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 12-0R32U4
Submit new inquiry for this projectInquiry #1: Per the drawings for the Solar PV Charging System, the output would be roughly 126,000KWh annually... However, per note 5 on E-186, the system requirement is to be 450,000KWh annually. Can you please confirm the size that is required and the discrepancy?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2024
Response #1:Addendum will be issued
Response posted 10/14/2024
Inquiry #2: Hello ,
My name is Juan project coordinator for DSS Street Sweeping lnc,
l would like to know if project 12-0R32U4 will have a (Labor Project Agreement)?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2024
Response #1:This project does not have a Project Labor Agreement
Response posted 10/15/2024
Inquiry #3: Bid item 70 - Class 3 Aggregate Base has a total of 680 CY, the Quantity Sheets and structural sections do not show where this material is located. Please advise
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2024
Response #1:"Please refer to the landscape layout plans and sheet LQ-1"
Response posted 10/23/2024
Inquiry #4: For Bid Item 95, Please identify the location of the 600 CY of Structural Concrete at the EV Charging Station Sheet C-39 and C-40.
Per plans, it shows that the existing asphalt parking lot remains. Per column detail, the concrete quantity is not adding up.
Please advise
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2024
Response #1:Addendum will be issued
Response posted 10/23/2024
Inquiry #5: CB 60MGA requires dowels to be embedded into existing bridge deck. Please clarify that Caltrans intent is to remove to remove a portion of the bridge deck to install the dowel per details shown for CB60MGA on A-76D? Will Caltrans Allow Contractor to utilize the existing rebar in the bridge decks?
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2024
Response #1:Please bid as you see it
Response posted 10/24/2024
Inquiry #6: The drainage profiles scales are incorrect, will Caltrans correct so formulating the right quantities can be accrued?
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2024
Response #1:The drainage profiles were drawn at Horizontal 1:10 and incorrectly labeled as 1:20. This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 10/24/2024
Inquiry #7: Please confirm if the Caltrans ROW's @ Dyer, Edinger & McArthur if any of these locations that are occupied by another contractor, question, will any of these locations be available for project 12-0R32U4 ?
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2024
Response #1: Please refer to the Section 5-1.20A of the special provisions."
Response posted 10/23/2024
Inquiry #8: Can ARHM Type G or O be placed full thickness (.20) in lieu of Callout 9 that states 2 separate mixes .10 ARHM Type G & .10 ARHM Type O ?
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2024
Response #1:Please bid as you see it
Response posted 10/23/2024
Inquiry #9: Bid Item 120: Remove Culvert (LF) What is the depth of the Culvert?
Inquiry submitted 10/22/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 10/24/2024
Inquiry #10: Bid Item 117: Which Grated Line does Caltrans want, No. 1, No.2, or No. 3?
Inquiry submitted 10/24/2024
Response #1:Please refer to section 70-6 of the standard specifications and the Authorized Material List (AML) for Grated Line Drains
Response posted 10/25/2024
Inquiry #11: Bid Item 119: Which Grated Line Drain to be removed is existing, No. 1, No.2, or No. 3?
Inquiry submitted 10/24/2024
Response #1: Bid as you see it. Drainage As-Built drawings are available for viewing at the District Office
Response posted 10/25/2024
Inquiry #12: Question: All the Concrete Collars depicted on Drainage Details Sheet DD-2 is it correct to assume these will be incidental to bid items 111, 113, 114, 115, & 118?
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2024
Response #1:Yes
Response posted 10/25/2024
Inquiry #13: Layout sheets show structural section 2 at the SB shoulder ending around Station "A" 1002+40 but the start of this section is not shown and the pavement limits are unclear. Please revise the plans to show the limits of structural section 2 near the SB 55 offramp to Tustin St/Lincoln Ave.
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2024
Response #1:Pavement section 2 starts at Sta 1002+50 which coincides with the matchline on sheet L-40
Response posted 10/29/2024
Inquiry #14: On the layout sheets there are various callouts for starts and ends of pavement types that do not correspond with the drawings. For instance: NB Station "A" 1045+80.61 indicates end of section 1 and 2, however the drawings appear to show section 1 and 2 ending around section 1026+00. Another example: at many on and offramps, the callout shows start and stop of section 1 and 2, yet the pavement type on the ramp is only section 1. This issue is present on K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, K-5, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-5, C-6, P-4, P-5, and I-1 lines.
Please correct the conflicting callouts to accurately reflect the work being performed.
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 10/29/2024
Inquiry #15: Bid Item 91 - 36" CIDH Pile quantities seem to be incorrect, Please Clarify
Inquiry submitted 10/28/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 10/29/2024
Inquiry #16: Bid Item 92 - 48" CIDH Pile cannot be found on sheet 39 as directed in the plan sheets. Please confirm.
Inquiry submitted 10/28/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 10/29/2024
Inquiry #17: Bid Item 91 - 36" CIDH Pile quantities seem to be incorrect, Please Clarify
Inquiry submitted 10/28/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 10/29/2024
Inquiry #18: Caltrans has another District 8 bidding on the same day. would Caltrans be able to coordinate to have one bid after the other?
Inquiry submitted 10/28/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. The bid date for this project has been postponed to 12/18/2024
Response posted 11/07/2024
Inquiry #19: Could the department please provide a breakdown for the 620 CY of Imported Borrow for line item 36? It does not appear to be reflected anywhere in the summary of quantities sheets.
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2024
Response #1:Please see table on sheet Q-8, second column from the right
Response posted 11/05/2024
Inquiry #20: Summary of Quantities Sheet Q-8 includes 1,265 CY of roadway excavation broken down by "GRADING" and "CONCRETE BARRIER". Please explain further: what work is being paid under each description?
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2024
Response #1:Grading" roadway excavation was calculated embankments. "Concrete Barrier" roadway excavationwas calculated installation of the concrete barrier"
Response posted 11/07/2024
Inquiry #21: Please review the bid quantities for line item 69 Class 2 Aggregate Subbase and 72 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A). The quantities associated with the ramp termini replacement shown on sheet Q-3 are double counted as they also appear on sheet Q-2 in the line for sheet L-20 structural section 6.
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in addendum
Response posted 11/07/2024
Inquiry #22: Please confirm that the slabs to be replaced under line item 86 will be Type II (design life 5 years or less) as per standard plan P8.
Inquiry submitted 10/31/2024
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 11/07/2024
Inquiry #23: Per the Drainage Profile sheets DP-6 and DP-7, the depth of the Grated Line Drains exceeds 12” for Drainage System 15, 16 17 and 19. Grated line drain’s depth ranges should range from 4-7/16 to 12 inches per Caltrans Standard Spec 2023 70-6.02A and Standard Plan D98G Note 3. Please clarify if the details are correct or will be amended in future amendments.
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/05/2024
Inquiry #24: Bid Item 98 & 118 - Call for Minor Structure/36" MH to be construct @ Station 319+00 this is at the same location of an existing junction structure, will Caltrans either adjust the stationing to construct the Manhole or modify the existing junction structure to 36" precast concrete pipe Manhole ?
Inquiry submitted 11/02/2024
Response #1:The proposal is to build a manhole on top of the junction point where the 60”, 96” and 102” RCP meet. Please refer to Standard Plan D93A for the manhole on top of an existing pipe.
Response posted 11/13/2024
Inquiry #25: Please provide specifications for the Electric Vehicle Chargers.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/05/2024
Inquiry #26: Drawings E-184, There is a keynote #3 on this drawing but no description.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/05/2024
Inquiry #27: Please confirm if the structural steel related to the PV canopy is design/build or if we are to price and build in accordance with the plans.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/05/2024
Inquiry #28: Page C-33 states that the Battery Storage System will be a lead-acid chemistry and have a “kWh storage of 2000kW” – these items don’t make sense. Typical battery energy storage systems are now Lithium Iron Phosphate chemistry and there are two ratings: kW and kWh. Please advise what Caltrans would like to see for the (2) BESS systems.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/05/2024
Inquiry #29: "Please advise what capabilities Caltrans would like to see for the BESS systems. Options are:
Peak demand shaving
Energy arbitrage
Backup power in case of a utility outage."
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/05/2024
Inquiry #30: Electrical drawings indicate a requirement for annual power generation of 450MWh from the PV canopies. The space allotted for PV is only capable of producing roughly 190MWh. Please advise if the canopies need to be larger to accommodate or if the power generation requirements will decrease.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/05/2024
Inquiry #31: Please advise if there are specifications for the PV modules and inverters or if bidders can propose solutions.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/05/2024
Inquiry #32: Drawing ED-55, The Photovoltaic one line refers to drawing ED-204 for additional information for the panels and service however, drawing ED-204 is not included in the package.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/05/2024
Inquiry #33: Drawings ED-55, The Photovoltaic one line refers to the Solar array drawing E-203 however, Drawing E-203 is not included in the package.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/05/2024
Inquiry #34: Bid Item 98 & 118 - Call for Minor Structure/36" MH to be construct @ Station 319+00 this is at the same location of an existing junction structure, will Caltrans either adjust the stationing to construct the Manhole or modify the existing junction structure to 36" precast concrete pipe Manhole ?
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2024
Response #1:The proposal is to build a manhole on top of the junction point where the 60”, 96” and 102” RCP meet. Please refer to Standard Plan D93A for the manhole on top of an existing pipe.
Response posted 11/13/2024
Inquiry #35: Question: Regarding Bid Item 98 & 118 can Caltrans consider moving Manhole B Drainage System 1 further north to approx. station 325+00 to get above the anticipated water table articulated in the contract documents, and reduce safety risk with a design depth in excess of 24'?
Question: If not can Caltrans provide an anticipated gallons per minute of water to be encountered and if that water can be discharged into the storm drain system ?
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2024
Response #1:The manhole (DS 1b) shall be constructed at Sta 334+00 as shown on the project plans.
Caltrans does not have the anticipated gallons per minute of water to be encountered
Response posted 11/13/2024
Inquiry #36: Please provide which item the removals of the individual slab replacements are to be paid. Typically the removals are there own item. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2024
Response #1:Please bid as you see it
Response posted 11/12/2024
Inquiry #37: Please explain where the 1,279 SY of Grind Existing Concrete Pavement shown on summary quantities sheet Q-3 will be constructed. If we are to grind the slabs being replaced, then the quantity is understated. Assuming the slabs are drawn correctly on the layouts (standard 15' long x 12' wide), then 137 EA panels x 180 SF = 24,660 SF or 2,740 SY.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2024
Response #1:Addendum will be issued
Response posted 11/27/2024
Inquiry #38: Please provide the methodology used to determine the quantity for the Replace Base work shown on summary of quantities sheet Q-3. This work is not shown anywhere else in the plans.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2024
Response #1:Replace base was calculated based on the assumption that a small percentage of individual slab replacements will require replacement of deteriorated base"
Response posted 11/07/2024
Inquiry #39: Given the number of outstanding issues yet to be addressed via addendum, will the department consider postponing the bid to allow ample time for review of the new information?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. The bid date for this project has been postponed to 12/18/2024
Response posted 11/07/2024
Inquiry #40: Please confirm, is line item 84 DOWEL BAR RETROFIT (JOINT) measured and paid for by each joint or by each dowel bar placed within the joint?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2024
Response #1:Addendum will be issued
Response posted 11/27/2024
Inquiry #41: Drawing ED-51, Please confirm the detail for the Charger stand on ED-51 is correct
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/07/2024
Inquiry #42: Drawing ED-51, The trench backfill detail on ED-51 shows 3 feet of concrete past the edge of the conduit when concrete is required. Please confirm this is meant to be 3' as we are used to seeing 3-6 Inches of concrete past the conduit
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/07/2024
Inquiry #43: Drawing ED-51, The trench backfill detail on ED-51 does not detail the spacing between conduits. Please indicate the desired conduit spacing when more than one conduit will be installed in the same trench.
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/07/2024
Inquiry #44: Please refer to plan sheets 789 thru 826 asn similar other work. The quantities for removal and placement of sidewalk or pavement work items are short to encompass the work required for this work. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2024
Response #1:Refer to Section 87 of the Standard Specifications
Response posted 12/17/2024
Inquiry #45: Standard Plan P3A note 3 states: "For joint layout at intersections, see Project Plans." Please provide a detail for the joint layout at the JPCP ramp termini to be constructed at the intersection of SB 55 offramp and East 17th Street.
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2024
Response #1:Addendum will be issued
Response posted 11/27/2024
Inquiry #46: Revised Standard Plan A76A shows a detail for embedding bent dowel bars in to a bridge deck when constructing Concrete Barrier Type 60MGA. It is not possible to embed bent dowel bars in an existing bridge deck without removing and replacing a portion of the deck. Please provide a detail for constructing this work and a method of payment for removal and replacement of the portion of the bridge. Alternatively, provide a detail for straight dowel bars to be drilled and bonded in to the existing bridge deck as was provided on recent contract 12-0S1104 Sheet 317 of 317 for the exact same scenario.
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in an addendum
Response posted 11/07/2024
Inquiry #47: MI-1, MI-2, MI-3 Motorist Information plan Note#3 states (exact locations of portable speed- traffic count detector and the CCTV will be determined by engineer) however there is no count of devices listed on plans, or in specs. Can you call out the number of total units needed for the AWIS system?
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2024
Response #1:This project does not have Motorist Information Plans
Response posted 11/13/2024
Inquiry #48: Please refer to plan sheets 962. The plans do not show the installation of a the enclosure and the relevant additional details for such installation. The plans infer a different installation. Please clarify those details or different type of use or construction.
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2024
Response #1:No separate enclosure is needed
Response posted 11/21/2024
Inquiry #49: Given the number of unanswered and pending addendums. We respectfully request a postponement until after the upcoming holidays since the vendors will be closed or on vacation the last 2 weeks.
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. The bid date for this project has been postponed to 12/18/2024
Response posted 11/13/2024
Inquiry #50: Please review plan sheets 588-594. Why were details for concrete barrier transitions hidden within "Sign Plans, Details, Specials, and Quantities" as per the index of plans? Should these plans be included in the construction details or structure plans instead?
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2024
Response #1:Please bid the project as is.
Response posted 12/12/2024
Inquiry #51: Please refer to sheet SC-14: around station 434+00 to 435+00, the concrete barrier rail to be constructed extends to the inside face of the temporary K-Rail. Please explain how the contractor is to form, pour, and strip the new barrier rail with the K-Rail in the way. Alternatively, please revise the staging to restripe and move traffic to allow ample room for construction.
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2024
Response #1:Refer to Detail A on sheet SCD-1
Response posted 11/13/2024
Inquiry #52: Please provide the needed information for our vendor for the grated line drain.
What is the inside width of the existing trench drain, what size rails are at the top of the existing trench drain, What is the width between the inside of the rails at the top of the existing trench drain?
What is the locking mechanism style for the existing grates (grates bolted to the rails, or possibly a round pin lock on all four corners of the grates?
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2024
Response #1:Proposed GLD width will be provided in an addendum. Drainage As-Built drawings are available for viewing at the District Office
Response posted 11/13/2024
Inquiry #53: In response and followed with a question to Caltrans answer of bidders inquiry #34. Response: Caltrans states the intent for the installation to be constructed at Station 334+00 where the existing junction structure is located. In contrast to the profile on sheet DP1 which clearly articulates a 102" RCP pipe. Caltrans response raises some questions that changes the process to construct. If contractor is to construct proposed manhole at station 334+00 Caltrans needs to address the following: Question: What are the outside dimensions of existing structure? this needs to be understood for our shoring methods, with the additional width that differs from the profile shown on sheet DP1, will traffic be impacted causing permanent lane closure while construction manhole? Please confirm so we can adjust our shoring and traffic control needs. Will Caltrans assign an allowance for this bid item?
Inquiry submitted 11/19/2024
Response #1:The depth of the existing 102" RCP is shown in profile DS1b on DP-1. For manhole frame and cover detail, please refer to "NON-ROCKING MANHOLE FRAME & COVER" in Standard Plan B7-11. For upper manhole structure detail, please refer to "TYPE MANHOLE, UPPER STRUCTURE" in Standard Plan D-91B. For connection between the precast riser and existing RCP, please refer to "WITH 36" PRECAST RISERS" in Stand Plans D93A
Response posted 12/12/2024
Inquiry #54: Due to the long lead time for materials, will Caltrans consider adding 180 days for material procurement?
Inquiry submitted 11/26/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. Due to the anticipated duration of this project, the department will not be including a 180 day delayed start.
Response posted 12/10/2024
Inquiry #55: Given that the current bid date is less than two weeks away, and addenda have not yet been issued to address questions from over a month ago, we respectfully request that the department postpone this bid until after the holidays to allow contractors and vendors ample time to review the provided information and quote the job. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Inquiry submitted 12/05/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. The bid opening date for this project has been postponed to January 7, 2025
Response posted 12/17/2024
Inquiry #56: With the issuance of bidder inquiry responses, revised plans and specifications, we respectfully request that the bid date be extended 2 weeks.
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. The bid opening date for this project has been postponed to January 7, 2025
Response posted 12/17/2024
Inquiry #57: Addendum 3 revised the bid quantity for item 90 GRIND EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT to 10,300 SY. Please provide a breakdown or detail showing the limits for this work. There is approximately 29,000 SY of existing concrete pavement within the project limits (sheets L-14 through L-17) and 2,740 SY of panels being replaced (per the Slab Replacement Quantities table on sheet Q-3). How did the department come up with 10,300 SY?
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2024
Response #1:Please refer to section 42-3.03B of the Standard Specifications
Response posted 12/10/2024
Inquiry #58: Regarding this question and answer:
"Inquiry #44: Standard Plan P3A note 3 states: "For joint layout at intersections, see Project Plans." Please provide a detail for the joint layout at the JPCP ramp termini to be constructed at the intersection of SB 55 offramp and East 17th Street.
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2024
Response #1:Addendum will be issued
Response posted 11/27/2024"
Addendum 3 did not address this issue. Is another addendum forthcoming?
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2024
Response #1:Please refer to Special Provision Section 40-5 included in Addendum No. 3
Response posted 12/09/2024
Inquiry #59: Regarding this question and answer:
"Inquiry #49: Please refer to sheet SC-14: around station 434+00 to 435+00, the concrete barrier rail to be constructed extends to the inside face of the temporary K-Rail. Please explain how the contractor is to form, pour, and strip the new barrier rail with the K-Rail in the way. Alternatively, please revise the staging to restripe and move traffic to allow ample room for construction.
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2024
Response #1:Refer to Detail A on sheet SCD-1
Response posted 11/13/2024"
Detail A on sheet SCD-1 does not address the issue as it merely provides dimensions for channelizer and sign spacing and minimum spacing on the traffic side of the K-Rail. The issue is on the work area side. There is not enough room to construct the new type 60 barrier. Please review and revise the staging to allow room to work.
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in addendum
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #60: What is the required depth of CIDH piling for the double luminaire mast arm lighting standard 15D? According to sheet C-9 the depth should be 8'2", but sheet SES-4 indicates a pile depth of 9'6". Which dimension is correct?
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024
Response #1:The detail on sheet SES-4 is only intended to be used for two locations with sign panels mounted on the pole. Please refer to the depth shown on sheet C-9 for others.
Response posted 12/09/2024
Inquiry #61: Addendum 3 revised the quantity of 36" CIDH piling for the EV Charging Station to 280 LF. There appears to be a total of 9 piles each at a depth of 15 FT, meaning the quantity should be 135 LF. Where is the additional 145 LF of 36" CIDH piling?
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #62: Summary of quantities sheet Q-1 includes a table for EV Charging Station Structure Quantities. The table indicates 150 CY of Structure Excavation and 600 CY of Structural Concrete on sheet C-39, both of which are Final Pay Items. There is no work on this sheet that would amount to these quantities and we are unable to decipher what work is to be performed. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #63: Please address this question that was sent on 11/14/2024: In response and followed with a question to Caltrans answer of bidders inquiry #34. Response: Caltrans states the intent for the installation to be constructed at Station 334+00 where the existing junction structure is located. In contrast to the profile on sheet DP1 which clearly articulates a 102" RCP pipe. Caltrans response raises some questions that changes the process to construct. If contractor is to construct proposed manhole at station 334+00 Caltrans needs to address the following: Question: What are the outside dimensions of existing structure? this needs to be understood for our shoring methods, with the additional width that differs from the profile shown on sheet DP1, will traffic be impacted causing permanent lane closure while constructing manhole? Please confirm so we can adjust our shoring and traffic control needs. Will Caltrans assign an allowance for this bid item?
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2024
Response #1:Please bid as you see it
Response posted 12/10/2024
Inquiry #64: Please provide Clarity on Layout Sheet L-18 of Addendum 3. Call-outs 1 & 2 are co-mingled, please identify the correct limits for the correct call-out.
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2024
Response #1:
Response posted 12/10/2024
Response #2:Sheet L-18 (Sheet No. 26) was not included in Addendum 3
Response posted 12/12/2024
Inquiry #65: We have contacted some of our subcontractors, (Electrical/Area Signs, etc) and they are either non responsive or short staffed due to the holidays, being a disadvantaged or small business, or trying to obtain DBE participations, some have stated that they will decline to provide a proposal or DBE contributions if an extension to the bid date is not issued to make the proper adjustments to addendum 3. If not, will Caltrans reduce the DBE goal to provide a fair bid process for all contractors regarding this issue?
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. The bid opening date for this project has been postponed to January 7, 2025
Response posted 12/17/2024
Inquiry #66: Please review the quantities provided for line items 83 and 89 associated with the concrete work at 17th Street Offramp termini. The ramp termini is about 4,780 SF and the depth of concrete for structural section is 0.95'. Therefore, the concrete removal and JPCP RSC items should be about 168 CY each, vs the bid quantity of 520 CY.
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in addendum
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #67: Please review the excavation quantity for the ramp termini construction at 17th St Offramp. Summary of quantities sheet Q-3 includes removals for the existing concrete only. The underlying base needs to be removed in order to place the full pavement section 6. Summary of quantities sheet Q-2 does not include any volume for roadway excavation at this location. How is the contractor compensated for the required removal of the underlying base?
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in addendum
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #68: This contract includes two bid items for portable changeable message systems. Item 13 with a quantity of 4 EA and item 14 with a quantity of 1 LS. Please confirm: is item 13 specific to the Construction Workzone Speed Limit Reduction scope and item 14 for any CMS needed for lane closures and detours?
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2024
Response #1:Bid Item 13 is intended for the Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction only.
Response posted 12/12/2024
Inquiry #69: Reference Construction Details sheet C-38: the bottom right corner of the Reference Plan includes callouts for "FRMG" and "FND" with references that do not seem to correlate with anything in the bid documents. Is there some sort of concrete pad or foundation for the EV Charging Station Structure that needs to be constructed outside of the removal and replacement limits shown on sheet C-32? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2024
Response #1:Details were labeled incorrectly. Callout "6.6" is C-39 and callout "6.7" is C-40
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #70: Constructing DS1 manhole B at station 334+00 will require excavation of greater than 20 feet deep less than 7 feet away from the NB traveled way. The depth of excavation and proximity to the roadway will necessitate shoring to protect workers, and temporary barrier rail to protect the work area from the traveling public. Stage Construction and Traffic Handling Plans only provide for K-Rail at this location during Stage 2 on sheet SC-8. However, when the drainage plans for DS 1 are overlayed over SC-8, there is only 2 feet between the back of the temporary barrier rail and the manhole for DS1 manhole B. This is not enough space to excavate, set shoring, and ultimately form and pour the junction between the existing pipe and the RCP riser. Please relocate manhole B to a location that will not require such deep shoring, or provide an additional stage that allows room to construct the manhole while maintaining a safe work area. This work can not be constructed in one night using standard lane closures.
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2024
Response #1:The manhole can be constructed per plan with appropriate shoring and dewatering measures. The existing shoulder width is wide enough to accommodate this construction.
Response posted 12/18/2024
Inquiry #71: Are the individual slabs to be replaced accurately depicted on the layout sheets? For instance, at station 657+00 there are a series of panels to be replaced that appear to extend in to both the number 2 and 3 lanes. If the slabs are accurately depicted, meaning the joints do not line up with the lane lines, then please explain how the contractor is to replace these panels while maintaining a buffer lane as required by standard specifications section 12-4.02C(4)?
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2024
Response #1:Please bid as you see it.
Response posted 12/12/2024
Inquiry #72: Addendum 4 did not address Inquiry number 4, details show concrete but there is no paving plan
For Bid Item 95, Please identify the location of the 600 CY of Structural Concrete at the EV Charging Station Sheet C-39 and C-40.
Per plans, it shows that the existing asphalt parking lot remains. Per column detail, the concrete quantity is not adding up.
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2024
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #73: REFER TO PLAN SHEET E186 AND ADDENDUM 3. DOES CALTRANS HAVE A PRE-APPROVED EV MANUFACTURES OR VENDORS WHO CAN PROVIDE THIS SYSTEM? THERE HAS BEEN INSUFFICENT TIME TO FIND VENDORS WHO CAN REVIEW AND ANALYZE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUITABILITY FOR BUILD. IS THERE ANY SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OR CERTIFICATIONS FOR THE INSTALLER?
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:There is no preferred vendor or manufacturer. Refer to Section 87-10 of the Special Provision included in Addendum 3
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #74: This project is scheduled to bid in less than one week. We have submitted at least ten questions that have yet to be posted. Will the department be postponing this bid again?
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. The bid opening date for this project has been postponed to January 7, 2025
Response posted 12/17/2024
Inquiry #75: Please confirm quantity for BI 224 Drill and Bond Dowel Bar 620 EA.
With 2 EA dowels @ 12" spacing for 660 LF of 60MGA Mod I believe there should be more.
Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:Bid item 224 is intended only for pavement work. The reinforcement and dowel bars contained in Type 60MGA(Mod) Concrete Barrier should be included in Bid Item 225.
Response posted 12/12/2024
Inquiry #76: Please respond to these questions submitted on 12/10/2024
1. Please provide Clarity on Layout Sheet L-18 of Addendum 3. Call-outs 1 & 2 are co-mingled, please identify the correct limits for the correct call-out.
2. We have contacted some of our subcontractors, (Electrical/Area Signs, etc) and they are either non responsive or short staffed due to the holidays, being a disadvantaged or small business, or Non DBE Subcontractors trying to obtain DBE participations, some have stated that they will decline to provide a proposal or DBE contributions if an extension to the bid date is not issued to make the proper adjustments to addendum 3. If not, will Caltrans reduce the DBE goal to provide a fair bid process for all contractors regarding this issue?
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. The bid opening date for this project has been postponed to January 7, 2025."
Response posted 12/17/2024
Inquiry #77: Erosion control tongue and the curb should not be apart of the same Bid Item as they are completely different from each other and different scopes of work.
Erosion control tongue at 12"x10" sitting next to the barrier has no benefit and would be better off as a 3'x10" Erosion Control Tongue throughout, paid under the 60MS bid item.
Please confirm the states intent and advise.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:Please bid the project as is.
Response posted 12/12/2024
Inquiry #78: Special Provisions section 20-2.06B(2)(a) provides Department obtained quotes prices for irrigation controller "C," but the prices provided expired on 06/30/2024. Additionally, there is a conflict regarding the irrigation controller equipment described in section 20-2.06B(2)(a) and equipment description in the table when compared against the bid item list. Bid Item 53 description reads, "24-32 STATION IRRIGATION CONTROLLER (WALL MOUNTED)," however, Special Provisions and model #: SA04-WT3-18 specify a pedestal-mounted controller with 18 stations capacity. Please provide valid quotes prices, correct enclosure type, and correct station capacity.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:The department obtained price quotes are for reference only and are good until 6/30/2024. Should additional information be needed, the contact is listed in the special provisions. The department specifies the use of a Hydropoint/WeatherTrak ET PRO3, 18 station controller. The use of model SA04-WT3-18 is not specifically required.
Response posted 12/12/2024
Inquiry #79: There is a call-out on irrigation plan sheet IP-10 for 10 LF of 6" Corrugated High Density Polyethylene (CHDPE) Pipe Conduit. This size and quantity of CHDPE Pipe Conduit is not shown on sheet irrigation quantities plan sheet IQ-1 nor bid item list. Please advise where this item of work shall be paid under.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:Please bid as you see it.
Response posted 12/12/2024
Inquiry #80: Please confirm that Bid Item 53 "24-32 STATION IRRIGATION CONTROLLER (WALL MOUNTED)" will be replacing existing ICC "C" 12 station shown on irrigation plan sheet IP-14. Per irrigation quantities plan sheet IQ-1, the new controller is located on IP-14.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #81: On irrigation plan sheet IP-15 there is a discrepancy between the call-out and symbol on plan for the existing ball valve located next to valve A-24. The symbol is crossed out as if to indicate that the existing ball valve shall be removed, but call-out has not been crossed out. Please advise if this ball valve is to be removed or if it is to be protected in place.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #82: Reference Sheet C-5: Case2 > 150' to 500' Length includes a callout that says SEE NOTES 2 and 3. Note 3 states "CONSTRUCT FOOTING ENTIRE LENGTH OF CONCRETE BARRIER". Section B-B does not show a footing. Which is correct, note 3 or the section B-B drawing?
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:This will be addressed in addendum
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #83: Does construction details sheet C-5 apply to all 60MS barrier found on the project? If not, could the department please identify the locations where it does?
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:" Yes C-5 applies to all 60MS on this project
Response posted 12/17/2024
Inquiry #84: With the recent issuance of bidder inquiry responses, revised plans & specifications, and subs & suppliers holiday vacations and closures, we will not be able to submit a responsible bid by the current bid date. Please consider a postponement of the bid date until after the upcoming holidays.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. The bid opening date for this project has been postponed to January 7, 2025
Response posted 12/17/2024
Inquiry #85: Is the 36" x 4" Asphalt Concrete shown on sheet C-5 section A-A paid under item 72? There is 40 T of HMA Type A shown on sheet Q-7, but the quantities are only applied to 60MS barriers greater than 150' long. Sheet C-5 only includes asphalt concrete under the erosion tongue for 60MS barriers less than 150' long. Please clarify the department's intent.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:Please bid as you see it
Response posted 01/05/2025
Inquiry #86: Please answer this question sent on 12-10. We have contacted some of our subcontractors, (Electrical/Area Signs, etc) and they are either non responsive or short staffed due to the holidays, being a disadvantaged or small business, or Non DBE Subcontractors trying to obtain DBE participations, some have stated that they will decline to provide a proposal or DBE contributions if an extension to the bid date is not issued to make the proper adjustments to addendum 3. If not, will Caltrans reduce the DBE goal to provide a fair bid process for all contractors regarding this issue?
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. The bid opening date for this project has been postponed to January 7, 2025."
Response posted 12/17/2024
Inquiry #87: Will Caltrans extend the bid date to allow more time for contractors to address the ambiguities not addressed by the state? In reference to "bid as you see it"
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2024
Response #1:Thank you for your inquiry. The bid opening date for this project has been postponed to January 7, 2025."
Response posted 12/17/2024
Inquiry #88: Layout sheet L-11, calls-out the curb to be ground down to 2”-4” from finish surface, adjacent to the proposed MGS. We have communicated our subcontractor, and they have advised that is not feasible to provide a smooth finish to the proposed depth. Please provide clarity on Caltran’s design intent, with what would be acceptable for the grind finish of the existing curb?
Inquiry submitted 12/13/2024
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 12/19/2024
Inquiry #89: Regarding the following question and answer:
"Inquiry #62: Summary of quantities sheet Q-1 includes a table for EV Charging Station Structure Quantities. The table indicates 150 CY of Structure Excavation and 600 CY of Structural Concrete on sheet C-39, both of which are Final Pay Items. There is no work on this sheet that would amount to these quantities and we are unable to decipher what work is to be performed. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2024
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 12/19/2024"
There are numerous contractors all asking the same question. As we see it, there is either a bust in the quantities or missing information needed to be able to bid the work. Please provide the engineer's calculation or method for determining the quantities in question so that the contractor isn't made to assume unnecessary risks. Alternatively, please remove the final pay designation for each item so that the contractor may be eligible for an item adjustment change order when the items underrun.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2024
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 01/06/2025
Inquiry #90: Please confirm the design was base on the use of a carport canopy style PV installation. This will determine the wattage being produced.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2024
Response #1:Yes, the design was based on the use of a carport canopy style PV installation
Response posted 12/23/2024
Inquiry #91: Please confirm the the inverter and battery sizes for the PV installation. This will determine the types to purchase.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2024
Response #1:Two (2) inverters 63-65KW/each, and two (2) BESS 172kW/ea
Response posted 12/23/2024
Inquiry #92: Please confirm if we will in fact be allowed to bid on this Project - Young’s Iron Works is a City of Los Angeles Certified Steel Fabricator & we are Union field, and all steel is detailed & fabricated per the latest AISC Manual, however we do not comply with the following requirement (Ref. Structural Steel Notes / Sheet C-35.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2024
Response #1:All notes and requirements on the project plans must be followed
Response posted 12/24/2024
Inquiry #93: Steel note on C-35 calls that “structural steel fabricator must participate in the AISC quality certification program and must be designated an AISC-certified plant” Would you be willing to waive this requirement as long as all steel is detailed and fabricated per the latest AISC Manual?
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2024
Response #1:All notes and requirements on the project plans must be followed
Response posted 12/24/2024
Inquiry #94: Please confirm that all steel is in fact to be hot dip galvanized.
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2024
Response #1:All steel must be galvanized as they are exposed to the elements
Response posted 12/23/2024
Inquiry #95: Reference addendum 3 sheet Q-1. 36" CIDH Piling was revised from 50 to 280 LF. However, the row indicating what sheet this work is found in was not filled in, only the total row at the bottom of the table. Is there 36" CIDH piling anywhere else in the plans other than sheet C-39?
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2024
Response #1:36" CIDH Piling is only used on sheet C-39 for the EV Charging Station Canopy Foundation
Response posted 12/23/2024
Inquiry #96: Hi, According to the specs, Section 87-1.03b(3)(A) specifies the use of Type 1 conduit for underground installation. Could you please clarify if, in the bid item for modifying lighting systems, it is acceptable to use Type 3 conduit, as the specs also mention that Type 3 conduit is permissible for underground installation in corrosive soil
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2024
Response #1:Type 3 conduit can be acceptable.
Response posted 12/26/2024
Inquiry #97: Regarding the following question and answer:
"Inquiry #91: Reference addendum 3 sheet Q-1. 36" CIDH Piling was revised from 50 to 280 LF. However, the row indicating what sheet this work is found in was not filled in, only the total row at the bottom of the table. Is there 36" CIDH piling anywhere else in the plans other than sheet C-39?
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2024
Response #1:36" CIDH Piling is only used on sheet C-39 for the EV Charging Station Canopy Foundation
Response posted 12/23/2024"
Thank you for confirming that 36" CIDH is only used on sheet C-39. C-39 shows a total of 9 columns for the canopy foundation. Per sheet C-41, each column includes a 15' deep CIDH pile. 9 EA x 15' = 135', yet sheet Q-1 indicates 280' of 36" CIDH piling. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2024
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 01/06/2025
Inquiry #98: Geotech report CIDH dimensions don't match with the ones on the plans. Please confirm Geo report is only a recommendation and not the final dimensions.
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2024
Response #1:The project should be constructed per the project plans.
Response posted 12/24/2024
Inquiry #99: Bid date (January 7) is right after the holidays. Kindly we ask to push the bid date a few days.
Inquiry submitted 12/23/2024
Response #1:The bid opening date for this project has already been delayed twice. The bid opening date will remain January 7
Response posted 01/06/2025
Inquiry #100: Bid date is right after the Holiday period. Kindly we ask to push this bid a few days.
Inquiry submitted 12/24/2024
Response #1:The bid opening date for this project has already been delayed twice. The bid opening date will remain January 7
Response posted 01/06/2025
Inquiry #101: Kindly we request to push this bid one more week to avoid having 2 bids (district 7 and district 12) the same day after the holiday period.
Inquiry submitted 12/24/2024
Response #1:The bid opening date for this project has already been delayed twice. The bid opening date will remain January 7
Response posted 01/06/2025
Inquiry #102: Per Addendum # 5 the excavation bid quantity for the ramp termini removal has been revised to 349 CY and the quantity of JPCP (RSC) was changed to 170 CY on sheet Q-3 . Can you clarify why these two quantities do not match?
Inquiry submitted 12/30/2024
Response #1:The 170 CY quantity is only for placing JPCP. The 349 CY quantity for bid Item "Remove Concrete Pavement and Base" includes removal of the base
Response posted 01/05/2025
Inquiry #103: Does the department intend to post the various bidders questions that we have submitted 10+ days ago regarding the quantity discrepancies surrounding the EV charging station work?
Inquiry submitted 01/02/2025
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 01/06/2025
Inquiry #104: At some point, Bid item 33 - Roadway Excavation Qty was changed in an addendum. Please advise what changed the quantity to 30 CY, Addendum 5 Plan Sheet Q-8 shows Roadway Excavation with a Qty of 1,672 CY which is the original quantity.
Inquiry submitted 01/02/2025
Response #1:This was addressed in addendum 6
Response posted 01/06/2025
Inquiry #105: Refer to Plan Sheet Page 970. The typical details shown on 'Detail B' do not match up to the work shown on the respective work shown on the applicable plans and may have mutliple conflicts. Please clarify or we will assume the project plans are going to be used in the work.
Inquiry submitted 01/03/2025
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 01/06/2025
Inquiry #106: Please confirm the pay bid items and special provision sections where the EV canopy structure work shown on the construction details plans (plan sheets C32 to C42) are applicable.
Inquiry submitted 01/03/2025
Response #1:Please refer to Standard Spec Section 49 and 55
Response posted 01/06/2025
Inquiry #107: Regarding the following question and answer:
"Inquiry #70: Constructing DS1 manhole B at station 334+00 will require excavation of greater than 20 feet deep less than 7 feet away from the NB traveled way. The depth of excavation and proximity to the roadway will necessitate shoring to protect workers, and temporary barrier rail to protect the work area from the traveling public. Stage Construction and Traffic Handling Plans only provide for K-Rail at this location during Stage 2 on sheet SC-8. However, when the drainage plans for DS 1 are overlayed over SC-8, there is only 2 feet between the back of the temporary barrier rail and the manhole for DS1 manhole B. This is not enough space to excavate, set shoring, and ultimately form and pour the junction between the existing pipe and the RCP riser. Please relocate manhole B to a location that will not require such deep shoring, or provide an additional stage that allows room to construct the manhole while maintaining a safe work area. This work can not be constructed in one night using standard lane closures.
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2024
Response #1:The manhole can be constructed per plan with appropriate shoring and dewatering measures. The existing shoulder width is wide enough to accommodate this construction.
Response posted 12/18/2024"
While it may be correct that there would be enough room to construct this manhole assuming the entire existing shoulder width was usable work area, that is not the case here. As per sheet SC-8, there is no lane shift in this area meaning the temporary barrier rail will sit within the existing shoulder, thus minimizing the work area.
The manhole is shown about 7' away from the edge of the traveled way when scaled off the layout drawings. Once temporary barrier rail is set per detail A on sheet SC-8, there is not enough room to construct this manhole within the stage construction area that the State has specified. Again, please revise the staging accordingly or relocate the manhole.
Inquiry submitted 01/03/2025
Response #1:Bid as you see it
Response posted 01/06/2025
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.