Bidder Inquiries

Sign In | Create Account

Viewing inquiries for 03-0F3514

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: When does Caltrans anticipate construction starting for this project?
Inquiry submitted 10/04/2017

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/04/2017


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/04/2017




Inquiry #2: Reference Plan Sheet L-2: Location C (H Street) requires a new retaining wall to be installed. The structure plans provided do not include this wall like they do for the other proposed walls being constructed for the project. Please provide details / plans for the wall at Location C.
Inquiry submitted 10/05/2017

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/05/2017


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to plan sheet 56 of 375, C-26, of the project plans, and Standard Plan B3-3B.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/05/2017




Inquiry #3: Special Provision Page 26 & 27 / Section 7-1.02K(6)(j)(iii), states that the Contractor may haul and place the surplus excavated material on the right-of-way at SR 51 EB off ramp loop to Exposition Boulevard. Please clarify the following as the plans / specifications do not clearly describe and there are potential large cost impacts:

1.) Confirm that all surplus excavated material for the project can be placed here, including the locations identified on the plans as containing ADL. In general, confirm that all surplus excavated material generated from the project is allowed to be placed at this site.
2.) Please specify where exactly this surplus material is required to be placed – which side of ramp, approximate distance / offset from Route 51 or Exposition Boulevard, provide a plan sheet with approximate dump site identified, etc,.. Placement may vary considerably depending on required location.
3.) What other specific requirements are to be adhered to – stockpile material only, any BMP’s required, place over designated area to specific compaction spec, etc,..?
4.) There are no lane charts / working hours provided for Exposition Boulevard, what if any traffic control restrictions / lane chart requirements apply when hauling to and placing material at this location?
5.) The last two paragraphs of this Special Provision section discuss material disposal for commercial landfills, etc,.. Do any of these requirements (lead concentration disclosure, additional sampling / analysis, etc,..) apply if the Contractor uses the designated Exposition Boulevard off ramp dump location in the right-of-way?

Inquiry submitted 10/09/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/09/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017




Inquiry #4: In the Special Provisions, 55 hour closures are allowed per Lane Charts J2 (Arden Way) and J5 (for any ramp listed in the chart) but only for one time during the life of the contract. Please clarify the following as it will have cost impacts:

1.) For Chart J5, please confirm that one 55 hour closure is allowed for each of the 7 ramps noted in the chart and not one 55 hour closure for that entire lane chart (for just one ramp of the contractor's choosing).
2.) Are the 55 hour closures allowed in any phase of the ramp construction at the Contractor's choosing, or only for the phase shown in the staging plans? For example, Sheet SC-1 (Location B - Arden Way / Phase 1) notes a 55 hour closure. Sheet SC-2 (Location B - Arden Way / Phase 2) does not have a similar note for a 55 hour closure. Does this mean that a 55 hour closure is only allowed for Phase 1 at Location B? This same question pertains to several locations where the 55 hour closure note is only shown on a single phase for that particular location.

Inquiry submitted 10/10/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/10/2017


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to Chart No. J5 in Section 12-4.02C(3)(j) of the Special Provisions and the Stage Construction (SC) sheets in the Project Plans. Only one 55-hour closure is allowed for each of the 7 ramps noted on Chart J5 and only for the phase shown for each ramp in the staging plans.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/11/2017




Inquiry #5: Reference Plan Sheets X-14 and SC-31. SC-31 sections note the "K1" and "K2" lines, assume these should read "L1" and "L2" lines respectively, please clarify.

For the "L1" line (shown as "K1" line on Sheet SC-31), the new section at C-C is called out as 0.25' cold plane / 0.10' RHMA-G / 0.15' HMA-A. This appears to be the section being depicted on Sheet X-14 also (typical section for "L1" line), however Sheet X-14 calls the new section out as "P-2" (0.10' RHMA-O / 0.45' HMA-A / 1.35' Class 2 AB). Please clarify the new section that is to be constructed for the "L1" line.

Inquiry submitted 10/12/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/12/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017




Inquiry #6: For several locations, the staging plans ("SC" sheets) call out a proposed road section to be built that does not match the proposed road sections shown in the typical cross sections ("X" sheets). Please correct the sections shown to match between the corresponding "SC" and "X" sheets, or clarify that only the new sections shown on the "X" sheets are correct and to be followed for bid purposes.
Inquiry submitted 10/12/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/12/2017


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/17/2017




Inquiry #7: For Bid Item #121 (Minor Concrete - Textured Paving), please provide the specific color and stamp / texture pattern required.

Inquiry submitted 10/12/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/12/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017




Inquiry #8: Reference Plan Sheets L-13, L-14 and C-7. Sheet C-7 shows both gores for Cosumnes River Blvd (slip on ramp and loop on ramp) getting 0.33' Minor Concrete (Textured Paving) since they are only listed under Section A-A and not Section B-B. However on Sheets L-13 and L-14, the hatching for the two gores is different when comparing the "L1" line gore and "L2" line gore. For other locations, this depiction / hatching allows for one gore to be concrete and the other gore to be HMA. Although both gores have a start / stop callout as "textured" on the layout sheets. Please clarify what detail / material section is to be used for these two gores.


Inquiry submitted 10/12/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/12/2017


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/17/2017


Response #3:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017




Inquiry #9: For Location H, the structure plans for Fruitridge Road require the wall to be constructed per Standard Plan B3-4A (Retaining Wall Type 5 / Case 1). Please see the following questions:

1.) The Retaining Wall Layout Sheet 1 calls for a design H = 12’ from wall Station 0+00 to 0+81, however it appears the wall height does not equal 12' and varies in this location based on the top of wall / bottom of footing elevations provided. Please clarify.

2.) Standard Plan B3-4A provides a rebar table showing a max wall height of 12'. Retaining Wall Layout Sheet 1 calls for a step at wall station 0+81 which makes the wall greater than 12' tall at this location based on the top of wall and bottom of footing elevations provided (which also conflicts with layout sheet notes for a design H = 12' for this location). Please clarify if this is the correct standard plan to be used for this section of wall and the layout sheet elevations are incorrect, or if a different standard plan is to be used.

3.) Per the structure plan sheet provided for Retaining Wall Detail #1, the finished grade elevation (HMA) is supposed to match the top of wall elevation. However the top of wall elevations provided in Retaining Wall Layout Sheets 1 and 2 do not match the HMA finished grade elevations provided in the project's cross sections. Please clarify if all top of wall elevations are to match adjacent finished grade elevations for HMA provided in the cross sections, or if the top of wall elevations are to be followed per the structure plans and there will be a step between top of wall and the adjacent finished grade for HMA. This clarification is needed as it may considerably change the structure excavation and backfill quantities.




Inquiry submitted 10/20/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/20/2017


Response #2:An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017




Inquiry #10: Please specify how you came up with the quantities for the Vegetation Control item. The summary of quantities and the layout sheets do not match.
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/23/2017


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to sheet 180 of 375 (Q-1) of the Project Plans. The required Vegetation Control is noted in the table. Some of the locations were not labeled on the layout sheets.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/06/2017




Inquiry #11: Some of the drainage profile sheets do not note the length of "Culvert Removal" while other drainage profile sheets do note the length of removal. For example, see DS1c and DS7c. Please revise the drawings to reflect the length of culvert removal.
Inquiry submitted 10/31/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/31/2017


Response #2:
On DP-2, the length of culvert removal for DS 1 is stated. For DS 7, the removal of the culvert is required in order to place the new culvert. Culverts to be removed, where the length is not noted on the profile sheets, should be able to be estimated by the culverts they are being replaced by.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/02/2017




Inquiry #12: On drainage plan sheet D8, DS11j calls out 18" RCP. On drainage profile sheet DP8, DS11j calls out 18" APC. Which is the correct call out?
Inquiry submitted 10/31/2017

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/31/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017




Inquiry #13: The special provisions do not clearly state any coordination requirements between stages / phases of various ramps. Is that correct that each ramp's phase must be completed in order per the "SC" plan sheets for that ramp only, however there are no phasing coordination requirements between separate ramps? For example Phase 2 or 3 at Location B could be completed before Phase 1 at Location C is even started, etc,.. at the contractor's discretion. Please confirm.
Inquiry submitted 10/31/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/31/2017


Response #2:
The Phase is only in relation to the sequential staging for each ramp. Phase 1 for a given ramp must be completed before Phase 2 and Phase 2 before Phase 3 for that same ramp, etc. The Contractor does not have to complete each Phase 1 for all ramps before moving to Phase 2. He may have multiple ramps at different phases as long as the work is allowed per the traffic control charts.
Response posted 11/02/2017




Inquiry #14: Reference Plan Sheet L-14: At Station 108+58.10 of "L1" line, notes describe work as including B2-6 curb, minor concrete sidewalk and concrete misc area. However the enlarged view of this area on plan sheet C-21 / Section A-A shows minor concrete "textured paving" in between the curbs. Please clarify which is correct for the proposed concrete at this location.

Inquiry submitted 10/31/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/31/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017




Inquiry #15: Reference Plan Sheet C-16, Detail for "47th Avenue Loop On Ramp". The plan view of the reconstruct work along the "J1" line describes the proposed / hatched work area as "HMA (Misc AREA)". However the applicable Section D-D shown adjacent to this calls out the proposed work as "0.33' Minor Concrete". It appears this area is called out as HMA in the quantity summary tables. Please clarify which is correct and adjust bid item quantities as necessary to match.
Inquiry submitted 10/31/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 10/31/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017




Inquiry #16: For Location C (H Street), the typical cross section on Plan Sheet X-3 shows HMA dike from Station 104+96 - 105+10 and 105+80 - 105+92. Both the layout on sheet L-2 and construction detail on sheet C-26 do not show or call out HMA dike. Please clarify which is correct.
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/01/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017




Inquiry #17: There are numerous ramps for the project that call for 55 hour ramp closures in the Stage Construction and Traffic Handling Plans and also noted in the lane charts. It appears Caltrans’ intent for these locations is that 100% of the work be completed within the 55 hour ramp closure prior to the ramp being opened back up to traffic and prior to k-rail installation to start Phase 2. For these locations requiring new concrete curb installation, it is not realistic to have this new concrete poured / cured and the adjacent slot graded / paved back with HMA within the 55 hour ramp closure. These areas will require a temporary 4:1 taper at the edge of the excavation when the ramp is opened to traffic on Monday morning without k-rail installed on other side of traffic. Additionally, the grading and HMA paving work remaining for Phase 1 completion will have to be completed by the Contractor under separate night ramp closures following concrete cure. Please confirm separate night ramp closures are allowed to complete the 55 hour closure scope (Phase 1), or clarify what Caltrans’ intent is for these locations / closures in order to avoid additional traffic control costs.
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/01/2017


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/02/2017




Inquiry #18: For Locations B, G and H - The new retaining walls / soldier pile wall are to be constructed during Phase 2 per each ramp’s staging plans. It appears Caltrans’ intent is for all work to be completed during the day behind k-rail and not to impact traffic. However due to the wall footprint and space constraints, the necessary equipment / haul truck access to drive behind the k-rail will not be feasible for roadway excavation truck loading / export, structure backfill import, aggregate base import, HMA, concrete pumps, etc,.. . Therefore nearly all work for these locations will require the Contractor to incur considerable additional costs to set up nightly ramp closures (with detours as necessary) in order to complete the Phase 2 scope. Due to space constraints, similar issues may arise for work behind k-rail for Locations F, I, J, K and L. Please confirm that separate / nightly ramp closures (with detours as necessary) are allowed after k-rail is set in order to complete any work necessary that is behind the k-rail per the staging plans. If separate ramp closures are not allowed, please clarify Caltrans' intent for construction of these phases as it relates to the required equipment access.
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/01/2017


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/02/2017




Inquiry #19: The textured concrete specifically calls out the AB section required underneath it. Please clarify what the Class 2 AB section is under curbs, sidewalks and curb ramps.
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/06/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017




Inquiry #20: Addendum #2 states that bids will be opened on "Tuesday", November 15. Is Caltrans extending the bid date to Tuesday, November 21? Or is the bid date not changing and remaining November 15 (Wednesday)? Is there a bid date extension anticipated to allow proper time to evaluate this addendum, potential additional addendum(s) and questions that currently are not answered and need time for evaluation?
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017


Response #2:An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 3, issued on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 11/07/2017


Response #3:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Thursday, November 9, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/09/2017




Inquiry #21: There appears to be a considerable amount of additional tree / shrub clearing required (besides Fruitridge loops on NB Hwy 99) in order to complete the roadway excavation and install the new walls, specifically the Type 5 retaining walls at Location B and Location F. Do all of these additional clearing costs get paid under Bid Item #32 or #43?
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to Section 17-2.03B, Clearing, of the Standard Specifications. All of the tree removal will be paid under Bid Item #32 - Clearing and Grubbing (LS). Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/14/2017




Inquiry #22: Due to the adjustment of the bid to a a+b project, will CalTrans extend the due date in order to give the contractors adequate time to evaluate the days?
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2017

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Thursday, November 9, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/09/2017




Inquiry #23: We request a minimum 1 week bid date extension be given for this contract. Addendum #2 made considerable changes and clarifications that require more time to evaluate. Specifically the surplus excavated material for the project that no longer can be permanently stockpiled at Exposition Blvd offramp. This may have considerable cost impacts to export and requires more time to evaluate. Also the new cost plus time basis of award change requires more time to analyze properly. All of the changes cover numerous scopes and require additional time for primes and subcontractors to evaluate, including the necessary time to properly review with DBE subcontractors / vendors that wish to quote the project in an effort to meet the contract’s DBE goals.
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/07/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Thursday, November 9, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/09/2017




Inquiry #24: Reference Location C, Sheet L-2. Layouts call for new curb installation on the left side of the "C" line in addition to ADL roadway excavation on this same side. The summary of quantities Sheet Q-4 does not call for any ADL roadway excavation and Sheet Q-5 only calls for it as it relates to the MVP specifically on the right side of the "C" line. Also the cross sections only depict the right side of the "C" line. This issue also exists at Location D and E. Appears to be a conflict, please clarify and revise bid quantities as required.
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/08/2017


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to sheets 58 (D-2) and 185 (Q-6) of 375, of the Project Plans. In the table labeled “Roadway Excavation (Type Z-2) (Aerially Deposited Lead)”, a quantity at Location C (H St.) is listed under Drainage Pipe. This quantity represents the excavation for Drainage System 2 (D-2) and the curb. D.S. 2 lies directly underneath the curb. Similar conditions exist at Location D and E. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/08/2017




Inquiry #25: Reference Plan Sheet C-6. Section D-D does not show a retaining curb between the new B2-6 curb and the existing curb at the sawcut line. However the plan view above does show a new retaining curb running through this section. There's a conflict between the two, please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/08/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 5, issued on Monday, November 27, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/28/2017




Inquiry #26: Reference Plan Sheet C-9. Both details show the proposed section of 0.10' RHMA-O being tied into the existing section with a 50' conform, however the section within the 50' conform is called out as 0.10' of OGFC. There is no bid item for OGFC like there is for HMA Type A and RHMA-O. Additionally, this will be extremely expensive to place two separate mixes adjacent to each other and with the OGFC being very small quantities per night. Since there is no bid item, the assumption is that this is a typo and that the top lift will all be RHMA-O with no OGFC being placed as part of this project. Please confirm.
Inquiry submitted 11/08/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/08/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 5, issued on Monday, November 27, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/28/2017




Inquiry #27: Reference typical section for "L1" line, Plan Sheet X-14. This sheet calls for a full width cold plane (EP to EP) which matches layout Sheet L-14, however Sheet X-14 shows the proposed section as P-2 for full width. Please clarify the scope for L1 as the difference is significant..
Inquiry submitted 11/08/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/09/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 5, issued on Monday, November 27, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/29/2017




Inquiry #28: Reference Plan Sheets L-7, SC-11 and SC-12 (Location H). For the proposed textured paving constructed between the SB slip onramp and SB loop offramp (Station 107+37.71 - 111+17.69), please clarify the phase this is to be constructed in. Proposed paving is under the k-rail in Phase 1. During Phase 2, the textured paving can't be safely constructed without closing both ramps on either side of the work, however the special provisions do not allow 2 ramps in the same interchange to be closed concurrently. Therefore this scope can't be constructed per the specifications. This also occurs at Location B, J and K. Confirm these 2 adjacent ramps can be closed concurrently, or clarify Caltrans' intent as to how this scope is to be constructed (complete during 55 hour closure of both ramps, etc,..).
Inquiry submitted 11/08/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/09/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 5, issued on Monday, November 27, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/28/2017




Inquiry #29: This contract specifies a "Type E Curb (modified)" but the contract documents and standards do not provide this detail. Please provide this modified detail so this portion of work can be priced accordingly.
Inquiry submitted 11/09/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/09/2017


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to plan sheet 52 of 375 (C-22) of the project plans.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/09/2017




Inquiry #30: Reference Sheet X-5 (typical section for Location F) and Sheet C-12 (MVP construction detail). X-5 calls out the proposed section as P-2 which requires 0.10' RHMA-O. Sheet C-12 does not show a 0.10' of RHMA-O and the HMA section conflicts with P-2 also. Same issue occurs for Location D.

Sheet X-4 (Location E) shows a proposed section of P-1 which requires 0.10' RHMA-O and matches Sheet C-11, however the summary of quantities (Sheet Q-4) does not call for any RHMA.

Conflicting info is shown between typical sections, construction details and quantity summaries. Please clarify the correct sections to be bid for Locations C, D, E and F.

Inquiry submitted 11/09/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/09/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 5, issued on Monday, November 27, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/28/2017




Inquiry #31: With the considerable changes / cost impacts of Addendum #2 and the numerous unanswered questions, we request a one week bid date extension. This is critical and needed in order to properly analyze the recent changes and new basis of award (A+B).
Inquiry submitted 11/09/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/09/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 4, issued on Thursday, November 9, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/09/2017




Inquiry #32: Item 171 Mobilization has a 10% added under Addendum 2. Can clarification be issued.
Inquiry submitted 11/10/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/13/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 5, issued on Monday, November 27, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/28/2017




Inquiry #33: In respect to Bid Item #34 Roadway Excavation (Type Z-2 ADL – 6,600 CY), please confirm that the earth material required to be excavated from the upper 0.67’ (8”) for locations B through L is required to be separated / disposed of as hazardous waste at a Class I Landfill. If so, please provide the laboratory analysis necessary for submittal to the Class I Landfill since the Special Provisions mention the Contractor's responsibility to identify the appropriately permitted landfill and to include any additional sampling / analysis costs required by the receiving landfill. This information is needed in order to properly bid this scope of work.
Inquiry submitted 11/10/2017

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/13/2017


Response #2:Please refer to Special Provision section 14-11.08C (page 31), “Type Z-2 material exists from the soil surface to a depth of 0.67 feet (8 inches) as shown on sheets . . . " Please refer to Standard Specification section 14-11.08B, Definitions, for Type Z-2 material and section 14-11.08J, Disposal.

Please refer to the information hand which contains a document “Hazardous Waste Updated Initial site Assessment (ISA) for the range of lead values within the project limits per post mile.
Response posted 11/15/2017




Inquiry #34: Addendum #2 has now clarified that 0.67’ of AB is to be placed under all curbs, gutters, sidewalks and ramps. Minor Concrete (Textured Paving) is not referenced in this portion of Addendum #2 and further clarification is required due to what is shown on the plans. Plan Sheet C-7 calls for AB under all textured paving, Sheet C-16 does not call for AB under any textured paving, and Sheet C-15 calls for both scenarios depending on location. Which of the following is correct:

1.) All textured paving gets 0.67’ AB under it
2.) None of the textured paving gets any AB under it
3.) Textured paving gets AB under it as shown on the plans (requirement for AB under it varies depending on location)

Inquiry submitted 11/14/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/14/2017


Response #2:
The textured paving and AB is to be placed as shown in the plans. It will vary depending upon the location. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/14/2017




Inquiry #35: Is that correct that Caltrans covers all QC testing costs associated with earthwork compaction (in lifts and final subgrade) and the Contractor is responsible for all QC testing costs associated with Class 2 aggregate base compaction?
Inquiry submitted 11/21/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/21/2017


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to Sections 5-1.01, "General", 5-1.03, "Engineer's Authority", 6-2.02, "Quality Control", and 6-2.03, "Department Acceptance", of the Standard Specifications. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/30/2017




Inquiry #36: Will Caltrans be providing the Z-2 ADL report? No soil can move off site without a full and complete report from the laboratory with Chain of custody forms and STLC & TCLP tests as necessary, based on the results of the TTLC lead tests.
Inquiry submitted 11/27/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/28/2017


Response #2:
No, Caltrans will not be providing the Z-2 ADL report. Your attention is directed to Sections 7-1.02K(6)(j)(iii) and 14-11.08 of both the Special Provisions and Standard Specifications as well as the Initial Site Assessment included in the Informational Handout. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2017




Inquiry #37: Per Addendum #2 changes, all non-hazardous surplus excavated material is now required to be hauled to / disposed of at a Class 2 Landfill. Thus far none of the Class 2 Landfills will accept this material based on the current soil analysis provided (ie., exceeds soluble lead acceptance levels, etc,..). Note if a Class 2 Landfill decides they can take the material (currently none have), they don’t have the ability to accept the material at night / early morning which is required for the necessary contractor night work. This now requires the Contractor to haul 100% of this material to a Class 1 Landfill. There are not enough haul trucks available for the Contractor to complete this project in the working days being provided (at one load per shift per truck to the non-local Class 1 Landfill). In addition to the project no longer being constructible in the working days allowed, the cost has now increased significantly due to the A+B award basis and very costly disposal of the surplus material at a Class 1 Landfill. Unless clarification can be provided that the surplus material does not need to be disposed of at a Class 1 or 2 Landfill, the working days allowed need to be increased considerably in order to make this project constructible.
Inquiry submitted 11/28/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 11/28/2017


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to Sections 7-1.02K(6)(j)(iii) and 14-11.08, of the Special Provisions. If the material is disposed of:
1. Disclose the lead concentration of the material to the receiving property owner when obtaining
authorization for disposal on the property
2. Obtain the receiving property owner's acknowledgment of lead concentration disclosure in the written
authorization for disposal
3. You are responsible for any additional sampling and analysis required by the receiving property
owner
If you choose to dispose of the material at a commercial landfill:
1. Transport it to a Class III or Class II landfill appropriately permitted to receive the material
2. You are responsible for identifying the appropriately permitted landfill to receive the material and for
all associated trucking and disposal costs, including any additional sampling and analysis required by
the receiving landfill
Response posted 12/04/2017




Inquiry #38: The most recent EBS file on bid express does not reflect the B day component (working days bid) that was added in Addendum #2. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 12/04/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/04/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 6, issued on Monday, December 4, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2017




Inquiry #39: What is the purpose of Adden06 issued today ? There is no new information provided with this addendum. Adden03 does not appear to provide new information either. There are no additional attachments, only the addendum narrative is posted on the CDOT website.
Please advise.

Inquiry submitted 12/04/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2017


Response #2:
The addendum corrected the EBS to Cost + Time. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2017




Inquiry #40: Bid line item 50 Maintain Existing Planting Areas: This item is not defined on the plans or specifications. Please provide the limits of work, locations and specifications for this line item.
Inquiry submitted 12/05/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2017


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/06/2017




Inquiry #41: Sheet ECL-1 shows two different application rates for Seed Mix 1. Erosion Control (Type B) shows 71.25 LBS/AC and Erosion Control (Type C) shows 17 LBS/AC. The seed mix itself shows a total of 17 LBS/AC. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 12/05/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2017


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/06/2017




Inquiry #42: First Question: Is it a requirement that larger temporary construction area signs be fabricated per the 2015 standard plans S94 and S95 or do these details only pertain to permanent roadside signs?
Second Question: Are 2 x 4's or other wood products an acceptable material to use for framing on larger temporary construction area signs where framing may be required?

Inquiry submitted 12/05/2017

Response #1:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/05/2017


Response #2:
First Question: Your attention is directed to Standard Plan S94, Roadside Framed Single Sheet Aluminum Signs, Rectangular Shape.  Construction Area Signs are required to comply with Standard Plan S94.

Second Question: Your attention is directed to Standard Plan S93, Framing Details for Framed Single Sheet Aluminum Signs, Rectangular Shape.  Construction Area Signs are required to comply with Standard Plan S93.
Response posted 12/05/2017


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


Contracting Information

Statewide Alerts and Other Information