Bidder Inquiries

Sign In | Create Account

Viewing inquiries for 12-0K0224

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: In light of the drought and wildfires will Caltrans still allow for Alternative Pipe Culvert and specifically plastic pipe to be installed on this project?
Inquiry submitted 11/16/2018

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 11/16/2018


Response #2:No need to remove the use of APC from the project and HDPE pipe should also be acceptable for use.


Response posted 12/18/2018




Inquiry #2: Sheets 1229, 1248, and 1249 appear to be missing details for the "Abutment 3 Elevation (North Side)" (La Paz NB Loop On Ramp Bridge), Abutment 1 Layout "Elevation" (La Paz UC Bridge), and Abutment 3 Layout "Elevation" (La Paz UC Bridge). Please provide the revised plan sheets with complete details.
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2018

Response #1:pending
Response posted 12/07/2018


Response #2:Please see addendum #1
Response posted 12/24/2018




Inquiry #3: Please post the pre-bid sign in sheet. thank you.
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2018

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 12/11/2018


Response #2:Please bid as you see it
Response posted 12/24/2018




Inquiry #4: On sheet 1477 of the project plans, there's a square footage quantity error for the Sound Wall (Masonry Block). The total length of sound wall is 794.80 L.F. multiplied x CMU Height of 9.34 L.F. = a total square footage of approximately 7,424 SQFT. The engineers estimate shows 6,486 SQFT. Please revise this quantity and the Final Pay quantity for this item. Thanks.
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2018

Response #1:pending
Response posted 12/11/2018


Response #2:Please see addendum #1
Response posted 12/24/2018




Inquiry #5: Due to the upcoming holidays, the numerous projects bidding in the month of January and the sheer size of this project, we respectfully request a four week postponement to the bid date.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2018

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 12/13/2018


Response #2:Please bid as you see it, no changes in bid open dates.
Response posted 12/24/2018




Inquiry #6: In regards to the removal of El Toro OH Off Ramp Bridge # 55-221 over the existing SCRRA/Metrolink. What are the working windows and will the standard track protection be sufficient to accommodate the Bridge Removal
Inquiry submitted 12/13/2018

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 12/13/2018


Response #2:1-The information regarding the "work windows" is shown in Section 10-1.03, page 37 of the Contract Special Provisions.
2- In the Information Handout, please review the Metrolink SCRRA Form 37
a-Section 2.3 Work Requiring Protection of Track and Operations
b-Section 5.1 Demolition and Removal

Response posted 01/07/2019




Inquiry #7: Drainage elements 62a,63a, 80b, 80d, 83b, and 83e show RCP pipe on the drainage plan sheets, however profile drawings call out alternative pipe. Please confirm if these locations should be RCP or AP.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 12/21/2018


Response #2:Please bid per contract documents
Response posted 01/15/2019




Inquiry #8: Drainage element 75c shows concrete flared end section on the plan sheet, but alternative FES on the profile sheet. Please confirm if this location is concrete or alternative FES.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 12/21/2018


Response #2:Please bid as you see it
Response posted 01/07/2019




Inquiry #9: Closure Chart M3 (Single Event Complete City Street Closure Hours at La Paz Rd) states the chart is a "One-time weekend closure only." It also lists the La Paz NB On-Ramp demo and the La Paz UC demos to be performed under this closure. These demo activities occur in different stages, so would require multiple complete closures of La Paz. Additionally, the Superstructure Jacking activities would likely need to use this closure chart. Please confirm the M3 chart may be used multiple times throughout the project.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2018

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 12/21/2018


Response #2:An addendum will be issued
Response posted 01/07/2019




Inquiry #10: The CA High Design Manual Section 850-34 dated December 30th, 2015 warns against specifying plastic pipe in areas with a potential for fire. This project lists Alternative Pipe Culvert in the Bid Schedule. Will Caltrans still allow for plastic pipe to be used on this project?
Inquiry submitted 12/27/2018

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 12/28/2018


Response #2:Please bid as you see it
Response posted 01/07/2019




Inquiry #11: Bid Item #59 for Rock Blanket, rock color is not specified on plans and specification. Please advise which color shall be used.
Inquiry submitted 12/27/2018

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 12/28/2018


Response #2:Please bid as you see it
Response posted 01/07/2019




Inquiry #12: Addenda 1, Sheet DD-19, references plan sheet DD-18a, however this sheet was not issued. Please provide sheet DD-18a.

Inquiry submitted 12/28/2018

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 12/28/2018


Response #2:Please bid as you see it
Response posted 01/07/2019




Inquiry #13: The Caltrans Office of Pavement Engineering has posted Nonstandard Special Provisions (NSSPs) to revise IRI requirements for pavement smoothness. Will Caltrans consider incorporating these NSSPs into this project?
Inquiry submitted 01/03/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/03/2019


Response #2:Please bid as you see it
Response posted 01/07/2019




Inquiry #14: Section LP1-LP2 on Sheet 443 (SCD-23) shows a clear dimension of 16.5' at the La Paz EB on-ramp (I-5 NB). The required vehicle/pedestrian opening at La Paz is 18.5' wide per project specification section 12-4.03C. Please confirm that the 16.5' width is correct.

Inquiry submitted 01/07/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/07/2019


Response #2:Please bid per contract documents
Response posted 01/07/2019




Inquiry #15: It appears that the 18% goal is not attainable without significant cost impacts. Please provide the Work Category codes utilized to support this goal so that Bidders can perform additional research for Good Faith Efforts.
Inquiry submitted 01/08/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/08/2019


Response #2:Please bid in accordance with Section 2-1.12 of the Standard Specifications.
Response posted 01/11/2019




Inquiry #16: Spec Section 10-1.03 states that clearing and grubbing, bridge demo, and pile driving are not allowed between February 15 and September 15 due to the bird nesting season. The following paragraph states that work within Oso Creek and La Paz Channel may only be performed during the dry season, which is May to September of any year. This results in a two week period to perform all of the work in this area which is not constructable. Please confirm that the Engineer will grant a variance to adjust work periods.

Inquiry submitted 01/09/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/09/2019


Response #2:Please bid per Contract Documents
Response posted 01/14/2019




Inquiry #17: Where is the bid item of 20 prepaving grinding days (Item 104) to be applied? All design strategies are either new construction, reconstruction, or involve cold planing. This is not referring to the line item Grind Existing Concrete Pavement (Item 118).
Inquiry submitted 01/10/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/10/2019


Response #2:Please bid per Contract Documents
Response posted 01/14/2019




Inquiry #18: How many trains per day should be anticipated?
Inquiry submitted 01/10/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/11/2019


Response #2:Please bid per Contract Documents
Response posted 01/14/2019




Inquiry #19: Due to staging, ROW limits and planting areas to be maintained, a significant amount of shoring is required (RW 8, RW 32, RW 72, RW 82, RW 98A-C, RW 110, RW 134 and La Paz Road UC). Are there any shoring methods that are not acceptable?
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/11/2019


Response #2:Please bid per Contract Documents
Response posted 01/14/2019




Inquiry #20: There is a large discrepancy when you compare the Bid Items list to the Summary of Quantities Table for all Type 60 Concrete Barriers (items 302-306). For example, the quantity shown on the bid items list for item no. 302 Concrete Barrier Type 60M is 6,030LF. However, when you compare this quantity to the summary of quantities table, it only shows 368LF. Also, the layout sheets and summary of quantities call for Concrete Barrier Type 60 Mod, 60MG, 60MGC, and 60PR; all of which are not listed on the Bid Items List. Please clarify what the correct Bid Items are for all concrete barriers and corresponding quantities.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/14/2019


Response #2:Please bid per Contract Documents
Response posted 01/14/2019




Inquiry #21: Is the bid date going to be postponed? Is there an Addendum No. 5?
Inquiry submitted 01/14/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/14/2019


Response #2:No Change in bid open date. No addendum No. 5
Response posted 01/15/2019




Inquiry #22: Would you please provide the power point presentation from the pre-bid meeting.
Inquiry submitted 01/15/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/15/2019


Response #2:Power point presentation is not available
Response posted 01/15/2019




Inquiry #23: Our supplier for the booster pump is having trouble accurately quoting the pump without the following information:

1. Dynamic Inlet pressure at all locations: .... PSI?
2. Desired Discharge pressure at all locations: .... PSI?
3. Minimum Flow Requirements, if applicable at all locations: .... GPM?

The special provisions do not provide this information nor do the revised standard specifications applicable to the 2015 specs. Please clarify, thank you.

Inquiry submitted 01/15/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/15/2019


Response #2:Please bid per contract documents
Response posted 01/16/2019




Inquiry #24: Irrigation plan IP-2 shows 3" Remote Control Master Valve and Flow Sensor to install but there are no bid items for these. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 01/15/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/16/2019


Response #2:Please bid per contract documents
Response posted 01/16/2019




Inquiry #25: For the soil nail portion of RW110, Sheet 1450 of the contract plans defines the vertical distance between the top soil nail and top of shotcrete as "ST". "ST" is not assigned a dimensional value anywhere in the plans so it is impossible to determine where the shotcrete is to be terminated. Considering Structural Shotcrete is a final pay item, please provide dimensional control for top of shotcrete.
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/16/2019


Response #2:Please bid per contract documents
Response posted 01/16/2019




Inquiry #26: For the soil nail portion of RW110, Sheet 1450 of the contract plans defines the vertical distance between the top soil nail and top of shotcrete as "ST". "ST" is not assigned a dimensional value anywhere in the plans so it is impossible to determine where the shotcrete is to be terminated. Considering Structural Shotcrete is a final pay item, please provide dimensional control for top of shotcrete.
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2019

Response #1:Pending
Response posted 01/16/2019


Response #2:Please bid per contract documents
Response posted 01/16/2019


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.


Contracting Information

Statewide Alerts and Other Information