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 10-1C1704

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Per Section 12 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL - Subsection 12-4.02C(3)(g) - Freeway Lane Closure Charts, Chart No. J4, states:
Route/Direction: 99/Northbound,
Post Mile: 15.86,
Closure Limits: Off ramp V Street/Eastbound Route 140
However, there is not an off ramp at "Northbound" V Street/Eastbound Route 140. Should it be Southbound "V Street/Eastbound Route 140"?

Inquiry submitted 10/12/2020

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 10/13/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 1
Response posted 10/28/2020




Inquiry #2: On the layout sheets for the project the abbreviation TJ (F) is shown at all tie-ins from the CRCP to the approach slabs. An example of this can be see on L-6 at the Route 140 Bridge. Terminal Joint F shown in the RSP's P31A indicates that Terminal Joint F encompasses both a dowel bar tying in the CRCP slab to the approach slab, as well as including RSP P32 detailing the Expansion joint terminal system. Please indicate if Caltrans is requiring the entire expansion joint terminal system at every TJ (F) shown on the plans?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2020

Response #1:Your response has been submitted for review.
Response posted 10/15/2020


Response #2:The contract plans are depicted accurately. Please place your bid in accordance with the planned work depicted in the contract documents.
Response posted 10/16/2020


Response #3:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 Dated 12-21-2020
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #3: In a follow up question to the state's response on inquiry #2. As clearly shown on the plans Terminal Joint type F also encompasses the expansion joint terminal system shown on RSP P32. With the limited distance between the 8 bridges from center line STA 295+00-361+00, will the state consider an alternate Terminal Joint such as Terminal Joint G or a slightly modified Terminal Joint G?
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2020

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 10/16/2020


Response #2:The intent of the Department's work is described in the bid documents. Please place your bid in accordance with the latest contract documents. Thank you
Response posted 10/16/2020




Inquiry #4: Due to limited access, it will be necessary to close the lane adjacent to the work during major operations (subbase, HMA, CRCP, etc.), leaving traffic in the lane on the opposite side of Route 99 with no access to ramps. These nightly lane closures will restrict access to all northbound ramps during stage 2 and stage 3 and all southbound ramps during stage 4 and stage 5. This will not be in compliance with the lane closure charts which state “No two consecutive or opposing ramps may be closed at the same time.” If the closure of all ramps during major operations is a concern, Caltrans should consider adding multiple temporary crossovers to the traffic handling plans to mitigate this issue.
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2020

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 10/22/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to the contract Traffic Handling Plans Stage 2, page 209-239 & Stage 4, pages 262-293. These plans depict non-consecutive ramp closures. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/28/2020


Response #3:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 Dated 12-21-2020
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #5: It appears that the southbound k-rail in stages 2 and 3 and northbound k-rail in stages 4 and 5 will need to be pinned as there are no shoulders between opposing lanes. Is it Caltrans intent to pin this k-rail in new CRCP pavement?
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2020

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 10/22/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to 12-3.20 TYPE K TEMPORARY RAILING of the Specifications. Pinning K-rail is required. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/22/2020




Inquiry #6: The cross sections for southbound stations 135+50-138+91 and 157+50 as well as northbound stations 645+59, 649+86, 649+95, 685+85, 696+24, 729+09 and 730+05 do not show the finished grades outside the travel way and imply significant embankments. The quantity sheets do not have embankment quantities. Are the cross sections correct for these stations? Is there any embankment on this project? If there is embankment will Caltrans please revise the quantity sheet to reflect the amount and locations. If there is not embankment will Caltrans please correct the cross sections?
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2020

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 10/22/2020


Response #2:“All work will be performed within the existing roadway prism. Additional embankment quantities are not needed. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents”.



Response posted 10/28/2020




Inquiry #7: Section 5-1.33 of the Special Provisions requires Renewable Diese fuel with a minimum of 95 percent of RD. There are other blends of Renewable Diesel that satisfy the requirements of 13 CA Code of Regs 2449, including an 80/20 blend of Renewable Diesel and Bio Diesel that does not contain Petroleum Diesel. Please confirm that other diesel blends, which do not contain Petroleum Diesel, are acceptable for use on Caltrans projects and are not subject to the $1000.00 per day deduction.
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2020

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 10/23/2020


Response #2:Refer to addendum No. 3, dated November 13, 2020.
Response posted 11/13/2020


Response #3:Refer to addendum No. 3, dated November 13, 2020.
Response posted 11/13/2020




Inquiry #8: Staging and traffic handling plans for stages 2, 2A, 4 and 4A show closed ramps during each stage. However, the notes in the Ramp Closure Charts J6 and J7 state ramp closures not to exceed 20 days. Are ramps shown to be closed in stages 2, 2A, 4 and 4A allowed to be closed for the total duration of each stage or is the contractor to complete work at each ramp within the 20 day closure window as stated in the Ramp Closure Charts thus adding additional stages to the project?
Inquiry submitted 10/28/2020

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review
Response posted 10/28/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to 5-1.01 GENERAL, and 5-1.02,"CONTRACT COMPONENTS" of the Standard Specifications. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/01/2020


Response #3:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 Dated 12-21-2020.
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #9: The liquidated damages chart in section 12-4.02C(1) of the Special Provisions has damages of $14,000/day for the long term ramp closures (charts J6 and J7). Is there a maximum amount of limited damages per each long term ramp closure or maximum amount of liquidated damages for all long term ramp closures?
Inquiry submitted 10/28/2020

Response #1:Your Inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 10/28/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to section 12-4.02C(1)of the special provisions. "Liquidated Damages are limited to 5 percent of the total bid per occurrence". Please place your bid in accordance with the Contract Documents
Response posted 10/29/2020




Inquiry #10: The DBE amount seems excessive for this project, will Caltrans please provide information as to how the 16% value was derived?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Based on the scope of work and the amount of DBE firms available to do the work we determined that 16% was an achievable goal. We noticed that there is concrete work that make up a significant percentage of the Engineers estimate and there is significant amount of DBE firms that are available to do this work.
Response posted 11/09/2020




Inquiry #11: As part of Spec section 40-1.03F(2) Bullet 1, will Caltrans please provide a bid item to grind the existing concrete pavement, as is typical where the contractor will be paving adjacent to existing concrete pavement as in stage 2 and 4?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Existing AC pavement on the ramps will be ground to conform to the new CRCP pavement and no concrete grinding is needed.
Response posted 11/10/2020




Inquiry #12: Will the state please consider adding additional days to the Max allowable time to bid for the B portion of this project, as 400 WD are not adequate to complete this project?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Additional days are not being considered at this time. Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/09/2020




Inquiry #13: Please provide a bid item for the removal of the existing HMA Dike.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Existing HMA Dike removal is included in roadway excavation bid item.
Response posted 11/21/2020




Inquiry #14: Asphalt plants are within 20 miles of the center of this project. Will the State please consider adjusting section 39-2.02A(1) to give the contractor the option of producing WMA and not the requirement of producing WMA for all HMA-A?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/09/2020




Inquiry #15: There is a significant amount of asphalt that will be installed temporarily during the various stages of construction. In some stages, one-wheel path will be on HMA and the other wheel path on CRCP. Is this temporary asphalt excluded from MRI Smoothness Requirements, and if it is not, is the temporary asphalt subject to a payment adjustment for smoothness?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:The temporary asphalt pavement is excluded from MRI Smoothness Requirements and payment adjustments for smoothness. The straight edge requirement should be followed.
Response posted 11/09/2020




Inquiry #16: Terminal Joint F is shown throughout the project where new CRCP is to be connected to a structure approach slab, as shown on RSP 31A. Expansion Joint Terminal Systems are not shown on any of the layout sheets. Are Expansion Joint terminal systems required at every terminal joint F shown on the plans? Will the State please respond with a Yes or No answer, as the plans are unclear and may provide an unfair advantage.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 Dated 12-21-2020
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #17: Stage Construction Plans - Stage 5, call out number 3 states “obliterate surfacing at end of stage”. The material that will be obliterated is a .85 section of HMA that will be on top of the new CRCP Tapered Edge. How does the State intend to obliterate this HMA without damaging the tapered edge of the CRCP?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Standard Plan P76. Please place your bid in accordance to the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #18: Stage Construction Plans – Stage 1 shows multiple existing drain inlets that receive a temporary cap and are paved over. This work will impact the existing drainage systems. Who is responsible for maintaining drainage on HWY 99 when the plans call to cover existing drain inlets? The state should consider adding multiple temporary drainage inlets.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated 12-21-2020. Additional temporary drainage inlets are not required.
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #19: Stage Construction Plan (Stage 2) on sheet 121 shows hatching from SR99NB Sta 773+82.23 to SR99NB Sta 791+82.23. The hatching shown is for .85 HMA. Does the HMA at this location stay in place permanently or does the HMA get removed in a later stage? This location is not shown in the typical cross sections and is not shown to be removed or obliterated in Stage 5.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to sheet 196 of the contract plans.
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #20: Per Stage Construction Details, Sheet SCD - 5 & 6, shows and calls out required embankments at the proposed Crossovers. There is no Bid Item for the embankment, how does this get paid for?


Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Section 19-2, "Roadway Excavation" of the Standard Specifications. There is sufficient quantity of material on the project site to complete the work specified in this contract. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #21: Per Construction – Stage 5 Plans, Note #2 states” Remove Detour and Temporary Drainage System at end of Stage.” What goes back in the removed cross overs, after the Temporary HMA is removed? There is no item for embankment, how does this get paid for?


Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Section 19-2, "Roadway Excavation" of the Standard Specifications. There is sufficient quantity of material on the project site to complete the work specified in this contract. Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #22: Per the ramp closure charts all ramps are to be closed for a maximum of 20 calendar days. In stage 2 the stage construction plans, and traffic handling plans show these 5 separate ramps to be closed at the same time. Upon completion of stage 2 ramps the contractor would need to immediately restage K-Rail per stage 2a plans. Giving the contractor an additional 20 calendar days to complete all 5 ramps in stage 2a. Plans then show to adjust K-Rail from stage 2a to stage 3. Which allows 40 calendar days to complete all ramps in stage 2/2a including all mainline work. This is consistent with the traffic handling quantities specifically the K-Rail quantity. With this information the State is saying the contractor must construct all of stage 2 and 2a including mainline work in 40 calendar days. The contractor understands that this is not the State’s intent, however, the K-rail quantities and Traffic handling sheets currently reflect this. Will the State please add additional K-rail quantity and revise the traffic handling sheets to allow the contractor to open and close individual ramps as they are completed? If the State does not change K-Rail or traffic handling sheets, please remove the allowable time for complete closure of ramps.

Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated 12-21-2020.
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #23: Per Specification Section 14-11.08C “Site Conditions”, on page 44, it states there is (Type Z-2) ADL material exist from the surface to below existing grade of the (Lane/Shoulder Widening from 0 feet to 2 feet). Does it mean any “Dirt” excavation generated from the existing subgrade of the existing Lanes and Shoulders areas to the new subgrade would also considered (Type Z-2) ADL? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:The existing subgrade of the existing Lanes and Shoulders areas are not consider as an ADL (Type Z-2) material.
Response posted 11/09/2020




Inquiry #24: The response to inquiry 8 does not seem to address the question. Would you please review the response and respond to the question "Are ramps shown to be closed in stages 2, 2A, 4 and 4A allowed to be closed for the total duration of each stage or is the contractor to complete work at each ramp within the 20 day closure window as stated in the Ramp Closure Charts thus adding additional stages to the project?"
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4 dated 12-21-2020.
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #25: In response to the State's answer to inquiry #10. The State mentions, that a large portion of work, specifically concrete paving, is available for DBE participation and their are numerous DBE contractor's that do this work. This is inaccurate, while there are quite a few DBE concrete flatwork and concrete barrier contractors, there are no DBE concrete paving contractors for this size or scope of work. Please reconsider adjusting your DBE goal.
Inquiry submitted 11/10/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/10/2020


Response #2:The DBE goal will not be reduced at this time. Attention is directed to Section 2 of the Standard Specifications and Special Provisions regarding Good Faith Effort.
Response posted 11/10/2020




Inquiry #26: Would Caltrans please consider pushing back the bid date for this project? There are numerous unanswered questions outstanding and the bid date is a week away. If Caltrans is anticipating moving the bid date, please do so as soon as possible. There is a tremendous amount of work in the final days leading up to a bid on the contractors end that will be for not if the bid is postponed last minute.
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2020


Response #2:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2020


Response #3:Refer to addendum No. 3, dated November 13, 2020.
Response posted 11/13/2020




Inquiry #27: It is unclear where the Aggregate Base is required for this project (assuming at Terminal Joints or Approach Slabs??).

The proposed limits and the sectional thickness of the aggregate base is undefined.

Can CT please clarify and provide a Construction Detail for this work?

Inquiry submitted 11/11/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No 4
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #28: There is a callout on Sheet L-1 for Approach Slab as well as Approach Slab (Rapid Strength). Will Caltrans be providing a separate bid item for the Approach Slab (Rapid Strength)?
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2020


Response #2:No separate bid item will be provided. Rapid Strength can be used as an option for the approach slab. Refer to paragraph 1 of section 51-5.02C of the Standard Specifications.
Response posted 11/21/2020




Inquiry #29: In a follow up question to RFI #11. Typically when the State requires the contractor to pour concrete next to an adjacent concrete lane, as is the case in stage 2 and 4 where the outside lanes will be paved against the existing inside lanes, there is a bid item to grind existing concrete pavement (Caltrans Item code 420201). Will the State please add a bid item to grind the existing concrete pavement smooth, or lessen the smoothness requirements for the project?
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2020


Response #2:No additional bid item to grind the existing concrete pavement is needed. Please bid with the current smoothness requirements.
Response posted 12/07/2020




Inquiry #30: This inquiry is related to Bid Item:
32 ROADWAY EXCAVATION (TYPE Z-2) (AERIALLY DEPOSITED LEAD)- 11,000 CY
The special provisions state that from station 204+26 to 487+81 on “SR99” Line which is basically the beginning to end of project there Type Z-2 ADL existing material that affected the Lane & Shoulder widening. In addition the specials that the depth is anywhere from 0 to 2 feet (from the surface to below existing grade).
The special provisions also state that the contractor cannot stockpile Type Z-2 material. It has to be placed into a containers or trucks for transportation to the disposal facility.
Typically Caltrans includes in the plan set the areas that are affected and typical excavation depth (per location) where ADL is to be removed.
As it stands the contractors cannot determine the depth areas for the Type Z-2 material. We don’t know if we are removing 0.01” of material or 24” of material. This could be very costly while we have a truck waiting to be loaded to go appropriate disposal site It would be impossible to reasonably estimate the cost for this item with the current information.
Please clarify in order to provide a level playing field for all the bidders.

Inquiry submitted 11/12/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2020


Response #2:In the Z-2 specification, "0 to 2 feet" merely states where Aerially Deposited Lead soils are residing, not a limit of the excavation. The Stage Construction Plans starting from plan sheet 85 shows the areas where Z-2 soils are to be removed. The excavated depths are limited by the proposed structural section (0.85' HMA) for the temporary X-Overs & inside shoulder widening.
Response posted 12/01/2020


Response #3:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #31: Item 84 Obliterate Surfacing 22,700 SY of 0.85' thick AC equates to 6,432 CY removed. How do we get paid for placing 6,432 CY of material to fill in the void of the removed AC, please advise.
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/19/2020


Response #2:The obliterate surface would be remain in place per the standard specification section 78.
Response posted 11/21/2020


Response #3:The obliterate surface would be remain in place per the standard specification section 78.
Response posted 11/21/2020




Inquiry #32: Can't seems to locate the cross sections layouts that includes "SR99NB" Sta 833+21.97 to "SR99NB" Sta 835+34.86 on your "Design Study Only - Cross Sections". Are these going to be provided soon?
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/19/2020


Response #2:Cross Sections are not available for "SR99NB" Sta 835+24.86 describing the MVP for the Location #2.
Response posted 12/01/2020




Inquiry #33: Item 13: Portable Radar Speed Feedback Sign System @ 2 ea, seems highly understated amount for this type of project. Please review and advise.
Inquiry submitted 11/19/2020

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/21/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #34: I do not see where CDOT has addressed construction in the Stage Construction or Traffic Handling Plans at the North end of the project from "SR99" 483+00 to 488+00 for the work shown on Plan Sheet 30, C-4. What Stage does this work occur, and how is the Public traffic protected?
Inquiry submitted 12/16/2020

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted and is currently being analyzed and considered.
Response posted 12/16/2020


Response #2:The work referenced in this inquiry is not shown on the Traffic Handling or Stage Construction plans because it can be performed at any Stage of construction with nightly lane closures. The Contractor is at liberty to construct and coordinate this work in accordance with the Contractor’s Means and Methods and other operations of the work.

Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #35: Will Caltrans please consider postponing the bid date for an additional week, as the majority of the industry is shutting down for the holidays? The forthcoming addendum has not been posted, nor have any attempts been made to answer valid contractor bidder inquiries?
Inquiry submitted 12/17/2020

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review
Response posted 12/17/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 4. At this time no postponement to the bid opening date is being considered.
Response posted 12/23/2020


Response #3:
Response posted 12/23/2020




Inquiry #36: In response to addendum 4 ramp closure charts, will Caltrans please consider extending this chart to include all major construction operations in addition to CRCP placement. The work zone has extremely limited to zero access, especially in stages 3 and 5, for operations involving truck delivery/removal such as concrete pavement demolition, aggregate subbase and hot mix asphalt. Failure to include these operations in the ramp closure chart will have extreme cost and schedule impacts to the detriment of the state.
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review and consideration.
Response posted 12/23/2020


Response #2:Please place your bid in accordance with the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/30/2020




Inquiry #37: Is Bid Item 28 Treated Wood Waste to be handled and disposed of as Hazardous Waste, or will the exemption be allowed so that Alternate Management Standards be continued to be used for this project?
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2020

Response #1:Your inquiry has been submitted for review.
Response posted 12/23/2020


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum No. 3, Section 14-11.14, “TREATED WOOD WASTE” of the contract specifications. This material is considered “a Department Generated Hazardous Waste”. Please place your bid in accordance with current contract documents.
Response posted 12/29/2020


The information provided in the responses to bidder inquiries is not a waiver of Section 2-1.07, "JOB SITE AND DOCUMENT EXAMINATION" of the Standard Specifications or any other provision of the contract, nor to excuse the contractor from full compliance with the contract. Bidders are cautioned that subsequent responses or contract addenda may change a previous response.