Bidder Inquiries

Sign In | Create Account

Viewing inquiries for 04-155004

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: I do not see any erosion control plans provided. Where are the locations of work for bid items 18 -21?
Inquiry submitted 03/12/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/16/2018




Inquiry #2: Please advise on whether a prebid meeting will be held for this Project, and if so, provide date, time, and location of meeting.
Inquiry submitted 03/15/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/16/2018


Response #2:Prebid meeting under consideration.
Response posted 03/20/2018


Response #3:See Addendum 1, but use the following as the email address for the Duty Senior - D4.Construction.Duty.Senior@dot.ca.gov
Response posted 03/29/2018




Inquiry #3: Is there any fiber optic splicing details available for this project that can be released to clarify the splicing scope of work? Caltrans fiber optic work typically has a fiber cable block diagram and a fiber cable block breakout diagram in the electrical details pages. Those two documents really create clarity in the bid process.
Inquiry submitted 03/16/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/16/2018


Response #2:There is no fiber cable block diagram and no fiber cable block breakout diagram in the electrical details pages, but on sheets ED-25 to ED-35 shows a connection diagram, notes for the schedules and connection schedules with the special provisions to determine the splicing scope of work. To Determine the splicing scope of work, look at Sheets ED-25 to ED-35, also look at Sheets ED-7, ED-9 and ED-11 to ED-13 for additional information and with the plans in general with the special provisions for the splicing scope of work.
Response posted 03/22/2018




Inquiry #4: As stated per Exhibit C, Permit No. C-01.6-001-OK (BART Permit), please confirm the contractor will need to provide and pay for separate insurance coverage, including Railroad Protective Liability Insurance, as part of this permit. If the contractor is responsible for Railroad Protective Liability Insurance, please confirm the number of trains per day on the line so the cost of the coverage can be calculated and incorporated into the bid. Will the contractor be responsible for any other costs associated with this permit?

Per the Railroad Clearance - I-80 TMS/TOS Project Memorandum dated June 29, 2017, railroad flagging will be provided by the State and it will be considered State-furnished service to the contractor. Does this State provided service also apply to BART Safety Monitors as outlined in Permit No. C-01.6-001-OK? If not, will the State pay for these services?


As stated per Exhibit C, UPRR Wireline Crossing Agreement (Crockett, Distribution Structure, Albany, EB Carquinez Bridge), please confirm the contractor will need to provide and pay for separate insurance coverage, including Railroad Protective Liability Insurance, as part of this permit/agreements. If the contractor is responsible for Railroad Protective Liability Insurance, please confirm the number of trains per day on the line so the cost of the coverage can be calculated and incorporated into the bid. Will the contractor be responsible for any other costs associated with these permits/agreements (4 each total UPRR Agreements)?

Please confirm Caltrans and NOT the Contractor will pay the BNSF License Fee of $33,140.00 and Caltrans will pay all other costs associated with the BNSF Permit to Enter Agreement.

As stated per section 15, BNSF Permit to Enter Agreement, please confirm the contractor will need to provide and pay for separate insurance coverage, including Railroad Protective Liability Insurance, as part of this permit/agreements. If the contractor is responsible for Railroad Protective Liability Insurance, please confirm the number of trains per day on the line so the cost of the coverage can be calculated and incorporated into the bid. Will the contractor be responsible for any other costs associated with these permits/agreements?

Per section 5-1.36B Railroad Property (Special Provisions), “If the contractor does not include an agreement with a railroad company, do not allow personnel or equipment on railroad property”, please confirm the permits/agreements contained in the supplemental project information per the inclusion in the “Information Handout” fulfills this requirement and the contractor WILL NOT be responsible for providing permits, agreements, or other related railroad agreements and coordination with the railroads.

Inquiry submitted 03/21/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/21/2018


Response #2:1) Yes, the contractor will need to provide and pay for separate insurance coverage.

2) The number of trains/day is unknown. Bidder may want to review BART?s train schedules.

3) Other costs associated with this permit may be a BART Permit to Enter administrative fee.

4) BART will provide the Safety Monitors.

5) The State will pay for all flagging and Safety Monitors.

6) Yes, the contractor will need to pay for railroad insurance.

7) The number of trains/day is unknown. FYI, UPRR does not have a freight train schedule.

8) Possible other costs associated with these permits/agreements (4 each total UPRR Agreements)are four UPRR Rights of Entry at around $1,000.00 each.

9) The $33,140.00 has already been paid by Caltrans.

10) Yes, the contractor will need to pay for the railroad insurance.

11) The number of trains/day is unknown. FYI, BNSF does not have a freight train schedule.

12) Possibly a BNSF Right of Entry. Fee unknown.

13) The contractor will need to complete a Permit to Enter with BART, Rights of Entry with UPRR and possibly a Right of Entry with BNSF prior to working on railroad property.
Response posted 03/27/2018




Inquiry #5: There appears to be a conflict between the Carquinez Bridge (23-0015R) steel support spacing. Note 1 on Sheet No. 483 and 484 are conflicting. Note 1 on 483, states a support spacing of either S/5. S/6, or S/7; whereas Note 1 on 484, states a support spacing of either S/3 or S/4. Please clarify spacing dimensions.

Sheet No. 484, Section E and Section F appear to not have a corresponding Detail reference like the other Sections. What Detail No. do sections E and F fall into?

Inquiry submitted 03/22/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/23/2018


Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 03/27/2018




Inquiry #6: Please confirm the new support brackets on the Carquinez Bridge (23-0015R) are to be Zinc coated per 59-2.01A(1) and galvanizing is not required.

In additional, please confirm the new MDCS along the Carquinez Bridge (support bracket assemblies, CCTV supports with platform, MDCS fiberglass raceway, new installations per ED-39 on Top of Pier 2 Tower) DO NOT need to be painted to match the existing bridge color.

Inquiry submitted 03/22/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/23/2018


Response #2:Items described in ssp 59-2.01A(1) are to be coated with a Zinc coating system, and special finish coat requirements as described in ssp 59-2.01C(4)(b)(iv).
Response posted 03/28/2018




Inquiry #7: Are there other structures within the MDCS alignment which are not detailed in the Structures Plans (430-555) which the contractor should include in its bid? If so, will attachment details be provided for those structures?
Inquiry submitted 03/27/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/27/2018




Inquiry #8: The email for the Duty Senior in Addendum 1 does not work. Do you have another email address?
Inquiry submitted 03/28/2018

Response #1:Duty Senior email - D4.Construction.Duty.Senior@dot.ca.gov
Response posted 03/29/2018




Inquiry #9: There is no seed mix or materials specified for items 18-21. Please advise on what materials are to be used as well as what location they're to be installed at.
Inquiry submitted 03/29/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/29/2018




Inquiry #10: Can you clarify which fiber optic cable constructions are on this project? Specs provided seem to cover multiple types, but I can't confirm which are being asked for on this specific project. Thanks.
Inquiry submitted 04/02/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/17/2018


Response #2:There are a number of fiber optic cables in the project. The one in the District Office are multi-mode due to distances, the field cables are single-mode and the connection cables are patch cables both single and multi-mode.
Response posted 05/07/2018




Inquiry #11: 1. Training section reads "…there must be Ten 8-hour sessions per day for Thirty days. This can be interpreted as 10x8x30, or 2,400 hours of training required. This seems excessive, please confirm Caltrans intent.
2. TMS Cabinet shown on drawing BOM, however no cabinet layout or description in Special Provision is available. Please confirm the type of cabinet to be used and where?
3. RMAC Cabinets not listed on the BOM on EQ 1-3, however detail on ED-11 indicates they are required. Please confirm the quantity of RMAC cabinet equipment required.
4. Please confirm the enclosures for the RMAC and RMC cabinets are existing and contractor is only required to provide the added equipment detailed on ED-11 within the cabinet.
5. Per EQ-3, there is a total of 3 HUB PON units, however per the 87-10, there are 2 HUB PONS at the District Office, one at Carquinez bridge, and one at the SFOBB hub. Please clarify if 3 or 4 HUB PONS are required.
6. Specification Section 87-9.02W, states Eight (8) 128 GB (4x32) RDIMM/1.024 TB of memory. Please clarify if this is (8) 128 GB RDIMM sticks per blade server or (4) 32 GB RDIMM sticks per blade server (128 GB total).

Inquiry submitted 04/03/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/03/2018


Response #2:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/04/2018


Response #3:1) Yes, because it should cover all the training to program, monitor and maintain the system and its components.

2) Submitted for consideration.

3) : They are equipment that go into the New or Existing 334 Cabinet, As stated ?REMOTE CONNECTION IN NEW OR EXISTING ATTACTED 334 CABINET (RMAC)?

4) Yes, they are existing cabinet, but can be new cabinets if shown on the plans in which only equipment shown goes into the cabinets.

5) There are Four (4) PONs Required, not Three (3) PONs.

6) It?s Eight (8) 128 GB RDIMM, but each 128 GB RDIMM consist of 4 32 GB RDIMM to make one 128 GB RDIMM.
Response posted 04/05/2018




Inquiry #12: Referring to section 60-2.01A, which stipulates requirements for removing existing deck soffit forms and all loose material in cells for utility placement within 6 existing bridge structures; please clarify the extent of the removal work. For example, should the Contractor include in its bid removal of all the soffit material and loose material in the bridge structure or just a portion required for access and MDCS placement? How does the Contractor quantify the extent and amount of the material inside the bridge structures to be removed?
Inquiry submitted 04/04/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/05/2018


Response #2:The Contractor should include in its bid removal of all the soffit material in the cell described.
Response posted 04/06/2018




Inquiry #13: Drawing E-8 shows Note 1 (6X72 SMFO Cables) Going North, South, and East. It would seem that there is something missing. Is there cables splicing in the fiber vault at Sta 167 or are the fiber quantities coming from SFOBB incorrect (Possibly 12 X 72 SMFO cables). Please confirm.
Inquiry submitted 04/04/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/17/2018


Response #2:No splicing needed. Refer to the wiring diagram on sheets ED-14 to ED-19.

They are 6-72 fiber optic cables coming from the Bay Bridge.

Response posted 05/31/2018




Inquiry #14: Sheet E-115 Note 69 Install 3X72 SMFO cables, Note 70 Install hub equipment See ED 37 for details. ED 37 shows 12X72 SMFO cable being terminated. Is the quantity for Note 69 incorrect and we are bringing 12X72 into the building or is ED-37 Incorrect and we are only terminating 3X72 SMFO cables? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 04/04/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/05/2018


Response #2:ED37 does not show 12X72 SMFO cable being terminated. Both notes 48 and 69 on sheet E-115 indicates 3-37 strands FO cable and are terminated at ED37.
Response posted 05/07/2018




Inquiry #15: E-8 shows a three-way intersection with 6x72 SMFO cables in all direction, without a fiber block diagram and breakout diagram it is very difficult to determine what happens at this location. What is the configuration at this location? Assuming ED-36 shows 12x72 SMFO cable being terminated, does this mean there are 12x72 SMFO cables running to this point of intersection from SFOBB HUB instead of 6x72 SMFO cables called out on E-3 to E-8?
Inquiry submitted 04/05/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/05/2018


Response #2:It should be Six (6) -72 Fiber F.O. Cables to be terminal at SFOBB, therefore we will keep the panels and relabel them for the future Six (6) -72 Fiber F.O. Cables in Innerducts 2 and 4. Please note the Block Diagram for the system is on Sheets ED-14 to ED-19 in which the HUB Block Diagrams are on Sheets ED-20, ED-21 and ED-22; the name for the Block Diagram is called "Network System Connection Diagram".
Response posted 04/10/2018




Inquiry #16: SPECIAL PROVISIONS section 12-4.02D states that the Department deducts the full cost of COZEEP support provided for traffic breaks. The hourly rate for each California Highway Patrol officer providing support is $115. Section 12-4.02C(7) states the following: two California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers per vehicle are required for traffic breaks occurring any time from 2200 to 0600 hours; a minimum of 2 CHP vehicles will be assigned to conduct a traffic break; and Contractor may request a traffic break for special operations, such as "Installation or removal of traffic control devices in areas without a standard-width shoulder" and "Access to median areas for workers or equipment". Given these two conditions condition will occur throughout the 30+ miles of the Project's traffic control, the COZEEP support will be extremely costly to the Contractor if required. Observations of past traffic control operations performed under other Contracts suggest that COZEEP is required (rather than optional) to perform traffic control along this contracts alignment/roadway(s). Please clarify whether traffic breaks and associated COZEEP support is required to implement traffic control under the special conditions identified under 12-4.02C(7)(d), or whether the need for traffic breaks and associated COZEEP support is optional / if-needed basis determined by Contractor.
Inquiry submitted 04/05/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/05/2018




Inquiry #17: SPECIAL PROVISIONS section 7-1.02K(6)(j)(iii) states lead is present in earth material on the job site and that management of this material exposes workers to health hazards that must be addressed in Contractor’s lead compliance plan. The average lead concentrations are stated to be: 1) below 1,000 mg/kg total lead and below 5mg/L soluble lead; 2) not a hazardous waste; and 3) does not require disposal at a permitted landfill or solid waste facility.
Please confirm the Contractor is only responsible for management, handling, disposal, etc. of Class II and Class III non-hazardous earth material and that if Class I Hazardous earthen material is encountered the relating costs will be cover under Change Order.

Inquiry submitted 04/05/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/06/2018


Response #2:See response to Bidder Inquiry #18, below.
Response posted 04/17/2018




Inquiry #18: SPECIAL PROVISIONS/Standard Specification Section 14-11.09 states minimal disturbance of hazardous waste concentrations will occur at the following locations: 1. Directional drilling ground surface entrance and exit locations. ADL found in the area of minimal disturbances ranges from less than 5 to 3000 mg/kg lead. Management of this material exposes workers to health hazards that must be addressed in Contractor’s lead compliance plan.
Please confirm or advise on the following:
1) In addition to directional drilling ground surface entrance/exit locations, please advise on whether trenching/earthwork for MDCS, conduit, equipment installation is considered “minimal disturbance” and shall be handled as specified under 14-11.09, rather than section 14-11.09.
2) SPECIAL PROVISIONS section 7-1.02K(6)(j)(iii) states the average lead concentrations to be below 1,000 mg/kg total lead and below 5mg/L soluble lead. SPECIAL PROVISIONS/Standard Specification Section 14-11.09 states ADL found in the area of minimal disturbances ranges from less than 5 to 3000 mg/kg lead. Please advise on which statement is correct and that if Class I Hazardous earthen material is encountered, the relating costs will be cover under Change Order.

Inquiry submitted 04/05/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/06/2018


Response #2:1) The larger excavations, such as trenching for conduit, are not considered minimal disturbance, as they are not listed in section 14-11.09A, and shall be managed under section 7-1.02K(6)(j)(iii) Earth Material Containing Lead. It is expected that these excavated materials, due to their greater depths and locations typically under existing pavement, will contain non-hazardous waste levels of lead and can be reused elsewhere (off state right of way and on-site when possible).

2) Section 7-1.02K(6)(j)(iii) states the average soil lead concentrations on the job site are below 1000 mg/kg and the average soluble lead concentrations are below 5 mg/L; the text goes on to say that the expected range of individual soil lead detections is 5 to 3000 mg/kg. Section 14-11.09A also states that the range of soil lead detections is 5 to 3000 mg/kg, but does not give an estimated average lead concentration for the job site. There is no disagreement between the 2 sections when giving the expected range of soil lead concentrations as 5 to 3000 mg/kg.

Given that the specifications do not define any surplus excavated material as a hazardous waste, that material and its related work, if they became a component of the project, would have to be covered via change order.
Response posted 04/17/2018




Inquiry #19: The Electrical Systems Quantities (EQ-1 to EQ-3) indicate 12480 LF of Fiberglass MDCS. Using 87-8.02(3)(a) as a reference, “Fiberglass multi duct conduit system must be used for above ground, inside and on structures and in buildings”. It appears EQ-1 through EQ-3 has only quantified the Carquinez Bridge MDCS fiberglass requirement and not the remaining structures detailed in Sheets 430 to 555 which will double the quantity of Bulletproof Fiberglass MDCS. Please confirm.
Inquiry submitted 04/05/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/06/2018




Inquiry #20: SPECIAL PROVISIONS section 87-8.02C(4) Conduit Concrete Backfill specifies colored concrete backfill (medium to dark, red or orange color) for installation of duct bank. Given the traffic control restrictions require duct bank installation to be performed during weekday and weekend nights, procuring the colored concrete backfill (Plant Opening availability and feed, OT fees, etc.) will be extremely costly.
Please confirm or advise on the following:
1) Given the extremely high cost associated with the operation, please consider removing the colored concrete backfill requirement for duct bank installation.
2) Please clarify what is considered duct bank, thus required to be backfilled with colored concrete. Notably, are all underground MDCS and other conduit required to be backfilled with colored concrete?
3) Please confirm colored concrete backfill is only required for “trenched” duck bank installation and horizontal drilling entrance/exit excavations or pits, and not required (installed by injection or other means) above or around for MDCS / conduit installed directional drilling.

Inquiry submitted 04/05/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/06/2018


Response #2:1) It?s not needed to be encased in concrete only if directional boring is used.

2) For communication cable use orange colored concrete.

3) Yes, for trenching.


Response posted 05/31/2018




Inquiry #21: With respect to Specification Section 13-3 "Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan", please provide/clarify the Project's Environmental Risk Level. The contractor is unable to find where it is specified in the special provisions.
Inquiry submitted 04/06/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/06/2018


Response #2:This project is a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) project and Risk Level is not required for a WPCP project.
For this project, the Contractor is to comply with Standard Special Specification section 13-2 Water Pollution Control Program.

Please refer to page 3 of Notice to Bidders for the Water Pollution Control items in the Bid list. Refer to page 33 of Special Provisions for Water Pollution Control specification.

Response posted 06/04/2018




Inquiry #22: Please confirm the project's underground conduit systems (MDCS and other conduit) can be installed by either trenching or directional drilling methods throughout the Project, at the sole discretion of the contractor. If there are any conditions or requirements where trenching or directional drilling methods are required or prohibited, please provide/clarify.
Inquiry submitted 04/06/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/09/2018


Response #2:Yes, it can be trenched or directional bore at the discretion of the contractor.
Response posted 05/31/2018




Inquiry #23: Will there be another mandatory prebid that GCs can attend to bid on the project, since the prebid was added in the addendum; we missed it.
Inquiry submitted 04/10/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/10/2018


Response #2:No additional prebid meetings are planned.
Response posted 05/04/2018




Inquiry #24: Can you clarify which fiber optic cable constructions are on this project? Specs provided seem to cover multiple types, but I can't confirm which are being asked for on this specific project. Thanks.
Inquiry submitted 04/10/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/11/2018


Response #2:The Special Provisions specified that for underground installations it is Type 1 or PVC and for in buildings, in structures or on structures it is Type 2 or Fiberglass.
Response posted 05/07/2018




Inquiry #25: Please clarify the following bid items: 23F, 27, 28-33 and 35

Bid Item 23F: Is this bid item for the utility MDSC clamps and hanger supports through bridge sections?
Bid Item 27: What exactly is this item referring to? Is this cutting the opening of the soffit and replacing with the hinged doors?
Bid Items 28-33: Not sure what these items are referring to?
Bid Item 35: Please confirm that conduit installation going through bridge section goes into this bid item?


Inquiry submitted 04/13/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/16/2018


Response #2:Bid Item 23F: MDSC Clamps and Hanger supports are covered under Standard Specifications 86-1.02B(2).

Bid Item 27: Please refer to plans and Standard Specifications 60-4.03.

Bid Items 28-33: Please refer to plans and contract Special Provisions 60-2.01A.

Bid Item 35: There is no separate item for "Conduit Installation going through Bridge Section".
Response posted 04/16/2018




Inquiry #26: Please confirm or advise on the following:
1) What are the official requirements for cleaning the forms from within the bridge cells for bid item's 28-33. Sometimes just enough to run the conduit is required but other times everything needs to come out. Please clarify.
2) We need to know jurisdiction lines at the two oil refinery crossings. Please clarify.
3) Transient Camps: Who will be in charge of making this a safe working environment? Is the city/county/state going to help?Please clarify.



Inquiry submitted 04/25/2018

Response #1:1) The official requirement for cleaning forms from within the structure is so that the Contractor has enough room to install the MDCS ( support blocks , hangers, junction boxes, wire troughs...) without the danger of injury from protruding nails, sections of plywood, broken 2x4 and so on.

2) The oil refineries maintain jurisdiction of the roadway through the two oil refinery crossings.

The State California owns the structure, thus, maintains the structure.

Most likely the contractor will access this location from the deck of the structure, through some type of overhanging supporting system to place the hangers and the fiber optic.

A close coordination between the RE office, the Contractor and the operators of the Oil Refineries is anticipated.

3) Caltrans is responsible for removal of illegal encampments. Before the removal of an illegal encampment, a 72-hour notice must be posted at the site. Scheduling and removal may be affected by available resources, safety concerns, and coordination with outside agencies. Caltrans is not an enforcement agency. If there is an immediate safety concern, please contact your local law enforcement agency.
Response posted 04/27/2018




Inquiry #27: Does Bid item 24 refer to the cleaning and painting of new structural steel (Bid Item 23F) or does it refer to the cleaning and painting of the existing steel on the bridge? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 04/27/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/27/2018


Response #2:Please refer to project special provisions Section 59-2.01A(1) for new steel and 59-2.01C(3) for existing steel.
Response posted 04/30/2018




Inquiry #28: (Full / Butt-Splice) BackBone Location’s, and where to apply: Only on (pg-E6) would appear to be a (Full / Butt-Splice) But, NO detail.
Q – Are the full/butt splices pre-planned? Or, will the contractor choose the appropriate (Full / Butt-Splice) locations based on reel length, and or, existing lateral “Splice-Points”?
Q - If so, will the contractor be required to space out the (Full / Butt-Splice) locations across multiple locations due to space within each vault?
Q – What is the maximum amount of splice enclosure allowed in (each) vault?
Q – Will the remaining BackBone FOC (4 thru 6) be fully / completely spliced through end-to-end? And, require testing?

Inquiry submitted 04/27/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/27/2018


Response #2:See Fiber Splice Schedule sheets, sheet ED-25 to ED-35. For spare FOC, splice as needed for the connection of the run.

See Special Provisions 87-8.02I.

Response posted 05/31/2018




Inquiry #29: Lateral “Splices Points”: All Lateral tie-in’s reference entering BackBone cable #1 & #2. (#3 is spare)
Q – At this location are we able to apply 1 splice enclosure capturing both BackBone Cable’s?
Q - Or, will the contractor need to apply 2 enclosures @ the same SV location? 1 splice enclosure applied on (each) BackBone cable?

Inquiry submitted 04/27/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/27/2018


Response #2:See Fiber Splice Schedule sheets, sheet ED-25 to ED-35. For spare FOC, splice as needed for the connection of the run.

See Special Provisions 87-8.02I.

Response posted 05/31/2018




Inquiry #30: Per Section - 87-8.01B Definitions (End Termination’s - All Hub & Field Cabinet Locations): States, “Pigtail: Relatively short length of fiber optic cable that is connectorized on only one end. All pigtails must be tight buffered cable”
Q - Please define “Tight-buffered cable” minimum length to be used, instead of loose-buffer?
Q - The BOM doesn’t support “Tight-buffer” FOC) Please define quantities of “Tight-Buffer” FOC.
Q – Will it be required to terminate the (Full complement) of the FOC?
• 72ct ends @ the 4 Hub locations?
• 12ct to 24ct @ Field cabinets?
• If so, will Uni-Direction ODTR Testing be required?
Q – Please confirm that FDU Pigtail splicing is allowed at (All) End Termination Points? (Exception, when “Tight-Buffer” FOC is applied?)

Inquiry submitted 04/27/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 04/27/2018




Inquiry #31: Pages – ED40 thru ED44 (Multi-Mode Armored FOC is referenced in the “Details”) However, on the BOM (pg-EQ1 thru EQ3 – “Quantities”) There is (no) multi-mode FOC called out.
Q – Please define quantities, and what type of Multi-Mode FOC?
• 62.5mic (OM1)?

Inquiry submitted 04/27/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/27/2018




Inquiry #32: Per Section - 87-8.02B(2) Cable Layup: References “FO cable must include the following components”
Q – Please confirm that (All) outside plant cabling will require “Armor”?

Inquiry submitted 04/27/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/27/2018




Inquiry #33: Per Section - 87-8.03C Splices and Termination: “The mean splice loss must not exceed 0.07 dB per splice. The mean splice loss is an average value of 2 loss measurements taken in the opposite directions”The National Bi-Directional OTDR Loss @ 1550nm is 0.10db or, higher on a (Single - straight splice. Not including - Mass Fusion) for Carrier Grade Long-Haul & Local Telecommunication Companies.
Q – Will the contractor be allowed to meet the National Bi-Directional Splice Loss of 0.10db?

Inquiry submitted 04/27/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/27/2018


Response #2:If calculations show that the system will work then yes, you can use the 0.1 dB loss number.
Response posted 05/31/2018




Inquiry #34: We need to see a better detail of the Existing Steel Truss Bottom Cord Member for Carquinez. It is impossible to tell how we are supposed to attach the L brackets for 23F. Please clarify
Inquiry submitted 04/27/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/27/2018


Response #2:Please bid per current contract plans.
Response posted 04/30/2018




Inquiry #35: Are erosion control plans going to be posted for this job soon? If Hydro-seeding or Compost is required, we can not bid them without plans or specifications.

Thank you.

Inquiry submitted 04/30/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/30/2018




Inquiry #36: Please provide clarification on the following:

The Carquinez Bridge has a seismic monitoring system. Basically the bridge is wired and we don’t want to compromise that. Are their any issues that Caltrans can make all potential bidders aware of?

What do we need in terms of Coast Guard permit/permission?

Do we need a rescue boat in place and manned at all times for the bay crossings?

What are the environmental requirements when working over the water?

Multiple bridges cross RR tracks. Any specific certification for this work?

Thank you

Inquiry submitted 05/03/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/08/2018


Response #2:a) Submitted for consideration.

b) You do not need a Coast Guard permit. It is expected that the contractor's work platform scaffolding will be hanging from the bridge.

The Contactor's work platform scaffolding will need approval from the Caltrans Resident Engineer, Caltrans Structure Construction and Caltrans Structure Maintenance to comply with all required work safety standards and safety netting.

c) You do not need a rescue boat in place and manned at times.

It is expected that the contractor's work platform scaffolding will be hanging from the bridge, and will comply with the required work safety standards and safety netting.

d) Submitted for consideration.

e) Multiple agreements have been entered into between the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Caltrans allowing the fiber line(s) to be installed over UPRR?s right of way.


Response posted 06/04/2018




Inquiry #37: Can you post the list of contractors that attended the prebid meeting on April 3?
Inquiry submitted 05/04/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/04/2018


Response #2:See list below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-155004/Prebid_Meeting_List.pdf
Response posted 05/04/2018




Inquiry #38: Is the Bid Date going to be moved to a later date? If so, can information be provided today on the new dates? Are there any Addenda forthcoming?
Inquiry submitted 05/07/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/08/2018


Response #2:Addendum 4 moved the bid date from May 10, 2018 to May 31, 2018.

Addendum 6 moved the bid date from May 31, 2018 to July 12, 2018.
Response posted 05/09/2018




Inquiry #39: Please provide clarification on the following:
1. The Carquinez Bridge has a seismic monitoring system. Basically the bridge is wired and we don't want to compromise that. Are their any issues that Caltrans can make all potential bidders aware of? Please clarify.
2. What do we need in terms of Coast Guard permit/permission?Please clarify.
3. Do we need a rescue boat in place and manned at all times for the bay crossings?Please clarify.
4. What are the environmental requirements when working over the water? Please clarify.
5. Multiple bridges cross RR tracks. Any specific certification for this work? Please clarify.


Inquiry submitted 05/07/2018

Response #1:Same as bidder inquiry #36.
Response posted 05/08/2018




Inquiry #40: Section 87-9.02B(4) Accessories states that the EDGE Ethernet switch must have one 8 port TX (copper) module, one 8 port fiber 1000Base Fiber module with 80Km optics, and one 8 port Gigabit SFP Module populated with eight 80Km SFPs. The interconnect plans show that the edge switches have two or three fiber connections. This requirement to provide sixteen 80Km optical ports makes the project cost several million dollars more than it needs to be for ports that will not be used. Recommend that you require two unpopulated 8 port SFP modules, and require the contractor furnish and install the proper SFPs for each link plus one spare of each type of SFP. Requiring 80Km optics for short distances is overkill and will require attenuation.The SFPs are available with 10Km, 40Km, and 80 Km optics.


Inquiry submitted 05/08/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/08/2018


Response #2:No. Due to future applications spare modules are needed.
Response posted 05/31/2018




Inquiry #41: Tennyson Electric is requesting a 2nd prebid due to short notification on the 1st schedule prebid. Tennyson would really like the opportunity to bid this as a Prime contractor but cannot do so without attendance of prebid.

Thank you in advance for your consideration!

Inquiry submitted 05/10/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/10/2018


Response #2:No additional prebid meetings are planned.
Response posted 05/11/2018




Inquiry #42: Are all existing exterior conduits to be attached to bridge structures to be painted to match existing conditions.Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 05/11/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/14/2018


Response #2:Please see contract special provisions 59-2.01A(1) for items to be painted.
Response posted 05/18/2018




Inquiry #43: Are all exterior mounted conduits to be attached to bridge structures to be painted to match existing conditions.Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 05/15/2018

Response #1:Same Question as above.
Response posted 05/16/2018




Inquiry #44: Since the project is has had a additional addendum and as of Tuesday May 15, there has been no amended drawings or additional information on the addendum posted, i would thing it would be appropriate to have a new pre-bid meeting scheduled for the project to speed up the process for bidding contractors to understand and clarify changes prior to bid.
Inquiry submitted 05/15/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/16/2018




Inquiry #45: Please disregard questions #42 and #43 as they appear to reference existing conduit. The new inquiry/question becomes please clarify if new/proposed mounted conduits to be attached to bridge structures are to be painted to match existing conditions. Please clarify.
Thank you

Inquiry submitted 05/16/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/16/2018




Inquiry #46: EQ-3 shows that there are 3 HUB PONs in total, but the plan sheet on ED - 21 shows there is a 4th HUB PON. Is this 4th HUB PON on ED-21 an Existing HUB PON? or are there 4 new in total? Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 05/17/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/17/2018


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