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 04-3J3204

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Please post correct plans for Contract 04-3J3204. Incorrect plans (Contract 04-3J3204) are posted.
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2019

Response #1:Noted and fixed. Please try again.
Response posted 11/12/2019




Inquiry #2: Plan sheet L-2 appears to be missing the cross-hatching that would indicate the pavement section (0.25' Mill/ 0.15' Rubber/ 0.1' AC)
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/15/2019


Response #2:To be addressed in future addendum
Response posted 11/20/2019


Response #3:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/07/2020




Inquiry #3: Plan sheet Q-8 shows 21,578 CY of excavation required for the new AC dike. This equates to about 4.5 CF of dirt excavation per LF of new AC dike. If this is correct I would need to see cross-sections for this project.
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2019

Response #1:See Standard Plan A87B for typical earthwork dikes. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/20/2019




Inquiry #4: Would it be possible to add a bid item for protection of existing drain inlets?
Inquiry submitted 11/14/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/15/2019


Response #2:For a project of replacing PCC slabs and resurfacing AC, the drainage inlets (DI) should be protected by the work item “Job Site Management”. This is because the paving project has to cover and block the drainage inlets completely to prevent the paving materials from entering the storm drain systems. The standard Drainage Inlet Protection only filters sediments, but does not block the drainage inlets. Therefore, we cannot use the standard DI Protection for a paving project like this one. The drainage inlets of this project should be protected by section 13-4.03E(7) of the Standard Specifications and paid by the work item “Job Site Management”.

Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/20/2019




Inquiry #5: Spec. page 40, section 14-11.08C states that concentration data and sample location maps for the Type COM and Type Z-2 materials would be included in the Information Handout for this project. I do not believe this information was included.
Inquiry submitted 11/14/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/15/2019


Response #2:To be addressed in future addendum
Response posted 11/20/2019


Response #3:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/07/2020




Inquiry #6: Item #17 "Remove Yellow Stripe (Haz Waste)"
Item #23 "Roadway Exc. (Z-2)"

Would you please add a bid item for "Lead Compliance Plan"?

Inquiry submitted 11/14/2019

Response #1:To be addressed in future addendum.
Response posted 11/20/2019


Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/07/2020




Inquiry #7: Could I get a little more detail about bid Item #1o "Temporary Cover"?
1) Plan sheet WPCQ-1 (page 96) indicates it is installed at each of the new vegetation control locations. Is it a hydromulch?
2) How wide is it installed.
3) What is the specification for the product?


Inquiry submitted 11/15/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/18/2019


Response #2:1. The installation of vegetation control will generate disturbed soil areas (DSA). As per requirement of the Construction General Permit (please see a copy of the requirement below), we need to cover the DSAs prior to forecasted rains. The Temporary Cover is designated for this purpose. Apply Temporary Cover to the DSAs at least 24 hours before rain occur.
"Risk Level 2 discharges shall provide effective soil cover for inactive areas and all finished slopes, open space, utility backfill, and completed lots."

2. The width varies depending on the DSA areas. It should be large enough to cover the DSA.

3. Please see section 13-5.02F of the Standard Specifications for the specifications of Temporary Cover.


Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/20/2019




Inquiry #8: 1) Is Temporary K-Rail and Crash Cushion will be require during construction of the Removal/Installation of Metal Beam Guardrail and Structural Section #5 on Mainline? If yes, please provide bid item for K-Rail.

2) Please provide bid item for "Temporary Drainage Inlets Protection".

Inquiry submitted 11/18/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/19/2019


Response #2:1) Temporary K-Rail will be required for installation of Concrete Barrier Transition, to be addressed in future addendum.

2) For a project of replacing PCC slabs and resurfacing AC, the drainage inlets (DI) should be protected by the work item “Job Site Management”. This is because the paving project has to cover and block the drainage inlets completely to prevent the paving materials from entering the storm drain systems. The standard Drainage Inlet Protection only filters sediments, but does not block the drainage inlets. Therefore, we cannot use the standard DI Protection for a paving project like this one. The drainage inlets of this project should be protected by section 13-4.03E(7) of the Standard Specifications and paid by the work item “Job Site Management”.
Response posted 11/25/2019




Inquiry #9: Please see Summary of Quantities sheets Q5 - Q8. There is a column for Roadway Excavation and a column for Remove AC Dike.
Please provide more information or a detail that would correspond with the Roadway Excavation quantity shown in the column.
What is generating this large quantity of Roadway Excavation work?



Inquiry submitted 11/19/2019

Response #1:Bid per plans and specs.
Response posted 01/06/2020




Inquiry #10: Is existing AC Dike sitting on .25' AC Pavement or Dirt?
Inquiry submitted 11/19/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/20/2019


Response #2:0.25' AC Pavement
Response posted 11/25/2019




Inquiry #11: According to Summary of Quantities Sheet Q-5 thru Q-8 (plan page 250-253), there is to be Roadway Excavation at all HMA Dike locations; however, the volume (cy) of Roadway Excavation required to place HMA Dike seems extremely high. Please clarify if Roadway Excavation (cy) for HMA Dike is correct, and if it is correct, please provide details to show how this volume is being figured.
Inquiry submitted 11/19/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/20/2019


Response #2:The volume is correct. Please see Standard Plan A87B for typical earthwork at dikes. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/25/2019




Inquiry #12: Plan sheets C-32 and C-33 show details for "Vegetation Control". They clearly show a 6" CL1 Perm section under the concrete section, but the thickness of the concrete section is not shown:
- Per the Caltrans typical details this concrete section would be 2" thick.
- The "Roadway Excavation" for the vegetation control is 5,867.5 CY. This would mean that the minor concrete (vegetation control)
section is 8" thick.

Is the vegetation control 2" or 8" thick?

Inquiry submitted 11/20/2019

Response #1:Vegetation control consists of 2" concrete section on top of 6" CLASS 1 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (BLANKET) for a total of 8".
Response posted 12/03/2019




Inquiry #13: According to Summary of Quantities plan sheet Q-10 (Page 255 of 308) there is Roadway Excavation (Type COM) and Roadway Excavation (Type Z-2) ADL at various bridge locations; however, there are no details/drawings provide for this work. Please provide additional information so contractors can accurately quantify volume of excavation required.
Inquiry submitted 11/25/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/25/2019


Response #2:To be addressed in future addendum.
Response posted 11/25/2019


Response #3:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 01/07/2020




Inquiry #14: The responses to inquiries # 3 & 10 are totally inadequate. This is a huge volume of Roadway Excavation, and we are unable to quantify it without cross sections. A significant quantity of the remove and replace AC Dike work occurs at cut slopes where excavation may be required pursuant to Case C-2 on A87B. However - a similar quantity of dike work occurs at areas where no excavation will be required similar to Case R on A87B. The quantities on Q-5 thru Q-8 treat all of the dike work the same - the length of dike x 4.5sf / 27.
This does not make sense, and it cannot possibly be correct.
Please provide cross sections for the Roadway Excavation required for the project.

Inquiry submitted 11/26/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/26/2019


Response #2:Quantity sheets Q-5 to Q-8 were modified in addendum 1.
Response posted 01/07/2020




Inquiry #15: The specials usually clarify what size block Caltrans is wanting to use for GR. It's getting confusing knowing if contractors are suppose
to use a 6x12 under dike or not anymore. What is Caltrans wanting for size of block on this job?

Inquiry submitted 12/13/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/16/2019


Response #2:See RSP A77N4, dated April 19, 2019, Note #7. The decision is based on the size of the dike (if dike is used). In areas with no dikes use the 6"x8" block.
Response posted 01/06/2020




Inquiry #16: Please refer to plan sheet Q-10 "Gore Paving" chart:
- The chart refers to type Z-2 dirt at two locations, L-11 @ 49.4 CY and L-30 @ 109.3 CY. It appears the total type Z-2 dirt in the gore paving areas should be 158.7 CY. The chart total shows 317.4 CY (double the quantity). Would you pleas review and correct?

Inquiry submitted 12/16/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/16/2019


Response #2:Quantity sheet Q-10 modified in Addendum #2.
Response posted 01/06/2020




Inquiry #17: Part of this project is the removal and replacement of 130,000 LF of AC dike. There is 1' tall vegetation and overhanging tree and brush branches along the entire length of this project. Would you please add an item for "Clear & Grub"?

There is a bid item entitled "Roadside Clearing", but per plan sheets PR-1 thru PR-4 this item is clearing for thr removal of the 21 trees detailed on the plans.

Inquiry submitted 12/16/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/16/2019


Response #2:Please bid per current Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 01/06/2020




Inquiry #18: Please refer to plan sheet Q-3 (page 248/308):
1) The subtotal quantity for RHMA-O is 58,290.4 TN, but the total is 60,911.3 TN. Where is the additional 2,620.9 TN of RHMA-O located?
2) The subtotal quantity for RHMA-G is 82,525.6 TN, but the total is 86,696.8 TN. Where is the additional 4,171.2 TN of RHMA-G located?

Inquiry submitted 12/17/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/17/2019


Response #2:Quantity sheet Q-3 modified in Addendum #2.
Response posted 01/06/2020




Inquiry #19: When will the anticipated addendum be issued? Will there be a change to the bid date?
This project is set to bid on the 4th business day after the holidays.

Inquiry submitted 12/19/2019

Response #1:No change to bid date.
Response posted 01/07/2020




Inquiry #20: I noticed that this project does not have an item for data coring. Will data coring be required on this project, and if so how will it be paid?
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/30/2019




Inquiry #21: For the Approach Slab work ... the first three locations (Foothill Expway to Magdalena Ave) shown on shts 295 thru 297, indicate the cross section of existing pavement. However none of the remaining Approach Slab locations (El Monte to Stanford Accelerator...shown on shts 298 to 306) provide the cross section of existing pavement . The X drawings' stationing seem to omit the Approach Slabs. Please provide x-section details at all Approach Slabs.


Inquiry submitted 12/23/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/30/2019




Inquiry #22: Can Caltrans please provide PPF files from the existing roadway so a proper smoothness analysis can be conducted prior to bidding?
Inquiry submitted 12/24/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/30/2019




Inquiry #23: 1. Addendum 1 deletes references to the Type 60M barrier and replaces it with Concrete Barrier Transitions. Item 110 is added for the new concrete barrier transitions. Shouldn't Item 90 be deleted sine the plans now reference Concrete Barrier Transitions in the same locations and the Summary of Quantities has removed the Type 60M Concrete Barrier quantity table?
2. The Addendum 1 plan sheet 306A has a quantity of 139 cy for the Remove Concrete Barrier Transition. The new Item 111 has a quantity of 140 lf for this work. Should it be CY instead of LF to match the plans?

Inquiry submitted 12/26/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/30/2019




Inquiry #24: Addendum #1 added Items 110 & 111 for concrete barriers. Would you please modify plan sheet Q-10 to chart the locations of these two new bid items?
Inquiry submitted 12/26/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/30/2019




Inquiry #25: ITEM #90, CONCRETE BARRIER, TYPE 60M:
Item #110, Concrete Barrier Transition was added per Addendum #1. The locations are the same as where the Type 60M Barrier was located. Should Item #90 be deleted?

Inquiry submitted 12/27/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/30/2019




Inquiry #26: Due to the significant amount of excavation required and the placement of the Class 1 Permeable base under each run of guardrail, can the existing guardrail be removed allow and allow at least 24-48 hours prior to new guardrail placement without the need to place Temporary K-rail.
Inquiry submitted 12/31/2019

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/31/2019


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