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 06-0W7604
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: On Sheet C-1 there is a detail for "Typical Taper at Local Road Approach," it has a cross section of A-A but I think the detail is mislabeled C-C. For constructability purposes, can Caltrans please make all Local Roads Tapers .17' HMA, without a BWC. These 10' lengths are very difficult with this operation. It would be much easier to fall back and mill and pave back intersections after mainline is complete. These side streets normally have heavy breaking at stop signs and the deepened section of HMA would perform better than .10' BWC and provide cheaper cost to the state.
Inquiry submitted 03/27/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/29/2020
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated April 7, 2020.
Response posted 04/08/2020
Inquiry #2: Section 39-3.04A of the standard specifications requires contractors to cold plane and pave back in the same shift. Excluding digouts, please consider modifying this specification to allow 7 days between cold plane and RHMA-G (BWC) placement as recently modified in bid/contract 06-0Y0804. This requirement is onerous and cost prohibitive for the contractor, especially given rubber plant and bonded wearing course equipment's limited availability.
Inquiry submitted 03/30/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/30/2020
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated April 7, 2020.
Response posted 04/08/2020
Inquiry #3: I have issues downloading the PPF file for SB lane 1 19.4 to 9.9. All other files I can download. Can you please submit this file so it is able to be downloaded.
Inquiry submitted 03/30/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/31/2020
Response #2:All files should now be able to be downloaded.
Response posted 04/03/2020
Inquiry #4: On Sheet X-1, Typical Cross Sections, on Hwy 65 it shows that the contractor is to only place shoulder backing behind existing dike which is not continuous. Will the contractor be required to place shoulder backing in any areas that do not have AC Dike? If so, please specify.
Inquiry submitted 03/30/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/31/2020
Response #2:Plans show the shoulder backing is continuous. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 04/06/2020
Inquiry #5: On Sheet C-2, Construction Details, there is a typical cross section A-A on Hwy 65 for a Typical Taper at MBGR. The section is called out as .10' cold plane and .15' HMA pavement which does not make sense. According to the summary of quantities table on sheet Q-1 there is no cold planning on Hwy 65 except for a few half lane width dig outs not at this location. Please review this detail and adjust accordingly. Is there conform cold planning at the MBGR locations (2) that needs to be added to bid item?
Inquiry submitted 03/31/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/02/2020
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated April 7, 2020.
Response posted 04/08/2020
Inquiry #6: It appears that Caltrans has made a mistake with item # 20. Item # 22 is the proper item, at 114,000 LF (Enhanced Wet Night Visibility). Item 20 should be deleted.
Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 04/07/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/08/2020
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated April 9, 2020.
Response posted 04/09/2020
Inquiry #7: Special provisions require work to commence before July 15, 2020. Given the short duration required to complete the project combined with projected resource shortages in summer time due to COVID-19 delays, will the department consider a start date mid August or September?
Inquiry submitted 04/07/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/08/2020
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated April 9, 2020.
Response posted 04/09/2020
Inquiry #8: It appears bid items #20 and 22 are duplicates. Which item should be deleted?
Inquiry submitted 04/07/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/08/2020
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated April 9, 2020.
Response posted 04/09/2020
Inquiry #9: IS BID ITEM 20 & 22 THE SAME?
Inquiry submitted 04/08/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/08/2020
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated April 9, 2020.
Response posted 04/09/2020
Inquiry #10: The state has identified the survey monuments that are to be adjusted ("protected in place") on Sheet C-1 of the plans but has not identified any manholes, water valves or gas valves that will also require adjusting. Please identify and provide a bid item for that work.
Inquiry submitted 04/08/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/09/2020
Response #2:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 04/13/2020
Inquiry #11: On the revised plans sheet C-1 in Addendum #1 it clearly states that side streets on Hwy 63 and Hwy 216 are to be .17' HMA, not RHMA (BWC). If this is not correct please advise, otherwise will assume plans and specs are correct.
Inquiry submitted 04/08/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/09/2020
Response #2:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 04/13/2020
Inquiry #12: Regarding the response to the questioning of grinding and pave back operations in the same shift. I believe most contractors understand that has to happen in the event HMA digout areas. The question is more directed at the .10' grind and subsequent BWC RHMA overlay. Will Caltrans allow a certain amount of days (3-7) after the .10' grind before the road needs to be repaved. The grinding of the .10' RHMA overlay and pave back is extremely inefficient and will be much more costly to Caltrans. And also increase delays and nuisance to the traveling public.
Inquiry submitted 04/09/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/10/2020
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No 2, dated April 9, 2020.
Response posted 04/13/2020
Inquiry #13: The bid item and the project plans note that Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt-Gap Graded (RHMA-G) is to be used for the bonded wearing course (BWC). In the project special provisions, there is no binder type listed for the RHMA-G mix for the BWC and instead contains an incomplete binder asphalt grade reference for HMA for the BWC-G. Please confirm if RHMA is to be used for the BWC and specify the binder grade required in the production of the HMA or RHMA-G for the BWC.
Inquiry submitted 04/10/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/10/2020
Response #2:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 04/13/2020
Inquiry #14: Regarding the grinding logistics for the grinding, can you please refer to the same bidder inquiry on Caltrans contract 06-0Y0404 and subsequent addendum?
Inquiry submitted 04/10/2020
Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/13/2020
Response #2:Refer to Addendum No 2, dated April 9, 2020.
Response posted 04/13/2020
Inquiry #15: In reference to Inquiry #12 & #14 on the .1' grind and pave back window, it states refer to addendum #2, all I see in addendum #2 is the deletion of a striping item and nothing else. Can you clarify where in Addendum #2 it answers these questions, I may be missing a download/file. Thanks
Inquiry submitted 04/13/2020
Response #1:Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated April 7, 2020 and the current contract documents. No additional information has been provided.
Response posted 04/13/2020
Inquiry #16: The quantity for Thermoplastic Pavement Markings shown on Addendum #1 and original plans is incorrect. The quantity shown is 8,743 SF, however the description does not match. Quantity shown is about 2,000 SF over.
Please confirm correct SF for Thermoplastic Pavement Markings (Enhanced Wet Night Visibility).
Inquiry submitted 04/14/2020
Response #1:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 04/15/2020
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.