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 06-360244

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: On sheets 444 and 448, there are notes which describes a 2" conduit in the bridge rail.
This work is not reflected on any of the electrical sheets. Please provide more information regarding the work at the ends of the bridge and to where the conduit would route, as well as to which bid item this work should be attributed.

Inquiry submitted 01/29/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 01/29/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents. The standard plan list, the bid item list, and plan sheets 404, 405, 419, 431, 432, 436, 440, 441, 444, and 448 of 451 have been revised to include the 2” conduit (bridge) item.


Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #2: Within the plan set there are no sound wall design pages? The sound walls are only mentioned on page 46 of the profile plans. Where are the design details? Is it on barrier or pilecap? What are the masonry aesthetics for the wall, along with the steel and structural details? Will this be included as part of an addendum?
Inquiry submitted 02/02/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/02/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #3: Please provide plans and specifications for foundation/piles for soundwall. Please provide pay items for associated work (CIDH Piles, Reinforcing Steel, Pile Cap, etc.).
Inquiry submitted 02/09/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review and is currently being addressed.
Response posted 02/09/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #4: Please provide bid item for Rock Blanket. See Layout sheets L-1 and L-2, and Detail sheets C-5 through C-10.
Inquiry submitted 02/09/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review and is currently being addressed.
Response posted 02/09/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #5: The FR-1 line cross sections are missing original grade and proposed grade data from approximate STA 26+00 to 44+00. Please provide.
Inquiry submitted 02/09/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/09/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed the supplemental project information in Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #6: Is Drainage System 30 RCB 92' long (as shown on Sheets 105 and 121) or 56' long (as shown on Sheet 117)?
Inquiry submitted 02/09/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/09/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #7: Is Drainage System 30 RCB 92' long (as shown on Sheets 105 and 121) or 56' long (as shown on Sheet 117)?
Inquiry submitted 02/09/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/09/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #8: Page 113 (DP-7) shows Drainage System 16 as being Jacked RCP with a length of 121LF but page 120 (DQ-2) shows Drainage System 16 as regular RCP with a length of 74LF.

Please confirm which is correct.

Inquiry submitted 02/11/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/11/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #9: Page 119 (DQ-1) shows Drainage System 7 as having 160LF of Jacked 24" RCP, but page 109 (DP-3) shows Drainage System 7 as having 183.3LF of Jacked 24" RCP.

Please confirm which is correct.

Inquiry submitted 02/11/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/11/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #10: Page 120 (DQ-2) shows Drainage System 25 as having 92LF of Trenchless 24" RCP, however this system is not shown on the drainage plan or drainage profiles. Please provide plan sheets or clarify that this system is no longer included.
Inquiry submitted 02/11/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/11/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Drainage system 25 was deleted. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #11: Will MASH rated K Rail be required on this project?
Inquiry submitted 02/16/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/16/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to section 12, “Temporary Traffic Control” of the contract specifications. Please place your bid in accordance with the Contract Documents.
Response posted 02/16/2021




Inquiry #12: Does the State have proposed grades for the temporary median detour? Please provide cross section data for the proposed temporary median detour.
Inquiry submitted 02/18/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed the supplemental project information in Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #13: Are there design grades for the median after the temporary median detour is removed? Please provide cross sections with final design grades in the location of the temporary median detour.
Inquiry submitted 02/18/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 5.
Response posted 04/02/2021




Inquiry #14: Roadway excavation quantities are provided for RR-1, RR-2, RR-3, RR-4 & RR-5. Please provide the existing structural sections at these ramps that will be removed.
Inquiry submitted 02/18/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #15: What is the final design elevation at the existing ramps to be removed (RR-1 through RR-5)? Please provide cross sections with final design grades at the ramps to be removed.
Inquiry submitted 02/18/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:RR-1, RR-2, and RR-3: Is still currently under review. If an addendum is not issued please place your bid in accordance with the contract documents

RR-4: Attention is directed to Sheet C-24 and the supplemental Cross Sections for NB Rte 99, FR-2, and ramp R-10 for design grades.


Response posted 03/02/2021


Response #3:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #16: An isolation joint is shown on the plans (Sheet 7 Note 3) between the proposed JPCP lane and the existing concrete lane. Will the state please provide a bid item for this item of work?
Inquiry submitted 02/18/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021


Response #3:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 5. Bid Item #166, "ISOLATION JOINT SEAL (SILICONE)" has been removed and the respective note has been removed from the Typical Cross Section sheets.
Response posted 04/05/2021




Inquiry #17: Plan sheet C-3 shows a 2’ gray broomed border around textured concrete for the ramp gore areas. No color has been specified for the textured concrete, will the State please advise the contractor if color is required, and if so what color?
Inquiry submitted 02/18/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #18: Bid item 53, Drill and Bond Dowel Bar has a quantity of 6,770 ea. Will the State please explain where these dowels are to be installed? If they are to be placed between the new JPCP lane and the existing concrete lane consider eliminating this bid item per P18 Case 1 of the standard plans.
Inquiry submitted 02/18/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Standard Plan P3A. The dowel bars are to be installed across JPCP transverse joints.
Response posted 03/02/2021


Response #3:Attention is directed to Addendum No 5. Item No. 53 "DRILL AND BOND (DOWEL BAR)" has been deleted.
Response posted 04/05/2021




Inquiry #19: Minor Concrete Exposed Aggregate is shown on the plans on sheet C-5 along with Rock Blanket, will the State please add bid items for both of these items of work and adjust the Minor Concrete table on sheet Q-2 to reflect this?
Inquiry submitted 02/18/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #20: On sheet Q-4, Remove Concrete Pavement and Base table looks as if the NB quantities for HMA have been omitted from Location (PM) 32.144 - 35.002. Please provide additional HMA quantities for this item.
Inquiry submitted 02/18/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #21: Would Caltrans allow Contractors to get quotes for an equivalent to the Model 500 so they can be directly shipped to site instead of contractor having to pick up and mobilize from Caltrans location?
Inquiry submitted 02/19/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 02/19/2021




Inquiry #22: Traffic Handling plan sheets for Stage 1 (TH-1 through TH-10) do not show K Rail on the outside shoulder from station 34+73 to 199+50 on Northbound and 44+79 to 192+26 on Southbound. Stage Construction plan sheet SC-2 shows the required work for stage 1 phase 2. Callout number 6 (Construct Outside Rte 99 Shoulder) is shown to be completed in Stage 1. Does the State intend to complete the SB outside shoulder widening from station 96+50.29 to 166+07.41 and the NB outside shoulder widening from station 96+50.29 to 176+01.67 without K Rail? If this work is to be completed without K Rail the costs will increase significantly. Similarly, the work for Stage 1 Phase 2, callout 3 (Removing the RR-1 SB on-ramp) callout 10 (Removing the RR-2 NB On Ramp), callout 11 (removing the RR-4 & RR-5 ramp), callout 15 (constructing ramps Ramps 8, 9, 10) and the new gores at ramps 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 are all show to be completed in stage 1 without the safety of K Rail. This work all ties into the existing outside shoulders of HWY 99. Will the State increase the qty of K Rail for Stage 1 to allow the contractor to complete the Stage 1 work behind K Rail?
Inquiry submitted 02/19/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to section 10-1.02E of the Specifications in Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #23: Drainage Plan Sheet D-7 shows System 33 at the J Street SB Off Ramp. DS-33 is not shown in the drainage profile sheets or the drainage quantity sheets. Please provide the profile and quantities for Drainage System 33.
Inquiry submitted 02/19/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #24: Q-1 shows RHMA on ramps R1, R3-R7, R11 and R12. However, on sheet X-7 no RHMA is shown on any of the ramp typical cross sections. Will the State please clarify if RHMA is to be placed on the ramps stated in Q-1, and if so what is the required pavement thickness?
Inquiry submitted 02/19/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #25: Drainage Quantity Sheet DQ-3 shows the total quantity of 24" RCP to be 4,560.2. However, Bid Item 87 - 24" Reinforced Concrete Pipe has a quantity of 5,590 LF. Where on the project is the remaining 1,029 LF of 24" RCP?
Inquiry submitted 02/19/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1, dated February 26, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #26: L-1 shows to replace the full structural section of R-1 from STA 10+00-15+00. However, on Q-1 there are no values for roadway excavation on R-1. Please revise the bid item Quantity for Roadway Excavation.
Inquiry submitted 02/19/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #27: After viewing the project site, it appears that there is a large textured paving gore area just West of the R-2 line STA 10+00 - STA 13+22. This is not shown on the plans please add a bid item to remove this textured pavement.
Inquiry submitted 02/19/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #28: Bid Item 75 - 560218 Furnish Sign Structure (Truss) - plan sheets SD-1 thru SD-4- are walkways required on these overhead sign structures? Walkways are not shown however the standards still show walkways. Per a directive Caltrans issued they are in transition going away from walkways however each job needs to be clarified if they are wanted or not.
Inquiry submitted 02/19/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/21/2021


Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. The contract bid documents do not describe catwalks on the sign structures. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021


Response #3:Attention is directed to the notes on Sign Detail Sheet SD-1 shown on Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #29: At drainage system 30, can a cross sectional view of the box culvert wingwalls be provided? Are there to be steps in the wingwall based on the standard plans?
Inquiry submitted 02/22/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/22/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to sheet DP-11. The wingwalls are Type B per RSP D84, height = 5.3', length = 10.3'. Wingwall can be built at H = 5.3 ft over entire length, without a step.
Response posted 03/04/2021


Response #3:Attention is directed to the quantity sheets in Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #30: Please confirm Plan sheet 324 is to correlate with plan sheet 404. They do not seem to match the work.
Inquiry submitted 02/22/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/22/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #31: Roadway Quantities Summary table on sheet No.279 shows Cold Plane (0.15’ Max) on ramps R1-R7, R11 and R12. However, on sheet X-7 the typical cross sections show 0.20’ to 0.40’ Cold Plane. Will the State please clarify if the Cold Plane on the ramps is to be 0.15’ Max thick or as shown on the Typical Cross Section X-7?
Inquiry submitted 02/24/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/24/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #32: Plan SC-2 Sheet 162 Note 1: Cold plane and Overlay HMA inside Shoulder. The Quantities Table do not list this location of work. Please add to the Roadway Quantities Summary table on sheet No.279 the Cold Plan 0.20’, Place 0.20’ HMA and the Tack Coat to construct this work and list the location?
Inquiry submitted 02/24/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/24/2021


Response #2:The quantities referenced in this Bidder Inquiry are described in the Summary of Quantities table on Sheet Q-1 and are located under "NB Rte 99" and "SB Rte 99". Please place your bid in accordance with the contract documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #33: Please Confirm if the Quantities for Roadway Excavation, Agg Base, & HMA are included into the Q-1 sheet No.279 table for the work at Ave 256 Sta 10+00 to 11+53.38?
Inquiry submitted 02/24/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/24/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #34: MVP Table Q-2 sheet 280 the table list a Maintenance Vehicle Pullout to be constructed at SB Rte 99 Sta 213+50. The project Layout Plans do not depict a Maintenance Vehicle Pullout to be constructed at SB Rte 99 Sta 213+50. Will an MVP be constructed at this location?
Inquiry submitted 02/24/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/24/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #35: The Layout plans depict MVP to be constructed at SB Rte 99 Sta 46+10, SB Rte 99 Sta 141+15, and R-9 Rt Sta 10+00, but are not included in the MVP table list Q-2 on sheet 280. Please confirm if the MVP’s will be constructed and added to the table?
Inquiry submitted 02/24/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/24/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/19/2021




Inquiry #36: Please provide a Longitudinal Conform Taper Quantities table listing the Location, Length, and width of each conform?
Inquiry submitted 02/24/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/24/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to the detail on plan sheet C-1. For widths attention is directed to the Layout sheets. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.


Response posted 03/01/2021




Inquiry #37: Roadway Quantities Summary table on sheet No.279 shows Cold Plane (0.15’ Max) on NB Rte 99 and SB Rte 99. However, on sheets X-1 to X-6 the typical cross sections show 0.20’ Cold Plane AC Pvmt. Will the State please clarify if the Cold Plane is to be 0.15’ Max thick or as shown on the Typical Cross Section X-1 to X-7 for NB Rte 99 and SB Rte 99?
Inquiry submitted 02/24/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/24/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #38: Bid Item 94 - Rock Slope Protection Fabric has a quantity of 267 SQYDs. Drainage Quantity sheet DQ-3 shows 12.2 SQYD for overside drains and Sheet 440 shows 97 SQYD at the Packwood Creek Bridge. Where is the remaining 158 SQYDs to be placed?
Inquiry submitted 02/25/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/25/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1 dated February 23, 2021. Please place you bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 02/26/2021




Inquiry #39: From approximately Station 204+00 to 244+50, Fence Removal and New Fence is show at the existing R/W on the East Side. Upon visiting the jobsite, this location has roughly 20 existing trees grown through and around the existing fence. The existing fence can not be removed and the new fence can not be installed without removing these trees. Will the State call out these existing trees to be removed on the layout sheets or can the state add a bid item for tree removal?
Inquiry submitted 02/25/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/25/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Attention is also directed to 17-2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING of the contract specifications. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #40: Please provide the start and stop locations for each different type of concrete barrier rail. Current plan layouts do not show the start locations or the end locations of the various types of barrier rails.
Inquiry submitted 02/25/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/25/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to the Summary of Quantities, Sheet Q-3 of Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #41: One (1) Signal Camera Assembly is called out on Plan Sheets E-10 and EQ-1, but no Specification is provided. Please provide a Specification for the Signal Camera Assembly. Thank you for your time.
Inquiry submitted 02/25/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/26/2021


Response #2:Please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 04/06/2021




Inquiry #42: Please provide bid item for Dry Stack Stone surface texture or indicate where it is to be paid. Located on structural plans.

Thank you

Inquiry submitted 02/26/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 02/26/2021


Response #2:Dry Stack Stone texture is included in the price of the concrete barrier (Type 842B Modified). Refer to sections 1-1.01, “General,” and 9-1.03, “Payment Scope,” of the Standard Specifications, and section 83-3.01A of the special provisions.
Response posted 03/02/2021




Inquiry #43: Even with addendum one it seems there are far too many discrepancies, questions, information, and missing bid items on this project. Is Caltrans going to postpone this bid to make clarify the large amount of questions & discrepancies and create a more accurate and equal bid environment for contractors?
Inquiry submitted 02/28/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted and is under consideration.
Response posted 02/28/2021


Response #2:At this time the Department will not be extending the Bid Opening Date. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract document.
Response posted 03/01/2021


Response #3:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #44: In order to make the project more feasible and less expensive is Caltrans going to give the contractor a lapse in time between grinding and placing HMA?? Possibly 3 or 7 days?
Inquiry submitted 02/28/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/01/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed tot he contract specifications (section 39-3.04A)of Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #45: Addendum 1 does not address the Color, Texture, Pattern, or sizes of the Masonry Block. Will this be addressed in another addendum and will this Bid Date be postpone for lack of information?
Inquiry submitted 02/28/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/01/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum 1, Plan Sheet P-12.Attention is also directed to RSP B15-3. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/01/2021




Inquiry #46: Cal Trans requires a BASELINE Profile after the Leveling Course is complete per Section 39-2.01A(4)(i)(iii) bullet point number 2. With the minimum thickness of the Leveling Course being .25 and the RHMA-G being .20, this would put the total section thickness over .30.

1. Because the leveling course is classified as a "BASELINE" profile, does Cal Trans count the thickness of the leveling course toward the Total Thickness of the Asphalt for Smoothness stated in the table shown on page 69 of the Special Provisions labeled "HMA Pay Adjustment"?

Inquiry submitted 03/01/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/01/2021


Response #2:In accordance with section 39-2.01A(4)(i)(iii) Pavement Smoothness” – 2nd para, 2nd sentence, “The Department determines smoothness pay adjustments using the Target 60 Pay Adjustment table in Section 39-2.01A (4)(i)(iii)(A). Please place you bid in accordance with the contract documents.
Response posted 03/09/2021


Response #3:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4, "Typical Cross Section" Plan Sheets. The “Total Asphalt Thickness (ft)”, in accordance with the “HMA Pay Adjustment” table in section 39-2.01A(4)(i)(iii), “Pavement Smoothness” of the Special Provisions will be greater than 0.30 ft. Section 39-2.01A(4)(i)(iii)(A), “Pay Adjustments for Target MRI 60” of the Special Provisions applies.


Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #47: With regard to the J Street Overcrossing; it appears the Polymer Fiber Concrete volume is lower than the actual volume required. Please review this volume quantity.
Inquiry submitted 03/01/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/01/2021


Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021


Response #3:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021


Response #4:Refer to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Quantity decal has been revised on plan sheet 404 of 451.


Response posted 03/22/2021




Inquiry #48: Per addendum 1, please confirm that the block texture "split-face" is on both sides of CMU sound wall. Also, on Sheet P-12, the CMU height for SW #'s 101 & 102 is 11'-0". Since this is not modular for standard 8" high masonry units, a 4" high (8"w x4"H x16"L) will have to be used to achieve a CMU H =11'-0". Where does the state want that 4" high unit placed, at the bottom or top of wall?
Inquiry submitted 03/01/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #49: Treated wood waste, item 30 for the GR shows 705,474 lbs. After looking over job the GR in the center that is coming out is steel posts with recycled plastic blocks. The only wood in center that I see is where the old STB is connected to barrier. Could Caltrans confirm this and if so adjust item 30 accordingly.
Inquiry submitted 03/01/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to the Summary of Quantities, Sheet Q-3 of Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #50: The posted response to Inquiry #28 above does not answer the question if walkways are required on the overhead sign structures or not? We need to know which way to bid the project because it is not clear what is needed.
Inquiry submitted 03/02/2021

Response #1:Response to Bidder Inquiry #28 has been revised. An Addendum is planned for release. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/02/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to the notes on Sign Detail Sheet SD-1 shown on Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #51: Neither the typical cross sections or the layout sheets show a sawcut line at the construction joint for the inside and outside shoulder. Is a sawcut required?
Inquiry submitted 03/02/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review
Response posted 03/02/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to the Typical Cross Section plan sheets shown on Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #52: On Layout sheets 21 and 22, J-Street from Sta 22+00-Sta 40+21.88, shows a large fill over the existing structural section (Sheet 9). Will the State please provide a bid item to pulverize the existing J-Street structural section?
Inquiry submitted 03/02/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/02/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to sections 19-2.03A, 19-6.01A and
9-6.03A of the contract Specifications. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.

Response posted 03/04/2021


Response #3:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4. Bid Item 169 "OBLITERATE SURFACING" has been added for Ramp RR-1 & RR-2.
Response posted 04/05/2021




Inquiry #53: There is a note on sheet 279 for the contractor to stockpile excavation from Basin 3 outside the R/W, as it is not available for project use. Will Caltrans please indicate where this material is to be stockpiled outside the R/W?
Inquiry submitted 03/02/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/02/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to the ROADWAY QUANTITIES SUMMARY described in Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance to the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #54: This is a response to the State's attempt at a response on inquiry #15. The contractor is asking a direct question about final design elevations and cross sections for existing ramps to be removed. The State needs to provide this information in order for the contractor to provide an accurate bid. There are a large amount of valid questions pertaining to the design of this project that have not been answered. Will the State push the bid date in order to address these questions?
Inquiry submitted 03/02/2021

Response #1:Bidder Inquiry #15 is under review and consideration. An extension of the bid date is also under consideration. Thank you
Response posted 03/02/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to the Construction Detail Sheets C-13, C-15, & C-16 described in Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place you bid in accordance to the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #55: Drainage Plan Sheet D-3 has a callout for Drainage System 10. Drainage System 10 is not shown on the drainage profiles or quantity sheets. Is DS10 required to be installed? If yes, please provide a profile and add to quantity sheet.
Inquiry submitted 03/02/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/03/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to sheet D-3 described in Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. Place your bid in accordance to the current bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #56: Drainage System 21b is shown on Drainage Plan Sheet D-11 to cross NB 99. Should DS21b be a trenchless system like the other systems crossing HWY 99? If not, please provide a detour plan to install Drainage System 21b across NB Lanes.
Inquiry submitted 03/02/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/03/2021


Response #2:Drainage System 21b has been revised to a trenchless system as shown in Addendum No. 4. dated March 19, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #57: Typical Cross Sections shown on sheets X-1 to X-5 show the new Concrete Barrier to be constructed on top of the 0.20’ layer of RHMA. Sequentially and Buildability to construct the Barrier on top of the RHMA layer will add time and cost to the project. Per sheet SC-5 the RHMA is not to be placed until Stage 4. Additionally the project cross sections depict the Barrier constructed on top of Agg Base. Please confirm that the Typical Cross Sections as shown on sheets X-1 to X-5 are not correct and the Barrier is to be constructed per the cross sections on top of Agg Base.
Inquiry submitted 03/05/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review
Response posted 03/08/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to plan sheet C-2 described in ADDENDUM No. 4 DATED MARCH 19, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #58: Refer to Sheet ECL-1, the seed rate shows on EC Type 1 and 2 Table is 23.9 LBS/ AC, but the total of PLS LB/AC of Seed mix shown on Seed mix table is 32.4 PLS LBS/AC. Please clarify.

Inquiry submitted 03/10/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/10/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Plans Sheet ECL-1 described in ADDENDUM No. 4 DATED MARCH 19, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #59: This is in response from Response #2 from Bidder Inquiry #46.

The state has provided a response from a specification section that is provided in every contract throughout the state for the new incentive specification even on contracts that have a design thickness of a single lift overlay of .10 , which directly conflicts with the table in the special provisions located on page 69 labeled "HMA Pay Adjustment".

We were simply asking if the Leveling Course which is classified as a BASELINE Profile will be counted as the "Total Asphalt Thickness", labeled on the left side of the table found on page 69 of the special provisions? Per those requirements, this is what we will be using to determine the correct pay adjustment section.

Inquiry submitted 03/10/2021

Response #1:Your Inquiry has been submitted for further review. An addendum is being planned to address these concerns.
Response posted 03/11/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4, "Typical Cross Section" Plan Sheets. The “Total Asphalt Thickness (ft)”, in accordance with the “HMA Pay Adjustment” table in section 39-2.01A(4)(i)(iii), “Pavement Smoothness” of the Special Provisions will be greater than 0.30 ft. Section 39-2.01A(4)(i)(iii)(A), “Pay Adjustments for Target MRI 60” of the Special Provisions applies.


Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #60: The concrete quantity for drainage system 30 as shown on the bid item list (Bid Item #67) is 1,410 cubic yards. It appears this is a CF versus a CY quantity. Please confirm the quantity listed for bid item #67 in addendum 1 is correct.
Inquiry submitted 03/15/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/16/2021


Response #2:This quantity has been revised and is described in ADDENDUM NO. 4 DATED MARCH 19, 2021. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #61: It appears the cross sections for FR-1 are missing for stations 26+50 to 44+00. Can you please add these to project files? They also weren't in Addendum two.
Inquiry submitted 03/16/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/16/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 5
Response posted 04/02/2021




Inquiry #62: The Sound Wall (Masonry Block) Summary of Quantities calls out 18" Cast-in-Drilled-Hole Concrete Piles. The Standard Plans show 16" diameter. What is the diameter of the Sound Wall Piles? Also, please explain how the Structural Concrete (Sound Wall) concrete quantity was arrived at. Whether the piles are 18" diameter or 16" diameter the quantities do not match, neither do the Pile Cap quantities if you use 1'6" wide x 1'9" high Pile Cap shown on RSP B15-3, Case 1 . Also, the Pile Cap and CIDH quantities added together do not equal the final quantities. Lastly, Item 161 was added for Structure Excavation (Sound Wall). Where is Structure Backfill (Sound Wall) paid?
Inquiry submitted 03/16/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/16/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No 5 dated March 26, 2021.
Response posted 04/02/2021




Inquiry #63: The Summary of Quantities shows Cold Plane (0.15’ Max) on NB 99 and SB 99. But he typical cross sections show 0.20’ Cold Plane AC Pavement. Will the State please clarify if the Cold Plane is to be 0.15’ Max thick or as shown on the Typical Cross Section sheets? This is very confusing and needs to be addressed.
Inquiry submitted 03/19/2021

Response #1:Your Inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/19/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated March 19, 2021. The Quantities Sheets have been revised. Place your bid in accordance with the current bid documents.
Response posted 03/21/2021




Inquiry #64: A significant portion of Temporary Railing is missing from the summary table on Traffic Handling Quantities Sheet THQ-4. The Temp Railing table shows 3 locations in Stage 1 for a total of 9,138 LF. However, the Traffic Handling sheets for Stage 1 (TH-1 to TH-10) show 17,660 LF. See the following locations; SB 0+54 to 13+61 as shown on plan sheets TH-1 & TH-2, SB 12+83 to 13+61 as shown on TH-2, NB 120+91 to 8+39 as shown on TH-1 & TH-2, NB 7+24 to 8+45 as shown on TH-2, SB 192+26 to 246+91 as shown TH-6 through TH-10 & NB 199+50 to 205+80 as shown on TH-7. Please revise the Temporary Railing quantity and summary to match the Temporary Railing shown on the Traffic Handling sheets.
Inquiry submitted 03/22/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/22/2021


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 5. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 04/02/2021




Inquiry #65: Plan Sheet 327, EQ-1 Summary Quantities: Conduit Systems E-14 columns and quantities have been lined out. There is still a related bid item to this scope of work on the bid schedule (Item 157 Conduit Systems) Please confirm Item 157 is still relevant to this project and the quantities items list is no longer being used for reference. Thank you
Inquiry submitted 03/22/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 03/22/2021


Response #2:Item has been deleted. Attention is directed to Addendum No. 5.
Response posted 04/02/2021




Inquiry #66: After reviewing the plans, we noticed that the guardrail quantities on Summary of Quantities Q-3 doesn't matched with the guardrail lay-outs. We noticed that on some locations the length of the Transition Railing (Type WB) and In-Line Terminal System is included on the MGS total length. Also, on some locations there are three (3) types of end treatments on just one lay-out. Please review and revise MGS and end treatment items accordingly. Thanks
Inquiry submitted 03/29/2021

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 04/01/2021


Response #2:Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 04/05/2021


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.