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 04-0A0204

Submit new inquiry for this project

Inquiry #1: Can CT please provide electronic files (XLM file) for earthwork takeoffs. These files are necessary for this project.
Inquiry submitted 03/03/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/05/2021


Response #2:XML file will not be available before bid opening date. Bid per plans and specs.
Response posted 03/22/2021



Inquiry #2: The X Sections provided for this project are incomplete. It appears that the R3 section from station 727+50 to 730+44.55 and station 737+25 to 739+75 are missing. Please provide the missing X section sheets mentioned.


Inquiry submitted 03/04/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/05/2021


Response #2:No additional cross sections are available. Bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 03/05/2021



Inquiry #3: Section 14-6.03A, Item 3 states, " On the temporary wetland protection mat areas,
only access for minor grading adjustments at the bridge falsework systems will be allowed from October 15 to June 15. "

This indicates that the temporary wetland protection mat is allowed to be in place from October 15 to June 15.

Section 16-3.01A requires, "The use of the mat is restricted to the period from June 15 to October 15"

Please confirm whether or not the mat is allowed to be in place from October 15 to June 15. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 03/10/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/10/2021


Response #2:See Addendum 1.
Response posted 03/22/2021



Inquiry #4: Can falsework be left in place form October 15 to June 15?
Inquiry submitted 03/17/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/24/2021


Response #2:Yes.
Response posted 03/25/2021



Inquiry #5: The stream diversion cofferdam is shown as being west of the new bridge. Should the upstream cofferdam be installed east of the bridge?
Inquiry submitted 03/17/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/24/2021


Response #2:The cofferdam is meant for the removal of the existing culvert. Moving the upstream cofferdam east of the proposed bridge must comply with the specifications and permits and is subject to the approval of the Engineer.
Response posted 03/25/2021



Inquiry #6: On Plan Sheet #35, it shows that the width of the temporary roadway/mat area narrows to the extent of the edge of deck of the bridge, near the driveway and Scotty Creek. Can the temporary roadway/mat areas be extended to the 'AE' line?
Inquiry submitted 03/17/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/23/2021


Response #2:Temporary roadway/mat areas can be extended subject to the approval of the Engineer.
Response posted 03/24/2021



Inquiry #7: In Spec Section 14-6.03A(3), it says that ground disturbing work can only occur between April 15 to November 15. On the south side of Scotty Creek it looks like we can use the existing driveway to access our temporary construction roadway. However, on the north side of Scotty Creek, we can only access the temporary construction roadway by crossing the wetland mat areas. How can we get to this area starting April 15 if we can't cross the wetland mats until June 15?
Inquiry submitted 03/17/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/24/2021


Response #2:See addendum #2
Response posted 04/12/2021



Inquiry #8: Should Bid Item 121, 24” Welded Steel Pipe Casing (Bridge) be 12” welded steel pipe casing? The only steel casing shown on the bridge plans is 12” for the 6” supply line running the length of the bridge and approach slabs. If the preceding is the case, then the bid quantity of 79 lf is incorrect also. Please clarify the size of the Welded Steel Pipe Casings for this project.
Inquiry submitted 03/23/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/24/2021


Response #2:Please refer to the Elevation Detail on sheet 193 of 223 of the contract plans. Bid Item 121, "24" Welded Steel Pipe Casing (Bridge)" is for the future utility opening shown on this sheet. The 12" diameter casing is paid under Bid Item 59(F), "6" Supply Line (Bridge)". Bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/29/2021



Inquiry #9: Is the deck concrete continuous over the top of the pier caps? The concrete strength table shows the deck concrete ending at each pier cap.
Inquiry submitted 03/25/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/25/2021


Response #2:Yes, the deck concrete is continuous over the bent cap.
Response posted 03/25/2021


Response #3:Yes, the deck is continuous over the bent cap. Reference plan sheet 196 of 223, Section E-E detail of the current contract documents. Bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/30/2021



Inquiry #10: In light of the unprecedented fires throughout California and California’s emphasis to build “resilient” infrastructure, will Caltrans follow its own High Design Manual Section 850-34 dated December 30th 2015 which warns against installing plastic pipe in areas with a potential for fire? This project lists Alternative Pipe Culvert in the Bid Schedule which includes plastic pipe as an acceptable product.
Inquiry submitted 03/30/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/31/2021


Response #2:At this project location, plastic pipe is a viable option. Bid per plans and specifications.
Response posted 04/01/2021



Inquiry #11: Plan sheets SS-1 and SS-4 show a 2" SSFM being relocated with notes indicating work to be done prior to new roadway excavation presumable to avoid disturbing the existing force main while in use. Using new invert and existing grades indicate the excavation for installing this work is in excess of 30' deep to relocate this force main. In addition, the drawings also show that the new 6" casing between 12+77 & 12+43 must be trenchless with the end of the casing not only in the existing traffic lane but the opposite end of the casing being over 30' deep.
1) Is the intent to construct this 2" FM with a 30 plus foot deep excavation?
2) Is the 6" casing to be installed by trenchless methods in light of 30' depth and boring in existing traffic lanes?
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2021


Response #2:1) Yes.

2) As stated on the plans, the new 4" WSP casing shall be installed by Trenchless Construction Methods (TCM). The new 4" WSP casing is from "S1" 12+77.02 to "S1" 13+43.03.
Response posted 04/05/2021



Inquiry #12: Sheet 207 section X-X pertaining to water supply details on the bridge indicate WSP for the 6" supply line. Other details including Local Infrastructure specs reference HDPE inside of bridge 12" casing. Is the pipe inside the bridge casing WSP or HDPE?
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2021


Response #2:The pipe inside the bridge casing is HDPE as shown on the utility plans.
Response posted 04/05/2021



Inquiry #13: Plan sheets U-5 and U-9 show a 6" water line to be relocated with notes indicating work to be completed prior to new construction to avoid disturbing the existing water main while in use. Using new invert and existing grades provided indicates the excavation for installing this work exceeds 30' depth for over 250' of the trench.
1) Is it the intent to construct this 6" water main with trenching exceeding 30' deep?
2) Please supply profile grades for the W1 water main between stations 15+39 & 16 +11
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2021



Inquiry #14: Please retract previous inquiry due to information shown on drawings.
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2021

Response #1:Noted.
Response posted 04/01/2021



Inquiry #15: With respect to your answer of Inquiry 11, regarding the need to excavate over 30' deep to install the SSFM, your answer that the new 4" casing is trenchless does not eliminate the need to excavate approx. 32' deep to access the NE side of the casing and for the installation of the new SSFM near the casing. Your design also shows definitive elevations for vertical angle points for the 2" SSFM that conflict/override your 4' minimum note on the plans.

1) Is your intent to excavate 32' from existing grade to install the 4" casing/ SSFM near station 12+77?
2) Can the 4' minimum be used instead of the vertical elevations as shown, or do the elevations as shown override the 4' minimum ?

Inquiry submitted 04/05/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/06/2021


Response #2:1) Yes.

2) Vertical elevations as shown override the 4' minimum.
Response posted 04/09/2021



Inquiry #16: The Log of test borings indicate that Unconfined Compression tests were performed on the rock samples. The actual test results do not appear to be in the Final Foundation Report or on the borings. Please provide the individual test data as soon as possible.
Inquiry submitted 04/08/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/08/2021


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 4 dated April 15, 2021.
Response posted 04/19/2021



Inquiry #17: Currently, the lead time for steel casing is 10-14 weeks for procurement. With the ability to only work within the wetland area from 6/15 to 10/15 and assuming this contract gets awarded within 30 days of the bid date, the casing would not be ready until July 19th (best case scenario). That would give us only 13 weeks of work for access in the wetlands for this current year. Would Caltrans consider using CMP in lieu of steel casing, or using an oscillator with temporary casing so we can start the piling operations by 6/15?
Inquiry submitted 04/09/2021

Response #1:Submitted for considerations.
Response posted 04/09/2021


Response #2:Bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 04/13/2021



Inquiry #18: Per note 1 on sheet no. 195, "Arch and spandrels shall be constructed after pier prestressing is completed". Will you allow us to pour the arch, and then after prestressing, pour the spandrels once the bridge has been stressed?
Inquiry submitted 04/09/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/12/2021


Response #2:No. Bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 04/13/2021



Inquiry #19: What is the spacing of the scuppers shown on Sheet 212? How is the scupper going to drain if it is 3" above the curb? When does the cross fall of the sidewalk change from -1.5% to +1.5%? When the cross fall is +1.5%, how is the curb/barrier going to drain? Where is the dimension of the Picket Curb pop out called out?
Inquiry submitted 04/09/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/12/2021


Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 04/15/2021



Inquiry #20: Addendum 4 added 20 pages to the Information Handout with testing that was performed from samples taken out of the Log of Test Borings. The test data provided is 7 ea. Unconfined Compression (UC) Tests. The Log of Borings indicate that 29 ea. UC samples were taken from 6-borings but only 7 ea. results are provided. Are the other 22 ea. Unconfined Compression Test Results available? In addition, the Revised Foundation Report indicates that the subsurface conditions at Bents 2 - 7 had unconfined compressive strengths between 18 - 1406 psi yet the strengths indicated in the ADD #4 IH show a UC of 7257 psi @ 15-008-104' (pg 582 of the PDF) and a UC of 4248 @ 15-008-75.5'. Please advise as to what information should be used.
Inquiry submitted 04/16/2021

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/19/2021

The information provided in the responses to bidder inquiries is not a waiver of Section 2-1.07, "JOB SITE AND DOCUMENT EXAMINATION" of the Standard Specifications or any other provision of the contract, nor to excuse the contractor from full compliance with the contract. Bidders are cautioned that subsequent responses or contract addenda may change a previous response.