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 04-0Q8204
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: Where is the staging area for this project located?
Inquiry submitted 03/20/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/21/2024
Response #2:Staging area is behind the temp barrier and R/W fence throughout the project limits.
Response posted 03/21/2024
Inquiry #2: Where can we discharge groundwater from dewatering operations?
Inquiry submitted 03/20/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/21/2024
Response #2:For more than two thirds of the pump outfall, the existing and proposed pipes are roughly parallel, which means at least two thirds of the existing system can be left functional and used for discharging groundwater. In areas where this is not possible, the contractor can discharge to the nearest proposed MH, downstream of the work location.
Response posted 03/21/2024
Inquiry #3: Please confirm that Railroad insurance is required. Also, are we required to use Railpros services on this project?
Inquiry submitted 03/20/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/21/2024
Response #2:Contact NVWT for any additional railroad questions. The Informational Handout contents come directly from them. Railroad Liability Projection Insurance (RLPI) was not listed as a requirement in the informational handout. NVWT may also do their own flagging, if necessary.
Response posted 03/21/2024
Inquiry #4: The project is going to generate a significant amount of dirt spoils related to the bore, bore pits, open trench and structures. Is there a place where we can permanently dispose of this dirt material within Caltrans jurisdiction? If we can’t dispose onsite or at a designated location is the expectation that this material is to be off-hauled and disposed of as Class II or Class III material? Typically spoils remain within the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 03/20/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/21/2024
Response #2:The excavated soils can be placed within the project limits wherever backfill is needed; within the context of contamination levels, the soils are suitable for reuse as fill anywhere, e.g., trenches, horizontal-drilling pits, et cetera. The contract's special provision 7-1.02K(6)(j)(iii) "Unregulated Earth Material Containing Lead" defines surplus excavated soils as the responsibility of the contractor. As defined in that special provision, any surplus soils can be used as imported borrow outside of state right of way wherever their reuse is suitable. Also defined is the contractor's option to dispose of surplus soils at a commercia landfill, i.e., class II or class III, permitted to accept the materials.
Response posted 03/22/2024
Inquiry #5: There are multiple jacking pits required to facilitate the bores, are we to use the Trench Backfill detail provided on Sheet C-1 for backfilling the pit?
Note that the Drainage Quantities, Sheets DQ-1 to DQ-3, do not account for the material required to backfill the pits (slurry cement, Class 1 Perm etc.). Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 03/20/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/21/2024
Response #2:Yes. See Addendum 1, revised plan sheets C-1, DQ-1, and DQ-3.
Response posted 04/11/2024
Inquiry #6: Is the intent that the cost of excavating/shoring/backfilling bore pits be included in Bid Item 0060 ‘42” Reinforced Concrete Pipe Trenchless Installation Method?’ Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 03/20/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/21/2024
Response #2:The excavation of the bore pits is paid in 42” Reinforced Concrete Pipe Trenchless Installation Method. See Special Provisions, Section 1-1.01, Standard Specifications, Section 65, Concrete Pipe, and Sections 19-3, Structure Excavation and Backfill.
For backfill of the bore pit see See Addendum 1, revised plan sheets C-1, DQ-1, and DQ-3.
Response posted 04/11/2024
Inquiry #7: Based on the cost of the materials (notably the jacking pipe) & the cost of bore the engineer's estimate is very low/insufficient. Please review and advise.
Inquiry submitted 03/20/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/21/2024
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 03/29/2024
Inquiry #8: The CDFW Agreement states three (3) trees are to be removed as part of this project. Which bid item accounts for this work?
Inquiry submitted 03/22/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/22/2024
Response #2:Tree removal is paid on Bid Item 29, Roadside Clearing. See plans sheets 62 through 65, and Table PR-1 on sheet 62. While there are three trees in CDFW jurisdiction, there a total of 32 trees shown for removal.
Response posted 03/29/2024
Inquiry #9: The CDFW Agreement notes the requirement for the services of a qualified biologist during the course of the project. Is the District providing the biologist or is this provided by the Contractor? How many days or crew hours should be expected if the Contractor is to provide?
Inquiry submitted 03/22/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/22/2024
Response #2:Caltrans will assign a biologist; contractor does not need to provide a biologist.
Response posted 03/27/2024
Inquiry #10: The CFDW Agreement notes a ‘Temporary Creek Diversion System.' Where is this work detailed/described? We cannot locate this work. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 03/22/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/22/2024
Response #2:There is no Temporary Creek Diversion System (TCDS) included in this project. All creek work is planned to occur behind the headwall of the culvert with no work within the stream needing a dewatered area.
Response posted 03/29/2024
Inquiry #11: Is there a Geotechnical Report for this project? The Handout provided as part of the bidding documents contains a Soils Investigation Report but this document is focused on soils contamination not soils/ground conditions. The investigative borings performed were drilled to a depth of 10.5 feet yet the pipe installation is 15.0’ feet or greater. We need to understand soils conditions to determine open cut shoring, pit/shaft shoring and risks associated with open face boring. We would like to see the geotechnical report and subsequent engineer's evaluation of the specified boring methods.
Please provide additional information or tell us where in the documents we can locate this information.
Inquiry submitted 03/22/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/22/2024
Response #2:For additional information on soil/ground conditions, please see the as-built information from recent projects.
http://website.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0Q8204/As-Built_Projects.pdf
Response posted 03/29/2024
Inquiry #12: What are the coating & lining requirements for the 42-Inch Steel Pipe?
When joining the steel pipe segments what is the required method of connection – coupling, gasket, welded joint? Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 03/25/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/25/2024
Response #2:There are no coating requirements for the 42" WSP. The joints are welded. See Standard Specifications Section 70-3.
Response posted 03/25/2024
Inquiry #13: What are the post installation testing requirements for the pipeline? Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 03/25/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/25/2024
Response #2:See Section 61-2 of the Standard Specifications for watertight joint requirements. Watertight joints are called for on the DQ sheets.
Response posted 03/25/2024
Inquiry #14: We are seeking a two-week extension for this project, citing its complexity and the need for extensive outreach to DBE subcontractors.
Inquiry submitted 04/05/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/05/2024
Response #2:Two weeks bid extension request has been granted and included on Addendum #1. The new bid opening date is 5/2/2024.
Response posted 04/10/2024
Inquiry #15: There is an AC paved access road where a large portion of drainage system 1kk & 1mm will be constructed. Will this access road be required to be replaced? If so, provide the structural section and width required for replacement of this road.
Inquiry submitted 04/08/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/08/2024
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 04/15/2024
Inquiry #16: There is a portion of an existing concrete access/bike path with integral retaining wall that will have to be replaced after constructing drainage system 1nn and 1pp. Provide details of what will be required to be replaced since the path appears to be monolithically poured.
Inquiry submitted 04/08/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/08/2024
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 04/11/2024
Inquiry #17: Drainage systems 1kk, 1mm & 4b are currently access limited by a 15' to 20' retaining wall on the west side offramp and a private ROW on the east side near California Blvd. There is a concrete drive approach with a gravel and asphalt parking lot between California Blvd and the state ROW with a gate at the property line. Will a temporary access easement through this parking lot and existing gate be granted for this landlocked work?
Inquiry submitted 04/08/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/09/2024
Response #2:See the temporary easement on plan sheet L-4, and See Note 2, also. This easement aligns with the existing gate.
Response posted 04/11/2024
Inquiry #18: Specification section 71-3.08A(1), for installing the 42-inch CIPP pipeliner required under bid item 0071, says the resin used in the CIPP must be non-styrene, non-Volatile Organic Compounds (non-VOC’s) and non-Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP’s) based resin. The normal resin used in situations like this, where a non-styrene based resin is required, is classified as a vinyl ester resin. However, section 71-3.08B(4), which normally allows the CIPP resin system to be polyester, vinyl ester, or epoxy, has been modified to eliminate the polyester and vinyl ester options and only allow epoxy resin on this project. Please revise section 71-3.08B(4) to also allow vinyl ester resin to be used for the non-styrene based resin. Most CIPP installers do not work with epoxy resin systems, so if epoxy resin remains the only resin system allowed for use, we will not be able to quote the CIPP liner on this project, and it is likely many other CIPP installers will not be able to quote either.
Inquiry submitted 04/08/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/09/2024
Response #2:See Special Provisions, Section 71-3.08, CURED-IN-PLACE PIPELINERS in Addendum 2.
Response posted 04/19/2024
Inquiry #19: Due to the short time duration of 220 working days to complete the work, will the contractor be allowed to work two (2) shifts per working day in order to complete the work?
Inquiry submitted 04/09/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/09/2024
Response #2:For work not covered by the lane closure charts, see Standard Specifications, Section 14-8.02, NOISE CONTROL.
"Do not exceed 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the job site from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m."
Response posted 04/11/2024
Inquiry #20: Referencing Inquiry #14, we too are requesting a bid date extension. Not only due to the complexity, but more time will be required to analyze the site and risks due to the lack of geotechnical information.
Inquiry submitted 04/09/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/09/2024
Response #2:See Addendum #1. The new bid opening date is 5/2/2024.
Response posted 04/11/2024
Inquiry #21: After discussions with several tunnel subcontractors, there is a real chance that completing the work in 220 working days is far from being achievable. We ask that Caltrans consider extending the contract duration to a more practical number of working days so the Contractors do not have to penalize its bids with costs associated with going beyond the allotted Contract time.
Inquiry submitted 04/09/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/09/2024
Response #2:Please bid to complete the work within 220 working days.
Response posted 04/11/2024
Inquiry #22: Refer to Inquiry #4 Response. The Construction Detail provide for the trench, Drawing C-1, is almost completely non-native import material backfill (Slurry Cement, Class 1 PM). As a result, the reuse of excavated materials on this project is almost zero. In addition to open excavation spoils there are bore pits and tunnel bore dirt spoils to account for. Per our calculations there is almost 20,000TN of dirt spoil to be removed from the project. We need an understanding of contamination classification of this soil, Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 in order to obtain accurate pricing for hauling and disposal. Typically, on Caltrans bids we’ll see a bid line item for “Type Z-0 Soil for Disposal/Off haul”, but this is not the case with this bid. Please review with an eye to understanding the difficulty of accurately pricing the hauling and disposal of this amount of dirt without clear direction on where it can be disposed. We want to provide an accurate bid price but lack the information to do so. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 04/11/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/11/2024
Response #2:Given that nonhazardous-waste landfills, i.e., class II and III facilities, do not have fixed, uniform waste-acceptance criteria, Caltrans cannot definitively define all nonhazardous-waste landfills that will accept the surplus soils. Any given class II landfill is very likely to be properly permitted to accept the soils; whereas, acceptance at a class III landfill hinges on the permit issued to a particular facility. Like all Caltrans contracts, it is the contractor’s responsibility to determine which disposal facility will be utilized properly. This is the case when disposing of federal hazardous waste, state hazardous waste, or unregulated soils. While class I landfills are subject to laws and regulations defining hazardous waste thresholds and the disposal facilities’ uniform acceptance criteria, that is not the case for nonhazardous wastes.
It is not mandated that the unregulated soils to be excavated for project 04-0Q820 be disposed of at a landfill. Surplus soils can be transported to and reused as imported borrow at sites where the material is suitable for the location and the site owner acknowledges acceptance.
Response posted 04/15/2024
Inquiry #23: Can soil-cement be utilized for backfill in lieu of the specified slurry cement?
This may be one way to utilize excess dirt spoils onsite without off-haul trucking & disposal fees. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 04/11/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/11/2024
Response #2:Yes, Soil-Cement Slurry can be used provided it meets the Standard Specification, 19-3.02E Slurry Cement Backfill.
Response posted 04/16/2024
Inquiry #24: Refer to Inquiry #2 Response. The existing pipeline we are being directed to discharge to appears to outfall at the creek. It is our experience that discharging groundwater to a storm drain system that outfalls at a creek is not advisable or generally allowed owing to regulations. Please review response and either confirm that this direction is accurate or advise on an alternate discharge point.
Based on historical bore logs provided which note ‘wet’ soils we are assuming groundwater will be encountered.
Inquiry submitted 04/11/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/11/2024
Response #2:Please see 13-1.01D(2), Regulatory Requirements of the 2023 Standard Specifications, and see Attachment J, Dewatering Requirements in the NPDES 2022 Construction Stormwater General Permit for the groundwater discharge requirements. Note, the contractor may explore entering into an agreement to discharge to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) with a local storm water agency.
Response posted 04/19/2024
Inquiry #25: Due to wet soils conditions ground improvement is going to be needed at the face of each jacking pit. Where/what bid item should these costs be allocated? Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 04/11/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/11/2024
Response #2:The shoring of the jacking pit is the contractor’s means and methods. This work is included in the Item 60, 42” RCP Trenchless Installation Method. See Standard Specifications Section 19-3, Structure Excavation and Backfill.
Response posted 04/15/2024
Inquiry #26: A number of the RCP pipe manufacturers have indicated that they do not make 42-inch jacking pipe and are therefore proposing supplying a 48-inch diameter pipe instead.
Is it acceptable to upsize the jacking pipe from 42-inch to 48-inch diameter? Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 04/12/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/12/2024
Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents. Please be aware Foley in American Canyon and Rinker in Sacramento can produce 42" RCP for jacking.
For substituting 42-inch RCP with 48-inch RCP, refer to section 4-1.07B "Value Engineering Change Proposal," of the Standard Specifications. Proposals for modifications to the contract documents may be submitted to the Engineer after contract award.
Response posted 04/15/2024
Inquiry #27: Refer Drainage Details Sheet DD-1.
Can we use precast concrete structures in lieu of cast-in-place structures for the ‘Type G2 Manhole?' Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 04/16/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/16/2024
Response #2:Yes, precast concrete structures are allowed for the G2 MH's. See Section 51-1.03B which allows PC inlets as an alternative to CIP.
Response posted 04/17/2024
Inquiry #28: The existing 42” HDPE drain runs parallel for most of the alignment but crosses back and forth at ~Sta. 127+00. If the elevation matches at the high side and low side of the job that new tunnel segment will be in conflict with the existing storm drain. There is also the possibility of over pour related to existing manhole bases and the need to demolish those and backfill ahead of tunneling work. This condition is not shown in the profile.
Is the Contractor expected to open trench to remove the tunnel obstruction created by the existing storm drain and new tunnel segments?
Which bid items is this work to be assigned to – open trench, tunnel?
Please review and advise on how we are to estimate the cost related to obstructions to tunneling and the existing storm drain systems and where those costs are to be allocated to.
Inquiry submitted 04/22/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/22/2024
Response #2:The existing pipe across the Lincoln on ramp to NB SR 29 has 3 items associated with it, 2p, 2q and 2r. Items 2p and 2r call to abandon the end portions of the culvert. Item 2q calls to remove the portion under the ramp, the intent of which was to remove the conflict with the proposed trenchless culvert. The contractor will have to open the ramp to remove the portion of pipe in conflict with the proposed. That work is covered under item 2q, Remove Culvert (Portion). Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 04/23/2024
Inquiry #29: Building on Inquiry #7 and Inquiry #26, specifically the response #2 to Inquiry #26 - will VECPs be considered that deviate from pipe type design?
Inquiry submitted 04/22/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/22/2024
Response #2:VECP’s that meet the requirements of Section 4-1.07 VALUE ENGINEERING will be considered.
Response posted 04/25/2024
Inquiry #30: The oil PG 58-34M is not part of the Caltrans Pavement Climate Map for the area of this project. Napa is considered a low mountain area so the binder specified does not meet the typical or special requirements. Other projects bid in this area all used PG 64-16 with rap use up to 15% and would require PG 58-22 for all projects over 15% rap. Can you verify if the use of the oil is correct for the project?
Inquiry submitted 04/25/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/25/2024
Response #2:PG 58-34M binder for HMA-O (Hot Mix Asphalt- Open Graded) will need to be used for this project. Since 0.10’ HMA-O is in the new section, keep PG 58-34M as per instruction.
Response posted 04/26/2024
Inquiry #31: The oil PG 58-34M is not part of the Caltrans Pavement Climate Map for the area of this project. Napa is considered a low mountain area so the binder specified does not meet the typical or special requirements. Other projects bid in this area all used PG 64-16 with rap use up to 15% and would require PG 58-22 for all projects over 15% rap. Can the RE verify the use of the oil is correct for the project?
Inquiry submitted 04/25/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/25/2024
Response #2:Duplicate question. Please refer to response for inquiry #30.
Response posted 04/26/2024
Inquiry #32: We have been getting feedback from the micro tunneling and directional bore contractors that it is impossible to get an accurate cost for the trenchless pipe. They are very concerned that there is no soils report and that the time frame and engineers estimate is way off. There concerns are that they would have to work 24 hours per day and that the cost would astronomical. Please provide more information for the contractors that is not in any plans or specs for this project.
Inquiry submitted 04/26/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/26/2024
Response #2:Please bid per the information in the Information Handout, and the current working days.
Response posted 04/29/2024
Response #3:A Geotechnical Design Report from Project 4278-120611, 04-Nap-29 KP 18.7/21.7 dated November 2000 is available for information. You can download the report below.
LINK - http://website.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0Q8204/TrancasGDR_LOTB.pdf
Response posted 04/30/2024
Inquiry #33: Inquiry 30 states to use PG 58-34M for the HMA-O but did not clarify on the dense grade material. PG 64-16 is typical of this area and readily available, so will PG 58-34M also be used for HMA-A?
Inquiry submitted 04/26/2024
Response #1:The inquiry has been received and submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/29/2024
Response #2: Yes, PG 58-34 PM will be used for HMA-A.
Response posted 04/29/2024
Response #3:Please bid:
For HMA-O, the grade of asphalt binder must be PG 58-34 PM. (Bid Item #49)
For HMA-A, the grade of asphalt binder must be PG 64-16. (Bid Item #48)
Response posted 04/30/2024
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.