When will the cross sections be available and where?

• The cross sections are now available, 33 sheets of 388 sheets have been left out and will be provided as soon as possible. The .dgn file cannot be made accessible through the internet therefore please contact us to request the files by disk. 
• The remaining cross sections have been uploaded to the webpage and 22-26, 224-228, 257-267, 294-297 are revised.

• and as of 11/09/01 
• and the 57 new and revised sheets on 11/26/01 through: 

When and how will we be able to obtain cross section electronic files for this upcoming bid?  Will they be available on CD or downloaded from the internet or e-mail?

• Cross sections should be available by 10/22 10/29 11/0511/0611/0811/09 and can be downloaded from this web site see Inquiry No. 1. 

Will the State accept proposals to use another proprietary wall?

• No, the Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall Br. No. 57-1075M is not proprietary and no substitutions will be allowed. PENDING  - see Inquiry No. 9, 17 and 18. This issue is currently under evaluation by our Legal Division and a determination will be made before bids are opened. 
• The State will not accept any proprietary wall substitution proposals or alternate wall designs. 

Is there a local printing firm to order full size plans from?

• The plans are available through Mesa Blueprint or you can download them through the link above. 

As a potential DBE subcontractor on the 5-56-805 project we are concerned with regard to the payment of retentions on this contract. It is the practice of the industry for General Contractors to pay retentions to subcontractors only when they are paid - i.e. at the completion of the project. In this case CALTRANS will not pay all retentions until the completion of the seven year plant establishment period.
This is an excessively long period for a DBE subcontractor who has completed his work prior to the end of the 1,100 Working Day contract period to wait for payment of retentions. Will CALTRANS consider making payment of retentions at the completion of the contract work rather than waiting until the completion of the 1,850 working day plant establishment period?
 

• Payment shall be made in accordance with Section 5-1.10 and 5-1.102 of the contract Special Provisions.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

5-1.10  PROMPT PROGRESS PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS
Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 10262 and 10262.5 of the Public Contract Code and Section 7108.5 of the Business and Professions Code concerning prompt payment to subcontractors.

Public Contract Code 10262 and 10262.5

Business and Professions Code Section 7108.5

5-1.102  PROMPT PAYMENT OF WITHHELD FUNDS TO SUBCONTRACTORS
The Contractor shall return all moneys withheld in retention from the subcontractor within 30 days after receiving payment for work satisfactorily completed, even if the other contract work is not completed and has not been accepted in conformance with Section 7-1.17, "Acceptance of Contract," of the Standard Specifications.  This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies otherwise available to the Contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the Contractor or deficient subcontract performance or noncompliance by a subcontractor.
 

There appears to be a conflict between what is shown on the referenced plan sheets with regard to the limits and quantity of asphalt overlay. The stationing does not match, and the quantity on the summary appears to be excessive for the limits shown.  Please clarify the limits of construction and thickness of overlay.

• PENDING - Further information shall be provided regarding the limits, direction, depth and quantity shown to better clarify staging methods necessary to quantify bid. 
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

Refer to Sec. 10-1.39, Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall, page 160 of the special provisions. Under High Tenacity Polyester Encapsulated,  par. 1 states that the material shall be encapsulated in an acrylic latex  coating. The 2001 Geotechnical Fabrics Report "Specifier's Guide" (volume 18,  number 9, Dec. 2000) lists 93 polyester geogrids. Of those 93, only 6 are listed  as having acrylic latex coating, and 4 of those have apparently been pulled from  the marketplace. Most polyester grids are either PVC Impregnated, PVC coated, or  sheathed in a polyethylene. Will these coatings be accepted, providing the material conforms to the LTDS criteria?

• No.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

We request the bid date for the referenced project be postponed from Dec. 6th to mid January 2002. We request this bid date for the following reasons:

A large project for the MTDB - San Diego is bidding during the same time frame as the referenced project. We are very interested in both projects. We have the resources available to bid both projects; but, not during the same time frame. Our focus is to bid projects aggressively, and give the owner the best and most competitive bid pricing possible. 

Postponing the project one to two weeks puts the bid date in the middle of the Christmas Holiday season. If the bid date is moved to mid January, the holiday season is over and all of our resources are available on the project.

• As of today we still anticipate opening bids on 12/06,  we are aware of the MTDB project but at this time 4 weeks before scheduled bid opening there are still issues that could change the bid opening of either project. We have current commitments to the people of San Diego to complete our project to upgrade the 5/805 interchange as quickly as possible and are not in favor of delay. However, careful consideration will be given to all issues before any decision is made to change the bid opening date. ADDENDA NO. 1

The Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall shown on the plans appears to be identical to the Tycor Plantable Retaining walls used on the earlier Caltrans' Interstate 5/56 Widening project in Del Mar and the more recent SR 125 Freeway project in Lemon Grove.  The Tycor Retaining Wall System is a proprietary
system, protected by U.S. Patent No. 6,036,405.  Tycor does not consider its system as a substitution for that shown on the Plans and intends to bid its system on this project.  Will the State accept the Tycor system as an equal to that shown on the Plans?

• PENDING - see also Inquiry No. 3, 17 and 18. This issue is currently under evaluation by our Legal Division and a determination will be made before bids are opened.
• No. The State will not accept the Tycor Plantable Retaining Wall System as an equal to the State's Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall shown on the Contract plan sheets 1431-1528. 

On Sheet No. 37, Layout L-10, from station 515+63 "SD" to 515+87 "SD" calls for a Type 50 barrier removal.  On Sheet No. 542, Summary of Quantities, the same stationing calls for a Type 60E removal.  Please clarify.

•  Summary Of Quantities Q-5 (542 of 1549) REMOVE CONCRETE BARRIER table - line 2 inaccurately lists the existing barrier as 60E the correct barrier type is 50, any change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications. unless an addendum is issued. 
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2

On Sheet No. 542, Summary of Quantities, there is a Type 60 barrier removal from Station 535+98 "A" to 536+22 "A" of 24 m.  Line A does not go beyond Station 500+00.  Please clarify.

• Summary Of Quantities Q-5 (542 of 1549) REMOVE CONCRETE BARRIER table - line 4 can be deleted and line 5 shall be changed from "Sta 536+55 "A" to 536+22 "A" 209 m " to "Sta 536+28 "SD" to 538+64.5 "SD" 236.5 m", any change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications. unless an addendum is issued. 
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2

On Sheet No. 542, Summary of Quantities, there is a Type 60 barrier removal from Station 15+89 "SVRM" to Station 16+55 "SVRM" of 66 m.  This removal does not exist in the Layout Plans or the Construction Detail Plans. Please clarify.

• Summary Of Quantities Q-5 (542 of 1549) REMOVE CONCRETE BARRIER table on line 11 shall be changed per Construction Detail C-7 (202 of 1549) from "Sta 14+62 "SVRM" to 16+31 "SVRM" 205 m " to "Sta 14+62 "SVRM" to 16+08.464 "SVRM" 169.464 m" and line 12 shall be changed from "Sta 15+89 "SVRM" to 16+55 "SVRM" 66 m " to "Sta 15+91.414 "SVRM" to 16+48.673 "SVRM" 57.259 m" both locations are existing type 50, any change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications. unless an addendum is issued. 
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2

On Typical Cross Section X-5 & 6, Sheet 6 & 7, station 534+31.726 to station 538+70.000 "SB Line", 11.0 m and varies width, placement of 260 mm PCC, 150 mm ACB and 215 mm Class 2 AB.  On Typical Cross Section X-15, Sheet 16, station 536+50.339 to station 538+46.751 "SB Line", 11.0 and varies width, placement of 60 mm AC (Type A), 90 mm ACB and 510 mm Class 2 AB.  Please clarify what type of material you want placed on the "SB Line" station 536+50.339 to station 538+46.751.  Is it PCC or AC?

• The structural section for "SB" STA 536+50.339 TO 538+46.751 as shown on X-15 (16 of 1549) using AC is required due to the overlay of the southbound dip area, any change in quantity will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications. unless an addendum is issued. 
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.
• Reference Inquiry No. 112.

On Typical Cross Section X-19, Sheet 20, "CMR Line" station 4+22.778 to station 5+64.485, it shows placement of 150 mm AC (Type A) and 495 mm Class 2 AB.  Where is this station shown on the Layout Plan?

• It's not, any change in quantity will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications unless an addendum is issued. 
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2

On Typical Cross Section X-20, Sheet 21, "D1 Line" station 11+50 to station 16+50 and "D2 Line" station 11+24 to station 13+86, it shows placement of 150 mm AC (Type A), 165 mm Class 2 AB and 230 mm Class 4 AS.  Where is this shown on the Layout Plans?

• Detour 1 is shown on P-54 (194 of 1549), SC-39 & SC-40 (457 & 458 of 1549). 
• Detour 2 is shown on P-55 (195 of 1549), SC-52 & SC-53 (470 & 471 of 1549). 

We request the bid date for the referenced project be postponed from Dec. 6th to mid January 2002. Due to time constraints with a number of projects bidding within the same time frame, we have not as yet had a chance to study the plans in depth. What we have discovered , though, is that there are a number of discrepancies between what is shown on the plans and what is actually in place on the jobsite. We request a bid date extension for this reason. An example of these discrepancies follows:

A) As of this date, cross sections are not yet available, and may not be available for some time. We depend heavily on these cross sections in order to complete our take-offs. 

• See Inquiry No. 1 and 2. 
• Available on 11/09/01 with the exception of 33 sheets from the total of 388 sheets.
• The remaining 57 sheets provided on 11/26/01.

B) AC overlay quantities appear incorrect. 

• See Inquiry No. 6.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2

C) Asphalt quantities for miscellaneous areas appear to be incorrect (i.e., our take-off quantities are at least double or triple in some areas as those quantities shown). 

• PENDING
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2

D) Existing contours shown on the plans do not reflect the conditions in the field. 

• Currently there is work being performed by permit within the project limits, when the work is completed it will match the existing contours as shown in the plans. All changes to existing grade will be verified before the start of this contract and if after the completion of the permit work there is any change to the anticipated grading, quantity or condition that is not incorporated into the contract plans then it will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications. 

E) Because of these and further anticipated questions and discrepancies, we will be unable to provide a complete and responsive bid on this project without an extension of the bid date. Please address the above concerns as soon as possible.

• See Inquiry No. 8, as of today we still anticipate opening bids on 12/06. However careful consideration will be given to all issues before any decision is made to change the bid opening date. 
• ADDENDA NO. 1 

We are in receipt of a faxed letter from TYCOR Retaining Wall Systems regarding this project that reads in part:

"To All Contractors, and Planholders for Project 11-0301U4:

This letter shall serve as Notice that the retaining wall design as shown on the drawings published by State of California, Department of Transportation for the above-mentioned project is identical, for all intents and purposes, to Tycor retaining wall systems.  Tycor retaining wall systems are protected
by U.S. Patent No. 6,036,405.  Any unauthorized manufacturing, duplication and/or use of this patented product without express consent of the patent holder are subject to Federal Intellectual Property Laws."

Are we obligated to use Tycor Retaining Wall Systems on this project?
Please clarify.

• PENDING - see also Inquiries No. 3, 9 and 18. This issue is currently under evaluation by our Legal Division and a determination will be made before bids are opened.
• No. There is no obligation to use the Tycor Retaining Wall Systems on project 11-0301U4. The State's Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall design as shown in the contract plans and Section 10-1.39 of the Contract Special Provisions was specifically created and designed solely by the State to meet the needs of this project. The State's Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall design does not infringe upon Tycor Retaining Wall System's design patent no. 6,036,405 or any other existing wall design patents.

We intend to quote the supply of the entire system. We have received a letter indicating that the concrete facing shown in the plans and specifications may infringe on an existing patent. Caltrans details the facing pieces they want in the plans, sheets 1468 and 1469. Will the supplier of the facing system that is exactly as detailed by Caltrans be subject to a patent infringement suit for supplying those pieces?

• PENDING - see also Inquiries No. 3, 9 and 17. This issue is currently under evaluation by our Legal Division and a determination will be made before bids are opened.
• Under California Law, the State is prohibited from providing any legal advice as to the patent infringement to any private entity. The State's Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall design as shown in the contract plans and Section 10-1.39 of the Contract Special Provisions was specifically created and designed solely by the State to meet the needs of this project. The State's Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall design does not infringe upon Tycor Retaining Wall System's design patent no. 6,036,405 or any other existing wall design patents.

The reason for our inquiry is formally request that the date for bid submission for the referenced project be postponed until the middle of January, 2002. The reasons for our request are due to the late availability of the cross sections, a large number of questions that need to be answered and conflicts with other projects that are scheduled to bid during the first part of December.  The analysis of the cross sections is very important for this project in order to properly determine the effects of the phasing on the utilization of the earth materials. We believe it would be in Caltrans best interest to extend the bid date since it would allow the contractors sufficient time to prepare competitive bids. We appreciate your consideration of our request.

• ADDENDA NO. 1

Will as-builts for the existing overhangs on Sorrento Valley Viaduct be made available?

• As-builts from Contract 11-022454 of Br. No. 57-513R/L are available at our District Office in Old Town at the Map Files Department (619) 688-6646.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2 specifically Section 10-1.33.

Caltrans may have inadvertently created a sole source for this wall. This brings to question the legality of sole source contracting when Federal funding is provided. This wall is being presented as a Caltrans design. If so then Caltrans may be according to the attached statement from Tycor Retaining Wall Systems be guilty of Patent Infringement. (Standard Specifications 7-1.05).
If, however, there is input by Tycor Retaining Wall Systems in the calculations for the design in accordance with Section 2-1.056 of the Standard Specifications, Tycor would be ineligible to quote on the wall section of this project.

2-1.056   STATE EMPLOYEES AND DESIGN ENGINEERS MAY NOT BID ON CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
No employee of the State shall be eligible to submit a proposal for, nor to subcontract for any portion of, nor to supply any materials for any contract administered by the Department.
No engineering or architectural firm which has provided design services for a project shall be eligible to submit a proposal for the contract to construct the project nor to subcontract for any portion of the work.  The ineligible firms include the prime contractor for design, subcontractors of portions of the design and affiliates of either.  An affiliate is a firm which is subject to the control of the same persons, through joint ownership or otherwise.

• The requirements of Standard Specifications  Section 2-1.056 do not apply to Tycor, because Tycor did not contribute to the design, creation or process of the State's Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall. Any contract bidder that meets the requirements of project 11-0301U4 may be eligible to bid on Item 70 as shown in the project documents.

The State's Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall design as shown in the contract plans and Section 10-1.39 of the Contract Special Provisions was specifically created and designed solely by the State to meet the needs of this project. The State's Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall design does not infringe upon Tycor Retaining Wall System's design patent no. 6,036,405 or any other existing wall design patents.

We would like to take a look at the rock cores obtained during the geotechnical investigation. I would be obliged therefore, if you could advise me where they are located and with whom I should make the necessary arrangements to view them, a telephone number for that person would be appreciated.

• The cores from the 5/805 and 5/56 IC's are available for viewing at the yard adjacent to the downtown Los Angeles District 07 Lab located at 1614 South Wall Street, Los Angeles, CA  90015. This yard is part of the District 07 Lab,  the cores are stored beneath Route 10 (under the Santa Monica Viaduct).  The cores are stored just south of the seatrain on the west side of the yard.  Cores show Bridge name and number, Boring number, depth from surface, etc. on the ends of the core boxes. They are stacked together by bridge number.

• The cores for the walls as shown on sheets 667 though 787 of 1549 were not retained.

Retaining Walls 524, 525 & 531 requires pervious backfill behind the wall. Seems like this was not included in the bid quantity. Will this be paid separately?

• There appears to be a discrepancy.  Please bid as per the plans and specifications unless you receive an addendum. 
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

Your Material Handout says that a material source for excess dirt disposal is at East of I-5 between Del Mar Heights Rd. and Villa De La Valle. Please define this location by showing it on a sketch or address.

• Provided are three maps showing the proposed grading plans for the disposal area, cross sections and the placement requirements as stated in the revised MIBs. 

LAYOUT01LAYOUT02LAYOUT03

DISPOSAL SITE CROSS SECTIONS
0301u4_DS01.tif 
0301u4_DS02.tif 
0301u4_DS03.tif 
0301u4_DS04.tif
0301u4_DS05.tif 
0301u4_DS06.tif 
0301u4_DS07.tif 
0301u4_DS08.tif 
0301u4_DS09.tif 
0301u4_DS10.tif 
0301u4_DS11.tif 
0301u4_DS12.tif
0301u4_DS13.tif 
0301u4_DS14.tif 
0301u4_DS15.tif 
0301u4_DS16.tif 
0301u4_DS17.tif 
0301u4_DS18.tif 
0301u4_DS19.tif 
0301u4_DS20.tif
0301u4_DS21.tif 
0301u4_DS22.tif 
0301u4_DS23.tif 
0301u4_DS24.tif 

REVISED MIBs

There is approximately 200,000 cy excavation and 300,000 backfill in these walls. Where is it paid for?

• Excavation and backfill is included in Item 70: PLANTABLE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED WALL as stated in Section 10-1.39 PLANTABLE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED WALL of the Special Provisions on page 58 paragraph 1 of PAYMENT.

Where is the release of the existing tie-down paid at hinge?

• Reference plan sheet 1379 of 1549.  Payment of this item of work is not directly addressed.  Unless you receive an addendum, please bid per the contract plans and special provisions.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2

Sheet 1335 shows the pile rebar cages extending 4570 mm plus 50 mm above the bottom of footing elevation, but the footings are only 1220 mm in depth. Please clarify. 

• Reference sheet 1335:  Dimension for that detail should read "457" not "4570".

Note 14 on sheet 1440 shows the offset as 19.500 Rt. Sta. 21+67.00 "PGRLOL". Should this measurement be 9.500?

• The correct measurement for Note 14 is 9.500 Rt Sta. 21+67.000 "PGRLOL". 
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2

In the vertical drain specification on page 178, paragraph 2 requires that drains be extended 150 mm above the working surface. The third paragraph on the same page requires the vertical drains be extended 600 mm above the working surface. Please clarify.

• There appears to be a discrepancy.  Unless you receive an addendum, please bid per the contract plans and special provisions.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

Foundation treatment from PGRLOL Sta. 13+00 to 13+50 does not appear to be needed due to the bottom excavation existing below the approximate tip elevations shown in contours on sheet 1441. Please verify.

• Foundation treatment is as shown on the contract plans and specified in the contract special provisions.

Please provide cross sections for the CIDH rebar between the construction joint and the tip of the permanent steel casing for all bridges with permanent casings.

• No further information is necessary.

The "specified pile tip elevations" given in the table indicate that all CIDH piles on this structure will be socketed into rock, yet no minimum "lengths of rock socket" are included in the table; can you please clarify your requirement here? 

• There appears to be a discrepancy.  Please bid as per the plans and specifications unless you receive an addendum. 
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

• No permanent casing required.

Permanent casing is shown as being required for the CIDH piles on several structures, yet nowhere is a minimum thickness specified; can you please indicate what these might be for each casing diameter?

• Thickness of permanent steel casing is at the Contractor's option.  Construction of CIDH piling shall conform to the contract plans and specifications.

The 6 x 2 bundles of #32 bars shown on the Pile Elevation on sheet #1304 for the abutment piles at Los Penasquitos Channel bridge, will interfere with the proper placement of tremied concrete in the CIDH piles and will therefore, have to be plunged into the fresh concrete upon completion of the pour; can you please confirm that this will be acceptable?

• No.  Refer to Standard Specification Section 52-1.07 Placing, para. 1:  "...Placing bars on layers of fresh concrete as the work progresses will not be permitted."

The "Typical Cross Section" shown on plan sheet #1451 of the PGR Wall foundation details shows the 'actual temporary slope surface' on which the geocomposite drain is placed.  On the cross sections, this slope is 1H:6V and has an excavated face over 20' tall.  OSHA requires that a cut slope be no steeper than 1H:1V in type B soil.  Has this material been analyzed and approved for the 1H:6V slope?  If not, and the existing slope is excavated at a slope flatter than 1H:6V, where will this additional excavation and backfill be paid for, as structure excavation and backfill incidental to the PGR Wall or as roadway excavation under Bid Item 58?

• Refer to sheet 1497 of 1549 of the contract plans and the "Payment" subsection of section 10-1.39 "Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall" of the contract special provisions:

Limits of payment for the PGR wall are as shown on the plans.  "The contract price paid ....shall include full compensation...for doing all the work involved...."

Will the Earthwork Calculations performed from the cross sections be made available?  These calculations serve as a good check to our own takeoff of the sections, and bring to light immediately any errors or discrepancies that might exist in the earthwork computations.

• No, if you have specific concerns regarding our quantities then let us know where you see a discrepancy after the addendum is issued with revised earthwork quantities. 

The quantity summaries for minor concrete (Plan Sheet 539) indicate slope & median paving (Bid Item 222) to be measured by the cubic meter & textured concrete (Bid Item 225) to be measured by the square meter at the same locations.  The only detail we can find for slope paving is on plan sheet 222, which shows pavers placed on a slurry subbase with concrete headers at top & bottom.  Please clarify how you intend to measure and pay for slope paving and textured concrete.  The following questions arise as a result of what is shown in the summaries:

1.  Is all slope paving and textured concrete to be colored?

• Yes, per Section 10-1.85 SLOPE PAVING and Section 10-1.86 MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION "The textured paving shall have a color conforming to Color No. 30450, of the Federal Standards". all slope paving and textured concrete is colored.
• Item 222 shall be revised to eliminate PCC slope paving, SEE ADDENDA NO. 4. 

2.  Is colored & textured concrete at the medians on Carmel Mountain Rd to be measured and paid for in the same manner as slope paving?

Textured concrete and slope paving in accordance with Section 10-1.86 MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION all MINOR CONCRETE (TEXTURED PAVING) shall be: "For payment purposes, the area in square meters of minor concrete (textured paving) will be determined from horizontal measurements of the finished textured paving.", which overrides Section 72-6 in regards to measurement. There appears to be a discrepancy in regards to miscellaneous concrete and slope paving, an addendum will be issued.

3.  Does the detail on Plan Sheet 222 apply to all slope paving?

• No, the detail on C-27 (222 of 1549) is for Item 219: SLOPE PAVING (CONCRETE) (F).
• No, the details shown on C-27 (222 of 1549) shall be deleted by SEE ADDENDA NO. 4. 

4.  Is any of the colored concrete shown on the quantity summary (Plan Sheet 539) to be textured?

• No.

Does the "typical stepped slope detail" shown on C-24 applies to all slope? If not, what slope or slopes does this detail applies?

• The stepped slope applies to all cut slopes.

The plan view shows curvature in the 2275MM SSPP.  There  is no curve data given.  If it is intended that the pipe be curved, is  necessary to know the curve data to accurately detail and price the material.

• There is a discrepancy in the plans to be revised by addendum. The radius is 40.0M, the length is 22.5M. for the curved section with an additional straight piece length of 3.7 M this changes the slope as shown on D-42 (267 of 1549) to 2.47%. Layout information will be provided by addendum.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

Is the surcharge above the plantable wall to be placed before or after it's construction?

• The surcharge shall be placed after the construction.

Bent 5 of BR 57-1069F has a CIDH of diameter 3.4 M. There is no bid item for 3.4 M CIDH. Where will it be paid?

• There is no item for 3.4 m CIDH piling.  See plan sheet 1056 of 1549 for details including Bent 5 for Bridge No. 57-1069F.

Existing contours on sheet D-22 do not match existing contours on sheet D-24. Please advise. 

• There appears to be a discrepancy in the existing topography as shown on the plans, the correct existing topography is as shown on the cross sections. Revised topography shall be provided by addendum.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2, D-22 existing topography is correct, D-24 existing topography corrected.

Sheet D-16 shows new contours outside of the R/W. Is there work to be done outside of the R/W at this location?

• Grading in this area was inadvertently shown and is not work to be performed.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

The information shown on the quantity summary sheets for AC at misc areas (AC Gutters) does not match what is shown on the layout drawings or the typical sections. Also, the quantity of AC (Type A) does not appear to be correct for the areas of Misc AC paving indicated.  Please clarify where AC gutters are to be placed.

• Bid it as shown in the plans and specials unless an addendum is issued.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

Within the drainage details the specifics are written as to what is allowed as Alternative Pipe Culvert. Type S Corrugated Polyethylene is allowed but only with a max cover height of 3m. While I believe Caltrans old design manual only allowed for 3m the current manual allows for Corrugated Polyethylene to be installed up to 9m. Do you see any problem allowing Corrugated Polyethylene to be installed  up to 9m (as per the sizes currently allowed by the Design Manual). 

• The maximum allowable cover shall be revised by addendum as per the Highway Design Manual.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

In Section 6 of the Special Provisions, Incentives and Disincentives for Completion of Work, paragraph 3 states that delays due to actions required by the Engineer performing normal inspection, testing and review duties will be included in the 900 working days allowed for completion of the designated portion of work. How many delay days should the Contractor estimate in his accelerated schedule for delays caused by the Engineer?

In Section 10-1.14, Progress Schedule (Critical Path Method), State owned Float is defined as time saved on the critical path by actions of the State.

After reading these two sections, it seems as though the Contractor is liable for the inaction of the engineer, yet the State is entitled to any time saved by the Engineer. Again, how is the Contractor to estimate delays caused by the Engineer that may prohibit the completion of the designated portion of work?

Why is Caltrans entitled to any time saved on the critical path yet not liable for Engineer caused delays to the Contractors schedule?

• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

The temporary erosion control bid items are confusing. On page WP-11 of the Plans, the area right of station 456+00 is to receive Temporary Erosion Control (Type 3) which contains seed and fertilizer. On page HP-2 the same area is to receive Hydro Seed 1 which contains seed and fertilizer. Is the Contractor required to remove the Temporary Erosion Control (Type 3) prior to applying Hydro Seed 1?

• Yes, if the length of time between placement of Item 78 and Item 81 requires temporary stabilization or placement of the permanent planting of the referenced area may start if there is no need for temporary in accordance with your SWPPP and all specifications of the contract. 

The second paragraph states that "Insert method for forming joints in pavement shall not be used". However, the Test Stripe section describes the use of mechanical inserters. What is the intent here?

• Section 40-1.08B(2) of the Standard Specifications shall not apply per paragraph two of Section 10-1.53 of the Special Provisions and mechanical inserters for the dowel placement may be used per the requirements of referenced section. 

Paragraph 2 - "Precast concrete elements to be colored per Section 72-6.03". Statement: Eliminating the integral color requirement could save money. 

• Bid it as per the plans and specials although a CRIP may be proposed after award in accordance with Section 5-1.09 COST REDUCTION INCENTIVE of the Special Provisions. 
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

Required vehicle openings calls out two at 9.6 meters wide. Stage Drawings SC-78 & 79 show the following widths: Carmel Mountain Road EB 4.8M and WB 8.1M between k-rail. Please advise.

• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

The Special Provisions only provide for a vehicle opening for Sorrento Valley Blvd. What are the vehicle openings for Route 5 SDR and SDL lines?

• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

Required vehicle openings calls for Roselle Street calls out 1 at 9.6 meters wide. Stage Drawings SC-48 & 49 shows one at 11.7 meters wide. Please advise.

• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

Elevations for the BB and EB stationing are not provided for the left side of the left bridge. Please advise.

• Reference plan sheets 1151; BB and EB stationing is given along the "SDL" line, the reference line that runs through the entire length of the bridge.  Elevations and stationing for the left widening of this structure shall be referenced from this line and the cross-slope of the widening shall match that of the existing structures as shown on the contract plans.

The following cross section files could not be  downloaded from the server. FILES NOT FOUND.

0301U4 034.TIF
0301U4 112.TIF
0301U4 146.TIF
0301U4 230.TIF

• Corrected. 

Special Provisions Section 10-1.39 page 161 EARTHWORK states that the fill material for the plantable geosynthetic reinforced earth wall shall meet gradation requirements as noted in the table on the same page. The table gives allowable percentages passing various sieve sizes and a plasticity index. The allowable percentages passing the #200 sieve and the maximum plasticity index of 20 indicate that a material, with strength properties well below the strength parameters that are normally used for the design of reinforced earth structures could be used. Based on our analysis the assumed soil strength would be 34 ° or better to make the existing design adequate. This strength may not be attainable given the guidelines for the material noted above.

•  Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the contract plans and special provisions.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.
• The backfill material as required for the PGR Wall in accordance with Section 10-1.39 PLANTABLE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED WALL as revised per Addenda No. 2 (dated 12/28/01) should be obtainable from within the project excavation limits located east of I-5 between Station 529+00 to Station 549+00 "NB" and west of I-5 between Station 544+50 to Station 550+00 "SB". 

It is noted on Page 219 of the Contract Special Provisions that a penalty is actually assessed to manufacturers of PTFE Spherical Bearings who are not located in California. The $5,000 or $15,000 amount that can be reduced to the contractor becomes a large factor in the total costs and therefore gives the advantage to only manufacturers in California. To the best of our knowledge there is only one company in California that is approved to supply PTFE Spherical Bearing Assemblies. We are quite certain that it is not Caltrans intent to have a sole source. Please clarify.

• Refer to the last paragraph of Special Provisions Section 10-1.59 PTFE Spherical Bearing. This project does not specify the use of only one type of PTFE Spherical Bearing. Please bid as per the contract plans and special provisions.
• Reference Inquiry No. 78.

Newly issued cross section sheets 220-223 and 333-336 (STA "NB" 527+26.457 to 528+40 rightside) show the 470 retaining wall as original ground (already built), yet the construction of this wall is included in the plans.  Please clarify.

• An addendum will be issued to eliminate RW 470 and modify the grading as shown on the new cross sections, currently by permit a wall shall be built in approximately the same location as the planned RW 470. The addendum will include revised grading and quantities for that area.

The quantities sheet 539 shows 818 m3 PCC slope paving. It appears that this quantity is paid under Bid Item 222 "Minor Concrete (misc. Construction)" and not under Bid Item 219 "Slope Paving (Concrete). Please clarify, as Bid Item 219 is a Final Pay Item.

• The quantity as shown on plan sheet 539 of 1549 is paid for by Item: 222. 
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 4.

Please elaborate on the requirements for disposing of excess material at the site between Del Mar Heights Road and Villa de La Valle (i.e. site preparation, compaction, erosion and drainage control, SWPPP, and traffic control).  Is this an engineered fill with designed limits and slopes, or simply a dump site requiring knockdown of loads only?

• PENDING - Information needed to quantify placement shall be provided.
• Reference Inquiry No. 24.

How will the plantable geo wall be measured for payment? The spec is unclear as to whether the wall will be measured from bottom of "bottom header" to the top of the "top header," or from finish grade (no burial) at face of wall to top of wall?

• Refer to plan sheet 1497 of 1549 "Limits of Payment Details" for the Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall.

On plan sheet 1061, the chart of Isolation Casing Location & Length of Payment does not list bents 13 or 14. At bent 13, the difference between finish grade and pile cutoff elevation is 3.45m. At bent 14, the difference is 9.73m. At all other bent locations, the isolation casing length is equal to the distance from pile cutoff to finish grade. Is the intent not to install isolation casings at bents 13 and 14? 

• No isolation casing required for Bent 13.  Refer to plan sheets 1059 and 1061 of 1549; there appears to be a discrepancy for Bent 14.  Please bid as per the contract plans and specifications unless an addendum is issued.

On page 369 of the Special Provisions, the first sentence of the fifth paragraph reads "The Contractors falsework....shall be supported from the bridge superstructure." Can we use falsework in the railroad right of way, supported on ground surface, as long as there is no encroachment of the designated temporary clearances, as stated in the subsequent Special provisions sentences?

• Falsework plans shall comply with the contract special provisions and any related permits or agreements.  Falsework plans are submitted for approval after contract has been awarded and approved; therefore, falsework approval cannot be determined at this time.

As of this date we are not aware that addendum No 2 has been issued, and there are still many inquiries which have not been answered or are still pending.  In order to complete a responsive bid, it is
necessary that these outstanding issues be addressed.  There are several inquiries for which no response has been issued, and several more that are pending issue of an addendum.  There are also several inquiries regarding quantity issues for which an addendum may be forthcoming according to the responses.  Time is again becoming an issue, especially with the holidays coming up.  Can you please give us some indication of when we may expect the next addendum?

• 12/28.

The referenced plans show a "STUCCO" Architectural Treatment which is 73 mm thick.
The Special Provisions, Section 10-1.67 Architectural Surface (Textured Concrete) on page 232 indicates the thickness of the stucco treatment to be 19 mm unless otherwise shown on the plans.

Which is to be the required thickness?

If the 73 mm is the correct thickness, what material is required for the additional 54 mm of thickness?

• In accordance with Section 5-1.04 COORDINATION AND INTERPRETATION OF PLANS, STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS; of the Standard Specifications it states: "...the special provisions shall govern over ... the plans." The required thickness is 19 mm and no additional material is required. 

The unit weight of soil cement samples is specified to be at least 21kN/m3, which exceeds the typical value for mixed-in-place soil cement by -6kN/m3. The specified weight therefore is unachievable. Will a Unit Weight in the range of 15kN/m3 be acceptable, as long as the strength requirements for the soil cement are met?

• There appears to be discrepancy.  Because of the time frame to bid opening, unless you receive an addendum, please bid per the contract plans and specifications.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 4.

The minimum column diameter at any depth is required to be at least 1.1M, and is expected to be increased "if necessary." This large of a diameter at every depth, regardless of soil type or condition, is generally unachievable with the specified equipment or any conventional vibrators. Even larger diameters would be even less achievable. Is an average of 1.1M desired, instead of a minimum of 1.1M?

• Reference contract Special Provision Section 10-1.40 Stone Columns page 166 Stone Column Requirements:

"The diameter...shall be no less than 1.1 m  and shall be increased..."    The minimum area replacement ratio shall be 0.19.  The bidder may submit a Cost Reduction Incentive in conformance with contract special provision section 5-1.019 "Cost Reduction Incentive", page 26, to reduce the stone column diameter and revise stone column layout.

The stone column in-fill is specified to be well-graded, and conform to the grading limits published on page 164. Such well-graded aggregate is necessary for mixing concrete, but causes plugging and diameter-achievement problems if used to construct stone columns. Gap-graded stone 3/4" to 1" in size is used when economy and maximum column diameter are desired. As long as all other stone criteria are met, will crushed 3/4" to 1" stone acceptable?

• There appears to be discrepancy.  Because of the time frame to bid opening, unless you receive an addendum, please bid per the contract plans and specifications.

All soils with an Ic less than 2.95 are specified to be included in the calculation of average corrected cone tip resistance, with minimum and average values of 8 MPa and 10.5 MPa being required, respectively. Such design tip resistance values typically apply only to soils with Ic's in the range of 2.4 to 2.6, because soils with Ic values higher than -2.6 are relatively unaffected by stone column construction. Is this value of Ic=2.95 subject to review?

• There appears to be discrepancy.  Because of the time frame to bid opening, unless you receive an addendum, please bid per the contract plans and specifications.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 4.

Phase 1 includes two limited areas of stone columns to be constructed west of I-5, with the remainder of Stone Columns to be constructed during Phase 2. Do the production requirements for the Order  of Work for soil cement and prefabricated vertical drains also apply to these initial areas of stone columns?

• Yes.

When can we anticipate a response from the State on the items pertaining to the wall facing? As a supplier we need to be getting scopes of work out to the contractors this week. We cannot do this without some direction on whether or not we can legally supply the precast concrete facing. The Holidays are fast approaching. These questions have been outstanding for more than a month! 

• See Inquiries 3, 9, 17,18 and 21.

The Engineers quantity for construction area signs calcs for a total of 390 signs. Our quantity comes to a total of 593 signs. Please verify that the Engineers quantity is correct.

• Since the pay method is LUMP SUM per Section 10-1.20 of the Special Provisions and in accordance with Section 12-4.01 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT of the Standard Specifications which states "Construction area signs as shown on the contract plans....". Therefore bids should be based on the actual count of 592 as shown on the contract plan and no adjustment will be made. 

The vibrating probes are required to be"...rated by the manufacturer to provide at least ...25 metric ton of horizontal force...' A maximum required rating of 20 tons is typical for the vibrators employed on work of this nature on Caltrans projects. Will a maximum manufacturer's rating of 20 metric tons be acceptable for this project?

• Unless an addendum is issued, please bid as per the contract plans and special provisions.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 4.

Paragraphs 11 and 12 of this section specify two different minimum lengths of prefabricated vertical drain to "...(extend) above the working surface....", those being 150 mm and 600 mm. Please clarify.

• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

The "order of work" requires the soil cement mixing and the prefabricated vertical drains to be installed prior to construction of any stone columns in an area, and prefabricated vertical drains are required to extend above the working surface. However, construction of stone columns will disrupt ( and not densify) the upper 2-4 feet of soil at the working surface, requiring surface recompaction. This seems to conflict with the above-ground drain requirement. Please clarify.

• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

Each soil-cement sample is required to be at least 1.1 cubic feet in volume, to fill a minimum of (6) cylinders 150 mm diameter by 300 mm. This is a very large sampler volume to try and extend to any significant depth in a soil-cement column. Will typical cylinder sizes of 75 mm diameter by 150 mm be acceptable for each sample retrieval and test?

• There appears to be discrepancy.  Because of the time frame to bid opening, unless you receive an addendum, please bid per the contract plans and specifications.
• SEE ADDENDA NO. 4.

Subdrain detail sheet 1451 indicates the drainage system is to run from sta. 9+40 to 21+67. Indicates further that geocomposite is to extend 2/3 height of the wall. Sections on sheets 1452, 1453 and 1454 indicate that the geocomposite is to be attached to the "actual excavated temporary slope surface..." The section shows it thus. Most of the wall is constructed in back cuts considerably less than 2/3 wall height. What governs, cut height or 2/3 wall height?

• For height of geocomposite drains, temporary back cut shall govern if back cut is less than 2/3 wall height.

Item summary 107 referencing DRIVE STEEL PILE (HP 305 x 110) states 500 EA., takeoff shows 498 Ea. Please advise of correct quantity. 

• SEE ADDENDA NO. 2.

FURTHER TO PREVIOUSLY POSTED REPLY TO QUESTION 56, YOUR REPLY IS AMBIGUOUS, THE QUESTIONS POSED HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED. THERE ARE ONLY A FEW MANUFACTURERS OF PTFE SPHERICAL BEARINGS, REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE, IN THE UNITED STATES AND ONLY ONE IN CALIFORNIA. THE ASSESSMENT OF $5000 OR $15000 TO MANUFACTURERS OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA GIVES A DISTINCT ADVANTAGE TO THE ONLY SOURCE IN CALIFORNIA. PLEASE ANSWER.

• SEE ADDENDUM NO. 3 to be issued. 
• Refer to the last paragraph of Special Provisions Section 10-1.59 PTFE Spherical Bearing. This project does not specify the use of only one type of PTFE Spherical Bearing. Please bid as per the contract plans and special provisions.
• Reference Inquiry No. 56.

In paragraph 2, a comparing set of two before and after CPTs is required for every 144 square meters of stone column area. In paragraph 3, CPT's are again mentioned, to be performed for each 288 square meters "at random locations identified by the Engineer during construction...." This implies that an average of 2.5 cone penetration tests will be performed at every 144 square meters of stone column area. Is this a correct interpretation?

• Reference contract special provisions section 10-1.40, "Verification Testing," pages 166-167 :Yes; for verification testing, the interpretation for estimating the  amount of cone penetration tests (CPTs) for every 144 m2 of area is correct.

The frequency and number of required Wet Grab Soil Cement Samples would result in significantly lower average production rates of soil-cement  elements, with questionable benefits to the overall QC of the project. Given that systematic procedures and equipment for this installation method will be verified by initial test programs and geotechnical conditions are not expected to vary widely over very short distances, can testing frequency be lowered?

• No; testing frequency shall be as stated in the contract special provisions.

The average 56-average unconfined compressive strength of soil cement throughout the depth of each soil-cement element is specified to be no less than 2,000 kPa. Given the fine grained nature of much of the soil described on the geotechnical boring logs, a more realistic strength value for a constructable soil-cement element would be in the range of 690-700 kPa. Is this higher-than-typical 2,000 kPa strength value subject to review?

• No; the 2000 kPa unconfined compressive strength of soil cement is required.

The depths of retrieval for non-cured soil-cement samples are to be "selected by the Engineer," with no maximum sampling depth specified. The practical maximum depth for such wet-grab samples is approximately 40 feet. If the Engineer foresees a requirement for retrieval of wet-grab samples from greater depths than 40 feet, this requirement will be problematic for the Specialty Contractor. Will a depth limit of 40 feet be acceptable for wet sampling?

• Since the depths of sample retrieval are determined by the Engineer, the bidder shall be prepared to retrieve samples from the full depths of  soil-cement elements.  Therefore, the maximum depth limit for retrieval of wet-grab samples is the full depth of soil-cement  elements from which sample is taken.

Deep Soil Mixing is  a relatively new technique; as such, some very competent individuals might not meet some of the experience longevity requirements in this specific technique, especially for the depths anticipated. Specifically, few high-quality Project Engineers can show "five full years experience... in deep soil-cement mixing." Will a resume of individuals with sound experience in Ground Modification -- including Soil-Cement Mixing be considered?

• Experience in soil-cement work is specified, "five ... years ... within the past ten years,...", in subsection referenced in Bidder inquiry.  Also refer to subsection "Submittals"  of Section 10-1.41 "Soil-Cement" of the contract special provisions. 
• See also Addendum #4 for the change in the "Submittal" subsection.

Details, including reinforcing steel for roadway offsets in excess of 305 mm, the construction of Type 60C Barrier is affected by the pavement offsets. Please provide this information as it appears to be missing from Contract Plans. These offsets cannot be calculated due to most 60C Barrier construction on pavement which matches existing roadway elevations.

• Sta. 535+ 95 to 540+68 "NB"
• Sta. 546+ 78 to 547+79 "NB"
• Sta. 536+ 55 to 538+64 "SD"
• Sta. 566+ 36 to 567+20 "SD"

Reference Sign #22, Plan Sheets 540, 620, 648 and 658. Does upper pedestal (above link beam and between the 60E barrier) pay as part of Contract Item 139?

• The upper pedestal and link beam should be paid for by the contract item shown on sheet Q-3, as noted on plan sheet S-102.  The quantities on sheet S-102 for the right post only pay for the length of the C-I-D-H pile foundations.

Reference Sign #22 and RSP S40U. Type J post requires 920mm x 5.2m pile depth. Please confirm that the left post CIDH is to be 9.0m (29'-6 1/2") long.

• The lengths shown on the plans are correct due the the embankment fill and no changes are necessary in accordance with Section 5-1.04 "Coordination and Interpretation of Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions":  "Project plans govern over Standard Plans...."

Reference Sign #16. RSP S40U calls for pile length of 6.7m. Confirm that both left and right side CIDH requires pile depth of 9.7m (31'-0"). 

• The lengths shown on the plans are correct due the the embankment fill and no changes are necessary in accordance with Section 5-1.04 "Coordination and Interpretation of Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions":  "Project plans govern over Standard Plans...."

Reference Sign #20. RSP S40U calls for pile length of 5.2m. Confirm that both left and right side CIDH requires pile depth of 9.0m (29'-6 1/2"). 

• The lengths shown on the plans are correct due the the embankment fill and no changes are necessary in accordance with Section 5-1.04 "Coordination and Interpretation of Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions":  "Project plans govern over Standard Plans...."

Reference Sign #21. RSP S40U calls for pile length of 6.7m. With 1.0m extended length of 60E barrier, these would be 7.7m CIDH pile lengths. Confirm that both left and right side CIDH requires pile depth of 10.2m (33'-5"). 

• The lengths shown on the plans are correct due the the embankment fill and no changes are necessary in accordance with Section 5-1.04 "Coordination and Interpretation of Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions":  "Project plans govern over Standard Plans...."

Reference Sign #23. RSP S40U requires 5.2m for Type J post. Confirm that left and right legs for Type J post are to be 7.0m (23'-0") and 8.0M (26'-7") pile depths. 

• The lengths shown on the plans are correct due the the embankment fill and no changes are necessary in accordance with Section 5-1.04 "Coordination and Interpretation of Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions":  "Project plans govern over Standard Plans...."

Reference Sign #24. RSP S40U only requires 6.7m for Type T post. Confirm that CIDH is to be 10.2m (33'-5").

• Sign #24  should be 1070mm x 6.7m CIDH as shown on RSP S40U, therefore bid as shown on the plans and any potential change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications.

Reference Sign #26 and #29. RSP S20B calls for 914mm x 4.0m CIDH for post Type 10NPS. Clarify the required size shown as 760mm x 4.6m.

• Both Sign #26 and #29 should be 914 mm x 4.0m CIDH as shown on RSP S20B, therefore bid as shown on the plans and any potential change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications.

Reference Sign #30. Confirm right and left legs for Type J post are 9.0m (29'-0") and 8.0m (26'-3") pile depths. RSP S40U only requires 5.2m for Type J post.

• The lengths shown on the plans are correct due the the embankment fill and median barrier and no changes are necessary in accordance with Section 5-1.04 "Coordination and Interpretation of Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions":  "Project plans govern over Standard Plans...."

Reference Sign #34, 35 and 37. Confirm that CIDH is to be 9.7m (31'0"). RSP S40U only requires 6.7m for Type T post.

• The lengths shown on the plans are correct due the the embankment fill and median barrier and no changes are necessary in accordance with Section 5-1.04 "Coordination and Interpretation of Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions":  "Project plans govern over Standard Plans...."

Reference Sign #36, left and right legs. Confirm that CIDH are to be 11.8m (38'-9") and 11.2m (36'-9"). RSP S40U only requires 5.2m for Type J post.

• The lengths shown on the plans are correct due the the embankment fill and median barrier and no changes are necessary in accordance with Section 5-1.04 "Coordination and Interpretation of Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions":  "Project plans govern over Standard Plans...." 

Reference Sign #39. Confirm that CIDH are to be 10.2m (33'-5") and 9.7m (31'-10"). RSP S40U only requires 6.7m for Type S post.

• The lengths shown on the plans are correct due the the embankment fill and median barrier and no changes are necessary because in accordance with Section 5-1.04 "Coordination and Interpretation of Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions":  "Project plans govern over Standard Plans...." 

Reference Sign #42. Per detail shown on Plan Sheet 634, sign mounts to Retaining Wall #569, yet the table on Sheet 649 provides for a 1070mm x 6.7m CIDH foundation. Please clarify.

• The detail on plan sheet 634 is correct, therefore the CIDH foundation shall be deleted. Bid per the quantities shown and any potential change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications.

Reference Sign #45 and 46. Clarify the CIDH as shown is 760mm x 5.5m and 760mm x 8.5m. RSP S20B calls for 916mm x 4.6 CIDH for 12NPS sign post. 

• Both posts should be 914 mm in diameter but the lengths are shown correctly to cover the height of the median barrier, therefore bid as shown on the plans and any potential change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications.

Reference Sign #47. Clarify the CIDH as shown is 920mm x 4.9m. RSP S13 requires 760mm x 4.5 CIDH for post Type II. 

• As shown the CIDH pile diameter shall be 920mm but the depth and type is incorrectly shown and should be 4.5 for a post Type IV, therefore bid as shown on the plans and any potential change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications.

Reference Sign #52. Clarify the CIDH as shown is 760mm x 4.6. RSP S20B requires 914mm x 4.6 for post Type 12NPS.

• The CIDH pile diameter is incorrectly shown and should be 914 mm per RSP S20B, therefore bid as shown on the plans and any potential change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications.

Under the paragraph for payment of longitudinal isolation joint it implies that the payment for the isolation joint will be a separate pay item however the revised bid schedule does not include that pay item. How is it to be paid for?

• Item 287: SEAL LONGITUDINAL ISOLATION JOINT          32,400 M. 

There appears to be a conflict between the new bridge and the high voltage cables shown on this plan. The finish elevation of the new bridge deck at the intersection with the cables is approximately elevation 30.30m. Power Pole C (PP#96273) has three (3) cables at elevation 33.64m and two (2) cables at elevation 27.58m. These cables are not referenced in Obstructions of the Special Provisions. If these cables are in conflict, please provide the relocation schedule and new cable elevations and horizontal locations. 

• Elevations shown on sheet 1041 are incorrect, there is no conflict. 
• New elevations shall be provided....

The Engineers Estimate shows 12 m but the plans show 24 m. Please clarify.

• SEE ADDENDUM NO. 4. 

Please specify the criteria of foundation treatment (overexcavation) on retaining walls 543B & 545C shown on sheet 721.

A) Retaining wall 543B, Is the 1.2M the maximum depth of overexcavation whether on cut or fill?
 
• The foundation treatment as shown on plan sheet 721 of 1549 is as shown since Wall 543B is always in fill, although the limits as shown may overlap other embankment requirements due to staging. See also MATERIALS INFORMATION "Geotechnical Report For Proposed Retaining Walls 04-12-01". 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

B) Retaining wall 545C, What control the overexcavation ?
 

• The foundation treatment as shown on plan sheet 721 of 1549 does not address the cut condition and the limits as shown may overlap other embankment requirements due to staging. See also MATERIALS INFORMATION "Geotechnical Report For Proposed Retaining Walls 04-12-01". 

2.Starting from the point where the existing ground intersect the proposed grade projected horizontally to a point where it intersect the imaginary 1:1.75 line, then projected at 1:1 temporary cut slope to daylite line.

3. Is there a maximum depth of overexcavation since some portion of the said wall is found in cut area?
 

On which item will the foundation treatment on the PGR walls be paid?

• Foundation treatment for Plantable Geosynthetic Reinforced Wall, as shown on plan sheets 1441 - 1450 of 1549, includes soil-cement, stone column, and prefabricated vertical drain.  Quantities for these items of work are included in the estimate and are also listed on plan sheet 1431 of 1549.  Please refer to Sections 10-1.40 "Stone Columns", 10-1.41 "Soil-Cement", and 10-1.42 "Prefabricated Vertical Drain"  and any changes by addendum to same for the contract special provisions for these items of work.

The traffic opening was changed from two (2) 7.7m vehicular openings (with ped opening in the median) to a single 19.5m opening (with ped opening in the median). Please clarify ped opening location.

• The pedestrian opening is within the 19.5m opening as shown on plan sheet SC -50 (468 of 1549).

The traffic opening was changed from two (2) 7.7m vehicular openings (with ped opening in the median) to a single 19.5m opening (with ped opening in the median). Please clarify ped opening location.

• The intent of the addenda was to split Br.57-1069F and Br.57-1070G into two tables, but inadvertently revised the table to one (1) vehicle opening which should be two (2) 7.7 vehicle openings with one (1) ped opening as shown on plan sheet SC-59 (477 of 1549).
• SEE ADDENDUM NO. 4 to be issued. 

There are three (3) runs of Type 60 Barrier that are duplicated on Summary of Quantities, Sheet Q-4 (plan Sheet 541). The duplication is from Station 547+70 to Station 553+48 (578m), Station 553+73 to Station 553+93 (20m), and Station 554+18 to Station 557+84 (368m). The barrier from Station 526+72 (56m) is Type 60A Barrier and included in the 60A quantities (plan Sheet 1298). The Type 60 barrier from Station 542+35 to Station 549+54 includes 81m of Type 60A and is included in the 60A bid item (see Plan Sheet 1326). Total of the above is 1,103m under the bid quantity shown in Addendum No. 2 (Bid Item 249 at 6,500m). Please clarify.

• Summary Of Quantities Q-4 (542 of 1549) CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 60) table on line 12, 13, 14 and 15 the quantities shown should not be included since they are duplicated., any change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications unless an addendum is issued. 
• SEE ADDENDUM NO. 4. 

According to quantity summary sheet Q-2, the quantity for Minor Concrete (Misc Construction) includes PCC median paving (53.43 M3) and PCC slope paving (818.18 M3) measured by the cubic meter.  The same summary sheet shows paving at the same locations listed as Minor Concrete (Textured Paving) measured by the square meter.  Is the median paving and slope paving to be measured and paid for as bid item 222 or item 225?

• Median paving shall be paid by both Items and the pay clause shall be revised.
• SEE ADDENDUM NO. 4. 

The change of quantities for bid items 97 - 104 do not appear to match the changes shown on quantity summary sheet Q-1 (sheet 538).  For example, the PCCP quantity has decreased by a minor amount in the summary, yet the bid quantity has increased.  Please clarify.

• The quantities were rounded up for the Engineer's Estimate, the actual quantities to be paid shall be based on the measurement methods as stated in the Special Provisions and Standard Specifications.

Addendum #2 directed the contractor to change the call out for "Relocate Water Meter" to "Water Meter (Building)" on plan sheet 418. If the water meter is to be included in bid item 288, should item 41 be deleted?

• No.

With reference to inquiry #13, it would appear that the typical cross sections shown on sheets X-5 & X-6 are still in conflict with those shown on sheet X-15.  Is it correct to assume that the information shown on sheet X-15 is the intended paving section?

• It is correct to assume as stated in Inquiry No. 13 the correct structural section is as shown on X-15 using AC. Unless an addenda is issued which would be to revise X-5 & X-6 to match X-15.

Addendum #2 (Page 10) indicated that additional Material Information was to be attached.  We did not receive that information.  When will the referenced information be available?

• The information referenced has always been available to the bidders on the link MATERIALS INFORMATION  but was never mailed out in the original bid package.

G2   W1       F1    F1A       F14    F19

Payment for Soil Cement is contract price per cubic meter for soil-cement. In the measurement clause above the Payment clause - it states "The quantity of soil-cement to be paid for shall be the QUANTITY OF CEMENT FURNISHED to be mixed with the insitu soil within the soil-cement area. Please clarify the volume is not quantity of cement to be furnished for the mixing and the payment quantity shall be the complete treated volume mass of soil-cement.

• There appears to be discrepancy.  Because of the time frame to bid opening, unless you receive an addendum, please bid per the contract plans and specifications.
• SEE ADDENDUM NO. 4. 

The specification stipulates installation of soil cement by deep mixing auger method. 
1) Would dynamically insitu mixing be acceptable?

• No.  Dynamic insitu mixing method is not acceptable.

• Dynamic insitu mixing method is not acceptable.

The telephone number listed in both sections is incorrect, please provide a correct contact number.

• http:highway-safety.com/Products%20-%20ADIEM.html 

• http://highway-safety.com/Sales-Utah.html

• The number shown in the Specials is correct , as well as the website listed above. 

According to the bridge plans, the only location that receives slope paving is at abutment 1 on the N805-N5 truck connector.  The quantity given on the bridge plans is 12 M3, which agrees with bid item
219.  The slope paving detail on sheet 1135 is different that what is shown on sheet 222 (C-27).
1. Which detail is to be used for slope paving (Item 219)?

• Use detail as shown on plan sheet 1135 of 1549 N805-N5 TRUCK CONNECTOR SLOPE PAVING - FULL SLOPE. 

• It is not shown and shall be deleted, 
• SEE ADDENDUM NO. 4. 

Addendum No. 2 revised the gradation and property requirements for the wall fill material to that usually specified for MSE backfill material. The addendum also deleted the first sentence , "Fill material for plantable geosynthetic reinforced wall shall consist of material excavated from within the project limits."

In the Bidder's Inquiries, the response to question No. 55 states that the backfill material as revised per Addenda No. 2 should be obtainable from within the project excavation limits located East of I-5 between Station 529 to Station 549+00 "NB" and West of I-5 between Station 544+50 to Station 550+00 "SB".

Who is responsibility for supplying backfill material if  the excavation within the limits listed does meet the Addenda No. 2 backfill specifications, the Contractor or Caltrans?

• Caltrans, as stated per Inquiry No. 55 the material should be obtainable within the projects limits specific to the areas referenced. If that material fails to meet the requirements set forth in Addenda No. 2 then in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications then modifications or adjustments will be made to achieve the desired results.

In the event that the rock level is different from that assumed in the documents, will a) the "specified pile tip elevation" be adhered to, or, b) will the "intended length of rock socket" govern?

• Refer to Section 10-1.54 "Piling", subsection "Cast-in-drilled-hole Concrete Piles" of the special provisions;  para. 4, page 195:  "...The Contractor shall extend the specified tip elevation of the cast-in-drilled-hole concrete piling (rock socket) to maintain the length in bedrock as shown on the plans....."

a)  No.
b)  Yes.

Does the note defining the casing tip as being 600mm below the top of rock
a) take precedence over the "specified tip elevation" for the permanent casing, and, 
b) if so, does it apply to all structures having permanently cased CIDH piles (i.e. not just to the S5-S805 Truck Connector)?

• Refer to Section 10-1.54 "Piling" , subsection "Cast-in-drilled-hole Concrete Piles" , para. 4, page 195, of the special provisions:

"....If the permanent steel casing is not installed into bedrock at the permanent steel casing tip elevation indicated in the pile data table shown on the plans, the Contractor shall extend the cast-in-drilled hole concrete piling...to achieve the required embedment into bedrock...."
a)  Yes.
b)  See Section 5-1.04 "Coordination and Interpretation of Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions":  "....special provisions shall govern over....the plans."

The area shown on plan sheet L-38 shows partial use of the entire parcel. Can we request use of the additional area? Is a permit necessary?

• As shown on revised L-38 the area designated as "CONTRACTOR AREA" is enlarged, the new fence quantities were included in ADDENDA NO. 2.

L-38 

Per the notes: Note 1 CMS Model 500 shall be State furnished ...., but if you look at these sheets it is requiring 78C, CMSH#4, CMSH#5. Are the harnesses listed in Delta 4, CMSH#4 & CMSH#5 on the sheets above to be furnished by the State with the State furnished CMS Model 500 signs or are we to include the harnesses as part of the quote at bid time?

• In accordance with the Special Provisions per Section 8-1.03 STATE-FURNISHED MATERIALS; "Model 500 changeable message sign, wiring harness, and controller assembly, including the controller unit and completely wired cabinet, will be furnished to the Contractor at...." and Section 10-3.38 MODEL 500 CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN SYSTEM; "The Model 500 changeable message signs, wiring harness and Model 170 controller assembly including controller unit and completely wired cabinet, but without anchor bolts, will be State-furnished in conformance with the provisions in "Materials" of these special provisions." . Therefore it is not necessary to include in quote for bid.

The material specs for the Permanent Steel Casings are not specific enough to determine whether they are ASTM A252 Grade 2 or ASTM A252 Grade 3.   Please advise.

• Reference the following:  Permanent steel casings are addressed in Section 10-1.54 "Piling", "Cast-in-drilled-hole Concrete Piles".  Cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles shall conform to Section 49-4 of the Standard Specifications.  Section 49-4 of the Standard Specifications contains Section 49-4.04 "Steel Shells".  Steel shells shall conform to Section 49-5 "Steel Piles".  Paragraph 3 of Section 49-5.01 "Description"  states that  "Steel pipe piles shall conform to the following requirements:  1.  Steel pipe piles less than 360 mm in diameter shall conform to the requirements in ASTM Designation: A252, Grade 2 or 3.  2.  Steel pipe piles 360 mm and greater in diameter shall conform to the requirements in ASTM Designation: A252, Grade 3. ....."

Since permanent casings shown on the contract documenets are greater than 360 mm in diameter, they shall conform to ASTM Designation: A252, Grade 3.

Please advise maximum allowable overhang at each end of the 2.0 & 1.7 bulb-tee girders, according to the design.

• Reference plan sheets 1247, 1250, and 1282 of 1549:  Girders for right side widen have notches as dimensioned in "Detail E" on plan sheet "Right Side Widening - Precast /Prestressed Bulb-Tee Girder Details No. 2."  For left side widen, see "Section B-B" on plan sheet 1247 for the depth of the notch and the length of the notch is 610 mm, the length of the seat as shown on plan sheet 1250.  Please note the length of the notches for girders for the Left widen and Right widen are the same - 610 mm. 

The revised criteria for installing the drains include a warning for the installation device to not damage the filter fabric, and later warning for any shallow pre-drilling to not significantly impact the fabric and permeable material. Both of these statements imply that the drainage blanket would be constructed prior to the installation of prefabricated vertical drains. Since the drains must be installed prior to construction of the Stone Columns, this construction sequence would result in severe damage to the drainage blanket by the vibrator, and would result in clogging of the permeable blanket material with fine-grained spoils from the installation process. Please clarify that the drainage blanket must be constructed after the Stone-Column construction.

• Reference Section 10-1.01 "Order of Work", paragraph 8 and Section 10-1.40 "Stone Columns".

"Construction of stone columns shall not begin until after the installation of prefabricated vertical drains...."  Since the drainage blanket is included in the stone column work, (see sheet 1452  and 1453 of 1549, Foundation Details No. 2 and Foundation Details No. 3, respectively) the drainage blanket is to be placed as shown on the plans. 

It is unclear who is to pay for the UCS and cement content tests on Wet-Grab and Core Samples. Pg. 71 says "...The Engineer will form, cure, transport, and test the samples and report the test results..." Pg. 172 says "...the Contractor shall test...for unconfined compressive strength..." and submit results to the Engineer. Pg. 173 calls for core samples to be submitted to the Engineer "...for subsequent evaluation and testing..." And Pg. 175, under "PAYMENT," states that full compensation for soil-cement quality control shall be included in the contract price paid to the contractor. Please clarify who is to pay for which tests, and whether any specific laboratory has to be used.

Request clarification to Department's responses and confirmation that "change" to handle incorrect CIDH sign foundation will be per Section 4-1.03C, not as per 4-1.03B(1) or 4-1.03B(2). Adjustment methods of 4-1.03B(1) and (2) will be inappropriate, due to the many corrections and the unusual lengths of these foundations and other CIDH foundations noted on pre-bid inquiries.

• As per the referenced Inquiries previously posted to this Webpage; the interpretation of the State is that any portion of Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications may apply in accordance with the contract and the bid should be based on the Engineer's Estimate therefore any possible impacts due to potential changes cannot not be addressed as to which portion of Section 4-1.03. 

There is no seed mix in the specifications. Please supply the seed mix to bid on these items?

• Item 81: PURE LIVE SEED (HYDROSEED 1), Item 82: PURE LIVE SEED (HYDROSEED 2), Item 83: PURE LIVE SEED (HYDROSEED 3) are as stated in Section 10-2.04 on pages 268 through 272.
• Item 84: PURE LIVE SEED (SEEDING 1) and Item 85: PURE LIVE SEED (SEEDING 2) are not defined therefore bid accordingly and any change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications. 

The requirement for 2,000kPa average UCS strength for soil-cement elements in many of the clayey zones --- due to their plasticity -- will not be able to be achieved with conventional mixing operations. Will it be acceptable to treat an area greater than the minimum 50% of the designated zone, in order for soil- cement of a lower strength to accomplish the same purpose?

• Reference subsection "Installation of Soil-Cement" in "Construction" of Section 10-1.41 "Soil-Cement" of the contract special provisions (page 174).  "Soil-cement mixing shall be installed.... to achieve the minimum area ratio.... of 50%...."  This area ratio is a minimum and the Contractor may submit a Cost Reduction Incentive proposal in conformance with Section 5-1.019 "Cost Reduction Incentive" of the contract special provisions to reduce the required soil-cement strength by increasing the treated area ratio.  Also refer to "Submittals" in Section 10-1.41 "Soil-Cement".

When paving against the existing PCCP, will you require a profile grind on the existing PCCP?

• It is not required per the contract, but in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications the State shall pay for grinding of the existing adjacent lane where necessary. 

Please verify that 70% of the total prestress strands are debonded for a distance of "L2". Or, is only 30% debonded for a distance of "L2"?

• 70% of total.

Please provide a dimension for "L2"

• Reference plan sheet 1281:  L2 equals 0.2L.  Therefore, debond 30% of total for a distance equal to 0.2L at each end.

Need to know the seed composition and type of application required at these areas.

• As shown on plan sheet HP-28 (788 of 1549) SEED 6 (BIO. RESTORATION) is Item 84: PURE LIVE SEED (SEEDING 1) with location shown on HP-30 (817 of 1549) and SEEDING ON PLANTABLE GEO-GRID RETAINING (PGR) WALL is Item 85: PURE LIVE SEED (SEEDING 2) with location shown on HP-36 to HP-39 (823 through 826 of 1549). The seed specifications for type and application methods has not been included therefore bid accordingly and any change will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications. 

Achieving a minimum stone column of 1.1M diameter by dry bottom feed vibro displacement methods is highly unlikely. Would vibro displacement of stone placed in a 1.1M drilled hole be considered equivalent?
With the stone already placed in the hole, bottom feed equipment would not be necessary. Conventional depth vibroflots utilizing air only would complete the vibro displacement phase. If this system were utilized, stone column diameter would be increased beyond 1.1M diameter ensuring at least the minimum requirement throughout the full depth.

• No.

The re-confirmed requirement to achieve 1,800 kPa and 2,000 kPa average UCS strengths at all depths of soil-cement elements is unlikely, due to the zones of plastic clays at various -- and typically deeper -- depths. Is this full- depth requirement due to high design surcharge loads that will be imposed at the tops of the elements, by the toe of the new PGR wall? If so, is there a depth at which the 2,000 kPa requirement can be lessened, due to dissipation of the wall loads with depth? Most of the shallower soils are sandy in nature, and only a minor amount of overdrilling and replacement of shallow soils with granular soils all the UCS strength requirement to be achieved to some prespecified depth...but NOT to the full depth of all soil-cement elements.

• Because the bid opening date is in the next few days, it is unlikely that an addendum will be issued.  Please bid per the contract plans and specifications.

In respect to question 78 & question 56, once again your reply is ambiguous and the question has not been answered. The assessment of $5,000 or $15,000 for shop inspection expenses by the State clearly gives the distinct advantage to the only source in California. We do not disagree that there are expenses involved, however, in all fairness should not the expense be the same to all regardless of their location. Please answer.

• Refer to responses for bidder inquiries #56 and #78 as posted.

Is the topsoil placed on the wall face incidental to the PGR wall or is it paid under Bid Item 75?  Can this topsoil be obtained from within the project limits or does it have to be imported?

• The requirements for topsoil to be placed on the PGR wall face Item 75: IMPORTED TOPSOIL are per Section 10-1.47 IMPORTED TOPSOIL of the Special Provisions but the quantities were not included therefore any change in quantity will be handled in accordance with Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications. 

The planholders list does not provide telephone or fax numbers , how can we obtain these?

• It's fixed as of 15:15.

The specs state that samples of the textured paving are available for review, where and when can we view these?

• Samples are not available for the textured paving as stated on page 252.

Have not been able to locate specs for Caltrans pull box. Are you going with armorcast or concrete? And do you have a spec number?

• The requirements for pull boxes are shown on the plan sheets and in accordance with Section 86-2.06 PULL BOXES of the Standard Specifications and Standard Plans ES-8 and various ES-9_. 

For the PRECAST CONCRETE WALL FACE as stated on sheet 161 what is the Color No. 23531 of the Federal Standard 595B?

• See Federal Standards and ADDENDA NO. 2.