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 08-0Q75U4
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: Reference Section 9 Payment 9-1.16C: Please consider adding: Pavement Reinforcement, Tie Bars, Tie Bar Baskets, Dowel Bar, Dowel Bar Baskets; to the listing of items eligible for progress payment even if they are not incorporated into the work. This will reduce the risk on the contractor and allow more competitive bidding.
Inquiry submitted 11/14/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 11/15/2018
Response #2: Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No.3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #2: Is the State going to provide the Contractor a laydown yard for this project? If so, is the State going to charge the Contractor for the laydown yard and if so, how much?
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/06/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:There are no provisions for the State to provide a yard. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/14/2019
Inquiry #3: Please provide centerline profile offsets for the barrier / shoulders. This is required to accurately estimate and construct the concrete median barrier and temporary asphalt quantities.
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/06/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Inquiry #4: Reference sheet X-1 Structure Sections:
RSC sections call for "Polyethylene Film 6mm Thick" which is .24 inches.
Caltrans typically calls for polyethylene bond breaker film thickness of 6 mils (.006 inches).
Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/10/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #4:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #5: Looking at the Typical Cross Sections X-1 to X-3, there appears to be missing information for the existing structure sections. Please provide thickness for the existing structure section on X-1 & X-2 where new structure section E along the inside median shoulder. On X-3, please provide the structure section for the existing AC on the Ramps and Connectors where new structure section G & H are being called out.
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/11/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #6: Reference Section 9 Payment 9-1.16C: Please consider adding: 18" Slotted Corrugated Steel Pipe; to the listing of items eligible for progress payment even if they are not incorporated into the work. This will reduce the risk on the contractor and allow more competitive bidding.
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/11/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Item does not qualify per approved items list. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/14/2019
Inquiry #7: Layout sheet L-9 calls for the Westbound and Eastbound shoulders to be structure section D (JPCP). Both Layout sheets L-8 and L-10 call these shoulders to be structure section P (Asphalt) and the designated hatching indicate this structure section should be Asphalt. Please clarify and update to the correct structure section.
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/12/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #8: Layout L-31 Concrete Barrier references Construction Detail C-45 for additional information. That sheet does not exist. Please provide the detail sheet.
Inquiry submitted 12/17/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/17/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #9: Stage Construction drawing SC-42 depicts that stage 3 phase 1A begins at STA 460+00. Traffic Handling drawings do not start until STA 522+77. Please provide missing Traffic Handling drawings.
Inquiry submitted 12/17/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/17/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Work where no Traffic Handling has been shown, will be performed using Weekend Closures or closures per the Lane Requirement Charts. The temporary Lanes will be conformed with the existing conditions as shown in the TH sheets. See Standard Plans 2015, T10, T10A.
Response posted 01/14/2019
Inquiry #10: Bid Item No. 48 - Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing, please clarify if the Contractor will be paid for removal and replacement under this item. It is not clear when reviewing Quantity Sheet Q-5 and Q-6.
Inquiry submitted 12/17/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/18/2018
Response #2:: Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Standard Specifications 2015, 39-3.02(C). Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/29/2019
Inquiry #11: Where can we find a copy of the sign in sheet for the mandatory pre bid meeting?
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/18/2018
Response #2:These sign-in sheets were posted to the following page:
http://sv08data.dot.ca.gov/memos/memos.php
The public can view the sign-in sheets by selecting "Small Business" from the category pull down menu and they will find the sheets there by scrolling down and finding the EA number.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Inquiry #12: Please provide the missing staging drawings for Stage 3 Phase 1A from Station 537 to 575.
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/18/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see lane requirement charts.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #13: Please provide the specific project requirement for the SCSB grate slot height of either 2.5" or 6".
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/18/2018
Response #2:The slot height is 2.5". Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current bid documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Inquiry #14: Reference Construction Details C-4: PCC Dike details typically show a construction Joint between the underlying pavement and the dike. Is a construction joint allowed or is monolithic placement required? If a construction joint is allowed, is reinforcement required?
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/18/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:This work can be constructed as monolithic or separately. Construction joints will require dowels.
Response posted 01/14/2019
Inquiry #15: After performing our takeoff and reviewing the Quantity sheets, it appears that sheet Q-4 is missing Roadway Excavation quantity for 4 ea locations in the EB / WB Inside Shoulder. Please verify and update quantities as needed.
Inquiry submitted 12/19/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/19/2018
Response #2: Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Inquiry #16: Please provide dimensions for Type G1-DI and/or inverts.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/20/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Inquiry #17: Concrete Quantities shown for the G1 - DI of 0.7 CY does not match the standard detail for G1 of 0.95 CY. Please provide clarification.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/20/2018
Response #2:An addendum will be released to address this issue.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #18: The staging drawings do not indicate a specific stage for the mill and overlay work to be performed on the on/off ramps. Please provide direction.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/20/2018
Response #2:Ramp work may be completed during work on mainline. Please see the Lane Closure Requirements.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Inquiry #19: "A1" 243+70 to 397+20 indicates the existing AC dike is to not be removed and replaced. Please confirm this is correct. There are several locations within this station range with existing dike adjacent to full section replacement. The existing dike cannot be left in-place during construction of new pavement.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/20/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:The existing AC dike is to be protected in place. Sawcut lines to be adjusted as directed by the engineer. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/15/2019
Inquiry #20: Please provide end station for PCC Dike Type E that begins on WB Station 430+93
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/20/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see sheet L-14.
Response posted 01/15/2019
Inquiry #21: The east bound on-ramp at Euclid indicates a Type "F" HMA dike begins on Sheet L-2 but on Sheet L-3 the dike ends (255+56) as a PCC Type "F". Please clarify whether or not the dike is PCC or HMA.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/20/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #22: The beginning and ending of the Type "E & C" dike on the EB on-ramp at S Grove is not clearly provided. Please clarify the beginning and ending of the Type "E" and "C" HMA dike.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/20/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #23: The AC dike removal and begin for HMA Type E is indicated on the EB off-ramp at Archibald near Station 405+50 but there is no ending. Please provide the end location.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/20/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #24: Near Station 477+00 on the EB on-ramp at S Haven, new AC dike Type "C" begins but no ending is provided. Please provide an end station/location.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/20/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #25: Per page 59 of the Special Provisions, regarding Warranty for traffic stripes and pavement markings; is it the intent to apply this warranty specification to all of the permanent striping and pavement marking on this project? Caltrans has done these warranty jobs before, but there were always items that stated their intent (6" thermoplastic stripe, Warranty). Please let all bidders know the intent; is this a warranty project for the permanent striping and markings?
Inquiry submitted 12/21/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/21/2018
Response #2:Please see Special Provisions section 84-5 . Warranty is for permanent stripe and markings.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #26: Please provide the existing pavement section for the median replacement corresponding to section "E".
Inquiry submitted 12/21/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/26/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Sheet X-1, section E.
Response posted 01/15/2019
Inquiry #27: On Drainage Plan D-7, Drainage System 29 Element a, calls for 18" APC. This line crosses the entire WB direction of the freeway but the Layouts do not show all of the pavement being removed and replaced. If this drainage system is intended to be Jacked across the freeway, please consider revising the callout and bid item reference to make that clear.
Inquiry submitted 12/26/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/26/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #28: On Drainage Plan D-7, Drainage System 29 Element a, calls for 18" APC. Please provide profile sheets or elevations for both ends of the drainage system. Contractors do not have enough information to accurately price this drainage system.
Inquiry submitted 12/26/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/26/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #29: On Drainage Plan D-18, Drainage System 77 Element a, b, and c descriptions does not match the descriptions on Dranaige Quantities sheet DQ-12. Please clarify. If the systems is 18" CSP, then please provide profile and / or elevations.
Inquiry submitted 12/26/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/26/2018
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/27/2018
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #30: There are several other large Caltrans projects bidding in the same time frame as this project including from District 8 and with the complexity of this project and the questions still outstanding we request the Department extend the Bid Date at least 3 weeks to allow enough time for the bidders to allocate the appropriate resources to provide a competitive bid. The sooner the Department can let the bidders know about a bid extension the better for scheduling purposes.
Inquiry submitted 12/30/2018
Response #1:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/07/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No.2.
Response posted 01/15/2019
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #31: Please double check the Rock Blanket quantity. It appears that the quantity sheet Q-12 is missing the Rock Blanket shown on layout sheets L-46 and L-47.
Inquiry submitted 01/02/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/07/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #32: The Caltrans Office of Pavement Engineering has posted Nonstandard Special Provisions (NSSPs) to revise IRI requirements for pavement smoothness. These revised pavement smoothness requirements were included in the recent Route 60 Truck Climbing lanes project. Will Caltrans consider incorporating these NSSP’s into this project?
Inquiry submitted 01/03/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/07/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #33: Reference Construction detail C-4, Concrete Dike is paid as minor concrete. Is the additional underlying pavement paid as minor concrete or concrete pavement?
Inquiry submitted 01/03/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/07/2019
Response #2:Paid as concrete pavement. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/29/2019
Inquiry #34: We respectfully request that the bid date be extended a minimum of two weeks to January 31, 2019. Due to the number of large projects currently advertised by Caltrans, Prime Contractors and subcontractors will have limited resources to pursue these bid opportunities. A bid extension would allow sufficient time for Prime Contractors to provide a complete and competitive estimate for the projects currently advertised. In addition, to date, the majority of bidder’s inquiries for this project are pending response. Additional time is needed in order for responses and/or addenda to be issued and for the information to be reviewed by Primes for incorporation into the bid.
Inquiry submitted 01/03/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/07/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 2.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #35: Bid Item 61 – Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (RSC) has “no” quality control requirements called out in the Special Provisions. Is it the intention of the Agency not to have quality control requirements for this bid item?
Inquiry submitted 01/04/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/07/2019
Response #2:Your concern is being addressed. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/29/2019
Inquiry #36: Inquiry #11: Where can we find a copy of the sign in sheet for the mandatory pre bid meeting?
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2018
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/18/2018
Response #2:These sign-in sheets were posted to the following page:
http://sv08data.dot.ca.gov/memos/memos.php
The public can view the sign-in sheets by selecting "Small Business" from the category pull down menu and they will find the sheets there by scrolling down and finding the EA number.
Response posted 12/27/2018
THIS LINK DOES NOT HAVE THE SIGN IN SHEET FOR BIDDING CONTRACTORS. IT ONLY HAS A LIST OF 3 DBE'S.
Inquiry submitted 01/04/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/07/2019
Response #2:At the web address, http://sv08data.dot.ca.gov/memos/memos.php, please find pages 1-3 under the Small Business category for 08-0Q75U4.
Response posted 01/14/2019
Inquiry #37: New PCC Dike on the WB shoulder at Station 117+22 begins Type C PCC Dike, but there is no end to the Type C Dike. Instead there is an end of Type E Dike at Station 124+55. Please provide a stop Station for the Type C and start Station for the Type D Dike.
Inquiry submitted 01/07/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/07/2019
Response #2:Please see plan sheet L-31.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #38: Addendum number one for this contract postponed the bid opening to January 29th. Addendum number 4 for Contract 08-1C38U4 postponed the bid opening date for that contract to the same January 29th date. We need at least a week separation between the bid dates for these two projects. This is due to the size and complexity in closing out these large projects. In addition we need to know if we are successful on one pursuit prior to the other bid. Most companies do not have the field resources to construct both projects at the same time.
Inquiry submitted 01/07/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/07/2019
Response #2:Your concern is noted. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/08/2019
Response #3:Please see Addendum No.2.
Response posted 01/15/2019
Inquiry #39: Regarding Inquiry #38. I agree with the contractor that made this statement. We need at least a week between the two projects due to the size and complexity of both projects. Please consider pushing this project one more week.
Inquiry submitted 01/07/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/07/2019
Response #2:This issue is under consideration. Unless an addendum is released, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/08/2019
Response #3:Please see Addendum No.2.
Response posted 01/22/2019
Inquiry #40: 2015 Standard Specifications Section 1 definition of a Working Day states: "A working day is any 24-consecutive-hour period except- 2.1- Saturday and a holiday." This project requires many 55-hour weekend closures to be performed. Will Saturday's and Sunday's be counted as working days for this project?
Inquiry submitted 01/14/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/14/2019
Response #2:No, please see "Notice to Bidders" indicating project is 500 working days. See Standard Specifications 2015, Section 1-1.07 Definitions, working day. Saturday and Holidays are not counted as a working days. Sunday is a holiday.
Response posted 01/17/2019
Inquiry #41: Panel replacement locations in lane 3 show EXISTING SECTION 5 ( 0.85' PCC, 0.5' OF LCB, total 1.35 feet). These panels are being replaced with SECTION I (JPCP RSC 0.75' and RSCB 0.4, 1.15 feet total). This would require partial removal of the existing LCB section, it will not be possible to leave 0.2 feet of LCB without damage to the material. Please modify the new section to include removal of the complete existing LCB section and adjust the bid item quantities accordingly.
Inquiry submitted 01/17/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/17/2019
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/29/2019
Inquiry #42: Pavement Section P is 1.05' paid under Item 48: Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing. Existing Structural Section 1 indicates 0.35' AC over 0.50' C12 AB. Standard Specification Section 39-3.02C Construction, states where replace asphalt concrete surfacing is shown, remove the full depth of the existing asphalt concrete surfacing and replace with HMA. The use of this Item is for the removal and replacement of Asphalt Concrete only. Per Section P, excavation of 0.50' C12 AB and 0.20' native material is required. The proper item description for removals should be (1) Roadway Excavation, and (2) HMA - Type A for Asphalt Concrete paving.
Inquiry submitted 01/18/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #43: Section P is 1.05' Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing. Existing Section 1 indicates 0.35' AC over 0.50' C12 AB. Standard Specification Section 39-3.02C Construction, states “Place HMA using method compaction as specified in section 39-2.01C(2)(c).†Method compaction does not require compaction cores. Method compaction provides for a maximum lift thickness requirement is 0.25'. A maximum lift thickness of 0.25' would require 5 lifts and greatly increase duration of work, inconveniencing the public.
Inquiry submitted 01/18/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #44: Sheet No. 137, Section A-A for Type G1 Installation, depicts the transition component showing a "reducer from 18" to 12" pipe" but does not provide a linear measurement nor detail for connecting this component to the existing drainage inlet or 18" SCSP. Please provide the length of this transition and a detail for how the owner will direct the bidder to construct this transition.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #45: On pipe run 4, At Sta. 261+00 Rt. EB, the plans show "End 18" SCSP" but does not call out to "Mod INLET". It is commonly shown throughout the plans to modify an existing inlet when installing 18" SCSP. Does the owner intend for the bidder to modify the existing drainage inlet at this station?
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #46: At Sta. 283+65 WB, the plans show "Mod INLET" for Drainage Unit No. f, but it is not clear as to what drainage system this item belongs to for it is not included on quantity sheet DQ-3 under Drainage System No. 15. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #47: For Drainage Systems No. 26 (unit j) G1 INLET, No. 29 (unit b) EXIST INLET, No. 78 (unit f) EXIST G1 DI, No. 79 (unit f) EXIST G1 DI, No. 117 (unit j) EXIST G0 INLET, No. 118 (unit h) EXIST G1 DI, these items are listed in the quantities section to receive frame and grate but are not labeled as "Mod INLET" in the plans. Should these items be labeled Mod INLET?
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:
Response posted 01/29/2019
Response #3:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #48: Drainage System No. 77 shows Drainage Unit No. a, b, and c but is not reflected as such on the respective drainage quantities sheet. DQ-12 list only Drainage Unit No. a & b, and is mislabeled compared to the plans. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #49: Drainage System No. 78 is identified at the wrong station and labeled as Drainage Unit No. f, but DQ-12 list this item as Drainage Unit No. a. Please verify the correct stationing and unit number.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #50: Type GDO inlets appear to need two (2) 24-12 grates in each one. The frame and grate summary only lists one(1) for each GDO Inlet. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #51: Pavement Section P is 1.05' paid under Item 48: Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing. Existing Structural Section 1 indicates 0.35' AC over 0.50' C12 AB. Standard Specification Section 39-3.02C Construction, states where replace asphalt concrete surfacing is shown, remove the full depth of the existing asphalt concrete surfacing and replace with HMA. The use of this Item is for the removal and replacement of Asphalt Concrete only. Per Section P, excavation of 0.50' C12 AB and 0.20' native material is required. The proper item description for removals should be (1) Roadway Excavation, and (2) HMA - Type A for Asphalt Concrete paving.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #52: Section P is 1.05' Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing. Existing Section 1 indicates 0.35' AC over 0.50' C12 AB. Standard Specification Section 39-3.02C Construction, states “Place HMA using method compaction as specified in section 39-2.01C(2)(c).†Method compaction does not require compaction cores. Method compaction provides for a maximum lift thickness requirement is 0.25'. A maximum lift thickness of 0.25' would require 5 lifts and greatly increase duration of work, inconveniencing the public.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #53: Section P is 1.05' Replace Asphalt Concrete Surfacing. Exist Section 1 indicates 0.35' AC over 0.50' C12 AB. Standard Specification Section 39-3.02B Materials, states “The grade of asphalt binder must be PG 64-10 or PG 64-16â€. Special Provisions Section 39-2.02B(3) states The grade of asphalt binder for Type A HMA must be PG 64-28 M. Is the correct asphalt binder to be used for Section P a PG 64-10 or 64-16 as stated per Standard Specification, Section 39-3.02B Materials?
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #54: The A + B (Time + Cost) Bid format incentivizes bidders to innovate on means and methods in order to achieve the earliest completion and most competitive bid. It is understood and acknowledged that the successful bidder awarded the Contract will be required to prepare a detailed Construction Project Baseline Schedule as required by Standard Specification Section No. 8-1.02 C (5). However, based on our pre-bid, preliminary schedule effort, a maximum of 500 working days is not realistic considering the constraints of the staging and for performing the work required under 14 consecutive 55 hour weekend closures. A large portion of the available Contract working days will be needed for temporary pavement delineation, K-rail moves, and traffic handling prescribed by the Contract. Some Pavement removal and replacement work can be performed concurrently but approximately 30% of the maximum of 500 working days allowed by the Special Provisions will be used just modifying traffic handling for the numerous stages. Please provide bidders with the schedule used by Caltrans to determine the Maximum Contract Time of 500 working days.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #55: The Special Provisions amend Standard Specification Section 12-4.02A (2) to exclude Sundays as holidays. This will result in Sundays being accounted for as Working Days and mandating this as a six-day work-week project. However, Saturdays are not changed by the Special Provisions so are still excluded as working days. For the 55 hour weekend Closures will only Sundays be counting as Working Days? This would allow non-controlling work to be performed on weekdays and Saturdays without consuming Contract Time and would allow bidders to reduce the number working days for the “B†component.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/13/2019
Inquiry #56: PLEASE CLARIFY ON SHEET NO 716 Q-8 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY ITEMS FOR COLD PLANE AC PAVEMENT IT SHOWS 51483.33 SQYD OF COLD PLANE ON SHEET NO MVP. THERE IS NO SHEET NUMBER MVP AND THIS QUANTITY IS NOT SHOWN ON THE LAYOUTS OR CROSS SECTION. PLEASE REVISE THE QUANTITY FOR BID ITEM 58 AND THE TABLE ON SHEET 716 Q-8 OR CLARIFY WHERE THIS WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED.
BID ITEM 58 IS OVERSTATED BY 29% THE 51483 SQYD ABOVE REPRESENTS AROUND 18% OF THIS OVERSTATED QTY. PLEASE RUN THE NUMBERS ON THE REMAINING SCOPE AND ADJUST THE QTY TO REFLECT THE WORK SHOWN ON THE PLANS ACCURATELY.
BID ITEM 50 RUBBERIZED HOT MIX ASPHALT (GAP GRADED) IS ALSO OVERSTATED BY APPROXIMATELY 16%.
PLEASE RE RUN THE NUMBERS ON ITEM 50 AS WELL AND ISSUE AN ADDENDUM REVISING THE QTY FOR BOTH BID ITEMS 50 AND 58 TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE WORK SHOWN ON THE PROJECT PLANS.
Inquiry submitted 01/22/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/22/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #57: Per Stage 3 Phase 1B
Sheet No. 566 THQ-1 Temporary Roadway Items Quantities Table shows 319.74 tons of HMA Type A to be placed in Stage 3 Phase 1B at the inside shoulder (at remove concrete barrier locations) as well as 1600 SQYD of cold plane ac pavement. Please provide a typical cross section or detail for this work.
Per Stage 3 Phase 1B
Sheet No. 418-421 TH-110 - TH-113 show to patch pavement with HMA- (TYPE A) from STA. 117 + 80 - 147 +80. Please provide a cross section / typical detail for the HMA Patch.
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/23/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #58: Due to the last minute cancellation of Caltrans project 08-1C38U4 (the $200 million project with similar size, scope, and magnitude) which was to bid the week prior to this job, will Caltrans consider extending the bid date to ensure best competitive practices? With these two projects having very similar scopes, we feel an extension of the bid date will allow all General Contractors, Subcontractors, Suppliers, and all DBE/SBE participants to have ample time to allocate resources into bidding this project. Many companies, including many DBE companies, have the resources to estimate and bid only one of these projects, and with the $200 million project bidding first, that project took the majority of estimating attention. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/29/2019
Response #2:Your concern is under review. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/29/2019
Inquiry #59: Please refer to plan page 731. Please confirm that: A) Only 1ea service cabinet is shown to be installed, and B) Construction Note #40 is an existing run, if not, please indicate where does the run show to end at.
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/29/2019
Response #2: A) Correct, only one Type III CF Service Cabinet is to be installed. B) There is no Construction Note#40 on Plan Sheet #731.
Response posted 01/30/2019
Inquiry #60: Per Lay-out sheets most midwest guardrail system calls for alternative flared terminal systems however bid schedule shows only alternative in-line terminal systems. Please clarify pay item for the said alternative flared terminal systems. Thanks
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/29/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #61: At Sta. 341+09 WB Drainage System No. 32, drainage plan sheet D-8 shows "Remove OSD PCC OSD, L = 10 ft". Quantities are listed on DQ-6, however, no details are provided depicting the type of drain to be removed or replaced. Will the owner please provide the drain type to be removed and the drain type to be installed.
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/29/2019
Response #2:Please see Standard Plans 2015, D87D.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #62: Reference drainage plan sheet D-20 and DQ-13: At Sta. 515+24, Drainage System 85, Drainage Unit No. k, the plans label this item "Mod GDO INLET" but the quantity sheet has it listed as "G1 DI". Will the owner please verify the correct identity of this item.
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/29/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/13/2019
Inquiry #63: The Summary of Quantity page Q-7 shows 262.8 cy of JPCP (RSC) at WB On Ramp From Valley Way and no JPCP (RSC) at WB Off Ramp to Valley Way. However, on Layout page L-38 it shows the JPCP (RSC) being at the WB Off Ramp to Valley Way. Please advise as to where this 262.8 cy of JPCP (RSC) and related items are.
The Summary of Quantity page Q-7 shows 179.26 cy of JPCP (RSC) and 144.00 cy of JPCP (RSC) at WB Off Ramp to Rubidoux Blvd, as well as all the related items. Please advise as to what quantity is correct, and modify the bid quantity if need.
Inquiry submitted 01/29/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/29/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/13/2019
Inquiry #64: 1. Summary of Quantity Sheets Q1 through Q3 call out "Replace Joint Seal (Silicone)", meaning Re-sealing of existing Joints. Its appears that Caltrans seems to be calling out Re-seal Silicone Joints in the same areas that are being called for new Compression Seal Joints. Please clarify on what is to be installed for Joint sealant in these areas.
2. Per 2015 Caltrans Standard Plan Sheet P20, re-seal Joints are called out for existing width plus an 1/8". On that same plan sheet the largest width called out is 1 1/8". What is the width of the existing Joints? Also, should the Contractor encounter Joints with widths greater then 1 1/8", what is the contractor to do at these Joints? Please advise so the contractor could put together a competitive bid.
3. Plan Sheet C-42 shows the Typical Joint Lay out for the Ramp Terminus. This plan sheets calls out Isolation Joints, but on summary of Quantity sheet Q-7 (Ramps and Connectors), there is no column for any Isolation Joints. Are these Joints not to be installed? Please advise.
4. Summary of Quantities for Joints (Preformed Compression), Isolation Joints (Silicone), and Replace Joint Seal (Silicone), do not seem to be matching with the Cross Section Post Markers as called out on sheet s X1 To X3. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 01/29/2019
Response #1:1) Replace joint Seal is for the Lane # 1 & 2 between PM SDBR4.6 and RIV R3.00 and on Lane # 1&3 between PM RIV 6.9 and 12.2. That is for only existing Concrete pavement where grinding will be performed.
2) Bid per plan.
3) Isolation joints will be required for Curb and Gutter and other existing concrete locations.
4) X-sections are typical and vary at different post miles. The items will be paid per linear feet. Bid per plan.
Response posted 02/04/2019
Inquiry #65: The specification section 87-11.02A General call for an IP PTZ CCTV. Do we need the CCTV video encoders, video decoders and transceivers per sheet E-134?
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/30/2019
Response #2:Yes, these are needed for the existing CCTV’s and TMS Elements west of the project limits that need to be integrated into the Temporary Wireless Radio Backbone system, as shown on Sheets E-134 to E-147).
Response posted 01/31/2019
Inquiry #66: Plan call to install Data Node Fiber Optic Switches (DNFOS) on E-134, E-139 & E-147; and plan shows to install same Data Node Fiber Optic Switches (DNFOS) under LEGEND 9 of E-1 on E-150, E-155 & E-163. Should I account for the number of DNFOS that I see on plan?
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/30/2019
Response #2:Yes, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/31/2019
Inquiry #67: Is the intent of Bid Item #75- Remove Asphalt Concrete Surfaces solely to cold plane the Asphalt Pavement that was placed for the temporary median detours in the WB HOV Lane & part of WB inside shoulder during Stage 1 Phase 1B and the EB HOV Lane and median shoulder in Stage 1 Phase 1D as shown on Sheet THQ-1? Why is the Special Provisions and Standard Specifications for Section 60 referenced for this Bid Item which relates to micro milling, surface prep and polyester concrete overlay on structures?
Inquiry submitted 01/31/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/31/2019
Response #2:Yes, item #75 is to remove the Temporary HMA Pavement paved on HOV lane and inside shoulder on both EB/WB direction. The micro milling is performed on the HOV lanes and bridges to make sure that there is no AC residue on them.
Response posted 02/04/2019
Inquiry #68: Note 5 on Traffic Handling Plan (TH-1) states that Temporary Railing (Type K) shall be doweled in accordance with detail on Standard Plan T3A and T3B. Please clarify that only the Temporary Railing (Type K) that is required to be doweled per Standard Plans T3A and T3B shall be doweled?
Inquiry submitted 01/31/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/31/2019
Response #2:Yes. Only the Temporary Railing (Type K) that is required to be doweled per Standard Plans T3A and T3B shall be doweled.
Response posted 02/04/2019
Inquiry #69: Please refer to plan sheets 861 (typical scenario) and 906. Please confirm Note #10 on plan sheet 861 on only requires an MVDS system to be installed on the wood pole.
Inquiry submitted 02/01/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/04/2019
Response #2:Note #10 is not used on page 861. Where Note #10 is used, it requires that only a MVDS system is installed. Also, Note #10 and 13 both can apply to equipment installed on the wood pole
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #70: Please refer to plan sheets 861 (typical scenario) and 906. Please confirm Note #10 on plan sheet 861 on only requires an MVDS system to be installed on the wood pole.
Inquiry submitted 02/01/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/01/2019
Response #2:Note #10 is not used on page 861. Where Note #10 is used, it requires that only a MVDS system is installed. Also, Note #10 and 13 both can apply to equipment installed on the wood pole.
Response posted 02/05/2019
Inquiry #71: Per Sheet # 309 TRAFFIC HANDLING PLAN TH-1, GENERAL NOTES: 12
HMA FOR TEMPORARY PAVEMENT SHOULD HAVE A GRADATION OF 3/8" OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
This note applies to all temporary pavement to be placed ( approximately 43,235 tons ). Please see Detail A and B on Sheet NO. 309. The temporary pavement being placed in the median accounts for the majority of this tonnage and varies in thickness from 3/4" to 15".
Will the engineer allow the use of 3/4" aggregate for the leveling lifts to provide for a sound section as 3/8" hma is Intended for thin lifts of .10' or less. Clear direction on what material will be accepted will allow the contractors to provide more competitive pricing as the 3/8" HMA is a more expensive product and is not meant to be used in lifts of this thickness.
Inquiry submitted 02/04/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/04/2019
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/13/2019
Inquiry #72: With respect to the States response to Inquiry #6....Section 9-1.16C item # 1 & 2 do not even apply to this project and are in the same category as 18" Slotted Corrugated Steel Pipe (Bid Item 77). It is in the States best interest to include this material as eligible for early payment for material on hand. If not, Contractors will be taking unnecessary risk and thus providing the State with higher estimated bids / cost for the work. Please consider revising your response
Inquiry submitted 02/05/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/05/2019
Response #2:Please see Addendum No. 6.
Response posted 02/13/2019
Inquiry #73: On project 12-0C1104 on the revised sheet E-1 Delta 3 there are notes but in the Delta 3 plan set there are notes higher than note 23 going up into the 30's. Clearly there is a sheet missing. Will you be providing this notes sheet? Maybe numbered E-1a?
Inquiry submitted 02/11/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/12/2019
Response #2:This inquiry appears to be for a District 12 project. It is not for this project. Inquiry dismissed.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #74:
On project 08-0Q75U4 on the revised sheet E-1 Delta 3 there are notes but in the Delta 3 plan set there are notes higher than note 23 going up into the 30's. Clearly there is a sheet missing. Will you be providing this notes sheet? Maybe numbered E-1a?
This is a correction to my first message this morning that contained the wrong job#.
Inquiry submitted 02/11/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/12/2019
Response #2:There is no missing notes or a sheet E1a. Notes higher than #23 are shown only on the plan sheet where work for that note is affected. For example, note #39 affects Sheet E-4, note #25 & 26 affect Sheet E-6 (Addendum package) only, etc.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Inquiry #75: In Response to Inquiry #25: The State's remarks are not clear. We will bid per item/plan unless otherwise directed by the State.
Bid line item description, plans, and quantities are for THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY), installed per 84-2.03C(2)(b), and Section 84-5 does not apply.
If the State requires 84-5 to be in effect, you will need to change the bid item code to: 847000 TRAFFIC STRIPE (WARRANTY). These are two completely different items and scope of work.
Inquiry submitted 02/11/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/12/2019
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Response #3:Section 84-5 does not apply. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/14/2019
Inquiry #76: In reference to Inquiry #75, Please give us direction on what material we are supposed to use for the permanent striping on this project. We are in agreement with the bid inquiry; there must be an item connected to the stated Section 84-5. Enhanced Wet Night Visibility Thermoplastic is not a Warranty Product.
Bidders are confused and we need direction from Caltrans on this issue.
Inquiry submitted 02/12/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/12/2019
Response #2:Your concern is being investigated. Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/12/2019
Response #3:Section 84-5 does not apply. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/14/2019
Inquiry #77: The state's response to inquiry # 57 to see addendum 6 is not adequate. The requested typical cross section and or detail was not provided. Please clarify
Inquiry submitted 02/12/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/12/2019
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/14/2019
Inquiry #78: Per Addendum 6 revised sheet No. 713 Q-5 there is 1290.62 ton A1 400+53 TO 406+92 and 562.91 tons A1 406+92 to 415 + 75 on the outside shoulders. There is no HMA paving shown on the revised layout sheets in this area. Please revise the layout sheets to reflect this work and identify what structural section will apply for each area. If this is a mistake please adjust the bid item quantities.
Inquiry submitted 02/12/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/12/2019
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/13/2019
Inquiry #79: Is there a bake down of associated contract suggested pay out for each category on the BID ITEM LIST? For example, Lead Compliance plan, Progress Schedule.... etc.
Inquiry submitted 02/14/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/14/2019
Response #2:No, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/14/2019
Inquiry #80: Is there a bake down of associated contract suggested pay out for each category on the BID ITEM LIST? For example, Lead Compliance plan, Progress Schedule.... etc.
Inquiry submitted 02/14/2019
Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 02/14/2019
Response #2:No, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/14/2019
Inquiry #81: Refer to plan sheet 754 and 2ea [RL] notes that states "See E-102 for details." Plan sheet has no correlation to that note or does not describe the work required for this note. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 02/15/2019
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/15/2019
Inquiry #82: Refer to plan sheet 756 and [RL] notes that states "See E-110 for details." Plan sheet has no correlation to that note or does not describe the work required to be performed. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 02/15/2019
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/15/2019
Inquiry #83: Refer to plan sheets 748 and 790. Please confirm if a new controller or reusing existing controller. The notes seem to be incomplete as to the total work. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 02/15/2019
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/15/2019
Inquiry #84: Refer to plan sheet 757 (typical scenario). The traffic signal plans have unclear schedules that do not clearly denote what is existing, new or reused. At times, they do not match what is contained on the drawings causing confusion. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 02/15/2019
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/15/2019
Inquiry #85: Refer to plan sheets 877 and 878. The plans continuation of new cable between both sheets in the existing conduit have conflicting information. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 02/15/2019
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/15/2019
Inquiry #86: Refer to plan sheets 916 thru 918. The plans details where new loops will replace the existing do not show new loop stub-outs to be installed and can be inferred as to reuse the existing stub-out. Please clarify if different.
Inquiry submitted 02/15/2019
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/15/2019
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.