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 06-0S4604
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: There are no drainage plans or profiles for drainage systems 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 8 included in the plan sheets for this project. Can you please provide?
Inquiry submitted 08/05/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/05/2019
Response #2:There are no drainage plans or profiles for drainage systems 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 8 included in the plan sheets. Refer to Note on plan sheet DQ-1. These locations are Cure In Place Pipeliner (CIPP).
Response posted 08/05/2019
Inquiry #2: It is understood that these locations are cured in place pipeliner installations, however, a pipeliner installer need the information that the profile sheets supply. Also, a pipeliner installer doesn't even know where the locations are where the liners are to be installed. Makes it difficult to supply a realistic bid number.
Inquiry submitted 08/05/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/05/2019
Response #2:The CIPP locations and designated on DQ-1 by postmile. Refer to Standard Specification 2-1.07 for examining the job site.
Response posted 08/06/2019
Inquiry #3: Supplemental information included several cross sections for the project however, there are no cross sections for the mainline other than the areas crossing under Mountain View Ave and Bethel Ave. Can the State provide cross sections for the entire Mainline?
Inquiry submitted 08/14/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/14/2019
Response #2:There are no cross sections for the mainline other than the areas crossing under Mountain View Ave and Bethel Ave. because there is no profile change at these locations.
Response posted 08/16/2019
Inquiry #4: JPCP quantities
Sheet 222 of 318, Summary of quantities, shows 157.7 CY of concrete for the JPCP work from station 825+80.02 to 837+15.80 NB and 158.4 CY of concrete for JPCP work from station 825+90.53 to 837+31.
The quantities appear to be insufficient to perform the work detailed in the plans for JPCP between the indicated stations.
Would you please review the quantities and indicate if they are correct or if the quantities and or required work will be changed.
Inquiry submitted 08/28/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/28/2019
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated September 17, 2019.
Response posted 09/18/2019
Inquiry #5: Ramp Transition Paving.
Sheet 222 of 318, Summary of quantities, Ramp Transition Paving table provides quantities of concrete for the ramp transitions. It appears the amount of concrete provided is intended to cover placing both the ramp transition and the adjacent mainline shoulder. Is the mainline shoulder to be consider part of the Ramp Transition and reinforced per Table S, on standard plan P35.
If the shoulder is part of the ramp transition paving, what is the location of the Isolation Joint. I.E., between the JPCP ramp and the JPCP shoulder or between the JPCP shoulder and the CRCP lane.
Additionally, would the longitudinal joint that is not the isolation Joint be tied?
Inquiry submitted 08/28/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/28/2019
Response #2:The mainline shoulder is not part of ramp transition paving. See Typical Cross Section X-2.
Response posted 08/30/2019
Inquiry #6: CRCP Quantities
Sheet 222 of 318, Summary of Quantities, Pavement Structure Quantities table, the quantity show for NB Station 968+65.00 to 977+30.00 appears to be incorrect. Please indicate if incorrect and provide correct quantity for bidding.
Inquiry submitted 08/28/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/28/2019
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated September 17, 2019.
Response posted 09/18/2019
Inquiry #7: For Bid items 94-96 will the State please confirm that the concrete used for constructing the PCC Dikes shown on Sheet C-10 are to be paid in those respective items, including the Concrete under the level line shown on the same detail sheet?
Inquiry submitted 08/29/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/30/2019
Response #2:The PCC quantity includes concrete under the level line as shown on the detail sheet C-10.
Response posted 09/03/2019
Inquiry #8: On Sheet X-4 and sheet 228, Mountain View Ave cross section is shown depicting the new retaining walls, MBGR and existing roadway section. The existing guard rail will need to be removed prior to excavating for the proposed retaining wall, as the excavation will directly impact the structural integrity of the MBGR Posts. We will need additional K-Rail quantity to both protect the travelling public as well as our crews. Will the State please add additional K-Rail quantities for this work? Furthermore will the State please add additional Dike and AC quantity, as the excavation will more than likely destroy existing Dike and a portion of the AC shoulder? Section 12-4.02C(3) of the specifications does not address allowing flagging or lane closures on Mountain View Avenue. Will the State please provide a lane closure chart for the work involved at these locations?
Inquiry submitted 09/03/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/03/2019
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated September 17, 2019.
Response posted 09/18/2019
Inquiry #9: Section 39-2.01C(3)(c) of the project special provisions calls for a prime coat to be applied to AB areas designated by the engineer. Under what bid item is this prime coat paid for and which locations will the engineer be designating?
Inquiry submitted 09/03/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/04/2019
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated September 17, 2019.
Response posted 09/18/2019
Inquiry #10: At approximate station 1035+00, the McCall UC is located. Is a terminal joint required at this location and if required what type of joint is to be used?
Inquiry submitted 09/05/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/05/2019
Response #2:Yes, Per Standard Plan P31A, use terminal Joint Type D.
Response posted 09/12/2019
Inquiry #11: Will the State please consider increasing the allowable number of working days for this project? Currently the maximum number of working days is set at 255 WD. This extremely tight timeline does not appear to be achievable with 6 phases each at just over 42 Working days apiece. Please consider revising the allowable number of working days on this project.
Inquiry submitted 09/06/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/06/2019
Response #2:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 09/12/2019
Inquiry #12: The cross sections, quantity tables and layout for the ramp areas are ambiguous.
For example
From mainline station 837+31.09 to 875+40.00 the typical cross section on sheet X-2 shows that the CRCP is 26 feet wide and on layout sheet L-2 from station 837+15.80 to 848+73.70 shows that JPCP paved shoulder is 10ft wide. It appears that there is a 2-foot overlap of the JPCP and the CRCP. Additionally, it appears that the quantity of the concrete in this 2-foot overlap is included in both the CRCP and JPCP quantity summaries.
Please clarify what cross section is to be constructed at each of ramp locations and make any need corrections to the quantities of JPCP and CRCP needed.
Inquiry submitted 09/06/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/08/2019
Response #2:Written stations shown on Plan sheet X-2 include the widths of the CRCP. No corrections on the quantities are needed.
Response posted 09/10/2019
Inquiry #13: In the response to Inquiry #12, you addressed the widths of the CRCP in the ramp transition areas and the quantities of CRCP, but you failed to address the JPCP. As you have not provided details for the JPCP paving outside of the ramp transition paving, i.e., the JPCP on the mainline shoulders, one is left to scale dimensions from the provided layout sheets that show the areas of JPCP. Scaling the JPCP areas indicates that the JPCP overlaps the CRCP. Further, on Layout sheet L-2 at station 848+73.70 for ramp R-1, the dimensions given for the JPCP is 10 feet. With what you have provided in your response to Inquiry #12, the width of the JPCP at this location would need to be 8ft rather than the 10ft that is called out on the layout sheet. This same callout of 10ft is repeated at R-2, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9 and R-10. If the JPCP paving between the Ramp Transition Paving and the CRCP is something other than the 10ft shown then you need to correct your quantities of the JPCP as originally requested in Inquiry #12.
Inquiry submitted 09/11/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/11/2019
Response #2:Mainline stations 837+31.09 to 875+40.00; the typical cross section for CRCP is 26 feet wide as shown on sheet X-2. Exception will be at the JPCP "RAMP TRANSITION PAVING" where the CRCP is 24 feet wide.
Attention is directed to: Typical Cross Sections Sheet X-2, "Ramp Transition Paving"(cross section); Layout Sheet L-1, "Legend" - "Ramp Transition Paving JPCP Shld"; and the respective Layout Sheets with cross hatching represented by the hatching described in the "Legend".
Response posted 09/13/2019
Inquiry #14: Bid Item 59 8" Welded Steel Pipe Conduit, there are two locations sheet L-1 to extend an existing WSP conduit and the total quantity calculated is 41 feet aside from the 120 feet in the bid item? Where is the additional 79 feet going?
Inquiry submitted 09/12/2019
Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 09/13/2019
Response #2:The Welded steel Pipe is to be extended 5 feet on each side of the existing pipe on L-1 for a total of 10 feet.
Attention is directed to sheet Q-3 [Irrigation Conduit] in the contract plans for the total quantity of Welded Steel Pipe Conduit:
Sheet L-1 [10 feet]
Sheet L-5 [110 feet]
Total [120 feet]
Response posted 09/13/2019
Inquiry #15: The Special Provisions list Standard Plans P31A Terminal Joint Details and P31B Expansion Joint and Anchor Details, but no locations are shown on the plans. Will Caltrans please callout the locations and quantities for all terminal joints, expansion joints, and pavement anchors?
Inquiry submitted 09/16/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/16/2019
Response #2:Please reference Addendum No. 4.
Response posted 10/02/2019
Inquiry #16: Item 125 60M Barrier has a pay quantity of 4,340'. If you look on sheet 225 (Q-4) there are two locations that are shown outside of the work area and are not shown on the layout drawings. Those locations are 817+61 - 823+56 (595') and 1040+75 - 1047+01 (626'). Could the state please provide more information regarding these area or revise the quantity to reflect what is shown on the plans.
Inquiry submitted 09/16/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/18/2019
Response #2:The Traffic Handling Plans indicate Temporary Railing (Type K)(TRK) for locations that are shown in Q-4 for REMOVE Conc Barrier:
Type 60 as follows:
Stage 3: Sheet TH-29: Sta 1040+75 Temp. Alt. CRASH CUSHION SYTEM
Stage 3: Sheet TH-30-: Sta 1047+01 END TRK
L=626'
Stage 4: Sheet TH-41: Sta 817+61 Beg TRK
Stage 4: Sheet TH-42: Sta 823+56 Temp. Alt. CRASH CUSHION SYTEM
L=595'
Response posted 09/23/2019
Inquiry #17: Please confirm that at station 1035+00 McCall Ave. UC is a bridge. If so, please provide details showing approach slabs, joint connection details, and revised quantities.
Inquiry submitted 09/18/2019
Response #1:No structure approach slab work is proposed.
Response posted 09/18/2019
Inquiry #18: Due to the small tonnage of RHMA would you consider using a Terminal Blend oil ? As you well know from past projects small tonnage or split shifts are difficult to schedule and expensive.
Inquiry submitted 09/18/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/18/2019
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 3, dated Sept. 26, 2019.
Response posted 09/29/2019
Inquiry #19: Would a Structural High Density Polyurethane be an acceptable sealant/liner for the manholes and culverts?
Inquiry submitted 10/01/2019
Response #1:Bid in accordance with the current contract documents
Response posted 10/02/2019
Inquiry #20: Addendum 4 requires the placement of a Expansion Joint Type AN
At Station 875+75.00 NB and SB The CRCP is 56 feet wide (see typical cross section X-1) and the Type AN joint is 46 feet, please detail which lanes/shoulder get the AN joint and how the remainder of the CRCP pavement is to be isolated from the AN joint?
At Station 887+65.00 NB and SB The CRCP is 56 feet wide (see typical cross section X-1) and the Type AN joint is 46, please detail which lanes/shoulder get the AN joint and how the remainder of the CRCP pavement is to be isolated from the AN joint?
At Station 969+00.00 NB and SB The CRCP is 56 feet wide (see typical cross section X-1) and the Type AN joint is 46 feet, please detail which lanes/shoulder get the AN joint and how the remainder of the CRCP pavement is to be isolated from the AN joint?
At Station 976+95.00 NB and SB The CRCP is 56 feet wide (see typical cross section X-1) and the Type AN joint is 46 feet, please detail which lanes/shoulder get the AN joint and how the remainder of the CRCP pavement is to be isolated from the AN joint?
At Station 1040+42NB and SB The CRCP is 26 feet wide (see typical cross section X-2) and the Type AN joint is 46 feet. Please review and indicate if this an error. If this is not an error, please proved staging plan, traffic handling plan, quantities for additional required work and additional working days to complete this work.
Inquiry submitted 10/03/2019
Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted and these issues shall be addressed.
Response posted 10/03/2019
Response #2:Bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/04/2019
Inquiry #21: There are sheets IR-1 thru IR-4 Irrigation removals sheets in the bid set, but no bid item for these removals. Please clarify how this will be paid.
Inquiry submitted 10/07/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/07/2019
Response #2:Section 17 of the special provisions identifies removal of existing irrigation. This work will be paid under clearing and grubbing.
Response posted 10/09/2019
Inquiry #22: Other bidders have already pointed out the shortage in allowable working days. Will the department allow stages to be combined in an effort of meeting the requested project schedule? If yes, can we close consecutive ramps which would allow stages 1 and 4 to be done together along with stages 3 and 6.
If no consecutive ramps can be taken, can we combine stages 1 and 6, then 3 and 4?
Inquiry submitted 10/07/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/07/2019
Response #2:Bid according to the current contract documents. Successful bidder may submit, a value engineering change proposal to reduce construction activity duration.
Response posted 10/09/2019
Inquiry #23: Please provide lane closure charts and stage traffic handling for median cross over barrier removal and reconstruction shown on sheet X-2. The limits of these areas are outside the post miles shown on the lane closure charts. We believe the #1 lane will require closure 24/7 during removal and reconstruction, or some interim K rail protection.
Where is the removal of these barriers paid?
Inquiry submitted 10/09/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/10/2019
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 6, dated October 16, 2019.
Response posted 10/16/2019
Inquiry #24: Per Addendum #6 sheet C-16 Shows both the Terminal joint Type H and Type F. It appears that Terminal Joint Type H is for tying into existing JPCP. At all locations shown on revised summary of quantities table on sheet Q-4; the lengths shown reflect the H joint across all lanes and shoulders, when in fact we are constructing new CRCP #2 and #3 lanes. With this being said, will the State please either provide another detail for Terminal Joint Type H that reflects tying in New CRCP to New CRCP or reduce the quantities shown in the table on Q-4?
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/16/2019
Response #2:Bid in accordance with the current contract documents. Attention is directed to section 2-1.44 of the Special Provisions.
Response posted 10/18/2019
Inquiry #25: Will the State please verify that at all locations shown on the revised Layout sheets in Addendum #6 labeled "Terminal Jt Type H", are required to be constructed as shown on construction detail C-16 and C-17, with reinforced support slabs, 3 separate Joint Seals, etc, as this will result in a substantial cost increase from the previously specified Expansion Joint type AN.
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2019
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/16/2019
Response #2:Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/18/2019
Inquiry #26: On sheet C-17 of addendum #6, Note # 3 requires that the supports slab extend 2 feet outside of the paved lanes. Please review this construction requirement and either remove the requirement or provide detail sheets for the removal and replacement of existing concrete to allow for the construction of the support slabs to extend 2 feet past the paved lane.
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2019
Response #1:Duplicate inquiry
Response posted 10/17/2019
Response #2:
Response posted 10/17/2019
Inquiry #27: On sheet C-17 of addendum #6, Note # 3 requires that the supports slab extend 2 feet outside of the paved lanes. Please review this construction requirement and either remove the requirement or provide detail sheets for the removal and replacement of existing concrete to allow for the construction of the support slabs to extend 2 feet past the paved lane.
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2019
Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review
Response posted 10/17/2019
Response #2:Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/18/2019
Inquiry #28: The Expansion Joint Terminal System shown at station 825+95.00 NB and 826+76.00 SB is shown extending across both the CRCP lanes and JPCP shoulder. Please indicate if this correct or a mistake?
If this is a mistake, please correct the Layout Sheet L-1 and quantity summary on Sheet Q-4.
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2019
Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 10/17/2019
Response #2:Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/18/2019
Inquiry #29: On addendum #6 sheet Q-4 In the Expansion Joint Terminal System Table the following is listed as a location of a EJTS 1304+00.00 “RTE99-NB’’, should this be 1034+00 as shown on the layout sheet L-15?
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2019
Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review
Response posted 10/17/2019
Response #2:Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/18/2019
Inquiry #30: Will the Standard AASHTO M326 spec liner be allowed in place of CIPP for the following bid items?
92 710380 18" CURED-IN-PLACE PIPELINER LF 280
93 710384 24" CURED-IN-PLACE PIPELINER LF 530
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2019
Response #1:Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents. All materials supplied for this contract must be in accordance specifications described.
Response posted 10/18/2019
Inquiry #31: Addendum 6, Typical Cross Section Sheet X-2 Changes the cross section for the Ramp Transition Paving. The addendum 6 Typical Cross Section for the Ramp Transition Paving now appears to indicate that the shoulder from the Mainline ETW is Ramp Transition Paving. Inquiry # 5 asked is this shoulder was Ramp Transition Paving and the response indicated it was not reinforced.
Does Addendum 6 supersede inquiry # 5s answer?
If the shoulder is Ramp Transition Paving, will it need to be reinforced?
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2019
Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 10/22/2019
Response #2:Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/22/2019
Inquiry #32: Addendum 6 provided traffic handling with some added K rail for crossovers with notes to close shoulder and #1 lane until K rail is placed. Without providing revised lane closure charts with 24/7 period of shoulder and #1 closures this work can not be completed within the closure times allowed.
There is a possibility of demolishing the barrier then installing the K rail. It is NOT possible to replace the barrier in the time allowed. Replacement will require, K rail removal, restriping, barrier construction, curing, etc, within a 9 hour closure.
Inquiry submitted 10/27/2019
Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 10/28/2019
Response #2:Closures over longer than 3 days they are considered long term closures and not subject to the lane closure charts but are part of traffic handling and/or motorist information plans.
Please place your bids in accordance with the latest contract bid documents.
Response posted 10/28/2019
Inquiry #33: With the new project bid date falling on a non typical bid date (Friday 11/8/19), and section 2-1.44 of the special provisions calling for all escrow documents to be delivered between 1:00-2:00 PM the first Tuesday after the bid (November 12th), which is the day after a holiday (Veteran's Day 11/11/19). Will the State please consider amending section 2-1.44 of the project special provisions to allow the bidding contractors enough time to complete the escrow documents as specified?
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2019
Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review
Response posted 10/31/2019
Response #2:Please place your bid in accordance with the current bid documents.
Response posted 10/31/2019
Inquiry #34: In regards to question #33, it is an unreasonable amount of time to compile and submit escrow docs in less than two working days after bid with all the information required by Caltrans. One of these days is a federal holiday with many people out of the office making document collecting from the subs very difficult. Will Caltrans please consider extending the escrow due date at least one day if not longer. Thank you for the consideration.
Inquiry submitted 10/31/2019
Response #1:Please place your bid in accordance with the contract Bid Documents.
Response posted 11/01/2019
Inquiry #35: Referring to JPCP Ramp Transition Paving, please clarify if both dowel bars AND rebar are to be installed at all JPCP Ramp Transition Paving per Table S on Standard Drawing P35. If so, will the rebar mats have to stay 3†clear both sides of the sawcut for the JPCP joints?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2019
Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 11/06/2019
Response #2:Please place your bid in accordance with the current bid documents
Response posted 11/06/2019
Inquiry #36: Please confirm the contract specification allows for a Class A license contractor to perform all work.
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2019
Response #1:Attention is directed to section 3-1.06, "Contractor's License" of the Standard Specifications.
Response posted 11/07/2019
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.