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 08-1K4604
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: Pre Bid Questions:
1. Reference Bid Item 74-Structural Concrete, Drainage Inlet. The Drainage Quantity Summary sheet, 28 of 108, indicates a quantity of 20 cy for inlet D1F of 20 cy. This quantity seems severely overstated. Please review.
2. Reference Bid Item 78-18" Alt Pipe Culvert. The Drainage Quantity Summary sheet, 28 of 108, indicates a quantity of 0 LF. The engineer's estimate is 47 LF. Please review,
2. Reference Bid Item 79-24" Alt Pipe Culvert. The Drainage Quantity Summary sheet, 28 of 108, indicates a quantity of 0 LF. The engineer's estimate is 10 LF. Please review
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/23/2021
Response #2:This issue will be addressed in an upcoming addendum.
Response posted 01/13/2022
Inquiry #2: 4. Reference Bid Item 80-24" Corrugated Steel Pipe. The Drainage Summary Sheet, 29 of 108, indicates a quantity of 12 LF. The Engineer's quantity is 48 LF. Please review.
5. Reference Bid Item 81-24" Slotted Corrugated Steel Pipe. The Drainage Summary Sheet, 29 of 108, indicates a quantity of 10 LF. The Engineer's quantity is 20 LF. Please review.
6. Reference Bid Item 92-Mnr Conc (Misc Const). The Engineer's of 75 CY seems severely overstated. Please review
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/23/2021
Response #2:This issue will be addressed in an upcoming addendum.
Response posted 01/13/2022
Inquiry #3: Please provide a detail for the required Bioswales.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2021
Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 12/23/2021
Response #2:This issue will be addressed in an upcoming addendum.
Response posted 01/13/2022
Inquiry #4: For bid item #78 – Rubberized Hit Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded) (RHMA-G), we are seeing a quantity 25% less than that of the bid quantity. Please clarify that the bid quantity remains true?
Inquiry submitted 01/18/2022
Response #1:For bid item #78 (RHMA-G), the bid quantity of 2,813 TON matches the plan quantity in the two summary tables on sheet Q-1. Therefore, bid per plans.
Response posted 01/25/2022
Inquiry #5: Please review the bid quantity for item 390137 Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded). The RHMA quantity for the inside shoulder work is shown on the Pavement Structure Quantities table and then again on the Pavement Structure Quantities Summary. Is the intention to have the contractor pave the inside shoulders twice?
Inquiry submitted 01/20/2022
Response #1:That is not the intention. The quantity of 704 TON in the Pavement Structure Quantities Summary (Sheet Q-1) for item 390137 Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded) will need to be removed as it's already included in the Pavement Structure Quantities table on the same sheet.
Response posted 01/25/2022
Inquiry #6: Please review the provided closure charts, they do not appear accurate for the required scopes of work.
Inquiry submitted 01/21/2022
Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/26/2022
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/03/2022
Inquiry #7: Please refer to Lane Closure Chart G-1 which states "Only one saturday closure shall be allowed for each direction".
This project will require multiple lane closures in each direction in order to complete the work safely.
Typically, on a project like this, Caltrans provides lane closures for weeknight work.
Will the department please review the number of closures allowed? Also, will the department please consider adding lane closures for weeknight work?
Inquiry submitted 01/24/2022
Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/26/2022
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/03/2022
Inquiry #8: Please review the provided closure charts, they do not appear accurate for the required scopes of work.
Inquiry submitted 01/25/2022
Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 01/26/2022
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/03/2022
Inquiry #9: Regarding the answers to inquiries 4 and 5: will the quantity for item 390137 be adjusted or should the contractor "bid per plans"?
Inquiry submitted 02/01/2022
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/03/2022
Inquiry #10: Please advise if Caltrans intends to address questions 6, 7, and 8. The project can not be constructed safely per the current specifications.
Inquiry submitted 02/03/2022
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents
Response posted 02/04/2022
Inquiry #11: Per sheet DP-1, the G1 type drainage inlet in drainage system 1 has a height of 8.5’. Per the standard drawings on sheet D72F, Table A for G1 with a height greater than 8’ refers to note 2. Note 2 says the maximum allowable height is 6’-6â€. Please confirm the height for this drainage inlet.
Inquiry submitted 02/07/2022
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents
Response posted 02/07/2022
Inquiry #12: Do the grates for the G1 Inlets get paid under Miscellaneous Iron and Steel or under the Structural Concrete, Drainage Inlet bid item?
Inquiry submitted 02/07/2022
Response #1:Grates for the G1 Inlets get paid under Miscellaneous Iron and Steel.
Response posted 02/07/2022
Inquiry #13: Do the grates for the G1 Inlets get paid under Miscellaneous Iron and Steel or under the Structural Concrete, Drainage Inlet bid item?
Inquiry submitted 02/07/2022
Response #1:Grates for the G1 Inlets get paid under Miscellaneous Iron and Steel.
Response posted 02/07/2022
Inquiry #14: heet DD-4 shows a concrete trash screen apron. Where is this detail to be used? There does not appear to be any callouts to this drainage detail sheet and it appears to be different than the trash capture shown on DD-2.
Inquiry submitted 02/07/2022
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents
Response posted 02/07/2022
Inquiry #15: For Bid item 64 Rubberized HMA - Is it the intention of the state to require LA Rattler to be dropped from 40 to 25, Add AASHTO T210 (durability index), require Air void content Ndesign to be 3.5% for mix design but acceptance @ 5.0% +/- 1.5, increase TSR from 70 to 80, add Surface abrasion CTM 360, and produce RHMA with WMA additive technology?
Inquiry submitted 02/07/2022
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents
Response posted 02/07/2022
Inquiry #16: Special Provisions Section 39 states both of the following:
Replace 4.0 ± 1.5 in the row for Air voids content @ Ndesign in the table in item 2 in the list in the
paragraph of section 39-2.03A(4)(e)(i) with:
5.0 ± 1.5
Replace 4.0 ± 1.5 in the row for Air voids content @ Ndesign in the table in item 2 in the list in the
paragraph of section 39-2.03A(4)(e)(i) with:
3.5 ± 1.5
Also
Replace Ndesign = 4.0 in the row for Air voids content in the table in the 1st paragraph of section 39-
2.03B(2) with:
Ndesign = 5.0
Replace Ndesign = 4.0 in the row for Air voids content in the table in the 1st paragraph of section 39-
2.03B(2) with:
Ndesign = 3.5
Also
Replace the row for Moisture susceptibility, wet strength in the table in the 1st paragraph of
section 39-2.03B(2) with:
Moisture susceptibility (min, tensile strength ratio) AASHTO T 283 80
Replace the row for Moisture susceptibility, wet strength in the table in the 1st paragraph of
section 39-2.03B(2) with:
Moisture susceptibility (min, tensile strength ratio) AASHTO T 283 70
Which is correct?
Inquiry submitted 02/07/2022
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents
Response posted 02/07/2022
Inquiry #17: Closure chart G1 in section 12-4.02C(3)(g) allows one 6 hour Saturday closure in each direction to preform the following:
Mill & Overlay
Set K-Rail
Remove K-Rail
Pavement Markings (Temp)
Pavement Markings (permanent)
The work cannot possibly be completed in this timeframe. Please adjust the closure charts accordingly.
Inquiry submitted 02/07/2022
Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents
Response posted 02/07/2022
Inquiry #18: Please revisit inquiry #15 and #16.
-The air void specification in the special provisions contradicts each other?
-Typically surface abrasion is required for higher elevations projects?
-TSR of 80 for RHMA seem extremely high for Moreno Valley?
Inquiry submitted 02/08/2022
Response #1:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/08/2022
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.