Bidder Inquiries

Sign In | Create Account

Viewing inquiries for 10-1H4104

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: The Mainline Quantities Chart (Plan Sheet Q-1) for RHMA-G states there is a total tonnage of 51,463. After adding up the ten separate PM to PM quantities in the Chart the total is 49,012 tons. Where is Caltrans coming up with the additional 2,451 tons? Please verify your quantity.
Inquiry submitted 11/30/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/03/2018


Response #2: Refer to Addendum #1, dated December 7, 2018.
Response posted 12/10/2018




Inquiry #2: Please verify the following bid item quantities:

Bid Item 9) Shoulder Backing
Bid Item 12) HMA
Bid Item 13) RHMA
Bid Item 16) Tack Coat
Bid Item 18) Cold Plane AC Pavement

Inquiry submitted 12/05/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/05/2018


Response #2: Refer to Addendum #1, dated December 7, 2018.
Response posted 12/10/2018




Inquiry #3: Does the HMA dike need to be backed? If so is this paid for in the shoulder backing item?
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/07/2018


Response #2:No, Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated December 7, 2018 and Standard Plan A87B.
Response posted 12/10/2018




Inquiry #4: Will the department consider allowing recently developed smoothness specifications to become a part of these specifications? Or consider measuring smoothness as percent improvement rather then requiring current specifications? Existing pavement has significant smoothness issues which .10' overlay will never bring into current specification requirements. A blanket grind following paving would likely be required and still not achieve smoothness.
Inquiry submitted 12/07/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/10/2018


Response #2:Bid per Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. Refer to 39-2.01C(3)e Prepaving Grinding for more explanation.
Response posted 12/12/2018




Inquiry #5: Throughout the 68 lane miles with-in the project; one can find existing cracking such as longitudinal, alligator, edge and even reflective cracking. All these failed pavement issues will affect the smoothness of this project. Since the State is not including any mechanism for repair of these surface issues; we are to in the understanding that smoothness will be eliminated in these areas? Please confirm?
Inquiry submitted 12/08/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/10/2018


Response #2:No. No crack-seal or additional repairs have been called out on the plans aside from the quantities shown for repaired failed areas and the allotted Prepaving Grinding Days. Any additional work as needed at time of construction would be as directed by The Engineer and paid for as described in Section 4-1.05 Changes and Extra Work of the 2018 Standard Specifications.
Response posted 12/12/2018




Inquiry #6: When reviewing the plans for this project we notice the State does not include a Roadway Excavation bid item to remove the dirt material that is behind the existing asphalt dike that is to be removed. Bid item 17. This extensive operation to remove the dirt from behind this dike also includes tasks such as; excavation, subgrade, remove of excess material, embankment, over excavation and compaction to 95 percent. These operations cannot be construed as incidental to the remove of dike bid item. Please issue an addendum to include the proper Roadway Excavation bid item. We are also seeking the State’s embankment quantity that goes along with the operation.
Inquiry submitted 12/08/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/10/2018


Response #2:No additional addendum is being proposed at this time. Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 12/12/2018




Inquiry #7: Various jobs with-in District 10 have been very inconsistence on how the specs are read or interpreted regarding the Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete bid item (#18). Since there is no verbiage in the special provision; we are interpreting that the State will allow the cold plane operation to happen days before paving operation in essence allowing the contractor to cold plane the entire job and have motorcycles and automobiles drive on the milled surface. Please confirm if this project will allow the milled surface to be driven on by either a standard milling machine or micro-milling machine? Also, please confirm there is no time required between the two operations. We concur the ‘Repair failed Areas’ need to be completed the same night.
Inquiry submitted 12/08/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/10/2018


Response #2:39-3.04 COLD PLANING ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Please refer to what is in the Standard Specifications; Section 39-3.04A General

Response posted 12/11/2018




Inquiry #8: It appears the State has already performed and completed ‘Repair Failed Areas’ at various locations such as Etcheverry and Billy Wright Road and a few others. Please confirm the State is seeking the same work to be performed again or this is an oversight by design?
Inquiry submitted 12/08/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/10/2018


Response #2:Refer to Note 1 on plan sheet Q-1.
Response posted 12/10/2018




Inquiry #9: Follow-up to bidder inquiry 2 and 3 along with Addendum 1 (issued 12-07-18): The State moved the shoulder backing quantity from 19,300 tons to 11,664 tons. This is a major swing in your calculations. It now appear that the State’s design team hasn’t accounted for the shoulder backing to go behind the new Type E dike.

1) Please confirm which Case is being followed regarding to standard plan details A67B – Cases C-1, C-2, Case-F or Case-R? Since the typical x-section (found on sheet 2 of the plans) is not consistence with actual field conditions; we are seeking the States PM/PM for each Case for shoulder backing; if there are multiple Cases being used please forward this information?

Please confirm how your major swing is being calculated regarding the shoulder backing?

Inquiry submitted 12/10/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/10/2018


Response #2:Bidder may bid using the Case R at the HMA Dikes.
Response posted 12/12/2018


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


Contracting Information

Statewide Alerts and Other Information