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 03-3F0604
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: The Bridge and Polymer Fiber quantities appear to be understated. Please comment.
Inquiry submitted 10/05/2021
Response #1:(BI#1)-Provide clarification to inquiry. Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 10/06/2021
Inquiry #2: It is understood that 2 static load test will be performed on this project. Please provide clarification on the following questions regarding the load test procedure.
1. On drawing sheet 185 Pile Load Test Detail No. 1 under note #3 it indicates 2 stages of load testing will take place. How much time will the department take to perform each stage of load testing?
2. Is it to be assumed that after stage 1 load test the department will disassemble the load test frame to allow for drill out, clean out, and placement of seal course of said test pile?
3. During these stages of load testing what will the piling contractor be required to assist with? Will the department assemble load test beams and require the contractor to perform all welding of anchor pile head?
4. Who is responsible for furnishing and installing Arc weldable strain gauges on the the steel shells as shown on drawing sheet 186?
Inquiry submitted 10/12/2021
Response #1:(BI#2)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/12/2021
Inquiry #3: Specification section 14-6.03C(1)(b) Air Bubble Curtain System discusses the details on what is required for a bubble curtain. Please address the following questions about the bubble curtain.
1. When are the bubble curtains required during pile installation?
2. Are they required for trestle pile installation or just for the larger diameter pier piles?
2. Are bubble curtains required for use of vibratory hammers within the waterway?
Inquiry submitted 10/12/2021
Response #1:(BI#3)-Your attention is directed to section 14-6.03C(1)(a)(i) and 14-6.03C(1)(a)(ii) of the special provisions for information regarding the sound attenuation system and when it's required. Section 14-6.03C(1)(b) applies if a bubble curtain is used for sound attenuation. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 10/12/2021
Inquiry #4: Due to the complexity of the project, the time allocated to bid the job is not sufficient. Therefore, we are requesting the bid be postponed until January of 2022.
Inquiry submitted 10/12/2021
Response #1:(BI#4)-An addendum has been posted in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #1, dated October 27, 2021.
Response posted 10/12/2021
Inquiry #5: Please provide the sign-in sheet from the Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting.
Inquiry submitted 10/13/2021
Response #1:(BI#5)-here it is:
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-3/d3-programs/d3-construction/d3-future-projects
Response posted 10/13/2021
Inquiry #6: We also would request a time extension of two weeks to properly prepare our bid. With the complexity and to allow the State time to relocate the power lines and to clear the area, we feel this would be sufficient amount of time to give the State the best value for this project.
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2021
Response #1:(BI#6)-An addendum has been posted in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #1, dated October 27, 2021.
Response posted 10/14/2021
Inquiry #7: Plans Sheets X-1 through X-5 omit typical sections for the reaches of Sta A2 47+50 to 48+00 and 153+76.23 to 154+26.23. Please clarify what is expected on these reaches of SR162 by including typical sections.
Inquiry submitted 10/15/2021
Response #1:(BI#7)-Conforms at the beginning and end of construction on Rte. 162 will not be shown on the typical sections. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 10/18/2021
Inquiry #8: Is through cut saw cutting of the existing asphalt required on the longitudinal joint where the cold plane and overlay pavement section conforms to a new full depth pavement structural section?
Inquiry submitted 10/15/2021
Response #1:(BI#8)-Please bid per contract documents
Response posted 10/18/2021
Inquiry #9: Standard Plans Sheet A87B shows details for AC Dikes. In reference to the foundation course under the dike, note 1 says “For HMA shoulders only, extend top layer of HMA placed on the shoulder under dike with no joint at the ES. For projects with OGFC shoulders, do not extend OGFC under dike. See project plans for modified dike detailâ€.
Project plans sheet C-8 does show AC Dike transition details but does not appear to address note 1 from SP A87B.
Based on the typical sections shown on plans sheets X-1 through X-5, all the shoulders adjacent to AC Dikes will receive an open graded friction course for the top surface on this project.
How should the AC Dike foundation course be constructed on this project?
Inquiry submitted 10/15/2021
Response #1:(BI#9)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/18/2021
Inquiry #10: Please review the quantity for Item 100, "Structural Steel (Pipe Pin)" as the value stated appears to be low.
Inquiry submitted 10/18/2021
Response #1:(BI#10)-Bid per the current bid documents.
Response posted 10/18/2021
Inquiry #11: #29 Temporary Reinforced Silt Fence
#45 Reinforced (Type 1) Silt Fence
What type is Bid item #29
Thanks!
Inquiry submitted 10/20/2021
Response #1:(BI#11)-Your attention is directed to the fourth paragraph of section 13-10.03E. If a temporary reinforced silt fence, Type 1, is not shown, it's not required.
Response posted 10/20/2021
Inquiry #12: Please provide bridge removal limits for the viaduct portions of the bridge (approximate stations on E2 Line 768+00 – 806+00 and 811+00 – 812+00). The contract plans only call for the removal of the deck and the girders.
Inquiry submitted 10/21/2021
Response #1:(BI#12)-Bid per the current bid documents.
Response posted 10/21/2021
Response #2:
Response posted 10/21/2021
Inquiry #13: Please provide bridge removal limits for the viaduct portions of the bridge (approximate stations on E2 Line 768+00 – 806+00 and 811+00 – 812+00). The contract plans only call for the removal of the deck and the girders.
Inquiry submitted 10/21/2021
Response #1:(BI#13)-Bid per the current bid documents.
Response posted 10/21/2021
Inquiry #14: For the demolition of the bridge over the water (approximate stations on E2 Line 806+00 – 811+00), the plans show the removal of the existing fender system and the steel truss. Please confirm that the piers and foundations in the water will not be removed.
Inquiry submitted 10/21/2021
Response #1:(BI#14)-Bid per the current bid documents.
Response posted 10/21/2021
Inquiry #15: Please provide the limits of the removal of the fender system.
Inquiry submitted 10/21/2021
Response #1:(BI#15)-Bid per the current bid documents.
Response posted 10/21/2021
Inquiry #16: We assume that temporary steel pipe piles that are 36†in diameter or less can be used for the construction of the temporary trestle and falsework. Please confirm.
Inquiry submitted 10/21/2021
Response #1:(BI#16)-Bid per the current bid documents.
Response posted 10/21/2021
Inquiry #17: Item 11 appears to be considerably overstated (4x). Please confirm/revise the quantity.
Sheets 213 and 214 show the Deck Drains connecting to Roadway Drainage. No drainage systems are shown on the Roadway Plans. Please advise.
Are the Scupper Plates shown on Sheet 216 included with the Deck Drains? They are not described on Page 67 of the Special Provisions.
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2021
Response #1:(BI#17)-– An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/22/2021
Inquiry #18: Bid item 116, isolation casing, is specified in Special Provision Section 75-7. Section 75-7.02 calls for the casings to be corrugated pipe. On plan sheet 197, the call out for the casing is 5/16". Corrugated pipe is only made up to 8 ga. (.1681" thickness.) Is the intent for the casing to be made from plate? Please clarify this conflict.
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2021
Response #1:(BI#18)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/25/2021
Inquiry #19: Item 137 Salvage Bridge Railing, is a Lump Sum.
The Special Provisions and the Contract Plans do not say what railing gets salvaged?
Can the state change this to a "per foot" or describe what railing gets salvaged?
Does the state want the aluminum railing and the wood railing?
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2021
Response #1:(BI#19)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/25/2021
Inquiry #20: Per Section 59 Structural Steel Coatings it states to clean and paint new steel bridge shown in the following Table. In the Table under work description it states to Clean, blast clean, and paint new steel pipe piles. Coating system is zinc primer and the finish coats will be applied in the field after the piles are driven.
Per Drawing Sheet 192 it clarifies the limits of painting on the elevation detail at Pier 29. Drawing Sheet 193, Note 10. clarifies that piles at Pier 30-32 get finish coated.
Question - Do any other piles get finish coated on the project.
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2021
Response #1:(BI#20)-Pile cutoff for all piles except 29-32 are below finished grade. They will not require paint.
Response posted 10/25/2021
Inquiry #21: The salvaged bridge railing, where does the state want it to go?
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2021
Response #1:(BI#21)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/25/2021
Inquiry #22: Due to the complexity of this job, schedule constraints and subcontractor coordination required prior to bid; we respectfully request a two-week bid date extension to November 23, 2021.
Inquiry submitted 10/26/2021
Response #1:(BI#22)-An addendum has been posted in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #1, dated October 27, 2021.
Response posted 10/26/2021
Inquiry #23: Bid Item 62 – Soil Testing has a quantity of 1 each. What does this quantity and unit of measure represent? Which test(s) are to be performed for this item? What is the frequency of the test(s)?
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#23)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/27/2021
Inquiry #24: Bid Item 31 – Temporary Construction Entrance has a quantity of 8 each. We do not see where these are shown or called out on the plans. We find no detail on this Bid Item. What is expected for this item?
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#24)-Your attention is directed to Standard Plan T58 for temporary construction entrance details. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 10/27/2021
Inquiry #25: Bid Item 32 – Temporary Construction Roadway has a quantity of 1,560 square yards. We do not see where these are shown or called out on the plans. We find no detail on this Bid Item. What is expected for this item?
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#25)-Your attention is directed to Standard Plan T67 for temporary construction roadway details. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 10/27/2021
Inquiry #26: Reference is made to plans sheets SC-1 & SC-2. SC-2 shows 1-way reversible traffic in the plan view from about Sta. 57+50 to 67+75. Note 3 on SC-1 mentions the construction of a temporary widening. There is no bid item in the bid schedule or plans detailing temporary pavement. With the low average daily traffic on the road, and the use of an automated flagger assistance device, can the 1-way reversible traffic be used here for the duration of Stage 1 without installing a temporary widening of old SR162?
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#26)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/27/2021
Inquiry #27: Reference is made to plans sheets SC-2, RSP T13, T13A, and T13B. On west bound SR162, the flagman or the automated flagger assistance device will be near Sta 67+80 which is about at the west abutment of the existing bridge. The existing bridge appear to have a 2’ wide shoulder. With the setup distances of the various flagman station devices including signs, PCMS, portable rumble strips, and beacon, there will not be enough room to set these devices up. The signs could be rail mounted. Can the PCMS be move to just east of the east bridge abutment?
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#27)-Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 10/27/2021
Inquiry #28: Reference is made to plans sheets G-1, DP-1, and the cross sections provided in the supplemental hand out. It does not appear that DP-1 and the cross sections are coordinated with G-1 as they do not reflect the final configuration.
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#28)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/27/2021
Inquiry #29: The layout plans appear to indicate the existence of rock slope protection in the same location as Pier 29. Does RSP also exist around the existing piers in the water? Please provide information regarding the thickness of the RSP. Please also provide information regarding any other locations that RSP may exist.
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#29)-Your attention is directed to section 2-1.06B, Supplemental Project Information, and section 2-1.07, Job Site and Document Examination, of the Standard Specifications and Special Provisions. There is no additional information available. Please bid per current bid documents.
Response posted 10/27/2021
Inquiry #30: Reference is made to Plans Sheet L5 (12 of 250). A call out note on this sheet says “Rock Slope Protection (Method B) btwn Exist VOIDS†at the existing rip rap along the west bank of the Sacramento River.
Which Class of RSP is to be used for this work?
Is this work to be paid under Bid Item(s), or is the cost of this work incidental to the project cost?
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#30)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #4, dated December 13, 2021.
Response posted 10/27/2021
Inquiry #31: Reference is made to Plans Sheet Foundation Plan No. 7 (181 of 250). A call out note says “Exist sheet pile in conflict shall be removed, sheet pile location shall be verified by the contractorâ€.
Is this work to be paid under a Bid Item(s), or is the cost of this work incidental to the project cost?
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#31)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/27/2021
Inquiry #32: Reference is made to plans sheets SC-1, SC-6, and SC-15. SC-6 shows a leave out plug on the new alignment of SR162 near Sta. 117+43. Note 7 on SC-1 says to construct this area while using 1-way reversible traffic. We do not believe the new SR162 can be constructed in this area using 1-way reversible traffic. We suggest completing Stage 1 to the north and east of this area, then constructing a temporary shoo-fly detour around this area. Would this concept be acceptable?
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#32)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #4, dated December 13, 2021 and bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 10/27/2021
Inquiry #33: Regarding Temp. Fiber Roll, on table Temp. Water Pollution Control Quantities on plan sheet Q-2. What does number 6" in parentheses of item Temp. Fiber roll mean?
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#33)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/28/2021
Inquiry #34: Regarding to Seed Mix on the table EC Type 1 on plan sheet ECL-1, The seed rate should be 46.35 not 45.75. Please confirm.
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#34)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/28/2021
Inquiry #35: Regarding Temp. Construction Seed Mix table on plan sheet ECL-1, What does this table intent to? What bid item pay for it? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2021
Response #1:(BI#35)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/28/2021
Inquiry #36: The Bridge Demolition plan is clear about the removal of the existing superstructure portions of the bridge. Please clarify the limits or removal of the existing Substructure components. Also clarify what substructure components must be removed from the River. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 10/29/2021
Response #1:(BI#36)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 10/29/2021
Inquiry #37: The 60" CISS pile cutoff elevation at pier 33 is elevation 81 which is approximately 14' below existing grade (the existing east levee bank). This will require 14' deep shoring and excavation into the existing east levee bank to install pier 33 pile and isolation casing. Can the cutoff elevation at pier 33 be raised to elevation 92 which is approximately 3' below existing grade? If this is acceptable at pier 33 can the isolation casing be eliminated and/or shorter in length at pier 33?
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2021
Response #1:(BI#37)-Bid per current bid documents.
Response posted 11/04/2021
Inquiry #38: In Stage 1 (SC-1 and SC-2) in lieu of having an 24-hour man operated automated flagger on the one-way reversing traffic control would Caltrans allow for temporary signals?
Inquiry submitted 11/08/2021
Response #1:(BI#38)-Please bid per current bid documents.
Response posted 11/08/2021
Inquiry #39: How are the Biofiltration Swale and Design Pollution Prevention Infiltration Areas paid(Sht D-1-D-5) ?
Inquiry submitted 11/15/2021
Response #1:(BI#39)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 11/15/2021
Inquiry #40: Note 7 on SC-1 says to construct this area while using 1-way reversible traffic. Because of the grade differences from proposed grade to the existing grade performing this work one lane at a time appears impractical. Could this plug area be constructed during 55-hour weekend closure?
Inquiry submitted 11/15/2021
Response #1:(BI#40)-Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/15/2021
Inquiry #41: The earthwork summary table on Q-1 shows 340,344 CY of Roadway Embankment, 54,617 CY of Roadway Excavation resulting in 285,727 CY of Imported Borrow. However the Bid Quantities are 24,600 CY of Imported Borrow and 6,630 CY of Roadway Excavation. Which is correct?
Inquiry submitted 11/16/2021
Response #1:(BI#41)-The earthwork summary table on Q-1 shows:
Roadway Excavation: 6625 CY
Embankment (N): 30947 CY
Imported Borrow: 24526 CY
Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/16/2021
Inquiry #42: SP Section 49-1.01D(3) calls for load test piles at Pier 19 and 29. The Plans shows load test piles at Pier 18 and 29. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/17/2021
Response #1:(BI#42)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 11/18/2021
Inquiry #43: The Item 82, Furnish CISS Concrete Piling (NPS 60), quantity of 6,078 LF does not include the additional 15 feet above pile cut-off required for the load test pile. Will the added 15 feet at the load test pile be measured for payment?
Inquiry submitted 11/17/2021
Response #1:(BI#43)-Bid per current bid documents.
Response posted 11/18/2021
Inquiry #44: The layout of Abutment 1 encroaches on the existing roadway at approximately Station 65+70 of the "A2" Line as shown on Plan Sheet 175 of 250. Stage Construction Plan Sheet SC-2 accommodates the Abutment 1 construction with K-Rail and traffic in a one-way reversing configuration. Traffic will be in that configuration for a very long time (from the start of abutment construction until the new bridge is open to traffic) requiring flagging personnel around the clock, 7 days per week. Please confirm whether that is Caltrans' intent. If so, please consider a temporary traffic signal.
Inquiry submitted 11/17/2021
Response #1:(BI#44)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #4, dated December 13, 2021.
Response posted 11/18/2021
Inquiry #45: RSS 12-3.38, AUTOMATED FLAGGER ASSISTANCE DEVICES, states in Section 12-3.38C that "The devices must: 1. Be placed where a flagger station is shown..." The Plans do not appear to show any flagger stations. Please clarify.
Also, Item 16, Automated Flagger Assistance Device, is a lump sum item. Please change the unit of measure to DAY. If not, then please change it to at least EACH.
Inquiry submitted 11/17/2021
Response #1:(BI#45)-Your attention is directed to revised standard plan T13 for information regarding the placement of AFAD.
Item 16, Automated Flagger Assistance Device, has lump sum units because the Department can’t predict the number of working days you will bid.
Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/18/2021
Inquiry #46: Regarding the pile load test at Pier 29, the load test pile cut-off elevation is shown on Plan Sheet 185 of 250 as Elevation 116. This is approximately 37 feet above OG at the pile location. At that elevation, we would need to cut the top of the pile off in order to get a drill in the pile for cleanout, then splice that section back on prior to the Stage 2 load test. Please consider lowering the load test piles cut-off elevations to keep the load test assembly just above OG. The Pier 18 load test cut-off elevation also requires a similar sequence with the load test cut-off elevation as currently specified.
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2021
Response #1:(BI#46)-Bid per current bid documents.
Response posted 11/18/2021
Inquiry #47: With regard to schedule, will Caltrans perform load tests concurrently at both load test pile locations or will Caltrans not start the load test at the second load test location until Stage 2 Load Test is complete at the first location?
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2021
Response #1:(BI#47)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 11/18/2021
Inquiry #48: Regarding bid item no. 50 Fish Rescue Plan. Does this item include only the preparation of the plan, or implementation of the plan (i.e. fish rescue) as well? If preparation only, would implementation fall under bid item 43 Contractor-Supplied Biologist?
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2021
Response #1:(BI#48)-Item 50, Fish Rescue Plan, includes all costs required to complete the fish rescue plan.
Your attention is directed to the 3rd paragraph of section 9-1.03, Payment Scope, of the Standard Specifications for information regarding payment for items in Division II. Fish rescue is in section 14, under Division II.
Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/18/2021
Inquiry #49: Regarding bid items no. 51 Bat Management Plan, 46 Bat Exclusions and 43 Contractor-Supplied Biologist. Our interpretation is that no. 51 includes only the preparation of the plan, no. 46 includes bat exclusion installation, and no. 43 includes biological monitoring/support provided during exclusion installation. Is this corre
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2021
Response #1:(BI#49)-Item 51, Bat Management Plan, includes all costs required to complete the bat exclusion plan. Item 46, Bat Exclusions, includes all costs associated with the acquisition, installation, maintenance and removal of bat exclusions. From paragraph 3 of the bat exclusion devices special provision, a contractor supplied biologist must be present during installation.
Response posted 11/18/2021
Inquiry #50: Reference is made to Page 7 of the Design Phase Driveability Study (Revised) attached to the Foundation Report included in the Information Handout which states "Contractor may request to use a vibratory driver at the start of driving due to the large weight of the pile driving impact hammer, length of piles and low blow counts at the start of pile driving. This Office recommends including limits of vibratory driving in the contract documents if use of a vibratory pile driver is approved by Geotechnical Design."
Will the Contractor be allowed to use a vibratory driver on the CISS concrete piles and, if so, to what initial driving depth?
Inquiry submitted 11/23/2021
Response #1:(BI#50)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 11/23/2021
Inquiry #51: After today there are 2 working days until the bid date. Due to the numerous unanswered questions, will the state postpone the bid date until the questions are answered?
Inquiry submitted 11/24/2021
Response #1:(BI#51)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #2, dated November 24, 2021.
Response posted 11/24/2021
Inquiry #52: On sheet 195 / 250 sections B-B and D-D indicate the outside diameter of the #8 hoops is 48.5". Sections C-C and E-E indicate the outside diameter of the #8 hoops is 48". Which is it?
Inquiry submitted 11/24/2021
Response #1:(BI#52)-Refer to Addendum #3, dated December 6, 2021.
Response posted 11/24/2021
Inquiry #53: Sheets 166 and 213 show deck drains are desired in both outside cells of spans 1 and 2. Sheet 199 doesn't show access to 3 out of the 4 cells. Please add 3 each access openings to these cells to facilitate installation, testing and maintenance of the drainage pipe. Sheets 169 and 214 show deck drains are desired in both outside cells of spans 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33. Sheet 204 doesn't show access to 9 out of the 12 cells. Please add 9 each access openings to these cells to facilitate installation, testing and maintenance of the drainage pipe.
Inquiry submitted 11/24/2021
Response #1:(BI#53)-Please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/24/2021
Inquiry #54: Sheet 214 shows deck drainage pipes going through the column cages for piers 30, 31 and 32 shown on sheet 193. Will the rebar be terminated below the casing through the diaphragms?
Inquiry submitted 11/24/2021
Response #1:(BI#54)-Refer to Addendum #3, dated December 6, 2021.
Response posted 11/24/2021
Inquiry #55: Please provide a detail for Item 120-Fence (Type WM (Modified), Metal Post) and locate Item 121-Fence (Type WM, Metal Post).
Inquiry submitted 11/24/2021
Response #1:(BI#55)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #4, dated December 13, 2021.
Response posted 11/24/2021
Inquiry #56: Addendum #2 added drainage systems 1a and 2a shown on D-1 and D-2. Both of these lines have G1 DI's. According to DQ-1 Drainage Quantities these combine for 5.88 Cubic Yards of Structural Concrete, Drainage Inlet. There is however no Bid Item for this Structural Concrete. Additionally, drainage systems 1a and 2a have increased the 18" Alternative Pipe Culvert quantity according to DQ-2 to 366.2 LF yet Bid Item 103 remains at 290 LF. Will there be another addendum to address these additional items?
Inquiry submitted 11/29/2021
Response #1:(BI#56)-An addendum has been issued in response to this inquiry. Please see addendum #4, dated December 13, 2021.
Response posted 11/29/2021
Inquiry #57: Bid Item 42 - BRIPS (Workers Awareness Training) is shown to have Special Provisions under section 14. I cannot find anything in this section to identify what this is, what it is for and who all is required to go?
Please provide Specials Provisions for this Bid Item.
Inquiry submitted 12/01/2021
Response #1:(BI#57)-Your attention is directed to section 14-6.03D(3) of the special provisions. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/01/2021
Inquiry #58: With regard to BI 106, 12" WSP casing, which standard specification does the coating fall under?
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2021
Response #1:(BI#58)-Your attention is directed to section 70-7.02B of the standard specifications. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/03/2021
Inquiry #59: Due to the release of addendum four (4) yesterday afternoon and the redesign of the Stage Construction plans and quantities, please extend the bid date one week to allow contractors sufficient time to encompass the necessary changes and additions to the bid.
Inquiry submitted 12/14/2021
Response #1:(BI#59)-Another bid delay is not under consideration at this time.
Response posted 12/14/2021
Inquiry #60: Addendum 4 added Stage 3 (Sheet 85a - 85e). The Pavement Structure Quantities Summary on Sheet 109 (Q-1) does not reflect these changes and only shows Stages 1 and 2. Is the variable HMA paving in Stage 3 included in the Quantities?
With the added Stage 3 does the .2' lift of RHMA-G get paved across the entire roadway at the end of stage 3 prior to the .1' HMA-O Finish Lift or does the RHMA-G get placed in Stages 1,2, and 3?
Inquiry submitted 12/14/2021
Response #1:(BI#60)-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 12/14/2021
Inquiry #61: How is "Invasive Species Control" work added by Addendum 4 paid?
Inquiry submitted 12/15/2021
Response #1:(BI#61)-Your attention is directed to item #47, Invasive Species Control, in the bid item list.
Response posted 12/15/2021
Inquiry #62: Please disregard previous question regarding payment for "Invasive Species Control".
Inquiry submitted 12/15/2021
Response #1:(BI#62)-No need for response as per contractor's request.
Response posted 12/15/2021
The information provided in the responses to bidder inquiries is not a waiver of Section 2-1.07, "JOB SITE AND DOCUMENT EXAMINATION" of the Standard Specifications or any other provision of the contract, nor to excuse the contractor from full compliance with the contract. Bidders are cautioned that subsequent responses or contract addenda may change a previous response.