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 04-297634
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: Note 2. in the PLANT REMOVAL PLAN states that '...removing the trees 3' to 4' above the ground will be done by others prior to the start of construction.'
Is this scope of work out for bid in another contract? If so, what is its corresponding project number?
Inquiry submitted 11/09/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/09/2020
Response #2:The Contract for plant removal have already been awarded and started.
Response posted 11/25/2020
Response #3:The tree removal by others prior to start of construction is being done under Caltrans Agreement 04A5203.
Response posted 12/01/2020
Inquiry #2: Is it possible for the department to zip all the plan sheets and supplemental information files into one link? It would make it easier to download and save all of the files associated with this project.
Inquiry submitted 11/10/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/10/2020
Response #2:Zipped file of all the files is not available.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Inquiry #3: Would Caltrans please release XML files for the existing and design surfaces as well as alignments for takeoff accuracy and expedition.
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/15/2020
Response #2:You can download the XML files below.
http://website.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-297634/SurfaceLandXML.zip
Response posted 11/24/2020
Inquiry #4: There appears to be discrepancies in the retaining wall quantities. Will and addendum be issued to reconcile the quantities?
Inquiry submitted 11/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/23/2020
Response #2:Can you list the discrepancies?
Response posted 11/23/2020
Inquiry #5: In the Erosion Control Quantities pages ECQ-1 and ECQ-2, Erosion Control Type 3 is shown as having compost quantities. The Erosion Control Legend on page ECL-2 shows that Type 3 does not have compost, instead it has Imported Biofiltration Soil. Is the compost quantity intended to be in the biofiltration mix? Or is it total CY of biofiltration soil for type 3?
Please advise.
Additionally, the specs call for an ESA fence with signage. Is the temp reinforced silt fence shown on plans intended to be used as ESA? If so, will it require signage?
Inquiry submitted 11/30/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/30/2020
Response #2:The compost used in biofiltration soil should will not be measured and paid for as a separate quantity. The erosion control quantity plan will be revised and issued in the next contract addendum to adjust the quantity of compost
The temp reinforced silt fence shown on plans intended to be used as ESA fence and should include the appropriate ESA signage as specified in the Contract specifications.
Response posted 12/01/2020
Inquiry #6: Sign #12-33 Special Sign to be relocated on plan sheet #811 is not a two posts relocate per item 264.
It is a special sign mounted on 4 each metal posts(Pipe) with electrical lighting.
This sign should not be covered under item 264 relocate 2-post signs, as it s not a roadside signs.
It should have its own item like item #275 monument sign & foundation.
Inquiry submitted 11/30/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/30/2020
Response #2:The payment for replacement of the existing sign 12-33 is included under bid item 275. Refer to details on sheet 930 for sign replacement.
Response posted 12/01/2020
Inquiry #7: Please provide cut off elevations for all piles at the Scotts Corner Separation (Widening of Bridge No. 33-0352).
Inquiry submitted 12/02/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/02/2020
Response #2:The cut off elevations for all piles at the Scotts Corner Separation (Widening of Bridge No. 33-0352) are as follows:
Bent 2 SB= 295 ft
Bent 3 SB=299 ft
Bent 2 NB=297 ft
Bent 3 NB=300 ft
Response posted 12/08/2020
Response #3:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 12/11/2020
Response #4:Please refer to Addendum No. 2 dated January 8, 2021.
Response posted 01/08/2021
Inquiry #8: 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 12/03/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/07/2020
Inquiry #9: The Box Culvert for System 63 only shows a wingwall on one end, 63g, in the plans on sheets D-8 and DP-40. The summary of quantities sheet DQ-82 lists 72 cy of wingwall concrete on the same line as the box culvert structure concrete. Where is the call out and details for this wingwall? Currently there does not appear to be any information for the wingwall on that end of the box culvert.
Inquiry submitted 12/04/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/04/2020
Response #2:The detail of wingwall 63g is shown on sheet DD-24. The quantity of wingwall is 23.7 CY as listed on sheet DQ-82.
Response posted 12/07/2020
Inquiry #10: The stage drawings show us constructing Retaining Wall #4 in Stage 2, Phase 2 and Stage 3, Phase 2. Which is correct?
Inquiry submitted 12/07/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/07/2020
Response #2:The construction of Ret wall No. 4 must be started in Stage 2-Phase 2 as shown on the plans.
Response posted 12/08/2020
Inquiry #11: In reference to Inquiry #9, the questions wasn't what is the quantity and information for 63g, it was what is the 72 cy of structure concrete wingwall noted for 63b on sheet DQ-82. There is no work shown for this quantity.
Inquiry submitted 12/08/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/08/2020
Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #12: Plan sheets 455 - 458 are incomplete. Can you please issue corrected copies?
Inquiry submitted 12/08/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/08/2020
Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #13: The specifications only supply limited information about the tree transplanting shown on the Plant Removal Plan and Planting Plan. Are the trees expected to be stored for a long period of time before being re-planted? If so, how long? Or are the trees to be dug up and immediately re-located to the positions shown on the plans?
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/11/2020
Response #2:The trees to be relocated should be lifted, moved and planted in their final destination locations all in one operation. No tree should be placed and stored in a temporary location.
Response posted 12/15/2020
Inquiry #14: Where are the below listed concrete barriers at retaining walls paid?
Concrete Barriers:
SN 07: 60MD (1725LF)
RW 08: 60MD (Mod C & E) (1332LF)
842B Mod (1749LF)
RW 09: 842B Mod (670LF)
SN 10: 60MD (801LF)
SN 11: 60MD (880LF)
RW 13: 60MD (388LF)
842 Mod (432LF)
RW 14: 842 Mod (250LF)
SN 16: 60MDÂ (497LF)
SP 18: 842 Mod (580LF)
SN 19: 60MD (650LF)
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/15/2020
Response #2:As specified in section 83-3.04 of the Special provisions, Concrete barrier (Type 60MD, Modified A), concrete barrier (Type 60MD, Modified B), concrete barrier (Type 60MD, Modified C), concrete barrier (Type 60MD, Modified D) and concrete barrier (Type 60MD, Modified E) are paid for as concrete barrier (Type 60MD).
Concrete barrier (Type 842B) and concrete barrier (Type 842B Modified) are paid for as concrete barrier (Type 842).
Response posted 12/16/2020
Response #3:Please refer to section 83-3.04 of the Standard Specifications and of the special provisions and bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/31/2020
Inquiry #15: Should there be a bid item for the spray/sponge on concrete veneer on the various retaining walls designated to have the veneers?
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/14/2020
Response #2:There is no separate payment for use of colored concrete veneer applied with a sponge for Retaining Walls Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17. The payment for applying veneer on these walls is included as part of the price paid for the Architectural Treatment.
Payment for colored concrete Spray-on veneer for Retaining Walls Nos. 9, 14 and 18 is also included in the price paid per cubic yard for the Structural Concrete, Retaining wall
Response posted 12/16/2020
Response #3:No, refer to section 51-1.04 of the Special Provisions and bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/31/2020
Response #4:Reference section 51-1.04 of the Special Provision of Addendum #3 dated January 26, 2021.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Inquiry #16: Due to the Covid-19 mandatory lockdown from December 05th, 2020 to January 04th, 2021 required by the State of California Governor, the up-coming Holidays, and the magnitude of the project. Many Suppliers and Subcontractors has been shut-down mainly from the Covid-19. Please postpone this project at least 4 weeks from the original bid opening date of January 14th, 2021, so Contractors and Subcontractors have time to analyze the project more intelligent.
Inquiry submitted 12/15/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/15/2020
Response #2:Addendum 1 changed the bid date to Feb. 2, 2021.
Response posted 12/24/2020
Inquiry #17: Bid item 159 - 560218 Furnish Sign Structure (Truss) - are walkways required for these overhead signs? Contract plans do not call out either way and Caltrans is currently in a transition stage where walkways are not being used however this contract does not state what is wanted. The pay weights would indicate they are not included or else these weights would be significantly low and should be revised.
Inquiry submitted 12/15/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/15/2020
Response #2:Walkways are not required in any of the sign structures in the contract.
Response posted 12/16/2020
Inquiry #18: Sign OS29-1 - Bid item 159 - 560218 Furnish Sign Structure (Truss) - A contradiction exists for the post type - Summary sheet SQ-34 calls out this post to be a type IX (24" x 0.969") per the Caltrans standards but then the table found on sheet SD-30 calls out Sign OS29-1 and OS33-2 to be 24" x 1 13/16" thick which far exceeds any post thickness called out in the Caltrans Standards. Which thickness is correct?
Inquiry submitted 12/15/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/15/2020
Response #2:The sign post for sign OS29-1 and OS33-2 must follow the requirements as shown on sheet SD-30.
Response posted 12/16/2020
Inquiry #19: In the edge drain quantity summary, edge drain is indicated to be installed on the R-1 thru R-4 lines. The cross sections for these lines also indicate edge drain installation. New pavement structure section 5 is shown to be installed in these areas. Typically, a layer 0.25 of ATPB is placed adjacent to the edge drain, not HMA, Type A. Is this correct?
Inquiry submitted 12/16/2020
Response #1:Construct edge drain and pavement per contract plans.
Response posted 12/18/2020
Inquiry #20: Please provide us a typical detail for the Aggregate Subbase and embankment after one foot over excavation at the existing ditches shown on the summary of quantities table Q-13 ( Plans sheet 927).
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/21/2020
Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Inquiry #21: On plan sheet 157, the detail for minor concrete textured paving calls out a tan color. Please specify the tan color the state is looking to use on this project and whether it has to be an integrated color or cast on color.
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/21/2020
Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #22: There seems to be a plan sheet missing in the Drainage Plan sheets. Stationing on sheet D-20 ends at roughly STA 274+50 and stationing on sheet D-21 starts at approximately STA 287+50. Please advise if there truly is a sheet missing or if there is no drainage in this area and the plan sheet was intentionally left out.
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/21/2020
Response #2:There is no missing sheet, since there is no drainage work between sheets D-20 and D-21.
Response posted 12/22/2020
Inquiry #23: The majority of drainage quantity sheets DQ-41 thru DQ-44 are blank. Please provide revised sheets DQ-41 thru DQ-44 with the missing information.
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/21/2020
Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #24: The total for "Existing Ditch Over-excavation Quantities" table on plan sheet Q-13 doesn't add up right, please correct them and provide typical detail for this work.
Inquiry submitted 12/21/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/21/2020
Response #2:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Response #3:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #25: Due to Covid-19 mandatory lockdowns, the magnitude of the project, and the upcoming holidays please consider postponing the bid date 4 weeks to give the Contractors and subcontractors ample time to provide a complete estimate. Even though there is not DBE or DVBE goals, we would like to incorporate those vendors in our bids, but the Covid-19 lockdown has an increased impact on the disadvantage enterprises. Postponing the bid date will allow for greater utilization of disadvantaged vendors.
Inquiry submitted 12/21/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/21/2020
Response #2:Addendum 1 changed the bid date to Feb. 3, 2021.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Inquiry #26: Sheet 1,632 of 1,884 illustrates a 2" shotcrete layer as needed to support the excavated face of RW No. 7 prior to soil nail installation. What bid item does this temporary shotcrete fall under?
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #3:Reference section 53-2.04 of the Special Provision of Addendum #3 dated January 26, 2021. The volume of 2" initial shotcrete is paid as bid item #158 STRUCTURAL SHOTCRETE.
Response posted 01/26/2021
Inquiry #27: Section 14-6.03D(1) of the Specials indicate that the Contractor-supplied biologist must implement monitoring and reporting requirements in accordance with the natural resources protection plan (NRPP). The NRPP is not a bid item. Will an NRPP be provided as an addendum?
Inquiry submitted 12/22/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 01/26/2021
Inquiry #28: On pages SC-20 to SC-29, there is a Drainage Work Note #3 callout but there is no #3 note on page SC-17. What are the #3 notes referring to?
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:The construction note #3 on sheet SC-17 refers to the construction of the Frontage Road RF1 and is correctly called out on Sheets SC-20 thru SC-29. The Note 3 on sheet SC-20 refers to placement of drainage inlet on the specified section of FR1 and is only specific to the sheet SC-20.
Response posted 12/24/2020
Inquiry #29: Construction Note #6 on page SC-17 says to “construct temporary HMA Ramp to proposed pavement section in preparation for Stage 2â€, however there is no design information. Please provide a cross section for the two locations this note references on page SC-22 along with limits of the area to receive the temp HMA ramp.
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:Use 0.25' HMA for temporary pavement, matching the existing driveway width. The quantity of temp pavement is considered to be negligible and is well under the rounding range of the final bid quantity
Response posted 12/29/2020
Inquiry #30: On page SC-41, temp pavement is called out for “R3†Line from ~ Sta 364+15 to ~Sta 368+34. What the structural section for this temp pavement?
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:Use 0.60' HMA for temporary pavement. The quantity of temp pavement is considered to be negligible and is well under the rounding range of the final bid quantity.
Response posted 12/29/2020
Inquiry #31: On page SC-46, the hatching for temp paving is shown at ~Sta 122+60 on the “SR 84†Line, please confirm this is temp paving, and if so, provide the structural section for this location.
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:No temporary pavement is needed at the specified location.
Response posted 12/29/2020
Inquiry #32: On page SC-47, there is a hatched area across the FR1 line at ~Sta 535+75, what work is to occur here in this stage and how is traffic supposed to be handled?
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Inquiry #33: CDFW 1600 Measure 2.32 requires that the Qualified Biologist conduct a habitat assessment and survey (visual exit, acoustic, other), perform bat exclusion (if present), and prepare a Bat Protection Plan. The Special Provisions (Section 14-6.03A-D)do not indicate these are required. Have these services been previously performed/prepared or should they be included in Contractor-Supplied Biologist duties?
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:The Contractor-supplied biologist is responsible to ensure that construction activities comply with all the applicable regulatory permits included in the contract.
Response posted 12/29/2020
Inquiry #34: Please provide cut off elevations for CIDH piles at the Scotts Corner Separation (Widen).
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for Consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #3:Please refer to Addendum No. 2 dated January 8, 2021.
Response posted 01/08/2021
Inquiry #35: Your attention is directed to plan sheet DQ-82. No quantity value is provided for Bar Reinforcing Steel (Box Culvert), for the RCB at DS 63. Please provide this quantity.
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #36: Reference is made to Inquiry 15. We respectfully request the work involved with furnishing and applying architectural veneer have a separate bid item with a measured quantity. The response to Inquiry 15 states that in some locations the veneer is paid under the architectural item and in other locations it is paid in the structure concrete item. No method of payment is provided for when it is applied to barriers. This significant discrepancy in method of payment leads to confusion, and will result in change orders. Please create a new item, with a measured quantity for the application of veneer.
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 01/08/2021
Response #3:Reference section 51-1.04 of the Special Provision of Addendum #3 dated January 26, 2021.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Inquiry #37: Section 51-1.01A of the special conditions states that colored concrete veneer is applied with a sponge for Retaining Walls Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17. However the plans show these walls receive a spray veneer. Which is it?
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:Current contract plans and specifications are consistent. Refer to the Typical Wall Section details on sheets 1704, 1722, 1739, 1751, 1806, and 1828 of the contract plans and the 4thand 6thparagraphs of section 51-1.01A of the special provisions.As shownand as specified, on Retaining Walls Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17, only the smooth finishes receive a sprayed-on concrete veneer. And only the faux rock fractured granite texture receives the hand-applied sponge application.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Inquiry #38: Portions of plan sheet 1777 are missing. Please reissue a corrected version of this plan sheet.
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:The plan sheet 1777 as shown in the bid set of plans is correct and there is no missing information from the drawing.
Response posted 12/29/2020
Response #3:Bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/06/2021
Inquiry #39: CDFW ITP Measure 8.15 requires that the Designated Biologist prepares a Covered Species Relocation Plan, however this is not shown in the Special Provisions as a duty of the Contractor-Supplied Biologist. Will this be the responsibility of the CSB or a document provided by Caltrans?
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020
Response #2:The Contractor-supplied biologist is responsible to ensure that construction activities comply with all the applicable regulatory permits included in the contract.
Response posted 12/29/2020
Inquiry #40: For soil nail walls, specifications call for 2" initial shotcrete initial layer immediately after excavation prior to drilling. What is minimum shotcrete strength or cure time needed prior to commencement of drilling.
Inquiry submitted 12/24/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/28/2020
Response #2:As specified in the contract specifications, the use of initial 2" shotcrete must cured for at least 72 hours or have attained a compressive strength of at least 2500 PSI.
Response posted 12/30/2020
Response #3:Refer to section 19-3.03K of the special provisions and bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Inquiry #41: Drainage System 52 (4'x3' RCB) & Drainage System 97 (4'x3' RCB) both cross Highway 84 in areas where some of the existing pavement is not being replaced. This appears to be a Case 2 crossing per Drainage Details on sheet DD-4. Please provide updated quantities for Minor Concrete (Backfill RSC Where Needed) for these Drainage Systems.
Inquiry submitted 12/29/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/29/2020
Inquiry #42: In your answer to BI #7, you said to bid per current plans and specs. On plan sheet 1388, Note 1 refers you to the Foundation Data sheet, which contains the Pile Data Table. The Pile Data Table does not show the cut-off elevations of the 72" piles. Can you provide the cut-off elevations?
Inquiry submitted 12/30/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/31/2020
Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 2 dated January 8, 2021.
Response posted 01/08/2021
Inquiry #43: On Sheet DQ-82, the quantity for the Structural Concrete Box Culvert of Drainage System 79 is called out as 2,486.4 CY. Please review, as this quantity seems overstated.
Inquiry submitted 01/05/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/06/2021
Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #44: 1) Retaining Wall #1 & #6 show having a Concrete coping on the top of the wall, how is the coping paid for?
2) The Mechanically Stabilized Embankment wall have Class 2 Aggregate Base indicated in the quantities, but the amount listed is not included on the summary of quantities sheet. Will the summary sheet be updated to included the AB from the MSE walls?
3) How is the over-excavation and backfill under the MSE Walls #5 & #15 paid for?
4) How is the Geocomposite Drain paid for at MSE Walls #17 & #20 paid for? In addition, what are the limits of the Geocomposite Drain in order to quantify it?
Inquiry submitted 01/05/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/06/2021
Response #2:1) Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
2)Please bid per the current contract bid documents. The total bid quantity for Class 2 Aggregate Base includes the quantity of AB used with the MSE walls.
3)Please bid per the current contract bid documents. The roadway excavation bid quantity include the quantity of the over-excavation at the MSE walls
4) For limits of geocomposite drain for MSE walls #17 and #20, refer to sheets 1820 and 1875 of the contract plans. For payment of geocomposite drain, refer to section 47-2.01A of the Standard Specifications and section 19-3.01A of the special provisions and bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #3:1) Reference section 47-6.04 of the Special Provision of Addendum #3 dated January 26, 2021.
Response posted 01/26/2021
Inquiry #45: Plan Sheet SC-1, Detail A (Sheet 595 of 1884) shows cold plane and HMA quantities that are not accounted for in the summary of quantities, please update or clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/06/2021
Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 01/07/2021
Inquiry #46: Will you be providing any MRI and/or IRI data
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Inquiry #47: Drainage Quantity Sheet DQ-11 indicates minor concrete backfill and culvert slurry cement backfill for Drainage System No. 19 for Drainage Units A and C which are the 18" RCP drainage lines. However there is no indication on Drainage Plan D-3 or Drainage Profile DP-8 that indicate these lines are to be backfilled with minor concrete or cement slurry. Please clarify whether or not minor concrete and cement slurry backfill is required?
Inquiry submitted 01/06/2021
Response #1:Minor concrete and cement slurry backfill are required for drainage system 19-a and 19-c as shown on Drainage Quantity Sheet DQ-11.
Response posted 01/07/2021
Inquiry #48: Bid Item #145(F) Architectural Finish: What is included in this pay item for architectural finish? Are the MSE wall formliners part of this pay item or are those paid under the MSE pay item?
Inquiry submitted 01/07/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/07/2021
Response #2:1) Regarding thr pay item, please refer to special provisions section 51-1.04 of Addendum No. 2 dated January 8, 2021.
2)Please refer to section 51-1.03G(2) of the Standard Specifications and Addendum No. 2 dated January 8, 2021. Yes, the MSE wall formliners are included in the Architectural Finish.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Inquiry #49: Drainage System No. 39 C on Drainage Quantity Sheet DQ-23 indicates minor concrete/cement slurry backfill are required for the 18" RCP line. However there is no indication on Drainage Sheet No. 5 or Drainage Profile Sheet DP -23 that this is required. Since the average depth of the pipe is 6ft deep is the minor concrete and cement slurry necessary? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/07/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/07/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the current contract bid documents. Drainage system 39-c is under existing pavement therefore minor concrete backfill and cement slurry are necessary. The item is listed on sheet DD-4 of the Contract plans under ROADWAY TRENCH BACKFILL DETAIL (CASE 1).
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #50: Drainage No. 64-G on Drainage Profile Sheet No. 40 indicates jacking and boring 10.8' of 36" RCP, can you clarified why this required? This particular area on the layout sheet indicates a complete new structural section and it appears this segment of storm drain line is not within the current alignment of HWY 84 but out in the adjacent grass area. This work could be completed behind the k-rail in Stage 2 Phase 2.
Inquiry submitted 01/07/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/07/2021
Response #2:That portion of pipe cannot be built in Stage 2 phase 2 due the required set back needed for the temporary wall. Therefore, the placement of the pipe by jack and bore is considered during stage 3 Phase 2 without impeding live traffic.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #51: Is Drainage No. 34 Line D suppose to tie into the existing Double 8' x 7' RCB as indicated on Drainage Profile Sheet 19?
Inquiry submitted 01/08/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:Yes, Line 34-d ties into the existing 8' x 7' RCB as indicated on Drainage Plans and Drainage Profiles of the contract Bid set.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #52: Please provide details of the 2 flagpoles located on sheet PP-1 per addendum 2. The structural drawings do not provide footing details for the flagpoles.
Inquiry submitted 01/08/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:The detail for flag pole foundation is shown on the Landscape Details, sheet LD-2 (sheet 931 of 1884.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #53: It appears there have been 2 additional transplants included on the Addendum 2 plans, Sheet No. PR-3, Tree Nos. 1265, 1267. However, there does not seem to be an updated Planting Plan that reflects these changes.
Inquiry submitted 01/08/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Inquiry #54: Drainage Unit "S" for Drainage System No. 40 indicates on Sheet D-5 to remove an existing DI, yet Sheet DQ-25 for the same unit indicates removing the DI and installing 56.6ft of 36" RCP jacked pipe. Please clarify?
Inquiry submitted 01/08/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/08/2021
Inquiry #55: Does the threaded bar that is outside of the DCP that will be cast into the CIP concrete need to be galvanized ?
Inquiry submitted 01/10/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:Reference Revised Standard Specification for section 46-3.02 Materials. No, the solid steel bars for soil nails do not need to be galvanized. The solid steel bars for soil nails are shown on the various Soil Nail Details No. 2 sheets as encapsulated full length in a grouted corrugated plastic sheathing, so they do not need to be epoxy coated.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #56: Does the threaded bar for the Soil Nails need to be galvanized or epoxy coated within the DCP ?
Inquiry submitted 01/10/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:What is DCP?
Response posted 01/12/2021
Response #3:Reference Revised Standard Specification for section 46-3.02 Materials. No, the solid steel bars for soil nails do not need to be galvanized. The solid steel bars for soil nails are shown on the various Soil Nail Details No. 2 sheets as encapsulated full length in a grouted corrugated plastic sheathing, so they do not need to be epoxy coated.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #57: Drainage Plan Sheet D-7 indicates for Storm Line No. 57 per Units E & F to remove a existing drainage inlet and culvert, yet there is no indication on Drainage Quantities Sheet DQ-33 that these items are to be removed. Please clarify whether or not these items are to be removed, and update the Drainage Qty Sheet if necessary.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:The drainage items in question must be removed as shown on the contract plans. your question on the accuracy of the quantities of Sheet DQ-33 is under review. Please bid per the contract document, unless an addendum is issued to revise the drainage removal quantities.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Inquiry #58: On Plan Sheet D-11, System W1 indicates notes d) remove HW, e) remove culvert, and f) remove HW. These removal items do not appear in the Drainage Quantities. Please provide.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 01/14/2021
Inquiry #59: On Plan Sheet D-12 for System W2 notes d) Remove FES and e) Remove culvert are called out. These items to not appear in the Drainage Quantity Sheets. Please provide.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 01/14/2021
Inquiry #60: Please clarify whether or not Drainage System No. 61-A (30" RCP) connects to Drainage System No. 60-C (4'x3') RCB? On sheet DP-37 drainage profile it appears that the two connect but nothing is noted on the profile or drainage plan.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:The drainage system 61-A connects to Drainage system 60-c (4’ x 3’ RCB) as shown on the contract plans .
Response posted 01/14/2021
Inquiry #61: Please clarify why Drainage System No. 64 Unit G needs to be 10.8 feet of jacked 36" RCP? It appears this area will be behind k-rail per the staging plans and there are no existing utilities within this location.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/11/2021
Response #2:The a portion of pipe cannot be built in Stage 2 phase 2 due the required set back needed for the temporary wall. Therefore, the placement of the pipe by jack and bore is considered during stage 3 Phase 2 without impeding live traffic.
Response posted 01/14/2021
Inquiry #62: For item 247, will we be following chain link fence details shown on Retaining Wall 16 fence details on Sheet 1803?
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Response #2:Chain link fence on retaining walls must be constructed per Revised Std Plan A85, as called out on the contract plans.
As for Sheet 1803, see Addendum 3.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Inquiry #63: Retaining Wall No. 8 and Retaining Wall No. 13 both utilize vertical ground anchors. Note 2. states that an alternative anchor enclosure can be found on "Vertical Ground Anchor Details No. 2" sheet. However, this sheet is not present in the current plan set or slip-sheets of Addendum 2. Please provide this detail.
Also, can grade 150 bar tendon can be used in lieu of the strand tendon for the vertical ground anchors?
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Response #2:For Retaining Wall No. 8, reference plan sheet 1674A of Addendum #3 dated January 26, 2021. For Retaining Wall No. 13, reference plan sheet 1749A of Addendum #3 dated January 26, 2021.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Inquiry #64: Please provide a detail for the reinforced concrete junction structure that is part of Drainage System 81.
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/12/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the contract documents. The Reinforced Concrete Junction Structure must be constructed per the Standard Plans D91A and D91B.
Response posted 01/14/2021
Inquiry #65: Drainage detail sheet DD-4 shows the RCB that is part of Drainage System 79 is to receive Minor Concrete (Backfill). However, on drainage quantity sheet DQ-83 there is no Minor Concrete (Backfill) shown for Drainage System 79. Please clarify whether or not this RCB is to receive Minor Concrete (Backfill).
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #2:Minor Concrete (Backfill) is not needed for Drainage System 79.
Response posted 01/14/2021
Inquiry #66: Can you please clarify the pipe size for Drainage No. 71 Units F,D, B, and O? Drainage Plan Sheet D-10 indicates the lines are all 18" APC, however Drainage Profile Sheet DP-45 indicates the lines are 24" (B,O) and 30" ( D,F). Also, Drainage Quantity Sheet DQ-42 per Addendum No. 02 indicates in the description column that the lines are 18" APC, yet the linear footage quantity for the pipe is indicated under the 24" APC column. Please clarify and adjust the bid item quantities if they are incorrect.
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #2:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Inquiry #67: The drainage sheet and drainage profile indicate that Drainage System No. 18 Unit G is a GMP inlet however on Sheet DQ-11 under the quantity column it indicates it is a CSP inlet. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #2:The inlet in question is an steel pipe inlet with grate, type GMP per Standard plans D75A. inlet will paid for by the payment of CSP inlet.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Inquiry #68: Drainage System No. 71 Inlets for Units A and N indicate on Drainage Plan D-10 and Drainage Profile DP-45 to be GMP inlets, however Drainage Quantity Sheet DQ-41 quantities for these inlets are indicated under the Structural Concrete Drainage Inlet column. Please clarify and adjust bid quantities if necessary.
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #2:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Inquiry #69: Bid Item 298 - Concrete Barrier (Type 60) 27,200'. Could the State please confirm that all the following different types of 60 barriers fall under this one pay item. Would the state also please consider creating pay items for each type of barrier like you typically do. This will help with billing and eliminate issues with changes of work. The following barrier is shown on the plans.
60GP, 60M, 60MC, 60MC Mod, 60MF Mod, 60MG, 60MGC, 60MGC Mod, 60MGD Mod, 60MP Mod and MM
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #2:Refer to the Section 83-3.04 of the Contract specifications for the list of concrete barrier types included under payment for the Concrete Barrier (Type 60). Don't expect any changes to the breakdown of the concrete barrier quantities. Please bid per the contract bid documents.
Response posted 01/18/2021
Inquiry #70: Bid Item 296 (F) - Concrete Barrier (Type 60MD) 8,044'. Could the State please confirm that all the following different types of 60MD barriers fall under this one pay item. Would the state also please consider creating pay items for each type of barrier like you typically do. This will help with billing and eliminate issues with changes of work. The following barrier is shown on the plans.
60MD, 60MD Mod A, 60MD Mod B, 60MD Mod C, 60MD Mod D and 60MD Mod E
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #2:Refer to the Section 83-3.04 of the Contract specifications for the list of concrete barrier types included under payment for the Concrete Barrier (Type 60MD). Don't expect any changes to the breakdown of the concrete barrier quantities. Please bid per the contract bid documents.
Response posted 01/18/2021
Inquiry #71: Does the threaded bar that is outside of the Pregrouted Corrugated Plastic Sheathing ( also known as the DCP ) that will be cast into the CIP concrete need to be galvanized ?
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #2:There is no need to galvanize the threaded bar outside of the sheathing since it will be cast into concrete facing.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Response #3:Reference Revised Standard Specification for section 46-3.02 Materials. No, the solid steel bars for soil nails do not need to be galvanized. The solid steel bars for soil nails are shown on the various Soil Nail Details No. 2 sheets as encapsulated full length in a grouted corrugated plastic sheathing, so they do not need to be epoxy coated.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #72: Does the threaded bar for the Soil Nails need to be galvanized or epoxy coated within the pregrouted corrugated plastic sheathing ( also known as DCP ) ?
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #2:Reference Revised Standard Specification for section 46-3.02 Materials. No, the solid steel bars for soil nails do not need to be galvanized. The solid steel bars for soil nails are shown on the various Soil Nail Details No. 2 sheets as encapsulated full length in a grouted corrugated plastic sheathing, so they do not need to be epoxy coated.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #73: What work is being paid for under Bid Item #60?
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2021
Response #2:Item 60, structural backfill is being paid for backfilling at Geosynthetic reinforcement slope, refer to the detail on sheet 187 of the contract bid plans.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Inquiry #74: On plan sheet 514, "Edge Drain Detail" it indicates that Filter Fabric is wrapped completely around the ATPB, how is the filter fabric paid for? The other two details only indicate Filter Fabric at the pipe and cross drain locations.
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/18/2021
Response #2:Payment for the filter fabric used with asphalt treated permeable base is included in the payment for the asphalt treated permeable base.
Response posted 01/25/2021
Inquiry #75: What are the closure times for Koopman Road?
Inquiry submitted 01/14/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Inquiry #76: Drainage Quantity Sheet DQ-55 under the minor backfill column indicate that Drainage System No. 96 Units B & E receive minor concrete backfill, however Drainage Profile Sheet DP-62 and Drainage Plan Sheet D-15 do not indicate that these units require minor concrete backfill. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/14/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Response #2:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Inquiry #77: Bid item # 65 " Structure Backfill - Soldier Pile Wall", quantity is incorrect, the quantity appears to be missing the amount of backfill for Retaining Wall #18. Can this be corrected with the next addendum?
Inquiry submitted 01/15/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/15/2021
Response #2:Reference plan sheet 1831, quantities decal. There is no quantity of bid item #65 Structure Backfill (Soldier Pile Wall) at RW #18. Reference plan sheet 1832, Typical Section. For RSP in front of RW#18, see roadway plans, as noted. No additional information will be provided.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Inquiry #78: Can the necessary logos for the GE Hitachi sign be provided?
Inquiry submitted 01/15/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/18/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the contract documents. The logo is not available to share with the bidders at this time.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Inquiry #79: What bid item is the initial 2" of Shotcrete paid under ?
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/18/2021
Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/21/2021
Response #3:Reference section 53-2.04 of the Special Provision of Addendum #3 dated January 26, 2021. The volume of 2" initial shotcrete is paid as bid item #158 STRUCTURAL SHOTCRETE.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Inquiry #80: Who determines whether or not the initial 2" of Shotcrete is needed ? In order for all bidders to bid apples to apples Caltrans needs to specify which walls need the initial 2" of Shotcrete with certainty.
We suggest a unique bid item for the initial 2" of Shotcrete called Flash Coat of Shotcrete.
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/18/2021
Response #2:1) Reference plan sheets 1632, 1688, 1708, 1786 and 1814. No additional information will be provided. Please bid per the current contract documents.
2) Reference section 53-2.04 of the Special Provision of Addendum #3 dated January 26, 2021. The volume of 2" initial shotcrete is paid as bid item #158 STRUCTURAL SHOTCRETE.
Response posted 01/26/2021
Inquiry #81: In your responses to the bidders inquiries regarding the thin veneers, you say that some is paid for under the structural concrete, some is paid for under architectural treatment, and some may be paid for under the concrete barriers. We request again, can Caltrans create a bid item for sponge application of the thin veneer and a separate bid item for the spray on thin veneer? That way if things change in the field, we can easily adjust the pay quantities to match what was actually done instead of having to prorate other bid items to get paid for what changed.
Inquiry submitted 01/19/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Response #3:Reference Addendum 3 dated 1/26/2021, special provision section 51-1.04.
Response posted 02/02/2021
Inquiry #82: The electrical conductor quantities provided on EQ-7 Electronic Toll System appear to be inconsistent. When referring to the cable block diagram sheets ED-44 to ED-50 for cable content and verification purposes, there appears to be different sizes and lengths of conductors shown between the two informational guides provided.
Please provide clarification.
Inquiry submitted 01/19/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Inquiry #83: The specifications only specify SSL Wire Mesh System and Retained Earth (which is Reinforced Earth) Wire mesh System. The Steel Strip system is equivalent to if not a better system than the mesh. There is no reason in 50 years that where a mesh steel system is allowed that a steel strip system is also allowed.
Could you please update the specifications to allow the Reinforced Earth Company steel strip system. Or could could you explain why Steel Strip System by The Reinforced Earth Company is not included in the specifications?
Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 01/19/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Response #2:Reference Addendum 4 dated 1/29/2021, revised special provision section 47-6.01A.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #84: Irrigation plan sheet IQ-1 has the wrong irrigation quantities for the new riser sprinkler assembly type V. The quantity table has a total of 717ea, but irrigation plan sheets IP-1 thru IP-4 only show a total of 365ea. Please revise irrigation quantities sheet IQ-1 to reflect the correct quantity for riser sprinkler assembly type V.
Inquiry submitted 01/19/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the contract documents. It looks like the Bidder is counting just the number of symbols and assuming there is one sprinkler Riser per symbol. This is not true. Drawing ISS-1 shows correctly the number of heads per plant. The numbers on the IQ-1 are correct.
Response posted 01/22/2021
Inquiry #85: Irrigation plan sheet IQ-2 irrigation quantities shows there being a 2†remote control valve on irrigation plan IP-1, but Irrigation plan IP-1 doesn’t show any 2†valve? Please advise if this 2†valve is part of bid?
Inquiry submitted 01/19/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the bid documents, The 2" RCV shown on IQ-1 is the 2" RCVM shown on Sheet IP-1 (It is shown in the inset in the top left of the sheet at the BFP).
Response posted 01/22/2021
Inquiry #86: Irrigation plan sheet IQ-2 irrigation quantities shows there being a 1†drip valve assembly on IP-1, but irrigation plan sheet IP-1 doesn’t show any drip valve? Is 1†remote control valve P-3 supposed to be the drip valve because it connects to the new drip irrigation tubing? Please advise if this is the case.
Inquiry submitted 01/19/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/19/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the bid documents. Valve P-3 requires a drip valve assembly with the remote control valve as shown on the plans.
Response posted 01/22/2021
Inquiry #87: What is the depth for wood chip mulch on planting plan PP-1? Only the CY is given. Please advise as to the depth of the mulch.
Inquiry submitted 01/20/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Response #2:The Wood Chip Mulch qty's shown are based on a placement depth of is 3" deep.
Response posted 01/21/2021
Inquiry #88: The CDFW ITP Conditions of Approval 4 states that the Caltrans shall implement and adhere to the terms of the USFWS Biological Opinion (08ESMF00-2017-F-3304-R001-1) issued for this project. The BO is not included in the Information Handout. Can Caltrans provide the BO for reference?
Inquiry submitted 01/20/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Inquiry #89: Planting plan sheet PP-1 note 3 states “plant establishment work not required, this sheet onlyâ€. Is the contractor only responsible for the coast live oak areas from PP-2 thru PP-4 for plant establishment period?
Inquiry submitted 01/20/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Response #2:As shown on the plans, the plant establishment work only applies to the work shown on sheets PP-2 thru PP-4.
Response posted 01/21/2021
Inquiry #90: We are having a difficult time locating the product, or finding a subcontractor who knows the product specified, in Special Provision section 51-1.03D(5), as the sprayed or sponged on veneer. Is there a specific product the state had in mind when drafting this section of specification? How did the state determine the formulation of the opaque emulsion of color pigment, Portland Cement, quartz, titanium dioxide, iron oxides and bonding agents?
Inquiry submitted 01/20/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Response #2:Reference section 51-1.03D(5). Please bid per the current contract documents. No additional information will be provided.
Response posted 01/26/2021
Inquiry #91: Addendum 2, Section 51-1.03G(2) requires, "Horizontal joints in formliner patterns is not allowed." Is it the intention of this specification to require that all formliner material be supplied in one piece vertically for the entire height of the wall that receives the formliner? If this is the case, a large amount of the formliner won't be able to be reused thereby dramatically increasing waste and costs.
Inquiry submitted 01/20/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/20/2021
Response #2:Reference Addendum 2 dated January 8, 2021, section 51-1.03G2, Horizontal joints in formliner patterns is not allowed. Please bid per the contract's documents. No additional information will be provided.
Response posted 01/26/2021
Inquiry #92: The stationing (sheet 731) for the temporary retaining wall "R1" from: 107+51, to: 219+98 appears to possibly be incorrect. The wall with these stationing would be about 2 miles long. I am assuming it should be from: 207+51, is this assumption correct?
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/21/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the contract documents. Stations shown for the temporary wall limits in the Quantity table are correct. The approximate LF of the wall is 985’. Stationing for R1 does not cover the entirety of the wall limits, please note the second station callout is from 680 not R1 line.
Response posted 01/22/2021
Inquiry #93: Planting legend PL-1 addenda 2 shows note 4. foliage protectors and 5. root protectors for the coast live oak trees, but planting quantities PQ-1 addenda 2 shows the coast live oak trees not having any foliage nor root protectors? Are the foliage and root protectors required for the coast live oak trees, please advise?
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/21/2021
Response #2:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Inquiry #94: Drain System 63 calls for a 10' x 4' precast RCB. This is not a standard Caltrans size. Should the precast RCB instead by 10' x 5'?
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/21/2021
Response #2:10'x4' box culvert must be installed per plans. Use Caltrans Standard Plans D83A for 10'x5' box for concrete thickness and reinforcement information.
Response posted 01/22/2021
Inquiry #95: Bid item 91, Replace asphalt concrete surfacing. Is there a quantity sheet for that bid item?
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/22/2021
Response #2:See Sheet 128, (C-22) for the quantity table of "Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing.
Response posted 01/25/2021
Inquiry #96: Section 77-6.02 MATERIALS (FOR RELOCATING WATER LINE) states that the Fill and Backfill must comply with section 31 23 36 of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission City Distribution Division (SFPUC-CDD) Standard Specifications. Upon reviewing the (SFPUC-CDD) Standard Specifications they clearly state that material shall consist of dune sand or well washed sand. In addition they state that gradation of the sand shall have 100% passing the 3/8†sieve size.
In Section 77-6.03 Backfilling Trench in CT Special Provisions it states that “Make sure material to be placed within 6†of the pipe is pulverized material (Class II AB) free from rocks greater than 1†in diameter, broken pavement or organic matterâ€
Given that water trenches for this project are very long and deep ~10’ the requirement differences between the two materials (Sand vs Class II AB) is very substantial.
Please clarify what type of material will be suitable for water line backfill on this project.
Inquiry submitted 01/22/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/22/2021
Response #2:This question is the same as BI#96 above.
Response posted 01/22/2021
Response #3:Backfill material must conform to the requirements of Section 31 23 36 of the SFPUC-CDD Standard Specifications.
Response posted 01/25/2021
Inquiry #97: Section 77-6.02 MATERIALS (FOR RELOCATING WATER LINE) states that the Fill and Backfill must comply with section 31 23 36 of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission City Distribution Division (SFPUC-CDD) Standard Specifications. Upon reviewing the (SFPUC-CDD) Standard Specifications they clearly state that material shall consist of dune sand or well washed sand. In addition they state that gradation of the sand shall have 100% passing the 3/8†sieve size.
In Section 77-6.03 Backfilling Trench in CT Special Provisions it states that “Make sure material to be placed within 6†of the pipe is pulverized material (Class II AB) free from rocks greater than 1†in diameter, broken pavement or organic matterâ€
Given that water trenches for this project are very long and deep ~10’ the requirement differences between the two materials (Sand vs Class II AB) is very substantial.
Please clarify what type of material will be suitable for water line backfill on this project.
Inquiry submitted 01/22/2021
Response #1:Backfill material must conform to the requirements of Section 31 23 36 of the SFPUC-CDD Standard Specifications.
Response posted 01/25/2021
Inquiry #98: On sheet UD-16 "SFPUC and GE Utility Details" the detail for Flush Mounted Test Station Concrete Box shows three 4" concrete encased bollards surrounding each test station box. Where will the installation of these bollards be necessary? We are installing a traffic rated box with a concrete collar already. All of these boxes will be placed either in an open field or adjacent to a gravel access road.
Inquiry submitted 01/22/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/22/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the contract plans. The bollards serve to protect the test stations and to facilitate finding them in the open fields or adjacent to the gravel access road.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Inquiry #99: Please confirm that the 2" of initial Shotcrete called out as needed does not require reinforcing steel.
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/24/2021
Response #2:The 2" of initial Shotcrete called out on the plans does not require reinforcing steel.
Response posted 01/25/2021
Response #3:Reference plan sheets 1648 (RW #7), 1697 (RW #10), 1711 (RW#11), and 1786 (RW #16) where typical section of soil nail wall shown. No, the 2" initial shotcrete where shown does not require reinforcing steel.
Response posted 02/03/2021
Inquiry #100: Item 44 TWW 61 tons
Is the Department included in the States variance program for disposing of TWW at former landfills that used to accept the material, but cannot currently by State mandate?
Inquiry submitted 01/25/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/25/2021
Response #2:The current status is Caltrans has not been granted a variance from the new requirement that treated-wood waste be disposed of only at class I hazardous-waste landfills.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Inquiry #101: Your attention is directed to Special Provision Section 51-1.03D(5). This section is vague regarding the material requirements of the veneer, which is to be applied to barriers, and retaining walls. What is the required thickness of the veneer?
Inquiry submitted 01/26/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/26/2021
Response #2:Thickness, stated as a dimension of depth (quantitative), is not the criteria of acceptance of the finished installation. The criteria of acceptance of the finished installation is qualitative. Test samples are required. The approved test samples will be used as the basis of the veneer applications. Please refer to the requirements of section 51-1.01C(6) and 51-1.03D(5) of the contract specifications that describe the qualitative criteria.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Response #3:Reference Addendum 2 dated 1/8/2021, special provision Section 51-1.03D(5) for composition requirements of the veneer. Thickness requirement for veneer not described.
Response posted 02/02/2021
Inquiry #102: Please provide a reference project where the state has used the veneer application called for on this project in the past. This will help determine the desired final product, the current plans and specifications are not clear.
Inquiry submitted 01/26/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents. No additional information will be provided.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #103: Please provide clarification and/or individual total quantities for Fiber Rolls Type 1 installation versus Type 2 installation. Sheets ECQ-1 and ECQ-2 provide breakdowns, however, EC Type 1 (Type 1 install) is mixed in with other EC Types, requiring Type 2 installation.
Inquiry submitted 01/26/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/26/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the contract bid documents. No additional information will be provided at this time.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Inquiry #104: Regarding unanswered Inquiry #27 posted on 12/22/20; revised in response to addendum #3. Addendum #3 states the Contractor shall submit a Natural Resources Protection Plan (NRRP). Is this intended to be a responsibility of the Contractor-Supplied Biologist?
Inquiry submitted 01/26/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/26/2021
Response #2:Per section 14-6.03D(2) of the Standard Specifications, The Natural Resources Protection Plan must be prepared and signed by a Contractor-supplied biologist.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Inquiry #105: In Addendum #3, you laid out how the thin veneer coatings are paid for on the CIP walls and concrete barriers. Is the thin veneer coating on the MSE walls paid for under architectural treatment for the MSE walls?
Inquiry submitted 01/27/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Response #2:Reference example plan sheet 1739, typical wall section, and addendum 3 dated January 26, 2021, specification section 51-1.04 . Veneer on MSE wall is paid as bid item 145 Architectural Treatment.
Response posted 02/03/2021
Inquiry #106: Is the spray-on veneer on the concrete barrier slab paid for under the barrier slab concrete?
Inquiry submitted 01/27/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Response #2:The spray-on concrete veneer on the concrete slab is not a separate pay item and must be considered as part of the payment for the concrete barrier.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Response #3:Reference example plan sheets 1739 (RW #12) and 1828 (RW #17), typical wall section; and 1846 (RW #18), typical section. Reference Addendum #3, dated January 26, 2021, specification section 51-1.04. Veneer on concrete barrier slab is included in the payment for concrete barrier.
Response posted 02/03/2021
Inquiry #107: Addendum # 3 made no mention of Bid Item # 238 General Electric 14†Waterline Relocation, however, when I uploaded Addendum # 3 to HCSS Bid Item # 238 was deleted. Please clarify if Bid Item # 238 was intended to be deleted and just not referenced in the addendum or was the bid item not to be deleted.
Inquiry submitted 01/27/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Response #2:Item 238 for "GENERAL ELECTRIC 14" WATERLINE RELOCATION" is part of the Contract.
Addendum 3 shows that Bid Item 238 is not deleted on our part.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Inquiry #108: Addendum 3 Irrigation Quantities IQ-2 eliminated the flow sensor cable conduit? specs mention to install the flow sensor cable in a 2" conduit. Irrigation plan IP-1 shows the flow sensor cable in a conduit, Is the flow sensor cable still to be installed in a conduit?
Inquiry submitted 01/27/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2021
Response #2:As shown on the irrigation plans, the flow sensor cable is still part of the project and is for the bidders to quantify and include the cost in their lump sum value for the Irrigation System bid item (Bid item #73).
Response posted 01/28/2021
Inquiry #109: Sheet 1739, Arch. detail no. 2, Note 3. "Pattern does not repeat for 300'."
What exactly is a non repeating pattern. We would like to use a combination of 9 different Faux Rock Formliners every 20' and then rotate them another 20' and continue this down the wall. The appearance will appear non repeating but it will in fact start repeating every 40'. In order to achieve a true 300' non repeating pattern it will take 180 unique formliners which will cost over $600,000 for that one MSE wall pattern. I don't believe the state's intention is to spend $600,000 on one formliner pattern for one wall. We have done the proposed 9 combo liner pattern in the past to make a pattern appear non repeating with great success.
Inquiry submitted 01/27/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the contract documents.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Response #3:Reference sheet 1739 Architectural Details No. 2, Note 3. Pattern does not repeat for 300’. Please bid per current contract documents. No additional information will be provided.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #110: Regarding Items 294 & 295 "Crash Cushion (Smart)"
There doesn't appear to be any details in the special provisions regarding these.
Is it Cal Trans intent to sole source the SCI GM manufactured by Hill & Smith or will approved equals be allowed?
The special provisions appear to be missing any details relating to this item that would typically be provided.
Inquiry submitted 01/27/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Response #2:Please refer to sheet 195 of the contract plans for the details and requirements for the Crash Cushion (Smart).
Response posted 01/28/2021
Inquiry #111: Bid Item #200-Geomembrane (Water Barrier) specification calls "Geomembrane for biofiltrations swales must be Class A, will you please provide a data sheet for a Class A.
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Response #2:Please refer to the section of 96-1.2R of the Standard Specifications for requirements of Geomembrane Class A.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Inquiry #112: There doesn't appear to be any staging provisions provided for the R7 line on 680. In regards to the utilities to be installed in this location will K-rail be provided or will this area need to be constructed under full traffic control?
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Response #2:The work along the left side of R7 ramp is shown as part of Stage 3 Phase 2 behind K-rails (refer to sheet 688 of the plans). The trenching work for the utility conduits along the right side of the ramp must be done under full traffic control or during the ramp closure window.
Response posted 01/29/2021
Inquiry #113: What temporary provisions will be required where drainage structures are to be constructed across roads that will not be reconstructed? There is no bid item for RSC, or details provided for temporary AC/plating before final pavement sections can be constructed. Is RSC, temporary AC or plating of the highway acceptable/required?
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the contract documents.
Temporary pavement will not be necessary. Contractor may close a lane at night to complete the section, if needed.
Quantity of RSC (where needed) is included in the quantify of "MINOR CONCRETE (BACKFILL)".
Response posted 01/29/2021
Inquiry #114: Where is the step noted on sheet DD-19 paid for?
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Response #2:The quantity for the steps noted on sheet DD-19 has been calculated and included under item "STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BOX CULVERT" (Bid item No. 141).
Response posted 01/29/2021
Inquiry #115: The drainage plans indicate Drainage System 80 (i) to be 48" RCP, however the profiles indicate that section to be 54". Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 01/31/2021
Inquiry #116: Spec. 51-1.01A Concrete Structures:
There are many concrete suppliers that don't carry Color AMS STD number 23448, 84-Tan-A. Can an equivalent/equal be used in leau of that specific color for the Integral color concrete?
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Response #2:No. The color is a custom color for this project and must match the AMS STD 23448 number specified.
Response posted 01/31/2021
Response #3:Reference specification section 51-1.01A. Please bid per current contract documents. No additional information will be provided.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #117: Please respond to this inquiry.
Thanks.
Inquiry #62: For item 247, will we be following chain link fence details shown on Retaining Wall 16 fence details on Sheet 1803?
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2021
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2021
Response #1:See response to Bidder Inquiry #62.
Response posted 01/28/2021
Inquiry #118: In consideration of the sequencing for box culvert installation, some culverts are instructed to be built out of sequence (i.e. the outsides are to be built first, and then subsequent sections are to be installed in between in later stages. What provisions are to be made by the contractor for this type of installation? Is the contractor expected to provide closure pours should the sections not butt directly together? Will further staging instructions be provided to revise the installation sequencing provided by the State?
Inquiry submitted 01/29/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/31/2021
Response #2:The Contractor is responsible to implement adequate measures to protect the constructed portion of the box culverts between subsequent stage of construction and maintain drainage flow.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #119: In what stage/phase will Drainage System 82 (k) and 88 be constructed? Will this require traffic control, pavement repair, etc.?
Inquiry submitted 01/29/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/31/2021
Response #2:System 82- Stage 2 Phase 2. Protected with K rail.
System 88- Stage 1 Phase 2. Work area and K rail provided. May need traffic control for (d).
Both can be constructed during the work of the roadway, therefore pavement repair should not be necessary.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #120: Paragraphs 2 and 7 of Section 51-1.01A state that the use of integral color is required for all barriers in SR84...beginning at Sta 385+80. Which line is this station on? It appears to be on the "R4" Line. As the "R4" Line appears to end at 502+09.75, it is unclear if the barriers past this Station are colored.
Inquiry submitted 01/29/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/31/2021
Response #2:As stated in the contract special provisions, the use of integral color is required for all barriers on SR84, beginning at "R4" Sta 385+80, continuing east to the end of work limits on SR84 (end limits "SR84 line" Sta 326+96).
Response posted 02/01/2021
Inquiry #121: Is integral colored concrete required for the CIDH at the Soldier Piles as specified in Section 51-1.01A? This seems unnecessary as no part of the CIDH will be visible.
Inquiry submitted 02/01/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Response #2:Reference special provision section 51-1.01A. Concrete above ground and visible at soldier pile walls must be integral colored concrete. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 02/02/2021
Inquiry #122: Are Leave-in-Place Deck forms allowed at N84-N680/N84 Connector?
Inquiry submitted 02/01/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Response #2:Reference plan sheet 1343 of 1884, General Notes, and standard specification section 51-1.03C(2)(c) Permanent Steel Deck Forms.
Response posted 02/03/2021
Inquiry #123: The GE water line relocation as depicted on Sheet UD-3 appears to have the wrong scale and stationing. Please clarify the dimensioning as this is a LS pay item and it is impossible to determine the right quantity.
Inquiry submitted 02/01/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 02/01/2021
Response #2:Please bid per the contract documents. Refer to the profile drawing (UD-12) for pipe length and other relevant design information.
Response posted 02/02/2021
Inquiry #124: Please advise if an addendum will be issued to address inquiry #5, response #2:The compost used in biofiltration soil should will not be measured and paid for as a separate quantity. The erosion control quantity plan will be revised and issued in the next contract addendum to adjust the quantity of compost
Inquiry submitted 02/02/2021
Response #1:Bid per plans and specs. This project will bid tomorrow.
Response posted 02/02/2021
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.