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 03-4F6504
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: Sheet X-7/p.8 Typical Section Sta 576+83 To 578+09 does not provide the new structural section? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 10/13/2022
Response #1:(BI#1)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/13/2022
Response #2:(BI#1)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #3:(BI#1)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Inquiry #2: Sheet SC-1/p.230 has a table for Prestaging for outside right shoulder construction. It does not appear that the quantities shown for Temporary Railing (Type K), CL2 AB or HMA-A have been included in the Summary of Quantity tables. Is this work to be paid for at item cost or incidental to other work? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 10/13/2022
Response #1:(BI#2)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/13/2022
Response #2:(BI#2)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #3:(BI#2)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #3: Can AASHTO M326 pipeliner that conforms to DIB 83-4 per section 71-3-09 be used in place of CIPP, bid item 0152, 0153, 0154? These liners have many advantages including environmental as well as can be installed in live flow without the need for by-passing and don't require the use of styrene.
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2022
Response #1:(BI#3)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/17/2022
Response #2:(BI#3)-Please bid per the current bid documents.
Response posted 10/19/2022
Inquiry #4: Reference the West Capitol Avenue and Reed Avenue structure plans. The existing median improvements will be removed for structure excavation and column construction. There are no details for replacement provided nor does it appear any quantities of work have been accounted for. Is the repair of these islands incidental to other items of work or will it be paid for by line item? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 10/19/2022
Response #1:(BI#4)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/20/2022
Response #2:(BI#4)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 10/24/2022
Response #3:(BI#4)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #5: Sheet X-6 Typical Cross Section "A" Sta 758+94 to "A" Sta 923+61 indicates the new CRCP to be 24' wide. There are several areas on the layouts (Sta 775, Sta 830, Sta 870, Sta 905) were the CRCP is shown to be more or less than 24' wide. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 10/19/2022
Response #1:(BI#5)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/20/2022
Response #2:(BI#5)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 10/24/2022
Response #3:(BI#5)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #6: Sheet SC-1 has a Typical Section for the Prestaging outside right shoulder construction. The detail indicates Temp Railing (Type K) to be placed at the EB/WB edge of outside right lane. In some cases this will limit the thru traffic to only two (2) lanes in the direction of travel for the time required to perform the work. Please confirm that the Temp Railing will be allowed to stay in place for the required duration to complete the work.
Inquiry submitted 10/19/2022
Response #1:(BI#6)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/20/2022
Response #2:(BI#6)-An addendum will be issued in response to this inquiry.
Response posted 10/26/2022
Response #3:(BI#6)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Inquiry #7: Section 14-4.02C(12)(a) General: specifies three (3) each Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction Systems 24/7. Please provide a pay item for this work.
Inquiry submitted 10/19/2022
Response #1:(BI#7)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/20/2022
Response #2:(BI#7)-Refer to section 12-4.02C(12)(d). Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/09/2022
Inquiry #8: Please reference sheet 713 (Q-9). It appears in the summary of quantities for the Concrete Barrier Type 60MG that there are duplicate stations. If you look at the first two station call outs they show:
CL "A" 510+07.00 to 586+29.00 and CL "A" 586+29.00 to 593+31.00 = 8,324' combined.
then look at the second one from the bottom
CL "A" 511+00.00 to 593+31.00 = 8,231' this appears to be the same stations from above minus 93'
Please confirm and correct Bid Item 205 to the revised quantity.
Inquiry submitted 10/21/2022
Response #1:(BI#8)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/21/2022
Response #2:(BI#8)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #3:(BI#8)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Inquiry #9: Due to contradictions between the Typical Cross Sections and Layout Sheets, will Caltrans please include the CRCP Expansion Joint Terminal Systems (EJTS) and Terminal Joint Types to the Summary of Quantities?
Inquiry submitted 10/24/2022
Response #1:(BI#9)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/25/2022
Response #2:(BI#9)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Inquiry #10: Please provide us plans for the Roadway Excavation ( Type Z-2) (ADL) shown on the Summary of Earthwork Quantities table Q-6 ( Plan Sheet 710).
Inquiry submitted 10/24/2022
Response #1:(BI#10)-An addendum will be issued in response to this inquiry.
Response posted 10/26/2022
Response #2:(BI#10)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Inquiry #11: Plan sheet Q-1 (705/1103) shows quantities for RHMA-Open Graded for the following Ramps; RC1, RC2, RC3, RC4, RRA3N and RRA4F. The Typical Section Sheets X-1 through X-16 show RHMA-Open Graded in details for additional ramps; RW3, RHIF, RH3, RJ3, RJ4. Also, Details for Ramps RRA3N and RRA4F show HMA-Open Graded mix not RHMA-Open Graded mix. Please clarify the Type of Open Graded mix, RHMA-O or HMA-O desired for each location and correct the quantity charts to depict the correct quantities and locations.
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2022
Response #1:(BI#11)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/27/2022
Response #2:(BI#11)-An Addendum will be issued in response to this inquiry.
Response posted 10/31/2022
Response #3:(BI#11)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #12: Sheet SC-7 (p.236) Section A-A indicates temporary paving for traffic in the median. This is on PCC, is the temporary paving PCC or HMA? It appears that the centerline grades match in this area so why would temporary paving be needed?
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2022
Response #1:(BI#12)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/28/2022
Response #2:(BI#12)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #3:(BI#12)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #13: It appears that all the Temporary Railing (Type K) and Temporary Traffic Screen shown on the Stage Construction/Traffic Handling Plans in the area of the Yolo Causeway structures has not been included in the quantity sheets. Please confirm quantities as we are coming up with substantially more than what is indicated.
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2022
Response #1:(BI#13)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/28/2022
Response #2:(BI#13)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #3:(BI#13)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #14: Sheet SC-42 (p.271) at Sta 820 indicates Temporary Pavement For Traffic Shift, see stage construction detail SCD-5 for typical section. There is no such detail on SCD-5. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2022
Response #1:(BI#14)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/28/2022
Response #2:(BI#14)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #3:(BI#14)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Inquiry #15: Reference Sheet Q-4 and Q-5. It appears the Minor HMA Quantity for AC Dike is in CY's not Tons? Please review and clarify.
Inquiry submitted 10/31/2022
Response #1:(BI#15)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/31/2022
Response #2:(BI#15)-An addendum will be issued in response to this Inquiry.
Response posted 11/02/2022
Response #3:(BI#15)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #16: Please reference the Typical Cross Section, "Route 275 PM 11.82/12.08.
The cross section shows a paved shoulder/bike path/walkway behind the curb and gutter.
The paved section is not showed on the layout sheets.
Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 10/31/2022
Response #1:(BI#16)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/31/2022
Response #2:(BI#16)-The paved section behind the curb is shown on sheet L-25.
Response posted 11/02/2022
Response #3:(BI#16)-An addendum will be issued to respond to this inquiry.
Response posted 11/03/2022
Response #4:(BI#16)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #17: The layout plans do not clearly show the edge of existing pavement on either the inside or outside shoulders. Please provide updated plans with these limits more clearly identified.
Inquiry submitted 11/02/2022
Response #1:(BI#17)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/02/2022
Response #2:(BI#17)-An addendum will be issued to respond to this inquiry.
Response posted 11/02/2022
Response #3:(BI#17)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #18: Please reference the Shoulder Backing Quantities on sheet Q-6.
Lines 5 and 6 reference "B" Line STA 623+94 to 670+85.
Please confirm that this is wrong, and that it is actually the "A" line STA 623+94 to 670+85.
Inquiry submitted 11/02/2022
Response #1:(BI#18)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/02/2022
Response #2:(BI#18)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/04/2022
Response #3:(BI#18)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Response #4:(BI#18)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #19: Plan sheet S-12 says to see SDS sheets for details for sign structure A4. This structure is not shown in the SDS sheets. On SQ-57 there is no quantity shown for this structure's foundations either.
Inquiry submitted 11/03/2022
Response #1:(BI#19)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/03/2022
Response #2:(BI#19)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry
Response posted 11/08/2022
Response #3:(BI#19)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/24/2023
Inquiry #20: Last inquiry was for structure A3 not A4.
Inquiry submitted 11/03/2022
Response #1:(BI#20)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/03/2022
Response #2:(BI#20)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/08/2022
Inquiry #21: Last inquiry was for structure A3 not A4.
Inquiry submitted 11/03/2022
Response #1:(BI#21)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/03/2022
Response #2:(BI#21)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/08/2022
Response #3:(BI#21)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/24/2023
Inquiry #22: Please reference sheets U-19 and U-20 of the utility plans.
It looks as though the new Fiber Optic Line shown on the south side of I-80 on sheet U-20, is coming from no where. Please check to see if the new fiber optic alignment is missing on sheet U-19.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2022
Response #1:(BI#22)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/04/2022
Response #2:(BI#22)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/09/2022
Response #3:(BI#22)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Response #4:(BI#22)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #23: Due to the changes yet to come via addendum and the need to incorporate these changes into the bid can the bid date be extended by 2 weeks?
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2022
Response #1:(BI#23)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/04/2022
Response #2:(BI#23)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/08/2022
Response #3:(BI#23)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Inquiry #24: Plan sheet SC-1 Prestaging EB & WB sta 502+00 to 593+35.20 shows k-rail but no quantities for CL2 AB and HMA-A shoulder strengthening. Where are quantities for the CL2 AB and HMA-A prestaging included?
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2022
Response #1:(BI#24)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #2:(BI#24)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/08/2022
Response #3:(BI#24)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Inquiry #25: "Reference is made to plans sheets C-1, C-2, and C3 where a support slab is shown under the CRCP near bridge approach slabs and mainline conforms. Sheets C-1 and C-2 makes no call out for any Standard Plan or Revised Standard Plan while sheet C-3 calls out RSP P32. The Special Provisions does show RSP P32 as being applicable to this project.
Should any SP or RSP detail be used at the Bridge Conform shown on C-1 and C-2? If a SP or RSP is to be used, should the 24’ X 10†support slab also be used in addition to the SP or RSP. If both support slabs are to be used, what are the distances from the conform at the approach slab?
Should any terminal joint system be used at the Mainline Conform? If a terminal joint system is used at the Mainline Conform? If a terminal joint system is used at the Mainline Conform, doweling to the existing concrete will be difficult because of the vertical offset caused by previous asphalt overlays.
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2022
Response #1:(BI#25)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #2:(BI#25)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Inquiry #26: "Reference is made to plans sheet L-6 where the CRCP at the eastbound Chiles Off Ramp terminates and the cold planning and asphalt overlay begins. The configuration occurs similarly at on and off ramps throughout the project. The Plans do not call out any Detail, SP, or RSP to be used with this configuration. Traditionally a detail on SP-P30 or RSP-P31A is used here. The Special Provisions show both SP-P30 or RSP-P31A as being applicable to this project.
What detail should be used with these configurations?"
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2022
Response #1:(BI#26)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #2:(BI#26)-Refer to detail for Terminal Joint Type A on RSP P31A.
Response posted 11/16/2022
Response #3:(BI#26)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #27: Reference is made to the Special Provisions pdf page 25 where Item No. 0083 – CRCP (ISC) is shown. We find no strength/age specified for this concrete. Historically Rapid Strength Concrete and Intermediate Strength Concrete have been specified with the mix design as 400 psi flexural at opening and 650 psi flexural at 10-days, with 400 psi flexural actual at opening to traffic.
What is the age/strength requirement for CRCP (ISC) on this project? Similar question on Item No. 0084 – JPCP (RSC)."
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2022
Response #1:(BI#27)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #2:(BI#27)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 12/07/2022
Response #3:(BI#27)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/24/2023
Inquiry #28: Reference is made to the Special Provisions pdf page 24 where Item No. 0064 – Rapid Strength Concrete Base is shown.
Where is this item intended to be used? What is the strength/age requirement for this concrete?
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2022
Response #1:(BI#28)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #2:(BI#28)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 12/07/2022
Response #3:(BI#28)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #29: Reference is made to plans sheet 54, C-2 where call out note says to “Use Rapid Strength Concrete for Support Slab at Lake Washington Bridge OH BB/EBâ€.
What is the age/strength requirement for this concrete?
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2022
Response #1:(BI#29)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/07/2022
Response #2:(BI#29)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 12/07/2022
Response #3:(BI#29)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #30: Reference Bid Item 0011 - Automated Work Zone Information System. There are no plans or project specifications included for this work. Please provide additional information in the form of plans/specifications so the contractors can properly determine the work required to bid this item.
Inquiry submitted 11/08/2022
Response #1:(BI#30)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/08/2022
Response #2:(BI#30)-Please refer to section 12-3.35 of the RSS. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/12/2022
Inquiry #31: Sheet SC-3 (p.232) has an abbreviation VSFS = Vehicle Speed Feedback Sign and a legend for Temporary Radar Speed Feedback Sign System. Sheet SC-6 / Sta 504+00 shows the legend (although not correct) and note for VSFS. Are the VSFS and Temporary Radar Speed Feedback Sign System the same thing and paid for in Item 0021? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/08/2022
Response #1:(BI#31)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/08/2022
Response #2:(BI#31)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #32: Reference is made to the supplemental information cross sections compared to the layout sheets and typical drawings. When the cross sections are compared to the layout and typical drawings, the offset callouts and section call outs do not align. When calculated and compared over the length of the project there is a significant qty discrepancy. The work to re-analyze and make necessary changes to the takeoff and estimate when the addendum is received will require a significant amount of time. Due to the size of this project and the potential changes required to align all documents via addendum, please consider the upcoming holiday schedule and moving the bid date accordingly.
Specific examples:
Sta 910 A line LT the cross section is calling for 34’ crcp WB
The layout drawings at this same station is calling for a 24’ crcp WB
(in summary from the cross section to layout is a delta of 1 lane or about 12’ when compared with 2’ overbuild)
Sta 820 A line the cross section is calling for EB edge of pavement EB at 76.08’
The layout drawings at the same station is showing 73.50’
(in summary from the cross section to layout the delta is 2.5’ total roadway width)
Inquiry submitted 11/09/2022
Response #1:(BI#32)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/09/2022
Response #2:(BI#32)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 12/07/2022
Response #3:(BI#32)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #33: Reference bid item 149 temporary cap inlet and drainage plans. Bid item 149 calls out 4 EA temporary cap inlets. The drainage plans, drainage qty’s and drainage profile doesn’t call out the temporary capping of inlets. Where are these 4 EA temporary cap inlets?
Inquiry submitted 11/09/2022
Response #1:(BI#33)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/09/2022
Response #2:(BI#33)-Refer to sheets SC-37, SC-38, and DQ-13. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/14/2022
Inquiry #34: In Reference to Bid Item 85, REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND BASE, can the state please clarify what materials are considered as BASE?
For instance some of the existing sections that include Concrete Pavement include CTB and LTS. Are these material types considered Base?
Inquiry submitted 11/09/2022
Response #1:(BI#34)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/09/2022
Response #2:(BI#34)-Per section 41-11.03C of the Standard Specifications, Lime-Treated Soil (LTS) is not considered base material. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/14/2022
Inquiry #35: The project advertisment for this project shown on, http://ppmoe.dot.ca.gov/des/oe/weekly-ads/all-adv-projects.php,
says that the project has a 23% DBE REQUIREMENT, whereas the Notice to Bidders reads, THE DBE Contract GOAL is 23 Percent.
Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/09/2022
Response #1:(BI#35)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/09/2022
Response #2:(BI#35)-The DBE Goal for the project was set at 23%. The lowest bid contractor can be awarded the contract if they meet the DBE Goal. If the contractor does not meet the goal, they can still be awarded the contract if they show that they made a good faith effort to reach out to DBE firms and increase DBE participation for the contract.
Response posted 12/05/2022
Response #3:(BI#35)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #36: Reference is made to the Shoulder Backing quantity table shown on Sheet Q-6, as well as Bid Inquiry #18 above.
BID INQUIRY #18:
In addition to the two lines shown from STA 623+94 to 670+85 being mislabeled as the "B" Line instead of the "A" line, it seems that the last two lines from STA 759+00 to 923+59 are also incorrect. They are also labeled as "B" line, but should be changed to "A" line.
Quantity Table of Q-6:
The Typical Cross section shown on Sheet X-6, Location 2, "A" Line STA 758+94 to STA 923+61, does not show Shoulder Backing, yet there is a significant quantity in the table.
Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/09/2022
Response #1:(BI#36)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/09/2022
Response #2:(BI#36)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 12/07/2022
Response #3:(BI#36)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #37: Reference is made to the Sheet C-1, Construction Details. The 2 conforms shown on the page, both call out for the removal of Concrete Pavement and Base.
Based on the Typical Cross Sections, the sections of Roadway where these conforms will be required do not have existing PCC.
Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2022
Response #1:(BI#37)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/12/2022
Response #2:(BI#37)-Refer to sheets X-2 and X-3. The existing structural sections have existing PCC pavement under existing AC.
Response posted 11/15/2022
Inquiry #38: Reference Sheet SC-1 (p.230) Prestagging table for shoulder work. "A" 502+00.00 to 593+35.20 EB/WB indicates Temporary Railing (Type K) but no CL2 AB or HMA-A. Why would temporary railing be needed if there is no work being done to the shoulder?
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2022
Response #1:(BI#38)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/12/2022
Response #2:(BI#38)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Inquiry #39: Reference Sheets SC-27 thru SC-37 and Typical Section on Sheet SC-28. To build 31' of "Work This Stage" in the WB direction would mean a 2'-4' sliver of the new 12' CRCP lane will be built in this stage with the remainder in a future stage. Is this the intent of the work in this stage?
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2022
Response #1:(BI#39)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/12/2022
Response #2:(BI#39)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/22/2022
Response #3:(BI#39)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #40: It is understood that Caltrans includes all work codes associated with the bid items on this contract to identify DBE firms certified in the CUCP that could perform work on this project to help establish the 23% DBE goal. When Caltrans calculated the 23% DBE Goal for this project what work codes were identified as contributing to $50.6 million value of potential DBE participation? What methodologies / calculations were employed to take into account the current capacity of those potential DBE’s to handle this much work in this geographic area?
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2022
Response #1:(BI#40)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/12/2022
Response #2:(BI#40)-The DBE methodology is based on the work codes and NAICS codes that are associated with each bid item for the project. With this being a $220 Million project, there were 248 bid items in the contract. We run a search in the CUPC and B2GNow databases for each bid item to see if sufficient DBEs are available in the District where the work will be done.
The following work codes were used in our methodology for this contract:
C1200 C2030 C5201 C8602
C1201 C2065 C5601 C8604
C1290 C2066 C5620 C8605
C1531 C2602 C6200 C8609
C1575 C2800 C6500 C8722
C1580 C3901 C6650 C8730
C1601 C4010 C7200 C8759
C1701 C4901 C7301 C8792
C1901 C4906 C8000 C8802
C1920 C5100 C8320 C8852
C1930 C5105 C8331 C9609
C1940 C5110 C8501 C9632
C1980
Response posted 12/05/2022
Inquiry #41: Regarding bid item number 69, Textured and Colored Hot Mix Asphalt Paving, Section 39-2.11D "Payment" shown on page 114 of the Special Provisions states "Payment for aggregate and hot mix asphalt is not included in the payment for textured and colored hot mix asphalt." On plan sheets LQ-1 (733/1103) and Q-3 (707/1103) the quantity for the aggregate base for this item is listed as being pay for in the Aggregate Base bid item. The HMA required for the bid item is not listed on sheet LQ-1 or Q-3. Please clarify how the contractor will be paid for the HMA required for this bid item.
Inquiry submitted 11/15/2022
Response #1:(BI#41)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/15/2022
Response #2:(BI#41)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Response #3:(BI#41)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Response #4:(BI#41)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #42: Reference is made to Sheet SC-1, specifically the Prestaging Quantity Table.
Lines 5 and 6, which Reference the "A" Line, STA 759+08.85 to 923+64, call out for 0.75' of HMA-A, for a total of 8,947.49 TONS in each direction.
Looking at the typical cross section for this location, there is no 0.75' thick section of HMA-A. Whereas, the other prestaging work shown in the table for Location 1 and Location 3, all clearly matches up with their respective cross sections.
Please provide additional details for the work described in the table.
Also, please provide clarification whether or not the quantities provided in the prestaging table are included in the overall job quantities listed on sheets Q1-Q3.
Thank you in advance.
Inquiry submitted 11/15/2022
Response #1:(BI#42)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/15/2022
Response #2:(BI#42)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Response #3:(BI#42)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #43: Of the 42 inquires to date the majority are under review or being addressed in a future addendum including the request for a bid extension. Based on this we anticipate a very substantial addendum will be forthcoming as well as a bid extension. For all our staff to enjoy the Thanksgiving week it would be very much appreciated if the bid extension could be addressed by the end of this week 11/18.
Inquiry submitted 11/15/2022
Response #1:(BI#43)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/16/2022
Response #2:(BI#43)-Refer to Addendum #1, dated 11/18/2022.
Response posted 11/18/2022
Inquiry #44: Where is the work for the temp lane construction on the "C-4 Line" (Sheet SCD-14) paid for? Are the various items of work, Road Ex, Class 2 AB, and HMA-A all paid within their respective items? The quantity tables do not reflect this work. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/16/2022
Response #1:(BI#44)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/16/2022
Response #2:(BI#44)-Yes, the quantities of the various items of work are all paid within their respective bid items. The quantities have not been broken out for each stage of construction. Refer to the Summary of Quantities sheets for the referenced quantities and items for the “C-4†line.
Response posted 11/22/2022
Response #3:(BI#44)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #45: Plans sheet Q-2 (706/1103) is incomplete. Quantities are missing for Cold Plane AC Pavement, Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A), and Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded). Please complete the quantities for this sheet and issue it with your forthcoming addendum.
Inquiry submitted 11/16/2022
Response #1:(BI#45)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/16/2022
Response #2:(BI#45)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/22/2022
Response #3:(BI#45)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #46: Plan Sheet Q-6 (p.710) in the Earthworks Quantities table has a column for Imported Borrow as well as there is a Bid Item 54 - Imported Borrow. Is it possible that the column is mislabeled and should be Embankment? This project has 266,000 CY of roadway excavation which will yield more than enough excess to make a 28,000 cy fill. Please review and advise.
Inquiry submitted 11/16/2022
Response #1:(BI#46)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/16/2022
Response #2:(BI#46)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 11/22/2022
Response #3:(BI#46)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #47: In reference to BI #17, the state had responded that an addendum would be released resolving the issue at hand.
Said issue, was not resolved via addendum #1. Does the State intend to release additional plans via an additional addendum?
Inquiry submitted 11/21/2022
Response #1:(BI#47)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/21/2022
Response #2:(BI#47)-Yes.
Response posted 12/04/2022
Inquiry #48: Please confirm if the project will move forward with either a Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR), a Categorical Exemption/Exclusion, or if Caltrans is applying for additional environmental permits?
Inquiry submitted 11/28/2022
Response #1:(BI#48)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/28/2022
Response #2:(BI#48)-Yes, a CEQA Exemption/NEPA Categorical Exclusion was obtained for this project. No Environmental permits will be necessary.
Response posted 12/04/2022
Inquiry #49: 1) Based on Plans Sheets No. 22 through 52, the Layout plans, the limits of the CRCP and the Conform Reach appear to end or start at the EB or BB. By way of example, reference is made to L-7 (sheet 28), where this appears to be the case at the Webster UC. This configuration of tying the CRCP into BB/EB occurs as shown on L-7 through the Layout Plans. Historically pavements tie into approach slabs and not BB or EB. Construction Details, Standard Plans or Revised Standards Plans do not support a CRCP to BB/EB tie-in.
Is the intent of the work for this project to remove all existing pavements to the BB or EB regardless of the type such as PCCP, HMA, or Approach Slab, and then replace the pavement with new CRCP? If so, then more details will be needed for joint seals and how to handle skews.
Inquiry submitted 11/28/2022
Response #1:(BI#49)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/28/2022
Response #2:(BI#49)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 12/04/2022
Response #3:(BI#49)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #50: Lane Closure Chart I6 appears to be the applicable chart for performing the ISC (intermediate strength concrete) work at the approach and departure of the WB80/EB50 connector. Remarks field says the connector can only be closed for one 55-hour period on this project. Plans clearly indicate that ISC will be required at the departure end of this connector where it merges onto EB US50. The plans are not clear that ISC will be required where WB I80 diverges onto the connector, however we have concluded that ISC will be required here. We believe that with work required at each end of this connector, there is too much work to fit into a 55-hour window.
Can the Special Provisions, Lane Closure Chart I6 be changed to allow its use two times on this project?
Inquiry submitted 11/28/2022
Response #1:(BI#50)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/28/2022
Response #2:(BI#50)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry
Response posted 12/04/2022
Response #3:(BI#50)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #51: Reference is made to plans sheets 17, 38, 90, 259, and 341 which are also sheets X-16, L-17, C-38, SC-30, and SC-112 respectively. Based on the dimensions shown, the #2 Lane in the eastbound direction will be surfaced with JPCP through the Weigh-In-Motion System. Based on the staging plans this lane will be partially constructed in Sage 1A (full length by 5 ft wide) and partially constructed in Stage 2A (full length by 7 ft wide).
Is it intended to have a longitudinal construction joint in the JPCP of EB Lane #2 at the Weigh-In-Motion System (Station “A†820+95 to 823+50)?
Inquiry submitted 11/28/2022
Response #1:(BI#51)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/28/2022
Response #2:(BI#51)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 12/04/2022
Response #3:(BI#51)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #52: Reference is made to plans sheet 49 which is also sheet L-28, where it shows the median improvements to be installed up to the EB and BB of the Lake Washington OH. The existing configuration for the Lake Washington OH is a separate eastbound and westbound structure, with about a 50 feet gap between the two structures. We suspect that a new bridge will be constructed in the near future here to fill the median gap between the two existing bridges.
To construct the median widening as shown, more details will need to be provided for CRCP expansion joints, intermediate vertical shoring at the BB and EB, the CRCP wrap around of the existing bridge wingwalls, and other termination details.
Then, if a new bridge is built here in the future, lots of this new work will have to be demolished to accommodate the future bridge work.
Should the median widening improvements be held back about 100 feet from each end of the bridge here?
Inquiry submitted 11/28/2022
Response #1:(BI#52)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/28/2022
Response #2:(BI#52)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 12/04/2022
Response #3:(BI#52)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #53: Reference is made to plans sheets 12 and 47 which are also sheets X-11 and L-26 respectively, where shown on the connector from WB I-80 to EB US50 near “C1†Station 869+07 is a partial replacement of the existing approach with new CRCP and a conform for vertical adjustment.
To construct this work as shown will require more details for the partial approach slab with CRCP. Since there is not much distance along the traveled way to make the vertical adjustment of 0.30 feet, a large bump should be the expected here affecting rideability.
Should the portion of work be re-designed to include a complete removal and replacement of the existing approach slab with a new approach slab? Also, a mill and overlay instead of overlay existing from of the connector from “C1†Station 869+08 to 870+62 will reduce the vertical adjustment of about 0.10 ft instead of 0.30 ft.
Inquiry submitted 11/28/2022
Response #1:(BI#53)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/28/2022
Response #2:(BI#53)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 12/04/2022
Response #3:(BI#53)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #54: Based on the recent responses to Bid Inquiries, there is a large Addendum looming which may have a complete new set of plans.
Does the state have an idea of when it will be released?
If there is a complete new set of plans released, the takeoff for this project will take upwards of 2-3 weeks. With the holidays around the corner, we need to be able to effectively plan and make sure staff is available.
Please release the addendum ASAP.
Inquiry submitted 12/07/2022
Response #1:(BI#54)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/07/2022
Response #2:(BI#54)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022.
Response posted 12/19/2022
Inquiry #55: On other Caltrans projects that had JPCP ISC or CRCP ISC, the closure charts for the ramps and affected mainline were 10 days, which allowed for the removal and replacement of the mainline and ramps with a similar product to the concrete pavement, not an exotic cement with a significantly shorter life cycle. Is it Caltrans intent to use CRCP rapid setting concrete to complete this work?
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2022
Response #1:(BI#55)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/12/2022
Response #2:(BI#55)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/24/2023
Inquiry #56: Reference section 12-3.20C(2)(b) Temporary Concrete Barrier with ""J"" Hooks of the Revised Standard Specifications dated 04-15-22: States ""Install two parallel temporary barrier systems, one for each direction of travel, when placed between two way
traffic."" Will the second Temporary Concrete Barrier be measured and paid at the contract unit price per linear foot?
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2022
Response #1:(BI#56)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/20/2022
Response #2:(BI#56)-Since the type of temporary concrete barrier we are using is Temporary Railing (Type K), there will not be any “J†hooks.
Response posted 12/27/2022
Inquiry #57: Stage Construction plans for Location 1, Stage 1C sheets SC-75, SC-76 and SC-77 as well as Stage 2C sheets SC-158, SC-159 and SC-160 , the on and off-ramps at Chiles road (WB and EB) are to be closed at the same time for CRCP paving and ramp reconstruction. Is the intent to complete the On and Off ramps at the same time? If not, please provide traffic control plans for individual ramp closures.
Additionally, approximately 1050' of bridge overhang and barrier replacement is to be constructed during Stage 1C (sheet SC-77) on Yolo Causeway West. We believe this work cannot be completed in a 55 hr Closure. Please consider revising the traffic control plans for Overhang construction.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2022
Response #1:(BI#57)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/20/2022
Response #2:(BI#57)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #58: The MVDS Sidefire specifications call for (8) contact closure cards per system, and the MVDS Anglefire specifications call for (4) contact closure cards per system. However, plan sheet ED-18 note 27 calls for (14). Can you clarify? Should there be (14) contact closures in every cabinet? How does this note apply to cabinets that do not have both systems?
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2022
Response #1:(BI#58)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/20/2022
Response #2:(BI#58)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2022
Inquiry #59: ED-18 note 14 calls for MVDS Sidefire System, but does not make reference to MVDS Anglefire or MVDS forwardfire. Is note 141 ‘as applicable’ on the plans?
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2022
Response #1:(BI#59)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/20/2022
Response #2:(BI#59)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2022
Response #3:(BI#59)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #60: ED-27 for the RWIS enclosures have no notes for MVDS equipment, is the MVDS interface panel to be installed in this enclosure or is there an alternate detail for this application?
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2022
Response #1:(BI#60)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/20/2022
Response #2:(BI#60)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2022
Response #3:(BI#60)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #61: Stage 1A CRCP paving width puts a construction joint within 1 foot of the wheel path after final pavement delineation. The potential for punch out of the CRCP or extensive spalling is likely along this joint due to the traffic. Is it Caltrans intent for this joint to be that close to the wheel path.
Inquiry submitted 12/21/2022
Response #1:(BI#61)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#61)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #62: The specifications (Section 14, pg. 89) state to "Submit monitoring reports according to the following schedule: Bats - Weekly."
Does Caltrans expect biological weekly monitoring for bats year-round?
Please explain if weekly reporting for bats is required year-round or does this only apply to the monitoring schedule (two weeks - "During first week in September and first week prior to April within Species Protection Area 2").
Is the biological monitor required for the full week or one day per week?
Inquiry submitted 12/21/2022
Response #1:(BI#62)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#62)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Response #3:(BI#62)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #63: Plan sheet X-2 shows 1.30' HMA paving for the west-bound outside shoulder from station "A" 515+00 to "A" 593+05. Plan sheets L-2 thru L-4 do not appear to show this outside shoulder HMA paving from station "A" 520+00 to "A" 547+85. Please clarify which is correct.
Inquiry submitted 12/21/2022
Response #1:(BI#63)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#63)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#63)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #64: Caltrans response to bidder inquiry #9 "Response #2:(BI#9)-Please bid per the current contract documents." does not provide adequate information to bid items for CRCP Pavement. The contractor needs all locations indicated on the Layout drawings as well as the type joints required to tie into the approach slabs, existing asphalt at ends and ramps. Please also include a table showing the locations and quantities. It's not to much to ask for on a 240 million dollar project.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#64)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#64)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#64)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #65: Per plan sheet X-2 the typical cross sections for the ramps at Chiles Rd (all 4 of them) show that mainline CRCP paving does not change in width and all new paving for the ramps is show as HMA-A at 1.30' in depth. In conflict with this, layout plan sheets L-6 and L-7 show a CRCP paving limits partially up the ramps, at station locations "RC4" 575+48, "RC1" 583+39, "RC3" 580+03 and "RC2" 588+58 (we are assuming these notes to be an error.) Please confirm that plan sheet X-2 is correct and that there is not any CRCP paving within the ramp areas (meaning the mainline CRCP paving width does not vary as it passes by these ramps at Chiles Road...all the paving for these ramps, where they join the mainline roadway CRCP paving, will be HMA-A paving.)
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#65)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#65)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#65)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #66: The typical cross sections on plan sheet X-7 show the following limits for the 0.10' HMA-O over 0.20' RHMA-G paving section to be "RC4" 575+48 to 582+64 on the Chiles Rd offramp from EB 80. The layout plan sheet L-6 shows the limits of this paving section to be "RC4" 575+48 to 581+46. We assume that sheet X-7 is correct and sheet L-6 is incorrect. Please confirm this by updating sheet L-6 to show the correct limits.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#66)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#66)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Response #3:(BI#66)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/24/2023
Inquiry #67: The typical cross sections on plan sheet X-7 show the following limits for the 0.10' HMA-O over 0.20' RHMA-G paving section to be "RC1" 578+84 to 583+39 on the Chiles Rd onramp to EB 80. The layout plan sheet L-6 shows the limits of this paving section to be "RC1" 579+40 to 583+39. We assume that sheet X-7 is correct and sheet L-6 is incorrect. Please confirm this by updating sheet L-6 to show the correct limits.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#67)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#67)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Response #3:(BI#67)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/24/2023
Inquiry #68: Plan sheet X-2 shows substantial shoulder backing material to be placed on the outside edges of the new HMA shoulder paving. Please confirm that the material placed on the outside edges of the HMA ramp paving (show for the Ramps @ Chiles Rd, on the upper left and right of the same plan sheet) is also Shoulder Backing.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#68)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#68)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#68)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #69: Plan sheet X-3 shows materials being placed on outside of the shoulder paving on the right side of this typical cross section. It shows Shoulder Backing being placed on top of Imported Borrow material. Since Bid Item 54 for Imported Borrow was deleted in Addendum #2, we assume that this material shown as Imported Borrow will actually be additional Shoulder Backing material. Please confirm and update this plan sheet to remove the deleted Imported Borrow work.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#69)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#69)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#69)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #70: Plan sheet X-4 shows Imported Borrow material being placed on the outside slopes of the mainline typical cross section. Since bid item 54 Imported Borrow was deleted in Addendum #2, we assume that some other material will need to be placed in this location (perhaps shoulder backing?) Please provide a revised plan sheet to show the correct type of material that will be required in place of the deleted Imported Borrow that is currently shown.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#70)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#70)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#70)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #71: Plan sheet X-6 shows shoulder backing material being placed on the outside edges of the new RHMA shoulder paving. Please confirm that the material placed on the outside edges of the HMA ramp paving (show for the Connectors and Ramps @ Enterprise Blvd, Harbor Blvd, on the upper left and right of the same plan sheet) is also Shoulder Backing.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#71)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#71)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#71)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #72: Plan sheet X-7 shows material being place on the outside edges of the HMA paving on these ramps, but the material is not specified. We assume that Shoulder Backing will be required in these locations. The specific ramp locations are:
"RC4" Sta 575+48 to 576+83 (RT)
"RC4" Sta 576+83 to 577+92 (LT and RT)
"RC1" Sta 579+40 to 582+08 (RT)
Please update this plan sheet to confirm what material will need to be placed at these locations.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#72)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#72)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#72)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #73: On plan sheet X-7, the upper right typical cross section for ramp "RC1" 579+40 to 582+08 has a new roadway section shown between the new Type E Curb and the new CHP Enforcement Area. There does not appear to be any note for what this new roadway section will be. Please provide a revised plan sheet to show what this new roadway section is.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#73)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/22/2022
Response #2:(BI#73)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#73)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #74: Plan sheet X-6 calls for "Remove Concrete Pavement and Base" work on the mainline freeway area from ETW to ETW, but the same kind of removals, adjacent to the mainline freeway area, for the Ramps and Connectors shown on this plan sheet do NOT call out "Remove Concrete Pavement and Base" work for the removal. Why the difference in these two areas that are adjacent and will be the same kind of work with the same existing roadway sections to be removed? Should the Ramps and Connectors areas also be calling out "Remove Concrete Pavement and Base" work? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#74)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#74)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Inquiry #75: On plan sheet X-7, the bottom right typical cross section shows the top paving lift to be "0.10' RHMA-O". All of the rest of the typical cross sections on this page, for adjacent work, shows the top lift paving as "0.10' HMA-O"...HMA-O not RHMA-O. We assume that this was an inadvertent error and that the top lift of paving on the bottom right typical cross section should changed to "0.10' HMA-O" to match the rest of the cross sections on this sheet for all the adjacent work. Please confirm and revised this plan sheet, as well as any revisions that might be needed on plan sheet L-6 for this same issue.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#75)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#75)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Inquiry #76: On plan sheet X-8, the top 2 typical cross sections on the right side of the plan sheet both show the top paving lift to be "0.10' HMA-O". All of the rest of the typical cross sections on this page, for adjacent work, shows the top lift paving as "0.10' RHMA-O"...RHMA-O not HMA-O. Please confirm that this is NOT an inadvertent error. If all of these top paving lifts in these areas should be the SAME, please confirm and revised this plan sheet, as well as any revisions that might be needed on plan sheets L-6 and L-7 for this same issue.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#76)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#76)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Inquiry #77: Plan sheet X-8 shows material being place on most of the outside edges of the shoulder paving on these ramps, but the material is not specified. We assume that Shoulder Backing will be required in these locations. The specific ramp locations are:
"RC1" Sta 582+08 to 583+39 (LT and RT)
"RC3" Sta 580+03 to 582+64 (LT and RT)
"RC2" Sta 586+86 to 588+58 (LT and RT)
Please update this plan sheet to confirm what material will need to be placed at these locations.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#77)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#77)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#77)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #78: On plan sheet X-9, 3 of the 5 typical cross sections on this plan sheet both show the top paving lift to be "0.10' HMA-O". The other 2 typical cross sections on this page, for adjacent work, shows the top lift paving as "0.10' RHMA-O"...RHMA-O not HMA-O. Please confirm that this is NOT an inadvertent error. If all of these top paving lifts in these areas should be the SAME, please confirm and revised this plan sheet, as well as any revisions that might be needed on the corresponding layout plan sheet(s) for the same issue.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#78)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#78)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Inquiry #79: Plan sheet X-10 shows material being place on the outside right edges of the shoulder paving on the W Capitol Ave ramp at "RW3" 769+33 to 773+40 and "RW3" 773+40 to 774+63, but the material is not specified. We assume that Shoulder Backing will be required in these locations.
Please update this plan sheet to confirm what material will need to be placed at these locations.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#79)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#79)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#79)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #80: On plan sheet X-10, 6 of the 7 typical cross sections on this plan sheet show the top paving lift to be "0.10' HMA-O". The only other typical cross sections on this page (located in the upper left portion of the plan sheet), for adjacent work, shows the top lift paving as "0.10' RHMA-O"...RHMA-O not HMA-O. Please confirm that this is NOT an inadvertent error. If all of these adjacent top paving lifts in these areas should be the SAME, please confirm and revised this plan sheet, as well as any revisions that might be needed on the corresponding layout plan sheet(s) for the same issue.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#80)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#80)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Inquiry #81: On plan sheet X-10, the typical cross section located in the bottom left section of the plan sheet (for W Capitol Ave, "RW3" 769+32 to 774+61) appears to show an additional roadway section lift between the 0.20' RHMA-G lift section. and the 1.85' CLASS 2 AB section. We are assuming that this mystery section lift is a HMA-A paving lift that inadvertently was not called out in the new roadway section note. Please specify what this mystery section is and revise this plan sheet to provide that information.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#81)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#81)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#81)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #82: On plan sheet X-11, 3 of the 4 typical cross sections on this plan sheet show the top paving lift to be "0.10' HMA-O". The only other typical cross section on this page (located in the upper right portion of the plan sheet), for adjacent work, shows the top lift paving as "0.10' RHMA-O"...RHMA-O not HMA-O. Please confirm that this is NOT an inadvertent error. If all of these adjacent top paving lifts in these areas should be the SAME, please confirm and revised this plan sheet, as well as any revisions that might be needed on the corresponding layout plan sheet(s) for the same issue.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#82)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#82)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Inquiry #83: Plan sheet X-12, the bottom left typical cross section (REED Ave "RRA3N" 867+23 to 869+73) shows material being place on most of the outside edges of the shoulder paving on this ramp, but the material is not specified. We assume that Shoulder Backing will be required in these locations. Please update this plan sheet to confirm what material will need to be placed at these locations.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#83)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#83)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#83)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #84: On plan sheet X-12, 3 of the 4 typical cross sections on this plan sheet show the top paving lift to be "0.10' HMA-O". The only other typical cross section on this page (located in the lower right portion of the plan sheet), for adjacent work, shows the top lift paving as "0.10' RHMA-O"...RHMA-O not HMA-O. Please confirm that this is NOT an inadvertent error. If all of these adjacent top paving lifts in these areas should be the SAME, please confirm and revised this plan sheet, as well as any revisions that might be needed on the corresponding layout plan sheet(s) for the same issue.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#84)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#84)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Inquiry #85: Plan sheet X-12A, the bottom left typical cross section (REED Ave "RRA4F" 869+98 to 872+48) shows material being place on the outside right slope on this ramp, but the material is not specified. Please update this plan sheet to confirm what material will need to be placed at this location.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#85)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#85)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#85)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #86: Plan sheet X-14, the typical cross sections on the right of this plan sheet (RT 275 "R275F" 908+56 to 910+86 and "910+86 to 919+48) shows material being place on the outside slopes on this ramp, but the material is not specified. Please update this plan sheet to confirm what material will need to be placed at this location.
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2022
Response #1:(BI#86)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#86)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#86)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #87: For BI #242 Modify Traffic Monitoring Systems - Sheet E-1 references Modify TMS sheets are located on sheets E-67 thru E-70. Sheet E-67 appears to be part of BI #237 Modify Roadway Weather Information System. Also please reference sheet EQ-4, the Modify RWIS chart references work to be located on sheets E-59 thru E-62. Sheets E-59 thru E-61 are for BI #235 Camera Systems and E-62 is for BI #62 Changeable Message Sign Systems. Can you please provide clarity on this?
For BI #237 Modify Roadway Weather Information System - Sheet E-1 references Modify RWIS sheets are located on sheets E-71 & E-72. As noted above I believe sheet E-67 also is part of the RWIS bid item. Also please reference sheet EQ-4, the Modify RWIS chart references work to be located on sheets E-63 & E-64, the work is found on sheets E-63 & E-64 are for BI #234 Changeable Message Sign Systems. Can you please provide clarity on this?
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2022
Response #1:(BI#87)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/23/2022
Response #2:(BI#87)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #88: On plan sheet X-6, the upper right partial typical cross section starts with a station range for RAMPS @ ENTERPRISE Blvd of "A" 559+25 to 762+45 (EB). There appears to be an error in the stationing range, it appears that the correct stationing range should be "A" 759+06 to 762+45 (EB). Please confirm this correction by revising sheet X-6 (and sheet L-12, if necessary).
Inquiry submitted 12/26/2022
Response #1:(BI#88)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/27/2022
Response #2:(BI#88)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#88)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #89: Sheet 258 of 1103 should be labeled as "SC-29", but is mislabeled as "SC-27". Please confirm this inadvertent error by revising this plan sheet. Also, please note that the match line sheet references on this plan sheet need to be corrected as well.
Inquiry submitted 12/28/2022
Response #1:(BI#89)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/28/2022
Response #2:(BI#89)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#89)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #90: Plan sheet X-6, shows a typical section for the EB-80 Connector Ramp (in the upper right area of the plan sheet) for the station range of "A" 789+26 to 793+62 (EB) which indicates a full roadway reconstruction section of 0.20' RHMA-G / 0.50' HMA-A / 2.00' CLASS 2 AB / SEG (BIAXIAL). On plan sheets L-14 and L-15, this same area "A" 789+26 to 793+62 (EB) for the EB-80 Connector Ramp (the section just before "C4" 793+61) shows a cross hatch pattern indicating the new 24 foot wide Traveled Way (TW) is to be reconstructed to CRCP. We assume this area should be reconstructed to the new roadway section shown in the typical section on sheet X-6 (RHMA-G/HMA-A/AB/SEG), and is NOT going to be new CRCP as shown on sheets L-14 and L-15. Please clarify and revised all these plan sheets to show the correct information for this area.
Inquiry submitted 12/29/2022
Response #1:(BI#90)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 12/30/2022
Response #2:(BI#90)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #91: On sheet L-15 on the bottom right and on sheet L-16 at the bottom left of center, there is the following note, "YOL-80 PM 9.75 TO PM 9.85 RECONSTRUCT LANE AND SHOULDER (CENTERLINE TO OUTSIDE EP)" which is directed to the EB-80 Connector Ramp work within the station range of "C4" 793+61 to 808+89. It is assumed that this "RECONSTRUCT LANE AND SHOULDER (CENTERLINE TO OUTSIDE EP)" work is shown in it's entirety with the typical section for this area, on plan sheet X-10 at the bottom right for the following station range, "C4" 793+61 to 808+89. Please confirm. If not, please provide additional specific details on what "RECONSTRUCT LANE AND SHOULDER (CENTERLINE TO OUTSIDE EP)" requires in regards to this area of the project.
Inquiry submitted 12/29/2022
Response #1:(BI#91)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed
Response posted 12/30/2022
Response #2:(BI#91)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#91)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #92: On plan sheet L-16 there is a note at the bottom right of the sheet that states, "ESA 5" with a line to the R/W on the south side of Route 50. There does not appear to be any ESA work shown at this location. Please confirm if there should be ESA work shown at this location, or if this notes is an inadvertent error and should be deleted. Also, please revise this plan sheet to show the correct information.
Inquiry submitted 12/29/2022
Response #1:(BI#92)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed
Response posted 12/30/2022
Response #2:(BI#92)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#92)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #93: After reviewing ADD#2 several of the ramp sections still have an inconsistency with HMA-OG and RHMA-OG. For instance ramp C1 is HMA-OG except for 15' at the bridge conform totaling 3 tons. This is not practical. Please review all the ramp sections and make them 100% HMA-OG or 100% RHMA-OG.
Inquiry submitted 12/29/2022
Response #1:(BI#93)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed
Response posted 12/30/2022
Response #2:(BI#93)-An addendum will be issued to resolve this inquiry.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#93)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #94: It appears that the concrete barrier removal is paid by a combination of the LF bid item and various LS Bridge removal items, this is very confusing. Please consider paying for all the concrete barrier removal by the LF except for the barrier associated with the overhang removal.
Inquiry submitted 12/29/2022
Response #1:(BI#94)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed
Response posted 12/30/2022
Response #2:(BI#94)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Inquiry #95: Plan sheet L-23, has notes for "...Shoulder Widening" within station range "A" 889+07 to 902+49 for EB Route 50 and within station range "A" 989+92 (should be 889+92, not 989+92...) to 895+18 for WB Route 50 but there does not appear to be any specific roadway structural section for this "Shoulder Widening" work. This typical cross sections also do not appear to call out or show this "Shoulder Widening" work. Please provide revised plans, as necessary, to show the roadway structural section for this "Shoulder Widening" work and provide the revised typical cross sections to show this added work.
Inquiry submitted 01/03/2023
Response #1:(BI#95)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/04/2023
Response #2:(BI#95)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #96: On plan sheets L-23, it shows "Reconstruct Lanes and Shoulders" work limits that match the limits shown on the plan sheet X-6 typical cross section for this section of roadway ("A" 759+06 to "A" 923+29) with the middle 30' of the median being a 0.20' Cold Plane and 0.20' RHMA-G overlay. On plan sheets L-24 and L-25, it shows "Reconstruct Lanes and Shoulders" work limits that do NOT appear to match the typical cross section on plan sheet X-6 because the median does NOT show a full reconstruction...just a 0.20' Cold Plane and 0.20' RHMA-G overlay. Please clarify which is correct for "A" 902+50 to "A" 923+29, the 0.20' Cold Plane and overlay shown on X-6, or the "Reconstruct Lanes and Shoulders" for the median as noted on L-24 and L-25. Also, please revise plan sheets X-6, L-24 and L-25 to show the correct information.
Inquiry submitted 01/03/2023
Response #1:(BI#96)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/04/2023
Response #2:(BI#96)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #97: In the Information Handout, page 6 of the Exhibit "A" (Railroad Relations...), paragraph 6 states, "...cost of flagging and inspection provided by the Railroad...will be borne by the Contractor. The Railroad has indicated that its...flagging rate will be...$1,600 per day and that the Railroad and the State has estimated a total of sixteen (0) days of flagging. The Contractor shall pay the Railroad for all actual flagging costs incurred by the Railroad under this Project." Please clarify and confirm the following information:
1. Is the estimated number of flagging days sixteen or "(0)"?
2. If the estimated number of flagging days is sixteen, please confirm that the Contractor's bid should include $25,600 (16 days at $1,600/day) for Railroad flagging costs.
Inquiry submitted 01/04/2023
Response #1:(BI#97)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/04/2023
Response #2:(BI#97)-The estimated number of flagging days is 16.
Response posted 01/09/2023
Inquiry #98: On plan sheet Q-3 (707/1103) issued with addendum 2, at station column-row titled "LANDSCAPE QUANTITIES, SEE SHEET LQ-1", a quantity of 9,261 tons of HMA (Type A) was added to the chart. There is no quantity for HMA (Type A) shown on the revised LQ-1 plan sheet. Based on the detail for the "Textured Gore Paving (Textured and Colored HMA)" shown on revised plan sheet LD-1 (730/1103) the thickness of the HMA is 0.35'.
The quantity shown on plan sheet LQ-1 (9,261 tons) is more than three-times what it should be based on the detail shown on plan sheet LD-1 and the area quantity shown on sheet LQ-1 of 11,999.6 square yards. Please clarify
Inquiry submitted 01/04/2023
Response #1:(BI#98)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/04/2023
Response #2:(BI#98)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #3:(BI#98)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #99: Reference all the 55 hour closures for ramp cross overs. It is not possible to complete the amount of work shown in the stated closures. The ramp cross overs need to be designed in stages so all the work can be done out of traffic.
Inquiry submitted 01/04/2023
Response #1:(BI#99)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #2:(BI#99)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/18/2023
Inquiry #100: Reference Stages 1B and 2B on Line B. It is not possible to get the stated work completed in 1 - 55 hour closure. There needs to be multiple closures allowed or increase the length of each closure.
Inquiry submitted 01/04/2023
Response #1:(BI#100)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/05/2023
Response #2:(BI#100)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/18/2023
Inquiry #101: Plan sheets L-24 and L-25 for EB Route 50 mainline (approx. Sta "A" 908+80 to 923+30 Rt) indicates 2 lanes of CRCP. The earthwork cross sections for this same area only shows 1 lane of CRCP. Please revise the earthwork cross sections to address the difference in earthwork quantities, etc.
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2023
Response #1:(BI#101)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Response #2:(BI#101)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/18/2023
Inquiry #102: Response #3:(BI#41)-Refer to Addendum #2, dated December 19, 2022. Addendum 2 did not add a quantity for the HMA required for the Textured and Colored Hot Mix Asphalt to the LANDSCAPE QUANTITIES chart (Sheet LQ-1/733). The quantity added to sheet Q-3 in addendum 2 (9,261 tons) makes no sense. Please calculate and correct the HMA quantity for this work and add it to the landscape quantity chart, sheet LQ-1 and correct it on sheet Q-3.
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2023
Response #1:(BI#103)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Response #2:(BI#102)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/09/2023
Response #3:(BI#102)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #103: Plan sheets L-24 and L-25 for WB Route 50 mainline (approx. Sta "A" 908+80 to 923+30 Rt) indicates 2 lanes of CRCP. The earthwork cross sections for this same area only shows 1 lane of CRCP. Please revise the earthwork cross sections to address the difference in earthwork quantities, etc.
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2023
Response #1:(BI#103)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Response #2:(BI#103)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/18/2023
Inquiry #104: Plan sheet L-24 for WB Route 275 Onramp to 50 (approx. Sta "R275N" 910+73 to 915+07 Lt) indicates 2 lanes of CRCP. The earthwork cross sections for this same area shows 2 lanes of RHMA/HMA/AB roadway section. Please revise the earthwork cross sections to address the difference in earthwork quantities, etc.
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2023
Response #1:(BI#104)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Response #2:(BI#104)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/18/2023
Inquiry #105: To date there are over 100 inquires with around 50% still indicating "Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed" or "An Addendum will be issued". It appears there will be a sizable addendum issued at some point. Also, there is close to a combined $500M of work bidding that week with many of the same contractors bidding all the work. Please consider a bid date extension of at least two weeks and provide that notification ASAP so contractors can properly schedule their resources to bid all this work. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2023
Response #1:(BI#105)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/06/2023
Response #2:(BI#105)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/18/2023
Inquiry #106: In regards to Inquiry #98, please revise the bid quantity for item 66. HMA (TYPE A) to remove the overstated HMA quantity for the HMA used for TEXTURED AND COLORED HMA PAVING.
Inquiry submitted 01/09/2023
Response #1:(BI#106)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/09/2023
Response #2:(BI#106)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #107: In reference to Special provisions section 12-4.02A(2), the contractor is responsible for knowing the dates and times of all scheduled events. Based on information available online, there are very limited work windows for connector closures in 2023 and no information available for 2024, and 2025. Since these Special days heavily impact the project schedule, please modify the special provisions with the anticipated dates that Caltrans will be available to the close connectors? Or provide the contractor with an allowance of “Special Days†that need to be considered for each season.
Inquiry submitted 01/09/2023
Response #1:(BI#107)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/09/2023
Response #2:(BI#107)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #108: Confirm that the chart in 12-4.02C(3)(f) does not apply for Golden 1 Center Special events.
Inquiry submitted 01/09/2023
Response #1:(BI#108)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/09/2023
Response #2:(BI#108)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #109: Tower Bridge Gateway/Route 275:
a. Please define exact events are to be considered and where to get the information.
b. Please provide closure charts for the restrictions mentioned in 12-4.02A(2)
c. Please define dates or work windows that need to be considered in 2023, 2024 and 2025.
d. Please clarify is these ramps are considered “connectorsâ€
Inquiry submitted 01/09/2023
Response #1:(BI#109)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/09/2023
Response #2:(BI#109)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #110: The closure charts H1 and G3E as well as H2 and G6W provide 55hr connector closures, followed by 10 consecutive nightly closures. Based on the information available there is no 10 day window available in the 2023 Special day calendar. Please define the work windows beyond 2023.
Inquiry submitted 01/09/2023
Response #1:(BI#110)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/09/2023
Response #2:(BI#110)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #111: Stage Construction plans for Location 1, Stage 1C sheets SC-75, SC-76 and SC-77 as well as Stage 2C sheets SC-158, SC-159 and SC-160 , the on and off-ramps at Chiles road (WB and EB) are to be closed at the same time for CRCP paving and ramp reconstruction. Is the intent to complete the On and Off ramps at the same time? If not, please provide traffic control plans for individual ramp closures.
Inquiry submitted 01/09/2023
Response #1:(BI#111)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/09/2023
Response #2:(BI#111)-Only at the Chiles Road location can the on and off-ramps be closed at the same time for CRCP paving. The work on the ramps is not required to be done at the same time if conforms can be provided to safely transition motorists between the mainline and the ramps.
Response posted 01/19/2023
Inquiry #112: There is approximately 1050' of bridge overhang and barrier replacement is to be constructed during Stage 1C (sheet SC-77) on Yolo Causeway West (location 1). We believe this work cannot be completed in a 55 hr Closure. Please consider revising the traffic control plans for Overhang construction. .
Inquiry submitted 01/09/2023
Response #1:(BI#112)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/09/2023
Response #2:(BI#112)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/19/2023
Inquiry #113: 1) Reference is made to Bidder’s Inquiry #28 and its response regarding the Rapid Strength Concrete Base Item. After review of Addendum #2 we still are unclear on how to estimate this item. We find no details or cross sections in the plans further describing this work.
What is the thickness of this base?
What surfacing is this base intended to be used with?
Could a cross section(s) be provided to show the total pavement structural section(s) when this RSC Base is to be used?
If used beneath CRCP, can it be poured monolithically with the CRCP?
What are the age/strength requirements?
What are the station and offset limits of its intended use?
Is use of this item mandatory or contractor optional?
Inquiry submitted 01/09/2023
Response #1:(BI#113)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/09/2023
Response #2:(BI#113)-
1) Question: What is the thickness of this base?
Response: See Standard Plan RSP P32.
2) Question: What surfacing is this base intended to be used with?
Response: See Standard Plan RSP P32.
3) Question: Could a cross section(s) be provided to show the total pavement structural section(s) when this RSC Base is to be used?
Response: Refer to addendum 2 sheet C-2 and addendum 3 sheet C-1.
4) Question: If used beneath CRCP, can it be poured monolithically with the CRCP?
Response: No.
5) Question: What are the age/strength requirements?
Response: Refer to contract section 40-12, which addresses the strength requirements. The age depends on the allowable closure time.
6) Question: What are the station and offset limits of its intended use?
Response: See Standard Plan RSP P32.
7) Question: Is use of this item mandatory or contractor optional?
Response: Mandatory.
Response posted 01/20/2023
Inquiry #114: Reference Sheet Q-9, p.713 issued in Addendum #2. The Concrete Barrier table - Concrete Barrier (Type 60MG) indicates 42,490 LF but the quantities shown add up to 34,661 LF. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2023
Response #1:(BI#114)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #115: Bid item #0034 Temporary Silt Fence have quantity on table Temporary Water Pollution Control on sheet Q-8 and callout on Layout plans. However, per specs section 14-1.02 /14 Environmental Stewardship shows Temporary Reinforced Silt Fence will locate as shown on Layout sheets. Please verify if item #0034 is Temporary Silt Fence or Temporary Reinforced Silt Fence?
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2023
Response #1:(BI#115)-Please see addendum #3, dated January 13, 2023.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #116: Is access to the Causeway allowed or is it anticipated that all work will be accomplished from the existing bridge deck?
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2023
Response #1:(BI#116)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/12/2023
Response #2:(BI#116)-All work must be accomplished from the existing bridge deck and no access to or work within the Yolo Causeway floodplain is allowed.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Inquiry #117: Reference is made to sheet Q-9 (page 713), specifically the Concrete barrier chart.
Line 4, "CL "A" 623+96 to 670+86", has a removal total of 6,370.
Based on the callouts shown on the layout sheets, as well as the typical cross sections, this total is incorrect. The majority of the median barrier to be removed within these limits is shown as STBB.
Please clarify, and revise bid quantity as needed.
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2023
Response #1:(BI#117)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Response #2:(BI#117)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/19/2023
Inquiry #118: Addendum #3 has implemented significant changes to the bid plans, specifications, as well as bid items/quantities (53 items have been affected). These changes will required significant time and resources to work through. With this Monday being a holiday, the State is only leaving the contractor with 6 working days to process these changes PRIOR to the bid day. With changes of such magnitude, that simply is not manageable.
Also, based on a quick Review of the addendum, there is still a significant amount of Bid Inquiry's that have been left unanswered.
Please consider pushing the job at least 2 weeks, to the week of 2/13/23, so that Caltrans can answer the remaining question and so that the contractors have ample time to work through these changes.
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2023
Response #1:(BI#118)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Response #2:(BI#118)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/19/2023
Inquiry #119: Addendum #3 with such significant changes, issued late on a Friday before a three day weekend is almost unimaginable. There are significant changes to the bid plans, specifications and bid items/quantities. These changes will require significant time and resources to evaluate. With changes of such magnitude, leaving the contractor with only six working days to review is not reasonable.
Please consider pushing the job at least 4 weeks, so that Caltrans can answer the remaining question and contractors have the needed time to work through these changes.
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2023
Response #1:(BI#119)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Response #2:(BI#119)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/20/2023
Inquiry #120: Please consider postponing the bid date by atleast one week in order to have enough time to understand the ADD 3 changes.
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2023
Response #1:BI#120)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/13/2023
Response #2:(BI#120)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/20/2023
Inquiry #121: In addition to the concerns in Inquiry #118, 119 & 120, a vast majority of the Add#3 plan sheets have been issued with no "clouding" of the changes making the process of identify changes extremely time consuming. The bid date needs to be pushed to allow contractors sufficient time to analyze the Add#3 changes.
Inquiry submitted 01/14/2023
Response #1:(BI#121)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2023
Response #2:(BI#121)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/20/2023
Inquiry #122: Sheet SC-107 states "Replace bridge rail from Sta. 754+20.00 to Sta. 758+94.62 during Enterprise Blvd EB-80 off ramp construction." The off ramp construction is to occur during 55-hr closures which is not enough time to complete the remaining structures work. Please consider extending the krail to protect the area and allow time for the structures work.
Inquiry submitted 01/14/2023
Response #1:(BI#122)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2023
Response #2:(BI#122)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/19/2023
Inquiry #123: Reference Add#3 sheet Q-9/p.713 Concrete Barrier Table. The Concrete Barrier (Type 60MG) total shown is 43,043 yet the individual items add up to 34,891 LF. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/15/2023
Response #1:(BI#123)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2023
Response #2:(BI#123)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/23/2023
Inquiry #124: There are bid items for CHECK AND TEST EXISTING IRRIGATION FACILITIES and OPERATE EXISTING IRRIGATION FACILITIES. Please provide irrigation plans &/or As-builts for the irrigation facilites required to test & operate.
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2023
Response #1:(BI#124)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2023
Response #2:(BI#124)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/19/2023
Inquiry #125: With the changes made on addendum #3 there are 70 revised electrical sheets and only 6 working days to review all of the sheets and make the changes accordingly. Please consider postponing this bid 2-3 weeks so it will give us enough time to digest the changes properly.
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2023
Response #1:(BI#125)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2023
Response #2:(BI#125)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/20/2023
Inquiry #126: Plan sheets 1072 and 1090 show constructing the WB overhang work at Reed Ave and W. Capitol UC during stage 3 and that Krail will protect the work areas. The Stage 3 traffic handling plans (sheets 438 and 442) shows W. Capitol is only protected with traffic drums and that traffic is against the existing barrier at Reed Ave. The overhang work will need to be protected with krail, please advise.
Similarly, Sheet 1090 shows the EB overhang at Reed Ave. is to be constructed during Stage 2 protected by krail however Stage 2 of the traffic handling plans shows traffic against the existing WB barrier. Again this work needs to be protected with krail. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2023
Response #1:(BI#126)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2023
Response #2:(BI#126)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/23/2023
Inquiry #127: Addendum 3 has replaced a large number of plan pages and scopes. Please consider postponing the bid opening for at least one week so we have time to create new BOM's and procure pricing on the material that is now not state-furnished.
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2023
Response #1:(BI#126)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2023
Response #2:(BI#127)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2023
Response #3:(BI#127)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/20/2023
Inquiry #128: Can foundation details be provided for the Roadway Weather Information System tower?
Inquiry submitted 01/17/2023
Response #1:(BI#128)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/17/2023
Response #2:(BI#128)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/19/2023
Inquiry #129: In addendum 2 there was a change to plan sheet L-31, relating to the hatched area showing where the High Friction Surface Treatment would go. This new hatched area represents less than the current bid quantity of 4,600 SY. Can you please provide the updated quantity for the High Friction Surface Treatment item?
Inquiry submitted 01/18/2023
Response #1:(BI#129)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/18/2023
Response #2:(BI#129)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/23/2023
Inquiry #130: Contract Drawings S-11 & S-12 call out for new Sign Structures A1, A2 & A3 (Sheets 572-573) however no details exist for these sign structures in the SD sheets? We need details provided to know what to quote. These sign structures are also listed in the summary on SQ-57 but again no details are provided so we have no way to quote these 3 sign structures (needs post types, post heights, span etc...).
Inquiry submitted 01/19/2023
Response #1:(BI#130)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/19/2023
Response #2:(BI#130)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/24/2023
Inquiry #131: Contract drawing sheets SDS-9 thru SDS-11 (638-640) - These are details for 'Camera Mounting on Overhead Sign Structures' but never call out which structures these sheets apply to? They might be for the CMS's C1, C2, C3 and C4 but never make reference to these sheets and also they might apply to additional structures or only some of the above structures. Please clarify what structures these details apply to.
Inquiry submitted 01/19/2023
Response #1:(BI#131)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/19/2023
Response #2:(BI#131)-Contract drawing sheets SDS-9 through SDS-11 (638-640), details for 'Camera Mounting on Overhead Sign Structures' are only applicable for CMS structures. Therefore the sheets only apply to CMSs C1, C2, C3, and C4.
Response posted 01/20/2023
Inquiry #132: Reference the Traffic Chart note "Vehicles with 3 or more axles may only access the active work zone during approved lane requirements hours when the adjacent lane is close". Please clarify the intent of this note and define "active work zone".
Inquiry submitted 01/19/2023
Response #1:(BI#132)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/19/2023
Response #2:(BI#132)-An active work zone is any area that is under construction at any time of the day.
Response posted 01/23/2023
Inquiry #133: Refer to items #56 and #57. Please identify systems to be tested and operated.
Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 01/20/2023
Response #1:(BI#133)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/20/2023
Response #2:(BI#133)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/23/2023
Inquiry #134: Several Ready-Mix Concrete suppliers have expressed concern about servicing the project. As stated on the Lane Closure Charts, "Vehicles with 3 or more axles may only access the active work zone during approved Lane Requirement hours when the adjacent lane is closed". As Concrete Trucks have 3 axles, it is understood that, if Ready-Mix Trucks are to be used, all the concrete will have to poured at night. The Ready-Mix suppliers do not have the manpower to service all this night work. Would Caltrans consider relaxing this requirement for, at least, concrete pours?
Inquiry submitted 01/20/2023
Response #1:(BI#134)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 01/20/2023
Response #2:(BI#134)-Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/23/2023
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.