Bidder Inquiries

Caltrans Bidding Connect Account:

Create Account (Click here to create a Caltrans Bidding Connect Account)

Viewing inquiries for 08-1K4004

Inquiry #1: Please clarify the date of the pre-bid meeting. Bid docs say 10/24, however, when I go to the link to register the website says October 23rd.
Inquiry submitted 10/07/2024

Response #1:This issue will be addressed in an upcoming addendum.
Response posted 10/16/2024

Inquiry #2: spec book stated pre-bid meeting is 10/24
A mandatory prebid meeting is scheduled on October 24, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.
but the calendar invite when registering is for 10/23

Inquiry submitted 10/09/2024

Response #1:This issue will be addressed in an upcoming addendum.
Response posted 10/16/2024

Inquiry #3: What is the deadline date to submit RFI/questions? The specs just say that questions must be asked before bid opening.
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2024

Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 10/28/2024

Inquiry #4: What is the project-specific Water Quality Objective for work activities in water? This would apply to Items 35, 36, and 37.
Section 13-11.01D(1) of the 2023 Standard Specs state this will be specified in the Special Provisions, but it is not there.
Inquiry submitted 10/26/2024

Response #1:Bidders are to refer to the PLACs provided in the Information Handouts.
Response posted 11/25/2024

Inquiry #5: Will Item #35 (Water Quality Sampling and Analysis Day) apply to each day the creek diversion is operational and each day of creek diversion removal?

For clarification, on the 2023 Standard Specs, item 1.2 of the seventh paragraph of Section 13-11.01D(1), states an inspection of receiving water must occur "at least 4 times daily whenever work occurs in water, including the installation, operation, and removal of any clear water diversion." This statement is talking about inspections rather than Item #35, which is water quality sampling and analysis.
Then, the sixth paragraph of Section 13-11.01D(2) states water quality sampling and analysis shall occur "during in-water work, including the installation of clear water diversion." This statement deals with the water quality sampling and analysis but it does not state during operation or removal of the clear water diversion, which is why the question above is posed.
Inquiry submitted 10/26/2024

Response #1:Bidders are to refer to the PLACs provided in the Information Handouts.
Response posted 12/02/2024

Inquiry #6: Please confirm limits of Retaining Wall Excavation and Backfill shown on Sheet 273 are correct. If limits are correct, indicate how other work required to complete excavation and backfill is paid.
Inquiry submitted 10/28/2024

Response #1:Unless an addendum is issued, bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/01/2024

Inquiry #7: Please confirm limits of Retaining Wall Excavation and Backfill shown on Sheet 273 are correct. If limits are correct, indicate how other work required to complete excavation and backfill is paid. Also address Sheet 314.
Inquiry submitted 10/28/2024

Response #1:Unless an addendum is issued, bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/01/2024

Inquiry #8: 1. The following locations show removal and replacement of MGS or Concrete Barrier, but no temporary barrier is shown on the traffic handling plans to protect the work area:
a. MGS – NB 15 Sta. 245+64 to Sta. 247+01.60
b. MGS – SB 15 Sta. 270+69.8 to Sta. 272+80.26
c. MGS – NB 15 Sta. 322+00 to 327+12 & 328+60 to Sta. 344+00 (+/-)
d. Concrete Barrier – NB 15 Sta. 327+12 to 328+60
e. MGS – NB 15 Winchester Rd Exit Ramp

Please clarify if the R&R of the MGS/Concrete Barrier is to be completed under nightly lane/ramp closures or if the temporary barrier needs to be extended to cover the work areas.

Inquiry submitted 10/30/2024

Response #1:Closure charts provide closures for this work.
Response posted 11/05/2024

Inquiry #9: Please provide a Ramp Closure Chart for the Winchester Rd NB Exit ramp for the removal and replacement of the MGS.
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2024

Response #1:Please refer to Ramp Closure Chart No. J1 in the Special Provisions for this bidder inquiry
Response posted 11/05/2024

Inquiry #10: The Traffic Handling plans only show the temporary barrier for the Stage 2 Rancho California Rd SB Exit Ramp 54 hour closure. Please provide a traffic handling plan for the temporary barrier to keep the ramp open during construction of Retaining Walls 237L & 247L from Station 237+00 to 252+50.
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2024

Response #1:This issue will be addressed in an upcoming addendum.
Response posted 11/13/2024

Inquiry #11: Where does the A3-8 curb get paid for DS#3 overside drain curb inlet?
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2024

Response #1:This item is paid under Minor Concrete (Minor Structure).
Response posted 11/13/2024

Inquiry #12: Is the new concrete for the join of the existing inlet for DS#3 to be rapid setting concrete and be completed with the RSC concrete cap?
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2024

Response #1:The RSC for the concrete cap is to be separate from the RSC used to join the existing inlet. A 1/2" expansion joint filler is to be placed between the two.
Response posted 11/25/2024

Inquiry #13: Please provide Sign-in sheet from the Mandatory prebid.
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2024

Response #1:The attendees of the mandatory pre-bid virtual meeting were provided a copy of the attendees list via email on 10/28/2024 (Monday). The Department does not accept a bid from a bidder who did not attend the virtual meeting. To see bidding and non-bidding plan holders, go to this website: https://ppmoe.dot.ca.gov/des/oe/weekly-ads/oe-project.php?q=08-1K4004&sub=
Response posted 11/12/2024

Inquiry #14: With the Thanksgiving holiday the week before and the other jobs bidding that week, please consider pushing this bid one week.
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2024

Response #1:Please see Addendum #2.
Response posted 11/25/2024

Inquiry #15: Please provide sign-in sheet from the Mandatory prebid
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2024

Inquiry #16: The concrete surface textures and formed reliefs for the various retaining walls runs parallel to the top of the wall and will require an inordinate amount of customized form liner. Section 51-1.03G(1) of the Special Provisions notes the fractured fluted rib is to match the pattern located at Rancho California Rd/I-15 Overcrossing. That wall was was constructed using ABS form liner to create the surface texture. Will ABS form liner be acceptable for both the fractured rib and fractured fluted rib patterns part of bid items no. 114 and 115?
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2024

Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/26/2024

Inquiry #17: With the Holiday the week before and many people out of the office, please consider extending this bid date by one week
Inquiry submitted 11/14/2024

Response #1:Please see Addendum #2.
Response posted 11/25/2024

Inquiry #18: There is no Krail plan for the construction of the retaining wall on the Southbound on ramp from Rancho California Rd. This work will need to take place prior to the 55 hour closure.
Inquiry submitted 11/14/2024

Response #1:This issue will be addressed in an upcoming addendum.
Response posted 11/18/2024

Inquiry #19: Plan sheet no. 266 provides limits for slope paving removal and reconstruction at the Empire Creek bridge widening. Sheet no. 254 notes quantities for slope paving (concrete) as 18 CY and this work appears to be paid under bid item no. 158. However, please clarify how the slope paving removal is paid. Bid item no. 157 Remove Slope Paving (SQYD) appears to only include the slope paving removal quantity at Santiago Rd OC retaining wall. Please review and clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/15/2024

Response #1:Bid per contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2024

Inquiry #20: Please consider with the holiday the week before and a lot of people being out of the office pushing this bid one week.
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2024

Response #1:Please see Addendum #2.
Response posted 11/25/2024

Inquiry #21: The Traffic handling plans do not cover Krail setup for the retaining wall on the Ranch California Road on ramp. Please consider adding Krail for this work, as this will all need to happen before the 55 hour closure .
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2024

Response #1:Bid per contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2024

Inquiry #22: Concrete barrier (type 736SV) is shown on the NB side of Route 15 at the Waddell Wash from station 315+75 to to 318+00. However, the standard plans do not include a Type 736SV barrier and details are not included in the plans. Please review and provide necessary details.
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2024

Response #1:Bid per contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2024

Inquiry #23: Concrete barrier (Type 60SD) is shown on layout sheet L-10 along both the NB and SB sides of Route 15 at the existing Overland Rd OC. General construction details for this barrier are provided on C-5. Note 1 on this sheet refers to "See Const Det Sht C-1 for exact alignment barrier". However, no relevant information is provided on C-1. Please provide necessary information; column dimensions, spacing, etc for the existing Overland Rd OC.
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2024

Response #1:Bid per contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2024

Inquiry #24: Traffic control devices are not shown on the traffic handling plans for the removal and replacement of the guard rail and concrete in the median from Sta. 213+00 to 216+30. Please provide a plan for the required traffic control measures for this work.
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2024

Response #1:Bid per contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2024

Inquiry #25: For DS-7 at the Empire Creek improvements, please clarify where the removal and replacement of the concrete channel lining is to be paid to connect the new pipe to the existing channel.
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2024

Response #1:Please bid per contract documents.
Response posted 11/19/2024

Inquiry #26: It appears payment for tree and shrub removal noted on the planting plans is included in bid item no. 57 Roadside Clearing. However, please provide the method of payment for all other required clearing and grubbing on the project.
Inquiry submitted 11/19/2024

Response #1:Bid per contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2024

Inquiry #27: Would Caltrans please consider postponing the bid by 2 weeks?
We are concerned that we will have limited sub and supplier coverage on this bid since the date is currently the week after Thanksgiving. Also, there are a few questions that have yet to be answered.
Inquiry submitted 11/19/2024

Response #1:Please see Addendum #2.
Response posted 11/25/2024

Inquiry #28: On project sheet No. 272 of the project plans, is R.W. #237L, the typical section on the right side show's a SW & Barrier height of 12'-2". Once you deduct 3'-6" for the 842A Barrier, the soundwall's CMU "H" = 9'-0".

This CMU height is not modular for 8" high CMU, meaning a 1/2 block of 4" high (8x4x16) will have to be used somewhere to complete the overall height of 9'-0". The typical structural section, shown on sheet No. 285, uses (6) lower bond beams, so inserting the 4" high unit at the bottom may not be feasible. Where does the state want the 8x4x16 sized unit placed at? Or does the state want to increase the "H" to 12'-6" overall in order to use full 8" masonry units?

Also, If you take this CMU "H" of 9-0" and multiply it X 959'-0" long, you come up with 8,631 SF. The engineers estimate on the same page shows 8,275 SF. Which is incorrect.

Please clarify the question noted above and provide where the unit is to be placed or increase the height appropriately. Since Item No. 127 is a "Final Pay" item please adjust the Eng. estimate to the correct SQFT quantity for bidding purposes.
Inquiry submitted 11/19/2024

Response #1:Refer to Detail C on sheet 282 of 323 of the contract plans. Bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/25/2024

Inquiry #29: On page 282 of the project plans for R.W #237L, the top of the page shows the masonry aesthetic details for the soundwall. The section call out for "4-Scored Split-face Fluted" CMU to be used for the top (3) courses, which are massive units that have not be installed at typical soundwalls in District 8 in probably 18-20 years+. The common used CMU to top off the masonry wall is actually a "4-Scored Split-face" CMU, not fluted. See the examples noted below.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ofom2mjti5z4f81c9aubz/Rte-10-Corridor-Sound-Wall-detail.pdf?rlkey=hzu7dtp32rdudwxikkvmvdran&st=5iq3wlz4&dl=0

https://www.angelusblock.com/assets/docs-technical/Angelus-4-Score-Split-TDS.pdf

Please confirm the correct aesthetic CMU to use to top off the masonry sound wall.

Inquiry submitted 11/19/2024

Response #1:Unless an addendum is issued, bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/25/2024

Inquiry #30: Please disregard this question posted, we found a calculation error on our part. Thanks.

Inquiry submitted for Caltrans contract 08-1K4004 on November 19, 2024.

On project sheet No. 272 of the project plans, is R.W. #237L, the typical section on the right side show's a SW & Barrier height of 12'-2". Once you deduct 3'-6" for the 842A Barrier, the soundwall's CMU "H" = 9'-0".

This CMU height is not modular for 8" high CMU, meaning a 1/2 block of 4" high (8x4x16) will have to be used somewhere to complete the overall height of 9'-0". The typical structural section, shown on sheet No. 285, uses (6) lower bond beams, so inserting the 4" high unit at the bottom may not be feasible. Where does the state want the 8x4x16 sized unit placed at? Or does the state want to increase the "H" to 12'-6" overall in order to use full 8" masonry units?

Also, If you take this CMU "H" of 9-0" and multiply it X 959'-0" long, you come up with 8,631 SF. The engineers estimate on the same page shows 8,275 SF. Which is incorrect.

Please clarify the question noted above and provide where the unit is to be placed or increase the height appropriately. Since Item No. 127 is a "Final Pay" item please adjust the Eng. estimate to the correct SQFT quantity for bidding purposes.

Inquiry submitted 11/21/2024

Response #1:Noted.
Response posted 11/25/2024

Inquiry #31: Section 20-1.01D(3) Soil Testing states to collect soil samples from at least 15 locations. Under what bid item will the soil testing be paid for?
Inquiry submitted 11/21/2024

Response #1:Bid per contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2024

Inquiry #32: Per layout sheet L-10 concrete barrier (type 60 SD) is shown to be constructed at the existing bents of Overland Dr OC on both the SB and NB sides of route 15. Construction of the barrier on the SB side is behind k-rail per stage 1 construction plan SC-5. However, there is no staging shown for the proposed barrier along the NB side. It appears necessary staging/traffic plans are missing regarding this work. If this barrier work is to be completed during the night utilizing lane closures, the plans do not provide any means of traffic protection (temporary barrier, etc) of the exposed columns until the barrier is fully constructed. Please review and advise.
Inquiry submitted 11/21/2024

Response #1:Bid per contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2024

Inquiry #33: Plan sheet no. 258 Abutment Section (Left Bridge Widening) states limits of clean and paint steel piling 3'-6" below cut off. However, on sheet no. 261 the detail for the left bridge abutment shows the clean and paint limits as 7'-6" below cut off. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/22/2024

Response #1:Unless an addendum is issued, bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/27/2024

Inquiry #34: Plan sheet no. 261 shows the limits of clean and paint steel piling at 7'-6" below the bottom of the abutments. Sheet no. 266 shows the limits of slope paving removal at the abutments as 4'-6" from the CL of piling (3'-3" from face). Based upon this, it appears the intent is to shore the along the front face of the abutments to prevent exceeding the 4'-6" shown for the slope paving removal. Please confirm.
Inquiry submitted 11/22/2024

Response #1:Bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/27/2024

Inquiry #35: Please confirm Roadway Excavation quantity is correct.
Inquiry submitted 11/25/2024

Response #1:Bid per contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2024

Inquiry #36: The plans do not provide enough information for Bid Item 191 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 736SV). Should the drawing for Type 836SV be followed as there is no 736SV in the 2023 Standard drawings. Are the CIDH Piles to be included int his item as they are generally a separate Bid Item?
Inquiry submitted 12/02/2024

Response #1:Bid per contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2024

Inquiry #37: Temporary Fiber Optic Cable System's legends call for "shallow trench" for conduit installation. Please provide installation details for the temporary work and clarify conduit's size.
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2024

Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2024

Inquiry #38: There are discrepancies between symbols on sheet 198 and details shown on sheet 215. Please clarify the number, as well as types, of cables and innerducts needed.
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2024

Response #1:Follow the detail plan on sheet 215
Response posted 12/10/2024

Inquiry #39: REFER TO PLAN SHEET 200. DETAIL A AND B HAVE CONFUSING NOTES AND DO NOT ALIGN WITH THE STRUCTURE PLANS. PLEASE CONFIRM DETAILS.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024

Response #1:Soundwall 243 on 842 barrier transitions into 836 barrier. Fiber optic conduit in Detail A shows transition from underground to 842 barrier. Detail B shows conduit exiting 842 barrier to pull box before transitioning into 836 barrier.
Response posted 12/10/2024

Response #2:Soundwall 243 on 842 barrier transitions into 836 barrier. Fiber optic conduit in Detail A shows transition from underground to 842 barrier. Detail B shows conduit exiting 842 barrier to pull box before transitioning into 836 barrier.
Response posted 12/10/2024

Inquiry #40: REFER TO PLAN SHEETS 200 AND 201. PLEASE CONFIRM IF FOC IS IN THE 2.5" CONDUIT IS WITHOUT INNERDUCT.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024

Response #1:No innerduct will be required in the 2.5"C on sheets 200 and 201.
Response posted 12/10/2024

Inquiry #41: Basin mulch application rate for plants #1, #2, #4, and #6 states "as shown on project plans" per note #5, but there is no callout on the plans. Please advise the application rate to be utilized for these plants. Also, please define the limits for 2" depth of wood mulch that is to be installed within planting areas per note #3.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024

Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2024

Inquiry #42: Please advise which bid item wood mulch shall be paid under.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024

Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2024

Inquiry #43: There are some cross-street locations where new mainline or wires should be sleeved. However, there is no indication of existing conduit/crossover to be reused or instruction of new to be installed. Please confirm new irrigation conduit/crossover is not a part of this project and Contractor shall locate and reuse existing.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024

Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2024

Inquiry #44: Please provide irrigation as-built plans for Bid Item 68 - Remove Irrigation Facility in order to accurately quantify this scope of work.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024

Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2024

Inquiry #45: Please confirm the size of plant #12 - Quercus engelmannii tree shall be 15-gallon.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024

Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2024

Inquiry #46: Please define the limits of work for Bid Item 64 - Maintain Existing Planted Areas.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024

Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2024

Inquiry #47: Please refer to sheet IP-8; there is no irrigation system for planted areas (shown on sheet PP-7). Confirm that installing an irrigation system for this proposed planting area is not required.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024

Response #1:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/10/2024

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.