Bidder Inquiries

Sign In | Create Account

Viewing inquiries for 06-442544

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Will precast double cell box culvert be allowed for systems 24b and 24c
Inquiry submitted 09/18/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/18/2017


Response #2:
Yes, the contractor may propose the use of a precast box culvert.
Response posted 10/09/2017




Inquiry #2: Special provision 14-11.16C Site Conditions states: "An asbestos survey was performed for bridge no. 50-0316 and 50-0030. The relevant portions of the asbestos survey report are included in the Information Handout."

A survey report was not provided in the informational handout. Please provide a copy of the asbestos survey.

Inquiry submitted 09/20/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/20/2017


Response #2:
Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated October 6, 2017.
Response posted 10/09/2017




Inquiry #3: No lane closure chart is provided for TH-25 complete closure of I5. Advise if a chart will be provided.
Inquiry submitted 09/20/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/20/2017


Response #2:
Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated October 6, 2017.
Response posted 10/09/2017




Inquiry #4: The IH is missing cross section information for alignment ETRNS1 STA 415+01.05 to 423+00.00. Please provide the missing cross section and surface file.
Inquiry submitted 09/22/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/22/2017


Response #2:
Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated October 6, 2017.
Response posted 10/09/2017




Inquiry #5: Overhead sign structures are shown on sheet E-16, E-19, and E-22 which are noted as having power conductors routed to the signs, but no fixtures or sign controller are called out to be installed. Should there be fixtures, conduit and wire, and sign controllers at these locations?
Inquiry submitted 09/25/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/25/2017


Response #2:
Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated October 6, 2017.
Response posted 10/09/2017




Inquiry #6: The cross sections or layout sheets are not showing the limits for CRCP into the side streets or into Ramps 5 and 6. Can you please clarify if CRCP construction goes into the sides streets? and if so, how far into the side streets are the limits of construction for CRCP? Also, please clarify the limits for CRCP into ramps 5 and 6?


Based on the drawings, there is no reconstruction of Warren Drive and Aloma Street, (north and south of Route 46). Can you please clarify if Warren Drive and Aloma Street are not be reconstructed? Can you also clarify the limits of construction for Lawton Drive and for New County Road tying into Warren Drive and Aloma Street?

Inquiry submitted 09/25/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/25/2017


Response #2:The CRCP will extend up to the conform line on the local roads as shown on Construction Details Sheets C-1, 2, 3 and 4.

The CRCP will extend into the gore areas of Ramps 1 and 5 as shown on Typical Cross Sections Sheet X-3.

There is no reconstruction of Warren Drive or Aloma Street with the exception of the north leg of Aloma Street. Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated October 6, 2017.

See Typical Cross Sections Sheet X-7 for construction limits of Lawton Drive and New County Road.

Response posted 10/09/2017




Inquiry #7: Bid item 73(F) Furnish Sign Structure (Lightweight) is called out to be used however the sign sheets do not have design sheets for these lightweight sign structures. The sign panels for these structures are shown on SD-1 however a structure design is required with details showing the span, post height, post type, span design, mast tube sizes etc... This is a final pay item so it must have design drawings for each structure.

In addition to the above the lightweight sign structure sheets were deleted from the 2015 standard plan book and lightweight design drawings have not been put back into the 2015 book. The 2015 book only has sheets S48, S49 & S50 but these sheets are not complete and currently only apply for Extinguishable Message Sign Structures (Lightweight) which these structures are not EMS's. The 2010 Standard Plan book started at S41 to S50 but were deleted so standard plan design sheets also need to be provided for these structures.

Inquiry submitted 10/11/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/11/2017




Inquiry #8: Plan sheet L-4 shows Concrete Barrier Type 736 on Rte 46 NB Off Ramp "RMP3" from 946+35 to 947+00. The Summary of Quantities shows this concrete barrier as Type 736SV. However, the Retaining Wall plan sheet has a typical cross section and the concrete barrier on the typical section looks like a Type 736. Please clarify which type of concrete barrier this is.
Inquiry submitted 10/11/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/11/2017




Inquiry #9: RFI RE: Rte 46 Lost Hills Road
06-442544
Per the Bid Item List in Specifications, Item #38, Class 2 Aggregate Base, has the owner’s quantity of 56,300 CY. In the Summary of Quantities found in the Plans (Sheet Q-1), it is specified that the Median Islands has a total of 8,760 CY. However, with the depth of 0.33’ specified in the typical sections and the total area of the medians per the plans, it is not possible to generate the owner’s quantity. Please provide more information regarding the rest of the location of the Class 2 Aggregate Base.

Inquiry submitted 10/11/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/11/2017




Inquiry #10: RFI RE: Rte 46 Lost Hills Road
06-442544
Per the Summary of Quantities in Addendum 1, it is noted that Retaining Walls 1 and 2 have a total structural concrete of 238 CY. However this number is unattainable given that RW1 is 65 feet in length and 15.5 feet in average height and RW2 is 70 feet in length and 7.5 feet in average height. Please provide more information regarding the Structural Concrete for Retaining Walls.

Inquiry submitted 10/11/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/11/2017




Inquiry #11: Please furnish grading contour sheets for the entire project (dgn format preferred). Sections of Route 46 and adjoining streets (i.e. Lawton, Warren and Aloma) that are east and west of I5 are not included in the current contour plans.
The current plans only provide grading contours at the Route 46/ I5 interchange (see pages G-1 through G-4).

Inquiry submitted 10/13/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/13/2017




Inquiry #12: During stage construction, the plans show that business will lose direct driveway access to HWY 46. Please confirm that business access provided via existing driveways along County frontage roads (Warren St, Aloma St, Lawton Dr, and New County Rd) is sufficient for public convince as planned.
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/16/2017




Inquiry #13: Section 14-6.03A states that vegetation removal within the Main Flood Canal and Westside Canal shall be removed by hand. These areas are heavily overgrown with vegetation and hand removal is impractical since all material must be removed from the channel/canal. Since equipment is allowed in the channel/canal for construction of the bridge and box culvert can mechanical vegetation removal be utilized?
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/16/2017




Inquiry #14: Section 7-1.04 Public Safety states that an excavation is within 15’ from the edge of an open traffic lane Krail or other protective system be installed. All earthwork/roadwork along HWY 46 during stage 1 and 2 will be less than 15’ from open traffic lanes. The Stage construction plans do not show the instillation of Krail. To build the project as shown on the stage construction and traffic handling plans Krail should be installed along the stage line to facilitate construction. Please update the stage construction and traffic handling plans and add additional krail quantity to cover this work.
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2017




Inquiry #15: Traffic handling plans for stage 1 do not indicate re-striping or relocation of the existing traffic pattern. Furthermore, the traffic handling plans for both stage one and two do not indicate when the west bound roadway section from the Hwy 46 alignment line to 12' north of alignment is built. Stage 2 traffic handling plans show this work as complete. Please indicate when this work will happen and if modification to the stage 1 traffic handling plans will be made.
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2017




Inquiry #16: Retaining wall #1 on RMP 3 line at STA 946+35 to 947+00 is in Stage 2C. Per the stage construction plans 2C will be constructed under the ramp closure chart J1. The ramp closure chart J1 only allows for a 30 HR complete closure. The 30 HR closure window is not enough time to construct both the new roadway and retaining wall. A retaining wall of this size will take several weeks to construct not including the cure time of roughly 7-14 days before backfill can start. Please provide a new traffic chart for an extended ramp 3 closure.
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2017




Inquiry #17: The project plans call out for Type 60R barrier rail on sheet L-4. There is no standard plan or detail in the project plans for Type 60R barrier rail. Please provide a Type 60R detail.
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2017




Inquiry #18: The quantities for items 51, 57 and 60 look considerably overstated (>25%). Please review and comment.
Inquiry submitted 10/18/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/18/2017




Inquiry #19: The contour grading plan sheets G-1 thru G-4 do not reflect the work on the entire project. As of now, the contract plans are incomplete and we are unable to complete the earthwork take off until all contour grading plan sheets are provided for mainline and side streets to match the layout drawings.

In order to complete and provide an accurate earthwork take off, please provide one of the following:
- Contour grading plan view showing the existing and proposed contour lines *.PDF
- Design and existing topo plan view *.DGN file

Inquiry submitted 10/20/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/20/2017


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


Contracting Information

Statewide Alerts and Other Information