Bidder Inquiries

Sign In | Create Account

Viewing inquiries for 10-1C3004

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Please provide clarification on the load rating for the core on the fiber optic splice vaults required on this project.
Inquiry submitted 09/28/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/28/2017


Response #2:
The load rating for the splice vaults is shown on sheet ED-12, Note 1, as shown below:

VAULT DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO H-20-44 TRAFFIC BRIDGE LOADING USING 25.9 MPa COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH CONCRETE AND 413.7 Mpa YIELD STRENGTH ASTM A-706 STEEL REINFORCEMENT PER CALCULATIONS.

Response posted 10/09/2017




Inquiry #2: Inquiry 1 was intended to define the load rating on the "steel cover" of the splice box.
The ED-12 note 1 does not provide the loading on the steel cover but refers to the compressive strength of the precast concrete box itself.

Would you please provide clarification on the torsion assisted 2 piece steel cover “Loading”? The ASTM C1802 has been provided to all agencies and engineers and we must comply to this ASTM for all "loading on the steel doors".

Inquiry submitted 10/09/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/09/2017


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated November 3, 2017.
Response posted 11/03/2017




Inquiry #3: Please provide cross sections for the project. It is impossible to calculate the roadway excavation quantities and locations without them.
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/23/2017


Response #2:
Cross sections have been provided under supplemental_info.
Response posted 10/24/2017




Inquiry #4: The typical cross sections for Route 99 on plan sheets X-4 and X-5 show the structural section to be 0.20' RHMA-G over 1.70' HMA (Type A). Please confirm this is the correct structural section for this area. On sheets L-6 and L-7 the area appears to be shown as 0.20' RHMA-G over 0.90' HMA (Type A) over 1.45' Class 2 AB.
Inquiry submitted 10/24/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/24/2017


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated November 3, 2017.
Response posted 11/03/2017




Inquiry #5: The irrigation plans show the installation of various new irrigation control valves to a few existing irrigation controllers. It also shows several locations to connect to the existing system. However, it is not clear if new wire from the existing controller to the new remote control valves be required.
Please clarify if there spare control wires for the new remote control valves. Or new armor-clad wires are required from the existing controller to the new remote control valve?

Inquiry submitted 10/24/2017

Response #1:
Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/24/2017


Response #2:
Yes, new control wire is required to the new remote control valves. Landscape plans no longer show control wire; there is now only a bid item. The Standard Plans provide for control wire to either be installed in the same trench with the irrigation supply line (mainline) or by itself. The provisions are shown in Section 20-2.04, Control and Neutral Conductors.
Response posted 10/27/2017




Inquiry #6: Please refer to plan sheet L-4. The pavement shown to be constructed appears to be partially in the traveled way of the NB Hammett onramp. There is no traffic handling (temp krail, temp striping, etc.) shown for this location. Will temporary traffic handling be required at this location? Is so, please provide a plan showing what will be required.
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/01/2017


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 3, dated November 9, 2017.
Response posted 11/13/2017




Inquiry #7: The longitudinal transition taper detail on plan sheet C-1 appears to show the 0.20' cold plane/rhma-g tapering to 0' at the conform. Is this correct?
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/01/2017


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 3, dated November 9, 2017.
Response posted 11/13/2017




Inquiry #8: Please refer to bidder inquiry #6. It appears this situation, where construction extends into the ramp traveled way, may also exist at the NB Colony and Jacktone onramps. If temporary traffic handling devices will also be required at these locations, please provide a plan showing what will be required.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2017


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 3, dated November 9, 2017.
Response posted 11/13/2017




Inquiry #9: Please confirm that railroad insurance and/or railroad flagging is not required for this project.
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/06/2017


Response #2:The contractor will need to stay 25' away from all railroad tracks. There are no other requirements.
Response posted 11/07/2017




Inquiry #10: Is the sign-in sheet from the mandatory pre-bid meeting available?
Inquiry submitted 11/08/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/08/2017


Response #2:Contractors that signed as Primes are as follows:
Russ Olney of Bay Cities, rolney@baycities.com , 925-687-6666; Tim Corvello of Teichert, tcorvello@teichert.com , 209-983-2300; Russ Jensen of Granite, russ.jensen@gcinc.com, 707-489-4556; Jeff Ramirez of Good Fellow Top Grade, stevel@goodfellowtopgrade.com, 925-245-2110, fax 925-449-9875; Darrell Panker of Mo/Jas, dpanker91663@aol.com, 209-465-6500.
If you would like the subcontractors’ listing that attended, please email your request to CR.Bidders.Questions@dot.ca.gov and a listing will be scanned to you.

Response posted 11/08/2017




Inquiry #11: Pg 34 of the Specials.. Can the State please indicate where the access road is shown - 19-7.02A (1) ?
Pg. 34 of the specials - please provide the contractor the SE requirement that is required. 19-7.02A (5) ?

Inquiry submitted 11/09/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/09/2017


Response #2:19-7.02A(15) does not apply to this project.
Response posted 11/13/2017




Inquiry #12: Related to bidder inquiry #11, what material site does #2 refer to?
Inquiry submitted 11/09/2017

Response #1:19-7.02A(15) does not apply to this project.
Response posted 11/13/2017




Inquiry #13: Please provide and/or clarify proposed irrigation manufacturer information. No irrigation legend provided in bid sheets or specifications.
Inquiry submitted 11/10/2017

Response #1:No additional information is available. Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/13/2017




Inquiry #14: Will Addendum #3 be added to the Bid Express site? There are currently 2 addenda shown. Will the third addendum need to attached to the electronic bid in order to submit the bid?
Inquiry submitted 11/10/2017

Response #1:Addendum #3, dated November 9, 2017 has been posted.
Response posted 11/13/2017




Inquiry #15: Follow-up Question to Inquiry #5:
Since it is the contractors responsibility to figure out the wiring for new RCV, it would be nice to show at least the location of complete system (ie Crossovers under Hwy and /or surface roads) between ICC and new valves, so the contractor can estimate the length of new wires to be installed for new RCV's.

Inquiry submitted 11/10/2017

Response #1:No additional information is available. Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/13/2017




Inquiry #16: Will the Mandatory Pre-Bid Sign in sheet be made available before the bid date?
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2017

Response #1:Refer to response to inquiry #10.
Response posted 11/13/2017


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