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 06-0U2404
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: EE9-4 shows a 3" C w/ 3#1/0, 1#6G from the Power and Lighting Panel Section to the Control and Combination Starter Section.
EE9-7 shows a 2" C w/ 3#1/0 & 1#2G from the Power and Lighting Panel Section to Control and Combination Starter Section.
EE9-8 shows a 2" C w 3#3/0, 1#2G from power & lighting panel section.
What are the correct sizes of the conduits and conductors?
Inquiry submitted 01/07/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/08/2020
Response #2:Bid as shown on sheet EE9-4 if addendum is not processed.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #2: Our firm is considering submission of a bid for this job as a prime contractor, and as an electrical subcontractor to other firms. Is it acceptable to the Engineer that we submit a bid both as a prime contractor and subcontractor under other prime contractors?
Inquiry submitted 01/22/2020
Response #1:Correctly licensed contractors may submit a bid as a prime and submit bids as a subcontractor to other primes.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Inquiry #3: 1) We hereby request that CAL-TRANS kindly postpone the bid for at least 2-weeks so we can figure out some issues with the pump manufacturers, specifically Fairbanks Pumps.
2) We hereby request that CAL-TRANS provide access to each Pump Station for a thorough physical analysis of each Pump Station starting in Bakersfield and then work ourselves up to Visalia. We need to have a job walk as soon as possible, preferably on a Saturday when there is less traffic.
3) We are requesting additional time to study the traffic plans and find a traffic control company to work in conjunction with our firm and be part of the job walk.
4) There are electrical questions that will need addressing.
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:There are numerous suppliers of pumping plant equipment. Pre-bid inspections of the pump stations will not be scheduled.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #4: 1) Section 74-1.01C(6) discusses performance test for the drainage pumps.
a) Is the only parameter to prove out each pump hitting 95% of the design point & flow?
b) Is there any operational test duration of the complete upgraded facility (ie: 1-day, or 7-days, or??)
c) Will the State be providing the test water to verify the performance testing & duration of the test?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:A. Please see sections 74-1.01D(2)(b) and 74-1.01D(2)(c) for tests. Please bid per the current contract documents.
B.Please see sections 74-1.01D(2)(b) and 74-1.01D(2)(c) for tests. Please bid per the current contract documents.
C.Please see section 74-1.01C(5)(b) for the performance testing plan. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/28/2020
Inquiry #5: Fairbanks Morse has stipulated they will not be able to provide pricing by the bid date of January 30th. In order for them to provide responsible pricing they are requesting 2-weeks + be added to the current bid date, pushing the bid opening into mid-February.
Please push the bid date to mid-February.
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:There are numerous suppliers of pumping plant equipment.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #6: The M-drawings for each pump station supply Pump Plant Information and Rainfall Data for a 2-year storm & 50-year storm. Does the State have historical pump data for each pump station related to average flow (GPM or total gallons) per month?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:Refer to the available information on the current contract documents for bids.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #7: Can contractors arrange to see the interiors of each pump station, meeting with a Caltrans Operations or Maintenance person?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:Pre-bid inspections of the pump stations will not be scheduled.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #8: 1) What & how does the State anticipate pump station by-passing during construction?
2) Contractors are anticipating 32-38 weeks from award to process submittals through procurement of pumps/motors and electrical equipment. Considering a March award, this would push installations into November or December or 2020. Would the State consider temporarily suspending the work to the summer months (dry season), such that each pump station is being retrofitted outside of the winter, rainy season requiring by-passing?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:Please refer to Standard Specification Section 74-1.01C(5)(c).
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #9: 1) What is the condition of the existing pump station wet wells: should contractor's anticipate any debris or sediment removal? If so, how much?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:Bidder should anticipate debris and/or sediment removal in the wet wells. Wells are cleaned annually and the amount of debris will depend on the cleaning schedule.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #10: 1) Does Caltrans consider work in the pump station wet wells or dry wells to be confined space?
2) If considered confined space, will confined space rescue personnel be required to be onsite during construction activities?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:Yes, refer to Standard Specifications Section 7-1.02K(6)(d). Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #11: Considering the specified manufacturer's & model numbers of the pumps & motors assemblies called out in the M-drawings, can Contractor's assume the Owner has verified the dimensions of the new equipment to be compatible in layout & interface to the existing connections?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:Please see the general notes on the mechanical plans. All dimensions must be field verified. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #12: When does Caltrans anticipate award of the contract?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:Estimate Award to be Late March 2020.
Response posted 01/24/2020
Inquiry #13: 1) The M-drawings are calling out for long radius fittings (or reducing 90 degree fittings) to be connect to the new Pump/Motor assemblies, however there is no call out for the materials of construction. Can these fittings be made of AWWA C110 Ductile Iron fittings?
2) The M-drawings call out for a flange x plain-end spool to transition from the long radius 90-degree bend to the existing pump discharge (8" to 16" diameter) and to be galvanized steel. Can these spools be substituted with AWWA Ductile Iron spools, Class 153 with C207 Flat faced flanges?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:Please see Standard Specification section 74-2.02D(3) for ductile iron pipe and fitting requirements and section 74-2.02D for pipes, joints and fittings requirements. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #14: 1) Are there any painting or coating requirements for the mechanical &/or equipment below in the wet wells or dry wells?
2) Are there any painting or coating requirements for the electrical equipment or doors in the building areas?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:Please see Standard Specification section 74-1.03B. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #15: 1) Can contractor's assume that the opening dimensions provided for the new grated openings are adequate to pass the new pump/motor assemblies as specified?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:Please see the general notes on the mechanical plans. All dimensions must be field verified. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #16: Can Contractor's assume that if by-passing is required during pump station construction that water can be disposed of in the existing discharge box?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2020
Response #2:Refer to Standard Specification section 74-1.01C(5)(c), item number 4. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #17: Special Provisions addition, Section 74-1.01D(2)(c) (page 21) states that "Performance test must show that each installed drainage pump complies with at least (1) 95 percent of the factory certified performance curve and (2) the design pump rates shown."
The State has not designed a mechanical system (M-drawings) that would allow for such testing to be accomplished.
a) There is no throttling valve on the discharge side of each pump to simulate head pressure or TDH,
b) there is no pressure gauge between the throttling valve and the pump discharge to read pressure, &
c) there is no flow meter on each pump to measure flow
Please explain how contractors are to test in accordance with specification without the items lacking in design to facilitate testing?
Are contractors to assume a functional test to verify that individual parts are performing in accordance with design? Is there an operational test, where the State requires successful performance over a time period?
What is the duration of each test?
Given the specified flows for each pump and the multiple design points to test to, has the State considered the volume of water that will be required to perform these tests?
Inquiry submitted 01/24/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/24/2020
Response #2:Please see section 74-1.01D(2)(c). The Engineer will run the performance tests on the installed pumping plant equipment.
Please see sections 74-1.01D(2)(b) and 74-1.01D(2)(c) for operational and performance tests.
Per section 74-1.01D(2)(c) performance tests include two 5-minute tests for each pump.
Yes, the State has considered the volume of water required. Please see section 74-1.01C(5)(b).
Response posted 01/28/2020
Inquiry #18: Pump Station #3 off Union Ave seems to be land-locked with the overpass railroad tracks, private fenced property, and a vertical retaining wall off Union Ave.
The most accessible approach appears to be off Union, scaffolding up the retaining wall and closing a lane for crane sets.
The Conventional Highway Lane Requirements Chart No. K1 states that 2- traffic lanes have to be open in the direction of travel, which leaves only one lane available to work from, which is directly adjacent to the vertical retaining wall. Considering the retaining wall, the one lane width is not widen enough for the outriggers of a crane for equipment crane sets.
Can Chart No. K1 be changed to maintain 1-lane open to through traffic in the direction of travel?
Inquiry submitted 01/24/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/24/2020
Response #2:No changes to Chart K1 are proposed. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #19: Regarding Pump Station #8:
1) It appears the hatch access to remove pumps is directly under the bridge and a manhole access through the bridge must be utilized for pump station access.
Can one lane of Cecil Ave be closed adjacent to the pump station?
2) Sheet M8-1 of the project plans has two issues:
a) the Site Plan View shows the adjacent overpass to be 11th Ave, whereas GP-1 shows this to be Cecil Ave. There is an 11th Ave overpass, but this is related to Pump Station #7, shown on M7-1.
b) the Site Plan on M8-1 is misleading as it depicts the Pump Station several feet away from the overpass, whereas it is almost 50% below the overpass.
Inquiry submitted 01/24/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/24/2020
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/28/2020
Inquiry #20: Sheet M1-2, Section A-Mechanical Demolition Section, Note 7states-"Existing suction-side 16" wall fittings to remain."
Please confirm that this flange x flange wall spool remains in the wet well & in the dry well? The detail's dashed lines give the impression that the flange side in the dry well is to be demolished?
Inquiry submitted 01/25/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Response #2:Please see detail C and note 7 on M1-2 for greater clarity. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/28/2020
Inquiry #21: Can contractor's assume there is an existing functional ladder from the control house down to the pump pit floor at each pump station?
Inquiry submitted 01/25/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Response #2:Yes there is. Please see the plans. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/28/2020
Inquiry #22: What are the liquidated damages?
Inquiry submitted 01/27/2020
Response #1:Refer to Standard Specifications Section 8-1.10A.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Inquiry #23: Is it possible to provide an alternate to the controllers, such as a PLC and a touchscreen HMI?
Inquiry submitted 01/27/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Response #2:Please see the EE sheets such as EE1-5. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/28/2020
Inquiry #24: Is it possible to provide an alternate to the fiber optic float switch, such as a standard ball type float?
Inquiry submitted 01/27/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/28/2020
Inquiry #25: Is it possible to provide standard 90†tall MCC sections in lieu of the 84�
Inquiry submitted 01/27/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2020
Response #2:All field conditions and existing systems that are impacted by the work must be field verified. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/28/2020
Inquiry #26: 1. What exactly is covered under item 6? Per sheet 3 of 141 in the project plans, note 6 states work zone speed limit reduction system is part of the traffic control system bid item. Please advise.
2. In regards to the speed limit reduction typical shown on sheet 3 of 141 of the project plans are the intentions to set up 24/7 speed limit reductions at all work locations or is the speed limit reduction to be placed and removed along with the daily traffic control operations?
Inquiry submitted 01/29/2020
Response #1:Bidders are to bid Item 6 as shown on bid item list as this governs over Note 6 on the plans. The Department’s intent is that the Speed Reduction Signs will be moved to the 9 locations as needed during work.
Response posted 01/30/2020
Inquiry #27: Considering the Electrical gear & pump/motor lead times, can you add 90-working days to the contract?
Inquiry submitted 01/29/2020
Response #1:With the bid opening today at 2:00. A timely response is not possible. Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/30/2020
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.