Bidder Inquiries

Sign In | Create Account

Viewing inquiries for 06-0Q2804

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Plans sheets (X-15 & X-16) calls for the removal of existing retaining wall.
1. Would it be possible to get as-builts or additional details on the existing retaining wall?
2. Typical Cross Sections show a barrier on top of existing retaining wall, how does this get paid?

Inquiry submitted 07/09/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/10/2018


Response #2:1. As-builts for existing retaining wall are not available.
2. Barrier at Top of Retaining Wall will be paid thru item code 035564, Item # 155 as listed on the list of Bid Items. Please bid per current plans and specifications.
3. Removal of existing barrier on top of existing retaining wall will be paid through item 600017, Remove Retaining Wall.
Response posted 07/26/2018




Inquiry #2: Based on our initial study of the drawings and cross-sections we see major under-runs in the embankment quantities and import borrow quantities. Please revisit and revise accordingly via addendum.
Inquiry submitted 07/09/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/10/2018


Response #2:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/10/2018


Response #3:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 08/08/2018




Inquiry #3: Plans note the removal of the downdrain. Replacement material not noted on Bid Items List, only Ends Section, Slip Joints, Anchor Assemblies and Entrance Taper. Is 12" Downdrain Corrugated Metal Pipe not needed?

Inquiry submitted 07/20/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/20/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated July 27, 2018.
Response posted 07/31/2018




Inquiry #4: Bid Item No. 61 TACK COAT with a quantity of 50 TON appears to be highly over stated. Based on the current design almost all the HMA can be placed on one lift thus tack coat in between lifts is not required. Is there another application where the tack coat is required? Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 07/20/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/20/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #5: Per Bid Item No. 71 there is 46,800 CY of REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT on the project. We have studied the drawings and have found a good portion of the 46,800 CY bid quantity is comprised of the ramp entrance and exit tapers which are asphalt concrete and do not match the bid item description. We have two inquiries regarding this item.

1. Please confirm that the contractor get paid for the CY of removal regardless if it is AC or PCC in this bid item?
2. How does the existing CTB removal get paid? It would seem that this should be included in Bid Item 71.

Inquiry submitted 07/20/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/20/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #6: The Layout sheets do NOT show any following CRCP Joints nor are they listed in the Summary of Quantities:

1. CRCP Terminal Joints (of any Type)
2. Wide Flange Beam Terminal Joints
3. Expansion Joints (of any Type)

Please confirm that this project will not require these type of CRCP Joints at the bridge structures or anywhere else with-in the project limits.

Inquiry submitted 07/20/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/23/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #7: Sheet L-21 shows a TCE from approximately 303+50 to 305+50 “WBL” line Lt, However the contract documents do not specify a duration of how long the TCE is available. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/23/2018


Response #2:The bidder's attention is directed to Stage Construction, SC-1, sheet 141, Notes. #2 states "Stage 4, 24th ST Improvements_ Sheets SC41 to SC45 , must be completed by Stage 1, phase 2 of the mainline project." Bid per current contract documents.

Response posted 07/30/2018




Inquiry #8: Special Provision section 14-11.08A 3rd paragraph, states that “Type Z-3 exists between 0 & 2ft, measured horizontally from the edges of the existing pavement, from Rte 99 NB shoulder 667+00 to 958+00”, however there is no bid item for Roadway Excavation (type Z-3). Inclusively the summary of quantities only indicate Type Z-2 Roadway Excavation. Please clarify this Discrepancy.
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/23/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #9: RW1 & RW 303 do not have any Geotechnical data in the Informational handout, please provide information on boring logs, soil type, sand equivalency, percentage of fines and water tables if applicable.
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/23/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated July 27, 2018.
Response posted 07/30/2018




Inquiry #10: Several existing sections as shown on sheet X-1 contain subsurface layers of various CTB that require removal, these sections are called out as CL A CTB, CL B CTB and CTB. Please provide the cement content and specifications for these layers during their respective period of construction.
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/23/2018


Response #2:No additional information is available at this time. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 08/03/2018




Inquiry #11: Under the guidelines of standard specification 7-1.04 “Public Safety” the contractor can self-perform their own traffic control for “all movements of workmen and construction equipment”. Pursuant to 12-4.02C(7)(D) COZEEP may be requested for a list of special operations. Please confirm that COZEEP is not a mandatory requirement for this.
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/23/2018


Response #2:COZEEP is a mandatory requirement for traffic breaks.
Response posted 07/26/2018




Inquiry #12: Section 12-4.02C(7)(d) lists examples of circumstances where traffic breaks “may” be requested, will Caltrans authorize traffic breaks for activities not on the list. Including but not limited to setting K-rail, setting cones and placing striping.
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/23/2018


Response #2:If activities not listed require a traffic break, The Engineer may authorize.
Response posted 07/26/2018




Inquiry #13: Section 12-4.02D states that “the hourly rate for each CHP officer providing COZEEP support is $115 per hour, section 12-4.02C(7)(d) also states a minimum of 2 CHP vehicles with 2 officers will be assigned to conduct a traffic break. Does the rate provided include the vehicles? If so, will payment be covered by the state? If a sergeant is required, what is the rate? Will the state cover the cost?
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/23/2018


Response #2:Rate provided includes the vehicle. Payment for traffic break COZEEP will be paid by the Contractor. Bidder can use $115/hour rate for COZEEP support. The Contractor is responsible for payment for traffic break COZEEP support.
Response posted 07/27/2018




Inquiry #14: If the Engineer requests COZEEP presence to stay idle within the closure but does not have them perform traffic breaks, who will be responsible for the payment?
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/23/2018


Response #2:COZEEP outside of the traffic break request will not be the responsibility of the Contractor.
Response posted 07/27/2018




Inquiry #15: For traffic breaks, the minimum amount of COZEEP hours that the Contractor is responsible for is dependent on whether or not a closure is in place during the requested traffic break. Section 12-4.02D states that if a closure is in place then the minimum number of hours for an officer is 1 hour. This seems to imply that COZEEP support will be on-site during all closures. For bidding purposes, please clarify when COZEEP will be provided by Caltrans.
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/23/2018


Response #2:Other than traffic break COZEEP, The Engineer determines if COZEEP is needed and the Department pays 100%.


Response posted 07/27/2018




Inquiry #16: We understand that the State is currently in the process of modifying the current Standard Specifications and issuing addendum(s) with new requirements with regards to Section 40-1.01D(8)(c)(i) Acceptance Testing of the 2015 Standard Specifications Section 40-1.01D(13)(d), “Pavement Smoothness" which states:

1. No areas of localized roughness with an International Roughness Index (IRI) greater than 120 in/mi.
2. Mean Roughness Index (MRI) of 60in/mi or less within a 0.1-mile section.

Does Caltran's intend to offer the new “Pavement Smoothness" amendment for this contract prior to bid?

Inquiry submitted 07/23/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/24/2018


Response #2:No. Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 07/30/2018




Inquiry #17: Bid item 70 ISOLATION JOINT SEAL (ASPHALT RUBBER) for 26,300 LF seems to be highly understated. It appears that the bid item only covers the isolation quantity where the JPCP connects to existing concrete roadway for both sides of the hwy median improvements.

However, based on the Revised Standard plan P5B an Longitudinal Isolation Joint is also required between the new CRCP and existing concrete pavement at the NB & SB widening.

Caltrans historically has shown the locations of Isolation Joints in the Typical Cross Sections. Please review and revise the Isolation Joint Seal quantity and amend via addendum.

Inquiry submitted 07/23/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/24/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #18: Due to heavy Bidding Schedules the last several weeks and limited resources, will the Department consider one additional outreach meeting required by Section 2-1.05 of the Special Provisions to expand the number of bidders?
Inquiry submitted 07/24/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/26/2018


Response #2:No additional outreach meetings are scheduled at this time.
Response posted 07/26/2018




Inquiry #19: Stage Construction Sheet SC-1 (Sheet 141/717) of the Contract Plans states the following on Note Number 1:

"1. FIRST ORDER OF WORK MUST BE PANEL REPLACEMENT ON #1 & #2 LANES AND PROFILE GRADING"

Please clarify what is meant by "PROFILE GRADING". Was the intent to state "PROFILE GRINDING" after the panel replacement is complete to insure a smooth matching riding surface? If so, how would the PROFILE GRINDING get paid?

Inquiry submitted 07/24/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/26/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #20: Contractor cannot locate Details for the "TAPERED EDGE" that is shown on TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS X-2, X-4 and X-5. We also cannot do not see it shown anywhere in the quantity sheets.

1. Please provide details for this item of work.
2. How does this item get paid?

Inquiry submitted 07/24/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/26/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #21: (amended to correct grammatical error)

Contractor cannot locate Details for the "TAPERED EDGE" that is shown on TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS X-2, X-4 and X-5. We also do not see it shown anywhere in the quantity sheets.

1. Please provide details for this item of work.
2. How does this item get paid?

Inquiry submitted 07/24/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/26/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #22: Construction Details Sheet C-6 (Sheet 51/717) of the Contract Plans shows the following:

PCC DIKE (TYPE C) - depicts that PCC Dike footing is 1.35' JPCP.

Please clarify, is the intent really to have the footing for PCC Dike (TYPE C) constructed and paid under JPCP bid item?


Inquiry submitted 07/24/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/26/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #23: (apologize in advance for the long bidder inquiry)

Special Provisions State the following in Section "7 LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC ":

"Lead is present in earth material on the job site. Management of this material exposes workers to health hazards that must be addressed in your lead compliance plan. The average lead concentrations are below 1,000 mg/kg total lead and below 5 mg/L soluble lead. The material on the job site:

1. Is not a hazardous waste
2. Does not require disposal at a permitted landfill or solid waste disposal facility

Lead is typically found within the top 2 feet of material in unpaved areas of the highway."

The same section is followed by this:

"Lead has been detected in material to a depth of 2 feet in unpaved areas of the highway. Levels of lead found on the job site range from less than 1.0; 1.2 to 580; 340 mg/kg total lead with an average concentration of 76.7; 42.1 mg/kg total lead as analyzed by EPA test method 6010 or EPA test method 7000 series and based upon a 95 percent upper confidence limit. Levels of lead found within the project limits have a predicted average soluble concentration of 8.0; 4.2 mg/L as analyzed by the California Waste Extraction Test and based upon a 95 percent upper confidence limit.

Handle the material under all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including those of the following agencies:

1. Cal/OSHA
2. CA RWQCB, Region 5F—Central Valley
3. CA Department of Toxic Substances Control

Manage the material as shown in the following Earth Material Management table.

STA 667+00 – 958+00 (NB Route 99) Surface to 0.5 feet Excavate in lifts – Top 0.5 feet is hazardous for NB Route 99

STA 667+00 – 958+00 (NB Route 99) Surface to 1.0 feet Excavate in lifts – Top 1.0 feet is hazardous for SB Route 99

NB Route 99 0.5-2.5 feet Reuse all earth material on the job or relinquish without restriction

SB Route 99 1.0-2.5 feet 1) Stockpile and test all excavated earth material at an authorized location before reuse, or 2) dispose of as a California Hazardous Waste.

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"


The Special Provisions seem to contradict themselves with regards to management, handling and disposal of the Earth Material that contains lead. In the first section of the Special Provisions it clearly states that "The material on the jobsite is NOT hazardous waste and does NOT require disposal at a permitted landfill". But in the paragraphs and table that follow it states the complete opposite.

Please clarify. In the event that the material in question DOES require it to be "Stockpile(d) and test(ed) all excavated earth material at an authorized location before reuse, or 2) dispose(d) of as a California Hazardous Waste." Please provide the following:

1. The location where the material is to be stockpiled.
2. The the testing requirements.
3. Method of payment for Stockpiling, Testing, Management and Disposal of California Hazardous Waste.



Inquiry submitted 07/24/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/26/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #24: Reference plans SC-4 and SC-22. On plan SC-4 the legend notes indicate a portion of the work must be completed in “55 working days”. Another note says a different portion of the work must be completed in “55 days”. Another note says ramps must be completed in “25” days. Plan SC-22 places additional deadlines in days. Please clarify whether the indicated days are to be “calendar” days or “working” days.

Inquiry submitted 07/25/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/26/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #25: Reference Plan C-6 (Sheet No. 51). The details for PCC Dike, Types A, C, E, and F as well as the details for the Typical PCC Dike Transitions show PCC Dike positioned over a construction joint, on top of the layer of CRCP, with the CRCP extending beyond the EP to accommodate the width of the dike. But the “PCC Dike Quantities” gives unit volumes in cubic yards per linear foot that are much greater than the volume calculated using the dimensions of the dike. Is the layer of concrete, below the construction Joint, outside of the EP, that constitutes the foundation for the Dike to be included and paid for as PCC Dike or as CRCP?

Inquiry submitted 07/25/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/26/2018


Response #2:Materials under PCC dike is "Minor concrete (PCC Dike)". The quantities are included under "Minor Concrete (PCC Dike)".
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #26: Please reference Plan X-1, (Sheet No. 2). Per plan X-1, in the case of high side minor concrete gutter, the gutter portion is identified as minor concrete. So is the portion under the dike also minor concrete or something else?
Inquiry submitted 07/25/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/26/2018


Response #2:Materials under PCC dike is "Minor concrete (PCC Dike)". The quantities are included under "Minor Concrete (PCC Dike)".
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #27: For the following questions please reference plan C-6, (Sheet No. 51). The three dimensional plan at bottom shows CRCP is widened to accommodate PCC dike. Sectioned plan above shows a joint between CRCP and JPCP under dike.
a) Is the additional pavement below the dike paid as CRCP or JPCP?
b) If the additional pavement below the dike is CRCP does it contain rebar?
c) If the additional pavement below the dike is JPCP does it require transverse joints and if so are they doweled?
d) If the additional pavement below the dike is placed after the CRCP does it require a tie bar, and if so what size and length?

Inquiry submitted 07/25/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/26/2018


Response #2:Materials under PCC dike is "Minor concrete (PCC Dike)". The quantities are included under "Minor Concrete (PCC Dike)".
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #28: Sheets SD-3 & SD-4 (417-418 of 717) shows light posts on top of the overhead sign structures and makes reference to the electrical plans - please provide what bid item these light posts and light arms fall under? We cannot find a specific bid item where these are included.
Inquiry submitted 07/25/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/26/2018


Response #2:The lighting standards shown on top of the overhead sign structures on sheets SD-3 and SD-4 are paid for by bid item Modifying Existing Electrical Systems. Refer to sheet E-6 for Lighting System details.
Response posted 07/27/2018




Inquiry #29: Follow Up to Inquiry #2: Major under-runs in the embankment quantities and import borrow quantities that was submitted 07/09/2018

Special provisions call for the Imported borrow placed within 4 feet of the finished grade must have an R-value of at least 40. Specials also state to strip materials that adversely affect the imported borrow properties.

Please confirm that the striping of materials that adversely affect the imported borrow properties will be paid as extra work under Standard Specifications "Section 19-1.03B Unsuitable Material".

Inquiry submitted 07/30/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/30/2018


Response #2:Bid per current contract Documents. Please refer to Section 19-7 Borrow Material of the 2015 Standard Specifications.
Response posted 08/08/2018




Inquiry #30: Bid Item Number 111 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (60 LB, CLASS II, METHOD B) (CY) for 210 CY is doubled up.

Plan Sheet 111/717 DRAINAGE QUANTITIES shows that the DQ-8 subtotal and Overside Drain and Downdrain Quantities are duplicated.

Inquiry submitted 07/30/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/30/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated July 27, 2018.
Response posted 08/01/2018




Inquiry #31: There are many critical Bidder Inquiries that have not been addressed and with a little over a week remaining to the bid date, the contractors will not have enough time to review and adjust their bids accordingly.
Please consider postponing the bid opening in order to get all the bidder inquires addressed.

Inquiry submitted 07/30/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/30/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 3, dated August 1, 2018.
Response posted 08/01/2018




Inquiry #32: Contractor cannot determine where bid item 72 GRIND EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT 270 SY occurs on the project. The quantity sheets state that is NB “A1” 856+61 to 943+85 which is about ¼ of the project site, the limits of the concrete grind are not shown on the layout drawings. Is this one location? Multiple? At what thickness? Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 07/30/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/30/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 5, dated August 16, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #33: Regarding CRCP tie bars: Please confirm that epoxy coating of the intermediate tie bars and tie bars is required as per Section 40 (Concrete Pavement) of the Standard Specifications. Reference Section 40 40-1.02C(4).
Inquiry submitted 07/31/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/31/2018


Response #2:Bid per current contract documents and as required by Section 40-1.02C(4) Tie Bars of the 2015 Standard Specifications.
Response posted 08/08/2018




Inquiry #34: Regarding 25 Day ramp closures with CRCP:
Most of the CRCP ramps designated as 25 day closure require 3 separate pours, because of grade breaks and access issues. And for access, rebar can only be placed for one pour at a time.
In order to access subsequent pours, concrete trucks and equipment will generally have to drive on initial pours.
Standard Specification 40-1.03J requires 10 days and 550 PSI before traffic is allowed on CRCP.

Caltrans has two choices: extend the duration of the 25 day closures, or waive the 10 day requirement and specify only a strength requirement. Otherwise the 25 day closure is untenable and contractors will have to add late opening liquidated damages to their bids.

Inquiry submitted 07/31/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/31/2018


Response #2:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 08/03/2018




Inquiry #35: Please reference inquiry #6 regarding CRCP joints:

In the event that CRCP joints are required, Caltrans needs to account for the additional time required for the type of joint specified. For instance the Wide Flange Beam terminal joint and its accompanying Expansion joint type WF (RSP’s P32A and B) require a series of sub-slabs spanning 80’. These sub-slabs have their own cure time requirements, and they generally have to be placed for one pour at a time because they restrict access.

Inquiry submitted 07/31/2018

Response #1:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 07/31/2018


Response #2:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #36: Please confirm a DBE contractor with a NAICS Code 237310 can perform any work on the project and will count towards the DBE goal.
Inquiry submitted 08/01/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/02/2018


Response #2:The Department cannot confirm having the NAISC code can count towards the goal. The DBE must have the work code for DBE goal credit. The NAISC code is not referenced in the specs. Attention is directed to Revised Standard Specifications 2-1.12B.
Response posted 08/13/2018




Inquiry #37: The specifications bar vendors and subs from participating in the TRO bid item. They are required to allocate their overhead into the various bid items. What is the method of compensation for subcontractors and/or vendors affected by an Owner caused delay? The Contract does not state methods of compensation including relevant section for such instances from the Owner.
Inquiry submitted 08/02/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/03/2018


Response #2:Often associated with owner caused delays are changes and extra work (See Section 4-1.05, "Changes and Extra Work," of the Standard Specifications). Item quantity changes, item adjustments and extra work impact overhead compensation.

Section 9-1.04, "Force Account," of the Standard Specifications identifies two sets of markups applied within a contract with a TRO bid item. Higher markups are applied to labor, materials and equipment rental on subcontracted work than those for non-subcontracted work. Section 9-1.04B, "Labor," of the Standard Specifications describes the labor markup, including payment for overhead costs.

Section 9-1.17D(2)(b), "Overhead Claims," identifies overhead claim requirements when you intend to seek reimbursement for specific overhead costs beyond that provided by the Contract. Subcontractors on projects with a TRO bid item would follow these requirements for unrecovered overhead due to a Department caused delay.

Response posted 08/03/2018




Inquiry #38: Section 2-1.44 ESCROW OF BID DOCUMENTATION requires the contractor to submit documentation to the Duty Senior for escrow on the first Tuesday after bid opening. Based on the original bid date of August 7th (which was a Tuesday) the contractors would have 4.5 business days to turn in the escrow documents.

With the new bid date of August 23rd contractors only have 2.5 business days to turn in required documentation. This quick turn around promotes a problem because the requirements also stipulate that we must submit bid documentation for each subcontractor, manufacturer, and supplier whose subcontract or purchase orders exceed or are expected to exceed $250,000.00. This project will easily have over dozen subcontractors that will meet those qualifications and which promotes huge logistical problem for the prime contractor not to mention that DBE documents are also due in that period. Please consider allowing contractors the original 4.5 business days to turn escrow documents or extending to the next-next Tuesday Sept 4th.

Inquiry submitted 08/09/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/10/2018


Response #2:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/10/2018


Response #3:The document submittal date needs to be on Tuesday per contract documents. In order to ensure bid documents and escrow requirements remain consistent for bidders, filing should be done on the same day and time by all bidders, and reasonably recent with respect to their bids to ensure bid documents are unchanged.
Response posted 08/15/2018




Inquiry #39: Follow up to bidder inquiry #2 submitted on 07/09 and follow up inquiry #17 submitted on 7/30.

The Contractor’s position is the embankment quantities and Import Borrow (Bid Item 43 in the amount of 96,100 CY) have major under runs as shown in the contract documents. In fact, currently NO import borrow is shown on the plan sheets.

Caltran's (CT) position is to bid per the contract documents.

1. Contractor humbly requests that CT revisit and thoroughly investigate these previous bidder inquiries and provide timely and conclusive response. We request that that the responses refer directly to the plans, specifications, and other provisions of the contract. Quote specific sections of the special provisions, as well as specific sheet numbers and details.

2. In addition, contractor also requests that Caltrans provide (as part of this response) the Geo-technical Design Report that was used in the design for this project as an information handout.

These outstanding queries and implied massive under runs are such that they currently jeopardize the integrity of the bidding process.

Inquiry submitted 08/13/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/15/2018


Response #2:Refer to Response to Inquiry #2 for this project.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #40: Contractor is submitting this Inquiry on behalf of Reinforcing Steel Subcontractor. The typical cross sections do NOT clearly state some of the proposed Pavement Structural sections. As such the subcontractor cannot confirm where the new CRCP will be placed for their pricing.

As an example, sheet X-1 does not show what new structural section are designated in shoulders, it only shows that its existing section “A”. Same can be said about typical X-8…the new 12’ lanes in the middle are not labeled it only shows that existing section is “G”. The subs concern is that some typical cross sections are completely labeled as an example of a perfect labeled cross section see X-7. They shared a level of concern of not being able to price out the work because the overall cross sections inconsistencies are such that they could not even make reasonable assumptions.

Subcontractor stated when he referred to the layout drawings for a cross check and confirmation of new pavement sections limits that the layout drawings did not have any of new pavement section labels/limits designations shown.

Contractor is requesting, in order to properly price out the work would it be possible to:
1. Label typical cross-section areas that currently do not have a label?
2. Label the limits of the new Pavement Structural Sections in the Layout Drawings?

Inquiry submitted 08/13/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/15/2018


Response #2:Outside shoulders (N/B and S/B) and mainline have the same structural sections.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #41: For the 2 poles on top of overhead sign structures, referenced on sheet E-6, SD-3 & SD-4, there is no reference as to what pole type / arm length is required. Please clarify. Thank you
Inquiry submitted 08/15/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/17/2018


Response #2:Per Addendum No. 6, dated August 20, 2018: Refer to 2015 Use Luminaire Mast Arm Length 15'-0", Pole Extension Type 5 and Pole Height 5'-0".
Response posted 08/17/2018




Inquiry #42: Please confirm all excavation work including the handling, removal and disposal as required by the specifications for the work in areas that contain aerially deposited lead or contaminated soils are paid for under bid items 36 and 37 respectively. In addition, please confirm bid item 43 will compensate the contractor for import borrow needed to backfill excavated areas as a result of the removal of contaminated soils as needed by the the work.
Inquiry submitted 08/17/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/17/2018


Response #2:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #43: Refer to Plan Sheet 530 construction note 4 as typical scenario when called out for on plans. Please confirm that you want the conduit crossing to be open trenched as per construction note as shown on page 560 detail 'Q'. If so, the detail does not provide sufficient information for that work.
Inquiry submitted 08/17/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/20/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 6, dated August 20th, 2018.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #44: Refer to Plan Sheet 560 details 'P' and 'Q'. Please confirm those details shall also apply when installation happens in dirt.
Inquiry submitted 08/17/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/20/2018


Response #2:Per Electrical Details on sheet 560, Details P and Q also apply when installation happens in dirt.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #45: Refer to Plan Sheet 532 construction note 6. The details the note references does not apply. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 08/17/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/20/2018


Response #2:LEGEND [6] on Sheet No. 532 does apply. See Innerduct Detail on Sheet No. 560 and Fiber Optic Conduit plan Sheet No. 687.
Response posted 08/21/2018




Inquiry #46: In light of Addendum No.5 Special Provisions response to Section 7 as it relates to the Lead present in the earth material.

Contractor cannot determine where Type Z-2 Lead is located on the project and requests the following:

1. A drawing similar to C-27 showing where the that shows where the ROADWAY EXCAVATION (TYPE Z-2) (AERIALLY DEPOSITED LEAD) is located on the job site.

2. Request a drawing where the ROADWAY EXCAVATION (TYPE Y-1) (AERIALLY DEPOSITED LEAD) can be encapsulated within the project limits.

Traditionally CT has always included these type drawings in the Construction Details but they are missing in this contract.

Based on the current Contract Documents there is not enough information to reasonably bid LEAD items.

Inquiry submitted 08/20/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/21/2018


Response #2:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 08/24/2018




Inquiry #47: The bid opening was postponed in Addendum #7 with less than an hour left on the bid opening. The same addendum in part states “An addendum will follow advising you of the additional changes.”

As of 8/30/18 the new addendum has not been issued.

With only two business days left before the 9/5/18 bid opening what is the status of the Addendum #8?

Please consider postponing the bid opening in order to allow time for CT to issue the new addendum with the forthcoming changes and allow contractors the time to study and modify their bids accordingly.

Inquiry submitted 08/30/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/30/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 8, dated August 31, 2018.
Response posted 08/31/2018


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