Bidder Inquiries

Sign In | Create Account

Viewing inquiries for 03-0H10U4

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Will the Precast Jointed Pavement be eligible for progress payment under section 9 of the special provisions?
Inquiry submitted 06/20/2018

Response #1:
(#1)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 06/20/2018


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, June 29, 2018.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/02/2018




Inquiry #2: Can Caltrans provide any digital files for this project, including any available Land XML, DGN Cross Sections, DGN layout files?
Inquiry submitted 06/20/2018

Response #1:
(#2)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 06/20/2018


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, June 29, 2018.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/02/2018




Inquiry #3: The properties of typical structural section “Y” are shown on multiple typical cross section sheets. The section properties are not consistent between the sheets and makes it difficult to determine the intent of the plans. The same lack of consistency between the sections exists for typical structural sections “U” through “Z”. Please correct the inconsistencies or provide clarifications of the limits for each individual structural section.
Inquiry submitted 06/21/2018

Response #1:
(#3)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 06/21/2018




Inquiry #4: The width of the new structural sections shown on the typical cross sections are not consistent with that shown on the layouts. For example Sheet 7 (X-5) typical Sta 309+97.1 to 336+30.2 indicates a new structural section width of 30' LT and RT. The corresponding layout Sheet 93/94 (L-12/L-13) indicates 18' Lt and RT. Which is correct? This inconsistency will generate greatly different results of the work between the X-Sections and Layout sheets.
Inquiry submitted 06/22/2018

Response #1:
(#4)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 06/22/2018




Inquiry #5: Section 39-2.08A(4)(d)(I) Mix Design (page 97), HMA-LL Performance Requirements chart, column 2, "Test Method" references footnote 3 for all the Design Parameters. Footnote 3 states "Included in the testing procedure, LLP-AC3, "Sample Preparation and Testing for Long-Life Asphalt Concrete Pavements" available at: http//www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ormt/fpmlab/htm. LLP-AC3 is NOT posted at this website. Testing for proposed mix designs cannot begin without this information. Critical time is being lost due to the absence of this testing procedure criteria. Please provide this information as soon as possible.
Inquiry submitted 06/25/2018

Response #1:
(#5)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 06/27/2018


Response #2:
The link has been restored.
Response posted 06/28/2018




Inquiry #6: Is there a detail for the fiber optic vaults?
Inquiry submitted 06/25/2018

Response #1:
(#6)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 06/27/2018


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to Section 87-19.02B of the Special Provisions.
Response posted 07/02/2018




Inquiry #7: Would Caltrans please release digital information in a DWG, DGN or XML format for all road alignments and cross sections in order to expedite the quantity check process.
Inquiry submitted 06/28/2018

Response #1:
(#7)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 06/28/2018


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 1, issued on Friday, June 29, 2018.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/02/2018




Inquiry #8: Reference p. 95 of the Special Provisions Section 39-2.08A(3)(d) Pre-bid meeting: As an asphalt supplier am I required to attend the mandatory pre-bid meeting with the appropriate personnel in order to supply asphalt concrete products on the project.
Inquiry submitted 06/29/2018

Response #1:(#8)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 06/29/2018


Response #2:Your attention is directed to the Revised Standard Specifications section 2-1.04 "PREBID OUTREACH MEETING" and section 39-2.08A(3)(d), of the Special Provisions.


Response posted 06/29/2018




Inquiry #9: Reference p. 95 of the Special Provisions Section 39-2.08A(3)(d) Pre-bid meeting: As an asphalt paving subcontractor purchasing asphalt concrete from a commercial supplier am I required to attend the mandatory pre-bid meeting along with the appropriate personnel from potential asphalt concrete suppliers?
Inquiry submitted 06/29/2018

Response #1:(#9)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 06/29/2018


Response #2:Your attention is directed to the Revised Standard Specifications section 2-1.04 "PREBID OUTREACH MEETING" and section 39-2.08A(3)(d), of the Special Provisions.


Response posted 07/02/2018




Inquiry #10: Reference p. 95 of the Special Provisions Section 39-2.08A(3)(d) Pre-bid meeting: As a prime contractor purchasing asphalt concrete products from a commercial supplier am I required to have all potential suppliers attend the pre-bid meeting with their appropriate personnel?
Inquiry submitted 06/29/2018

Response #1:
(#10)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 06/29/2018


Response #2:Your attention is directed to the Revised Standard Specifications section 2-1.04 "PREBID OUTREACH MEETING" and section 39-2.08A(3)(d), of the Special Provisions.


Response posted 07/02/2018




Inquiry #11: Reference the Information Handout and the Lindsay Transportation Solutions (LTS) letter dated April 19, 2018. Representatives from LTS have indicated that all questions related to the QMB must be submitted directly to CDOT. Each contractor will have specific questions related to their means and methods of utilizing the QMB. Please provide contact information for an LTS representative that will be responsive in answering specific questions related to each contractors means and methods as well as a site visit were the components and machinery of the QMB system can be viewed.


Inquiry submitted 06/29/2018

Response #1:
(#11)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 06/29/2018




Inquiry #12: Please advise the plan sheet locations for the following Bid Items which cannot located within the structure plans:
101 490601 16" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 6,800
102 035496 24" CAST-IN-DRILLED HOLE CONCRETE PILING (WET POUR) LF 7,610

Inquiry submitted 06/29/2018

Response #1:
(#12)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 06/29/2018




Inquiry #13: Please advise on the following regarding Sheet ECD-1:

(1) Are seed, compost, straw, incorporate materials and fiber rolls to be included in Bid Line Item No. 59 - Roadside Clearing?
(2) What type of straw is required and what is the application rate for Roadside Clearing?
(3) Are fiber rolls for this bid item to be photo-degradable, as per Special Provisions section 21?

Please advise on the following regarding Sheets ECQ-1 and ECQ-2:

(1) What is the total SQFT for Bonded Fiber Matrix Type 3, as referenced on sheet ECL-1 under EC Type 5?

Please advise on the following:

(1) What type of straw is required for Bid Item No. 65?
(2) Where will straw be applied? Does it belong to a specific Erosion Control Type (i.e Types 1-5)?
(3) Will Type 1 or Type 2 Temporary Check Dams be required?
(4) What type of Temporary Erosion Control Blanket is required?

Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#13)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/02/2018




Inquiry #14: 39-2.08A(4)(c) Certifications of the specifications states “Testing for permanent deformation, fatigue/stiffness, and fracture potential must be performed by a laboratory qualified under the Caltrans Independent Assurance Program (observed by the UCPRC)”. Other than UCPRC which cannot perform testing for the contractor, we are not aware of any other lab that meets this requirement. Is Caltrans aware of any lab that is qualified under the Caltrans Independent Assurance Program to perform this testing in CA?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#14)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/02/2018


Response #2:
At this time there is no laboratory qualified by the Caltrans IAP to perform this testing in California. The specifications allow for several JMF submittals for no-cost testing by the UCPRC laboratory, after which there is a cost schedule for testing of additional submittals. This includes testing for individual tests. It is Caltrans expectation that contractor or sub-contractor laboratories will purchase equipment for the project for permanent deformation and fracture potential testing for quality control and achieve qualification under the IAP for these tests that are required for quality control. Caltrans perform testing to achieve job mix formula approval for fatigue/stiffness can be completed using the UCPRC laboratory following the process included in the specifications.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #15: What is the basis for the requirements in Table HMA-LL Performance Requirements in Section 39-2.08A(4)(d)(i)? Were these requirements developed considering both contractor and agency risk and is there sufficient data to indicate they are achievable using locally available aggregates and liquid asphalts?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#15)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
The requirements in the table are based on testing of a mix made with locally available materials being used at the time in the region. Aggregates and RAP were sampled from all available sources within reasonable distance of the project location, and all available binder sources, including different grades that could likely be used. The materials were sampled and tested in the late summer and fall of 2017. The results from the testing of a mix made from materials selected from those sampled were used to set the requirements. The requirements were set using statistical analysis to have Caltrans taking most of the risk of specimen preparation and test variability by setting the requirements for the contractor?s average test values at the 5th percentile confidence interval from the testing results.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #16: Are the requirements in Table HMA-LL Performance Requirements in Section 39-2.08A(4)(d)(i) and Section 39-2.08A(3)(c) performed on lab produced material or plant produced material as part of the Job Mix Formula submittal?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#16)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #17: Section 39-2.08A(4)(b) Job Mix Formula Verification it states “In addition to JMF verification, you may request the Department may also verify up to 2 times for each of the tests included in the "HMA-LL Performance Requirements" table for each HMA-LL mix type”. Is the intent of this language to allow the Contractor to re-test the same material which failed previously during verification testing or is it to allow the Contractor to reproduce the material at the plant and only re-test the properties that failed?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#17)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
The intent of the language is that the mix must pass all tests based on one sampling from a plant run. If the contractor desires to get test results for a particular test for whatever reason they choose, either before or after a full submittal, then that test can be run twice at no cost. However, test results for a full submittal cannot be grouped from different samplings.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #18: Section 39-2.08A(4)(d)(ii) Hot Mix Asphalt Production requires 3 samples per day for AASHTO TP 124 and T 378. However, in Section 39-2.08A(3)(c), it requires the contractor to submit these same test results within 5 business days of sampling. Given the significant amount of time required for sample preparation, transport to an IA certified lab for testing, performing the test, and reporting, this requirement seems unrealistic. Would Caltrans consider modifying the specification testing frequency and/or turn-around time?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#18)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
The Department?s expectation is that the contractor will purchase the equipment for these two tests and run them at their plant. One to two days turnaround is expected from testing done at the contractor?s plant and five days maximum turnaround is reasonable if the sample preparation and testing are occurring at the plant. The concern is that longer turn-around increases the risk to the contractor.
Response posted 07/09/2018




Inquiry #19: It is assumed that the requirements outlined in Section 39-2.08A(4)(d)(ii) Hot Mix Asphalt Production are quality control requirements to be performed by the Contractor. What is the impact on material acceptance if the Contractors results for either AASHTO TP 124 or T 378 are out of specification?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#19)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #20: Section 39-2.08A(4)(e)(ii) HMA-LL In-Place Acceptance requires AASHTO T 378 and TP 124 be performed by Caltrans. What is the test frequency and turn-around time for these two tests as they carry significant financial penalty to the Contractor? What is the impact to the contractor if the turn-around timeframe isn’t met and materials are out of specification not allowing the material supplier time to correct?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#20)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
The expectation is that the contractor will be performing these tests at their plant in a timely manner. The Department will return QA results for AASHTO T 378 and TP 124 within 5 working days of receiving the loose mix from the contractor.
Response posted 07/09/2018




Inquiry #21: In Section 39-2.08A(3)(f) Samples it states, “The loose HMA and compacted specimens should be prepared after the plant has produced 5,000 tons of the corresponding mix”. It is unclear when this material is produced and sampled. Is it part of the mix design submittal process or during mix verification process or production start-up? More specifically, will this mix be placed on the project?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#21)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #22: LLP-AC3 is not available for review at this time. For AASHTO T378 (TP79), AASHTO TP 124, AASTHO T324, can samples be prepared using a Superpave Gyratory Compactor?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#22)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
It is now available. TP124 and T324 are prepared using the Superpave Gyratory Compactor.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #23: Section 39-2.08A(4)(e)(ii) requires VMA to be within plus or minus one percent of the JMF during production. This requirements seems unrealistic and is significantly different from current Caltrans Standard Specifications. Is there a statistical basis for this requirement that indicates it is achievable and the risk to the Contractor is appropriate? What is the impact on payment to the contractor if this is not met?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#23)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #24: In Section 39-2.08A(1) it states that the RAP must be within plus or minus one percent of the average asphalt binder content reported on page 4 of the Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form. This requirement is significantly different from current Caltrans Standard Specifications (± 2.0 percent). Is there a statistical basis for this requirement that indicates it is achievable and the risk to the Contractor is appropriate? RAP feedstock is limited and highly variable. A job of this type requires a considerable supply. What is the impact on payment to the contractor if this is not met?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#24)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #25: RSS Section 2-1.04 Prebid Outreach Meeting states “ Each bidder must attend the meeting. The bidder’s representative must be a company officer, project superintendent, or project estimator….”. Special Provisions Section 39-2.08A(3)(d) Pre-Bid meeting states “The following personnel must be present at the pre-bid meeting: 1. Project manager for the general contractor, 2. Project Manager for the HMA producer, 3. Project Manager for the paving contractor, 4. Project Estimator, 5. Quality Control Manager, 6. Laboratory Manager”. The State's answers to the previous questions is not responsive. Specifically, please answer yes or no to the following questions:
1. Do all commercial asphalt concrete suppliers need to attend the prebid meeting with their Project Manager, QC Manager and Lab Manager to be eligible to furnish HMA material to a Prime Contractor on this project?
2. Do all Paving Subcontractors need to attend the prebid meeting with their Project Manager, QC Manager and Lab Manager to be eligible to be a Paving Subcontractor to a Prime Contractor on this project?

Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#25)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:Your attention is directed to the Revised Standard Specifications section 2-1.04 "PREBID OUTREACH MEETING" and section 39-2.08A(3)(d), of the Special Provisions.
Response posted 07/06/2018




Inquiry #26: Please provide Design wall height / footing elevation for SB retaining wall at Land Park UP. Requested information is not provided in plan sheets No. 2040 through 2046.
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#26)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to plan sheet 5 of 10 of "SB RETAINING WALL AT LAND PARK UP" for bottom of footing elevation. Top of wall elevations are shown on the structure plans. Design height H=6.0'-0 (max).
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/05/2018


Response #3:
Response posted 07/09/2018




Inquiry #27: Is stay-in-place metal decking allowed at the Beach Lake Bridge Widen between the girders? Is it allowed to be used for closure pours forming at both widen bridges?
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#27)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
Stay in place metal docking is not allowed.
Response posted 07/05/2018




Inquiry #28: Plan sheet No. 2050 of 2296 shows a Typical section for Retaining wall at Gloria Dr. OC. The typical section calls out for minimum in ground embedment for the wall of 1 1/4”. Please confirm this dimension is not 1’-1/4”.
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#28)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/13/2018




Inquiry #29: SB Retaining wall at Land Park UP bridge construction will take place below a Railroad Bridge. Is there a Railroad agreement obtained for this job? If yes, please provide.
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#29)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
A railroad agreement is not required to work on SB retaining wall at Land Park UP bridge.
Response posted 07/12/2018


Response #3:
A railroad agreement is not required to work on SB retaining wall at Land Park UP bridge.
Response posted 07/12/2018




Inquiry #30: Will flaggers be required during the construction of SB retaining wall at Land Park UP Bridge? If yes, please clarify if flaggers are to be provided by the RR Track owner or by General Contractor and if there will be any permit requirements
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2018

Response #1:
(#30)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
No flagger will be required during construction of SB retaining wall at Land Park up bridge. No permit will be required.
Response posted 07/05/2018




Inquiry #31: Section 39-2.08A(2) HMA - LL, Rich as Hot Mix Asphalt - Rich Bottom long life

There isn't any design guidance/criteria for rich bottom in the specification, furthermore there isn't any design guidance/criteria for rich bottom in any of the footnotes or referenced documents (LLP-AC3) for the extra addition of binder/design Va. This specification is vague and ambiguous, specification needs to be retracted and revised. Will there be an addendum issued to fix this ?

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:(#31)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
This mix has been produced on four previous Long Life AC projects. The target air voids in place is 3% or less to zero. In previous projects required field compaction and test results have been achieved with approximately 0.5% additional binder than a normal OBC would have for that mix. It is up to the contractor to determine the mix design to meet the stated requirements.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #32: Section 39-2.08A(3)(b)
10. The average binder content in a new proposed RAP stockpile by more than +/- 1.0 percent from the average RAP binder content reported on page 4 of your contractor HMA design data from.

What data does Caltrans have to support the tightening of this specification tolerance? Currently section 39 requires +/- 2.0 percent. The HMA LL specification tolerance for RAP binder deviation is to restrictive, please issue and adendum to revise this requirement.

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#32)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #33: Section 39-2.08A(1) The minimum production temperature for mix using WMA technology is 300F.

This does not following national standards for HMA production using WMA technology, the minimum temperature is unreasonable and too high, please issue an addendum to revise this requirement.

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:(#33)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
Note that this is the minimum plant mixing temperature not the compaction temperature. The intent of the Department is to ensure that there is a sufficiently high mixing temperature to achieve blending of the RAP and virgin binders. The intent of the Department is to permit use of WMA as a compaction aid, not to reduce mixing temperatures.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #34: Section 39-2.08A(3)(b)
Do not submit more than one JMF in any 15 day period.

This is unreasonable requirement, please revise and issue an addendum removing this requirement.

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#34)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #35: 39-2.08A(3)(c)
Submit test results on AASHTO T 378 (modified) and AASHTO TP 124 for mix design, JMF verification,
production start-up and QC to the Engineer and electronically to the following email addresses:
Moisture_Tests@dot.ca.gov
AClongLife@ucdavis.edu
Submit AASHTO T 378 and AASHTO TP 124 test data within 5 business days of sampling.

Why are contractors submitting test results to the email addresses listed above? Furthermore submitting T 378 and TP 124 data within 5 days is too restrictive giving the type of sampling, testing that is performed. Please issue an addendum removing these requirements.

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#35)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #36: 39-2.08A(3)(f) Samples
The Engineer takes loose HMA samples for AASHTO T 378 (Modified), AASHTO T 321 (Modified)
AASHTO TP 124 from the plant under California Test 125.

Currently CT 125 is obsolete and under revision, it does not contain accurate sampling/blending/splitting procedures for sampling mix of the amount required, furthermore and most importantly it does not contain any acceptable procedure for splitting down to test size in the lab. What test method is going to be used for splitting to test size in the lab?

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#36)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #37: 39-2.08A(3)(f) Samples
Provide two tons of loose HMA per mix produced by the plant to the University of California Pavement
Research Center (UCPRC). Additionally provide the following specimens compacted using plantproduced
mix to UCPRC:
Provide two tons of loose HMA per mix produced by the plant to the University of California Pavement
Research Center (UCPRC). Additionally provide the following specimens compacted using plantproduced
mix to UCPRC:
List of Compacted Specimens Needed for UCPRC
Specimen type Specimen
dimensions
Based on Test
Method
Hot Mix Asphalt-
Surface,
Long Life
Hot Mix Asphalt-
Intermediate,
Long Life
Hot Mix Asphalt-
Rich Bottom,
Long Life
Beam1,2 AASHTO T 321 12 12 12
Core1,3 AASHTO T 320 18 18 --
Core2 AASHTO T 378 12 12 --

How are we supposed to supply UCPRC with TWO tons of mix, will Caltrans be supplying personnel to assist in the sampling/blending and splitting of this amount material? Why are we supplying UCPRC with compacted specimens listed in the table below this section, contractors should not be forced to be a part of a contracted research project at UCPRC, especially when there are fiscal impacts tied to the specification. This specification is not street ready and needs to be revised.

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#37)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #38: 39-2.08A(4)(b) Job Mix Formula Verification
After acceptance of the JMF submittal, the Department verifies each proposed JMF within 30 days of
receiving all verification samples.
For each HMA, LL mix types, the Department verifies up to 2 proposed JMF submittals including a JMF
adjusted after verification failure. If you submit more than 2 JMFs for an HMA, LL mix type, the
Department deducts $40,000 from payments for each verification exceeding this limit.
In addition to JMF verification, you may request the Department may also verify up to 2 times for each of
the tests included in the "HMA-LL Performance Requirements" table for each HMA-LL mix type.

Whats the basis for JMF verification being performed in 30 days, current section 39 is 20 days. What JMF properties is Caltrans verifying? Why are the deductions for more than 2 JMF verifications $40,000 instead of $3,000? The last para of this section doesn't make any sense. Spec is ambiguous and needs to be revised.

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#38)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #39: 39-2.08A(4)(c) Certifications
Testing for permanent deformation, fatigue/stiffness, and fracture potential must be performed by a
laboratory qualified under the Caltrans Independent Assurance Program (observed by the UCPRC) for
these tests).

Caltrans IA doesn't certified for these tests. Please provide information that IA is certifying for these tests. Has UCPRC been certified for these tests under IA? UCPRC should not be witnessing any certifications if they are performing testing for Quality assurance.


Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#39)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #40: 39-2.08A(4)(d)(i) Mix Design
HMA-LL mixes must be design to meet the permanent deformation, stiffness, fatigue, fracture potential
and Hamburg wheel tracking test requirements enumerated in the following table:

What data does Caltrans have to support the specification requirements permanent deformation, beam stiffness, beam fatigue, beam fracture potential, and moisture sensitivity? The specificaiton tolerances for items listed above are not vetted/established through data. Please revise or remove any and all fiscal impacts to the contractor for these requirements.



Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:(#40)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
The requirements in the table are based on testing of a mix made with locally available materials being used at the time in the region. Aggregates and RAP were sampled from all available sources within reasonable distance of the project location, and all available binder sources, including different grades that could likely be used. The materials were sampled and tested in the late summer and fall of 2017. The results from the testing of a mix made from materials selected from those sampled were used to set the requirements. The requirements were set using statistical analysis to have Caltrans taking most of the risk of specimen preparation and test variability by setting the requirements for the contractor?s average test values at the 5th percentile confidence interval from the testing results.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #41: 39-2.08A(3)(f) Samples
3 Specimen prepared at air-voids content of 3% ± 0.5% using AASHTO T 331 for air-voids content.

39-2.08A(4)(d)(i) Mix Design
4 6 ± 0.5% for HMA-LL, Surface and HMA-LL, Intermediate mixes, and 3 ± 0.5% for HMA-LL, Rich
Bottom mix all following AASHTO T 331

Footnote 3 and 4 under the two different sections have different Va requirements for Surface and Intermediate mixes. Please clarify why the difference or issue an addendum.

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#41)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #42: 39-2.08A(4)(d)(ii) Hot Mix Asphalt Production

Permanent Deformation AASHTO T 378 (modified)

3 per day (not required for HMA- LL, Rich Bottom)

Fracture potential AASHTO TP 124 3 per day

What is the amount of material the each test represents? Please issue an addendum clarifying.

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#42)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #43: 39-2.08A(4)(e)(ii) HMA-LL In -Place Acceptance
Comply with section 39-2.02A(4)(e), except as follows:
1. Replace the third, fourth and fifth rows in item no. 3 table with:
Air voids content at Ndesign
(5)a,b
AASHTO T 269 Value reported on
JMF ± 1.5
Voids in mineral
aggregate on laboratory
produced HMA (min,%)d
SP-2 Asphalt
Mixture Volumetric
Not required
Voids in mineral
aggregate on plant
produced HMA (min,%)d
SP-2 Asphalt
Mixture Volumetric
Value reported on
JMF ± 1.0
a,b, d: See notes a, b, and d respectively for "Type A HMA Acceptance In-Place" table

Please clarify in place acceptance tables for HMA LL, what is the design Va requirement (5)? Spec is incomplete and vague. Footnotes A,B and D are vague and ambiguous.





Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:(#43)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:The design Va requirement is up to the contractor to meet the performance related test requirements.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #44: 39-2.08A(4)(e)(ii) HMA-LL In -Place Acceptance
If HMA is rejected due to failed fracture potential test results, the Department deducts $40 from payments
for every ton of rejected HMA.

TP 124 does not contain a precision and bias statement as this test standard is still provisional, remove the deductions associated with this test, this is too restrictive and not supported by any data. No contractor deductions should apply. will caltrans issue an addendum removing this requirement?

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#44)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/11/2018


Response #3:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #45: 39-2.08A(4)(e)(iii) Dispute Resolution
Comply with 39-2.01A(4)(i)(v).
The third party participates in a dispute resolution for permanent deformation and fracture potential must
be qualified under the Caltrans Independent Assurance Program (observed by the UCPRC). The third
party can be one of the following:
Materials and Pavements Division
Texas A&M Transportation Institute
402 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South, Room 158
College Station, TX 77845
Contact: Dr. Fujie Zhou
Phone: (979) 458-3965
Email: f-zhou@tti.tamu.edu
Asphalt Institute
2696 Research Park Drive
Lexington, KY 40511-8480
Phone: 859-288-4960
E-Mail: info@asphaltinstitute.org

TP 124 is a provisional standard which does not contain a precision and bias statement. How can a contractor dispute testing that doesn't contain an allowable testing deviation. Please remove TP 124 from the specificaiton, furthermore can the contractor enlist any other lab for ITP testing other than the two listed above? Lastly is Caltrans IA certifying for those tests that can be disputed?

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:(#45)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
Any lab that is IA certified for Superpave mix design is allowed to do this testing.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #46: 39-2.08A(4)(e)(iv) In-Place Density
The target density range relative to the corresponding theoretical maximum density is 94% to 97% for
HMA-LL Surface, HMA-LL Intermediate

The density requirements for surface and intermediate are too restrictive and not supported by any data to justify the tight range. This should be removed, will caltrans issue an addendum to remove this requirement?

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:(#46)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
These specifications have been met on each of the previous four long life asphalt projects in Districts 2, 4 and 7.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #47: Reference page 70 of the Special Provisions under added section 14-2.03B: is the Native American tribe-authorized monitor provided by and paid for by CDOT?
Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#47)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
The Native American tribe-authorized monitor will be provided by Caltrans.
Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #48: Sheet U-25 (p.602) refers you to sheet SD-1 for details related to the 60" storm drain work. We are unable to find sheet SD-1, please provide sheet SD-1. Also, Sheet U-25 indicates a 12" water line to be relocated but there is no bid item for this work?
Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#48)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #49: The total quantity for PJCP on sheet 1560 do not total the above quantities. The quantity should be 5,183 not 5,484. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:
(#49)-our inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018




Inquiry #50: 39-2.08A(4)(e)(ii) HMA-LL In -Place Acceptance

If HMA is rejected due to failed permanent deformation test results, the Department deducts $35,000.If HMA is rejected due to failed fracture potential test results, the Department deducts $40 from payments
for every ton of rejected HMA.

If HMA is rejected due to one of the above mentioned failing tests (T378 or TP124) what is the amount of material that is represented for deduction per ton? Secondly what justification does the department have to seek $35,000 from each failed T378? This seems excessive and a waste of tax payer dollars. Will the department revise and issue an addendum to these requirements?

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:(#50)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
The Department has a supporting document that indicates that these are the costs to the public of early replacement due to rutting (T378) and early cracking (TP 124) failures.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #51: 39-2.08A(4)(e)(iv) In-Place Density
Take density cores following section 39-2.01A(4)(h)(viii), except take 2 density cores within 12 inches on
center of each core for every 250 tons of HMA. The Department will select random locations. The
Department determines the percent of theoretical maximum density for each of the density cores and
takes the average for in-place acceptance and reduced payment factor.

Whats the reasoning for the 2 extra cores taken within 12 inches on center for every 250 tons of HMA? This is not standard practice and doesn't follow the current specifications for section 39, this requirement needs to be removed. Above para states the department will take an average for in place ..... Average of what ? average of three cores ? This specification needs to be more clear, will the department revise and clarify?

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:(#51)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
Two cores are being taken instead of one to reduce the risk of test variability at a given location for the contractor.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #52: 39-2.08B(2) Hot Mix Asphalt Long Life Mix Design
Comply with section 39-2.02B(2) except as shown in the following table:
Type A HMA Design Requirements

This section states that Nintial >8.0 and Nmax >2.0, and report Va and VMA at 85 gyrations, are contractors to assume that there is no design Va specification for all three mixes (Surface, Intermediate, Rich bottom), furthermore more design criteria needs to be specified for Rich bottom using the design gyrations for Section 39. Will an addendum be issued to clarify?

Inquiry submitted 07/03/2018

Response #1:(#52)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/03/2018


Response #2:
The design Va is up to the contractor to meet the performance related specification for all three mixes. This specification was met on the four previous AC Long Life projects. Also see response to BI #31.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #53: Under Section: 39-2.08A(3)(f) Samples - footnote 1 - 1Produce specimens using rolling wheel compactor, following the procedure included in LLP-AC3, "Sample Preparation and Testing for Long - Life Asphalt Concrete Pavement," available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ormt/fpmlab.htm

LLP-AC3 - 4. Rolling Wheel Compaction - Asphalt specimens for stiffness/fatigue testing shall be compacted according to AASHTO
PP 3-94: “Standard Practice for Preparing Hot Mix Asphalt Specimens by Means of
the Rolling Wheel Compactor”, with the following modifications:

AASHTO PP3-94 was a provisional test procedure that has been withdrawn from circulation by AASHTO in 2003. There are no commercial labs available that can perform this outdated provisional method for preparing Hot Mix Asphalt Specimens other than UC Berkeley.

Will Caltrans issue an addendum allowing the samples to be prepared utilizing ASTM D8079 - Segmented Rolling Compactor?


Inquiry submitted 07/05/2018

Response #1:(#53)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/05/2018


Response #2:
No changes to specification because there has not been a comparison of effects of ASTM D8079 on fatigue properties.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/05/2018




Inquiry #54: 39-2.08A(4)(d)(ii) Hot Mix Asphalt Production - Fracture potential AASHTO TP 124 3 per day

39-2.08A(4)(e)(ii) HMA-LL In -Place Acceptance - If HMA is rejected due to failed fracture potential test results, the Department deducts $40 from payments for every ton of rejected HMA.

AASHTO TP-124 is a "Provisional Test" procedure that has not been fully adopted by AASHTO. There is no precision and bias statement included in the test procedure. If a test sample fails, how can the results be disputed following the dispute resolution process when there is no precision and bias statement to evaluate whether or not the test data is valid?

This leads to the next problem, how can a financial penalty be associated with a test standard that can't be evaluated for precision and bias?

Will Caltrans revise the specification to address the issues associated with the required test and removed the financial disincentives for an unproven test procedure?

Inquiry submitted 07/05/2018

Response #1:
(#54)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/05/2018


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #55: 39-2.08A(4)(d)(ii) Hot Mix Asphalt Production
Comply with section 39-2.02A(4)(b)(ix), except as shown below.
Permanent Deformation - AASHTO T 378 (modified) - 3 per day (not required for HMALL, Rich Bottom)
Fracture potential - AASHTO TP 124 - 3 per day

39-2.08A(4)(e)(ii) HMA-LL In -Place Acceptance -
If HMA is rejected due to failed permanent deformation test results, the Department deducts $35,000.
If HMA is rejected due to failed fracture potential test results, the Department deducts $40 from payments
for every ton of rejected HMA.

Both the the required tests above should have an associated interval of testing to coincide with the requirements. Paving shifts can vary, one day we might pave 1000 tons, and the next day we might pave 3000 tons. Both tests required above also have a financial disincentive if a failure occurs.

Caltrans needs to identify the associated tonnages placed or produced to correspond to the required amount of testing to properly evaluate the financial risk to a contractor/producer.

Inquiry submitted 07/05/2018

Response #1:
(#55)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/05/2018




Inquiry #56: 39-2.08B(3) Asphalt Binders - You must specify the bases for calculating asphalt binder content and RAP asphalt binder content.

The current standard require us to perform chemical extraction testing on the RAP to identify the average RAP AC. This chemically extracted value is used for calculating RAP binder replacement ratio.

Is it the intent of this specification to allow the mix designer the option of skipping the required chemical extraction process and use an average ignition oven uncorrected to determine the binder replacement ratio like the FHWA currently does?

Inquiry submitted 07/05/2018

Response #1:(#56)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/05/2018


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #57: Please clarify the intent of Bid Item 77 - Prime Coat. As shown on the Summary of Quantities it corresponds with the Geosynthetic Pavement Interlayer. If the intent is for the item to the be the tack for the GPI it is mislabeled or can be deleted as the tack for the GPI is typically incidental to the GPI. If the item is to be used for prime coat on the new ASB/AB section please correct the summary tables to indicate where the prime is to be placed.
Inquiry submitted 07/05/2018

Response #1:
(#57)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/05/2018




Inquiry #58: We are unable to find the location of the work for Bid Item 142(F) - Bar Reinforcing Steel? It does not appear on any summary table nor does it appear on any of the structure summaries. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 07/05/2018

Response #1:
(#58)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/05/2018


Response #2:
Item # 142(F) will be removed from the list of bid items under an addendum.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #59: 1. Most of the PJCP cross sections in the construction details show the precast panels extending into the median and the shoulder and in some cases the dimension is variable. Is there a minimum panel width requirement?
2. Since the PJCP is doweled across the entire transverse joints instead of in the wheel paths, do the longitudinal panel joints have to closely match the lane lines indicated on the plans?

Inquiry submitted 07/09/2018

Response #1:(#59)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/09/2018


Response #2:

1. Your attention is directed to Construction Details in the Contract Plans for minimum and maximum width of panel.
2. Yes, longitudinal panel joints have to match the lane lines.

Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #60: Bid items include #7: automated work zone information system. But no detail as to how it will be used or the quantity of sensors and messages signs is included. Can you provide more information?

Inquiry submitted 07/10/2018

Response #1:
(#60)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/10/2018


Response #2:
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/10/2018




Inquiry #61: Bid Item 194, 18" diameter Slotted Corrugated Steel Pipe: The item calls for 8 gage (0.168") material. 8 Gage is not available in that small of a diameter CMP Pipe. Industry standards for this diameter Corrugated Steel Pipe are 16, 14, and 12. Please indicate how to proceed.

Inquiry submitted 07/11/2018

Response #1:
(#61)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #62: Will you be posting the sign in sheet from the Mandatory Pre-Bid meeting?
Inquiry submitted 07/11/2018

Response #1:
(#62)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/11/2018


Response #2:
Please refer to the following link to search for sign in sheet for Pre-Bid Meeting in the NEWS/Events:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/d3/projects/subprojects/0H10U/index_dev.html

Response posted 07/17/2018




Inquiry #63: Will SHOTCRETE be an acceptable installation method for all of the TEXTURED SLOPE PAVING?
Inquiry submitted 07/11/2018

Response #1:
(#63)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #64: Plan sheet No. 90/2296 shows Begin barriers type 60MGC & End of barriers 60MG at STA “B1” 275+25.00 while plan sheet No. 91/2296 shows begin of barriers type 60MGC & End of barriers 60MG at STA “B1” 279+75.00. Please look at the preceding and proceeding barriers sections called out in the layout plans and verify the end/begin STA for various types of roadway barriers type 60.
Inquiry submitted 07/11/2018

Response #1:
(#64)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #65: Plan sheet No. 94/2296 shows End of barriers 60MG and Begin of barriers 60 MGC at both stations “B1” 323+75.00 & “B1” 332+50. Please verify.
Inquiry submitted 07/11/2018

Response #1:
(#65)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #66: Please clarify where to find the Barrier Type 60GMF on the project layout plans. Bid item No. 299 calls out for 3,930 LF of Barriers type 60MGF which can’t be found on the project plans. Although, plans show Barriers type 60MGE instead. The same for Bid item No. 304 for the Barriers Type 60MGF Mod.
Inquiry submitted 07/11/2018

Response #1:
(#66)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #67: Please verify barrier type for Bid item No. 302. Is it type 60PR or type 60MPR as per layout plans?
Inquiry submitted 07/11/2018

Response #1:
(#67)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #68: Please advise if there is any type of steel reinforcement existing in the PCC pavement sections that are to be removed as part of various bid items on this project.
Inquiry submitted 07/11/2018

Response #1:
(#68)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.

Response posted 07/11/2018




Inquiry #69: For BI #329 Temporary Lighting System I cannot locate any plans for this work, are plans available?
Inquiry submitted 07/12/2018

Response #1:(#69)-Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/12/2018


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