated under section 52-2.02." Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/29/2019
Inquiry #42: Item #88 12" Alternative Slotted Pipe, there is not detail on Grate type or height of the slotted Pipe. There is also no detail as to how it is to be terminated into the inlets. Would you please clarify both of these ?
Inquiry submitted 01/29/2019
Response #1:
(#42)-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 01/29/2019
Response #2:
Your attention is directed to Standard Plan D98A or Revised Standard Plan D98D.
Response posted 01/30/2019
Inquiry #43: The quantity for Bid Item 69 is incorrect in the current Bid Express file. The quantity reads 11,500 SQYD, it should read 1,150 SQYD per the changes from Addendum 1. Please provide a corrected Bid Express file.
Inquiry submitted 01/29/2019
Response #1:
(#43)-There are 5 addendums and the bidder has to have all 5 addendums + the EBS file in the same location (folder) to open the file.
Response posted 01/29/2019
Inquiry #44: The quantity for Bid Item 69 is incorrect in the current Bid Express file. The quantity reads 11,500 SQYD, it should read 1,150 SQYD per the changes from Addendum 1. Please provide a corrected Bid Express file.
Inquiry submitted 01/29/2019
Response #1:
(#44)-There are 5 addendums and the bidder has to have all 5 addendums + the EBS file in the same location (folder) to open the file.
Response posted 01/29/2019
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.