CONTRACTOR'S INQUIRY RESPONSES

March 21, 2006

CONTRACT NO. 04-0120F4
CONSTRUCT SELF ANCHORED SUSPENSION
County Route: SF-80-8.2/8.7

 

The responses to contractors' inquiries, unless incorporated into a formal addenda to the contract, are not a part of the contract and are provided for the contractor's convenience only. In some instances, the question and answer may represent a summary of the matters discussed rather than a word-for-word recitation. The responses may be considered along with all other information furnished to prospective bidders for the purpose of bidding on the project. The availability or use of information provided in the responses to contractors' inquiries is not to be construed in any way as a waiver of the provisions of section 2-1.03 of the Standard Specifications or any other provision of the contract, the plans, Standard Specifications or Special Provisions, nor to excuse the contractor from full compliance with those contract requirements. Bidders are cautioned that subsequent responses or contract addenda may affect or vary a response previously given, and any such subsequent response or addenda should be taken into consideration when submitting a bid for the project. Inquiries submitted within seventy-two (72 ) hours of the bid opening date might not be addressed.

The Caltrans District 4 Office is located at 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612. Send Contractor Inquiries via email to the Duty Senior at Duty_Senior_District04@dot.ca.gov. The mailing address is P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. The Duty Senior's telephone number is (510) 286-5209 and the fax number is (510) 622-1805. All inquiries must include the contract number.

During the days from 03/14/06 to 03/21/06, new or updated responses were provided for the following Inquiries #
317 , 318 , 319 , 320 , 321 , 322 , 323 , 324 , 325 , 327 , 329 , 330 , 331 , 332 , 333 , 334 , 335 , 336 , 337 , 338 , 339 , 341 , 342 , 343 , 344

Total Number of Inquiries: 344

Inquiry Index
20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 120 | 140 | 160 | 180 | 200 | 220 | 240 | 260 | 280 | 300 | 320 | 340

Inquiry No. Inquiry Response

1.0

Where on your website can we locate the Inquiries for Contract 04-0120F4? We cannot find the previous Inquiries for the prior bidding period (783 Inquiries were posted). How will this be handled?

The previous inquiries and responses are not valid and cannot be applied to the current Advertisement package (dated August 1, 2005). Bidders should review the new Advertisement package and submit new inquiries.

2.0

Section 5-1.25 "PAYMENTS" in the Special Provisions allows partial payment for materials furnished but not incorporated in the work up to 25% of the contract amount. We, however, think this payment amount (25%) is too low for foreign OBG, Tower and Cable suppliers considering their negative impact on cash flow. This negative impact on cash flow will significantly reduce foreign suppliers' intention for participation in the project, or, they will add their interest on loans to the bid price. As a result, both cases will cause cost increases in the project, if the present payment condition is not improved. Therefore, we propose to improve this payment amount from 25% to 50% of the contract amount.

Please refer to the response to Inquiry #86.

3.0

Payment schedule and amount (rate) for mobilization that are stipulated in Section 10-1.21 "MOBILIZATION" in the Special Provisions should be improved as follows. This will reduce the financial burden to the Contractor and consequently reduce the bid price.
  • In the first monthly partial payment estimate, 50 percent of the contract item price for mobilization or 7.5 percent of the original contract amount, whichever is the lesser, will be included in the estimate for payment.

  • In the fourth monthly partial payment estimate, 20 percent of the contract item price for mobilization or 3 percent of the original contract amount, whichever is the lesser, will be included in the estimate for payment.

  • In the seventh monthly partial payment estimate, 20 percent of the contract item price for mobilization or 3 percent of the original contract amount, whichever is the lesser, will be included in the estimate for payment.

  • In the tenth monthly partial payment estimate, 10 percent of the contract item price for mobilization or 1.5 percent of the original contract amount, whichever is the lesser, will be included in the estimate for payment.

To meet the needs of this project, the payment schedule for mobilization provided in the Special Provisions has been substantially altered from the mobilization payment schedule provided in the Standard Specifications. There will not be further changes to the mobilization payment schedule.

4.0

Information on Pre-Bid Audit is on the Caltrans' website. To achieve fair competition and to save time after award of the Contract, the Pre-Bid Audit should be mandatory for all of related potential suppliers.

The prime contractor may require his suppliers to pass the pre-bid audit, at his option. The Department will make every attempt to audit all submitted pre-bid suppliers prior to bid, however pre-bid audits are not mandatory for any potential suppliers.

5.0

  • back to top
  • In the second-to-last paragraph of Section 8-4.01 "AUDITS" of the Special Provisions, payment amount is stipulated in accordance with the date required to pass the Audit from the date of Contract Award. We understand that this Audit is the critical milestone to keep the required quality and the scheduled construction period. In particular, immediate pass of the Audit is essential to keep the construction period. From this standpoint, we think that the payment amount for the early pass of the Audit should be further increased as an incentive to the general contractor / potential suppliers. For example, the payment amount should be improved as follows:
      Days from Contract Award Payment amount
      0-90 $10,000,000
      90-180 $750,000
      180-365$45,000
    We think this improvement will reduce the contractor's bid price and consequently reduce the project cost, and will make a good effect to the total construction period.

    No change to this specification is anticipated. However, please refer to the responses for inquiries 214 and 222 for clarifications to issues concerning cash flow.

    No change to this specification is anticipated.

    6.0

    Construction period has been significantly reduced from previous 2310 days to 2130 days. To keep this tight schedule, further effort will be required for not only the contractor (incl. their subcontractor/supplier) but also Caltrans and the Engineers. From this standpoint, we propose to improve the following points as example:
    • Reduction of the review period of drawings should be considered. (e.g. 50 days for steel structure drawing is too long.)

    • Efficient system for review of drawings, which enables contractor to gain approval within 2nd review basically, should be considered. (e.g. In the 2nd review, review will focus on the points changed from the 1st review only, etc.)

    • Number of Mock-up tests should be eliminated. We consider that wooden mock-up should not be necessary.

    • Reduction of the frequency of inspections.

    • Reduction of "Approval-required" matters by entrusting the Contractor with more work, such as erection procedure, fabrication procedure, and so on.

    • Improvement of the Jones Act.

    Contract time has been extended, please refer to Addendum 7.

    A. The submittal review periods were developed with the Department's resources in mind. No changes to the review periods are anticipated at this time.

    B. The Department will endeavor to expedite approvals. It is impossible to specify a system for all submittal scenarios that can occur, however, please note the response to inquiry #105.

    C. The requirement for preliminary wood mockups in Special Provision section 10-1.59 was removed, please refer to Addendum 6.

    C. It is believed that the mockups will benefit the planning process. The mockups will not be eliminated.

    D. Please be more specific as to what this recommendation is.

    E. Please be more specific as to which approval requirements should be eliminated.

    F. The Jones Act is federal law, over which the Department has little control. No changes on this law are anticipated at this time.

    7.0

    All of the previous inquiries to the Caltrans website have been deleted. We think they should be revived to avoid unnecessary confusion and to save time for Caltrans to receive and reply to the same inquiries as previous ones.

    The previous inquiries and responses are not valid and cannot be applied to the current Advertisement package (dated August 1, 2005). Bidders should review the new Advertisement package and submit new inquiries.

    8.0

    Caltrans is strongly requested to put some marks on revised (different) portion(s) in the plans issued on Aug 1, 2005. Otherwise, one by one checking will be necessary to find out the different (revised) portion between the previous last plans and current plans. This benefits Caltrans as well. Otherwise, these costs for checking drawings will be added to the bid price.

    The current plans (as advertised August 1, 2005) reflect the work as currently anticipated by the Department. Neither the plans nor the special provisions from the previous advertisement apply in any way to this contract. Section 2-1.09, "Bidders Compensation," of the Special Provisions is included in recognition of the costs of preparing a bid for this project.

    9.0

    Erection pieces or fabrication pieces, which are used for erection or fabrication or transportation, could be left permanently, if there were no problem in design and prospect, especially inside of the pentagon of tower. This will help shorten the construction period and provide savings on the project cost.

    Please note that all temporary attachments shall be removed from the Tower and Orthotropic Box Girder. This inquiry is too general as it stands and cannot be addressed. The Contractor is advised to provide specific details of what he has in mind in future bidder inquiries for this to be considered (the bidder should submit his proposal of specific attachments he wishes to leave in place).

    In addition, please reference the Special Provisions, section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "ERECTION PLAN," the eighteenth paragraph as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    Also, please reference inquiry no. 70 and the associated response.

    10.0

  • back to top
  • Please refer to SP Section 10-1.69, "Clean and Paint Structural Steel," subsection "Painting", 7th and 8th paragraph. It will be almost impossible to control within 60um (90 thru. 150 um) by 2 or more applications of coating.

    The limits on dry film thickness for a single coat of inorganic zinc applied in two applications, as described in the contract special provisions, are reasonable. The dry film thickness is measured in accordance with SSPC-PA 2 as specified in the special provisions. SSPC-PA 2 allows a range in individual dry film thickness measurements that can be reasonably achieved to produce a coating dry film thickness within the specified limits.

    11.0

    Detail of connection of strut should be reconsidered. See attached drawing.

    (Click here to get attached drawing - MS Word format).

    The proposed detail in the inquiry results in a significant loss of strength in the connection. The strut details in the plans are critical to the seismic resistance of the tower, and have been laboratory tested. The proposed detail is not acceptable.

    12.0

    Detail of connection of longitudinal ribs should be reconsidered. See attached drawing.

    (Click here to get attached drawing - MS Word format).

    For details to be considered by the Engineer, the proposed details by the Contractor shall have strength that is equal to or greater than that provided for by the details on the contract plans. The proposed detail results in a significant loss of strength in the connection and therefore is not acceptable.

    13.0

    Geometry alignment should be reconsidered to eliminate a twist of OBG. See attached drawing.

    (Click here to get attached drawing - MS Word format).

    Note that there are only three locations where twist would be required in the box girders: panels 8-14 (30m), panels 112-118 (30 m) and panels 120-124 (22 m). Over the 610 m length of the girders this represents less than 15% of the girder fabrication. Please see Table 2 on Plan Sheet 644 of 1204.

    14.0

    Trial assembling of "Lift to Lift" requirement should be reconsidered.

    The question being asked is unclear. Please note that Addendum No. 2 has relaxed the requirements of the fabrication shop size. If the addendum does not address this inquiry, please clarify the bidder inquiry.

    15.0

  • back to top
  • It should be considered how to adjust each height of 4 legs of tower during erection.

    Please refer to SP 10-1.59 "Steel Structures," subsection "Assembly," subsection "Tower," paragraph 2: "The ends of each lift shall meet the dimensional requirements given under "Shop Welding," subsection "Design Details" of these special provisions. Each end shall be in a horizontal plane. When standing on its lower end, the top corners of each lift shall remain within specified limits in both horizontal directions. To limit cumulative displacements, ends of the higher lift shall be shimmed or milled to compensate for the actual elevation of the lower lift, if the cumulative displacements are not within specified limits.

    If the bidder desires modifications to this specification, please follow-up / clarify this bidder inquiry.

    16.0

    Connection detail of OBG's web and cross beam's web should be reconsidered. (Continuity of web, ribs should be reconsidered.)

    The question being asked is too vague. Please clarify the bidder inquiry.

    17.0

    Frequency of Job monitoring tests should be reconsidered or mitigated.

    The frequency of job monitoring testing is based on experience gained by the Department and others from research and the construction of several other orthotropic box girder bridges. Please clarify the specific testing regime and the specific item of that regime for which reconsideration is desired.

    18.0

    Location of field splices should be reconsidered. Lifting unit should make (be made) smaller, even (if) the number of field joints is increased.

    The question being asked is unclear. It is not known if the bidder is referring to field splices in the Tower or the Box Girder. Please resubmit with more specific details such as the location of the field splices and the number of field splices proposed.

    Also, please refer to the response to Bid Inquiry #136.

    19.0

    Connection detail of OBG's should be reconsidered to simplify by using bolt connection, instead of welding.

    The skin plates of field splices of the OBG shall be welded as per the plans and special provisions.

    20.0

  • back to top
  • PWS cable should be reconsidered comparing with Air spinning.

    Research comparing PWS and AS concluded that PWS will result in a higher quality cable with a longer design life that is consistent with the required 150 year design life of the bridge.

    The Contractor's bid should comply with the requirements of PWS cable as shown in the contract documents. If the Contractor proposes to erect the cable using the Air Spinning method, such a proposal shall be submitted in accordance with SP 5-1.15 "Cost Reduction Incentive Proposals".

    The Contractor is reminded that a CRIP should reduce the total project cost or time of construction without impairing, in any manner, the essential functions or characteristics of this contract including, but not limited to, service life, economy of operation, ease of maintenance, benefits to the traveling public, desired appearance, or design and safety standards.

    21.0

    Alternative of S cable wrapping wire should be considered for, such as standard wrapping.

    Standard wrapping is not acceptable given the 150-year design life of the bridge.

    22.0

    Regarding the Engineer's review time of working drawings, procedures, etc stipulated in the Special Provisions 5-1.01, 8-3.01, 10-1.59, 10-1.69, but not limited to, the terms of "working day" and "calendar day" have been revised to "day". Definition of the "day" is unclear. It should be described by "working days" or "Calendar days".

    The definition of a working day is provided in Section 4 of the Special Provisions. "A working day is defined as any day, with no exceptions."

    23.0

    Please advise if the suppliers who have already received their "contingent pass" or "pass" at the previous Pre-Bid Audit need to take another Pre-Bid Audit again? Or, are the previous Pre-Bid Audit Results available at this time?

    All previous audits are null. Suppliers need to be re-submitted and re-audited. Also see response to BI #34.

    24.0

    California Company Preference (SP Section 2-1.06):

    • Is this section applicable for the prospective sub-contractors and/or suppliers whose offices are located/registered in the state of California? Or, is this section for the prime contractor (bidder) exclusively?

    • What is the mechanism of California Company Preference (PCC Section-6107)? In short, what sort of merit does the qualified California company have?

    The California company preference only applies to the bidder (prime contractor).

    Our understanding of the second question is "how does the preference apply to a company that is from a state with no local contractor preferences?" As provided in the specification and Public Contract Code 6107, if the bidder is both 1) from a state with no local contractor preference and 2) a licensed California contractor on the date of bid opening, the bidder qualifies as a California company and is afforded the reciprocal preference for bid comparison purposes against a non-California company. Note that the preferences are only for bid comparison purposes and only come into play when the apparent low bidder is a non-California company.

    25.0

  • back to top
  • At the Technical Outreach Meeting on August 16, 2005, those of us who used the telephone line to call in could not hear most of what was being said. Will Caltrans make available a tape recording and/or transcript of Brian Maroney's portion of the presentation to those who participated in the telephone call-in procedures?

    Audio from August 16 meeting is available at the following website:
    http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/sasoutreach/

    26.0

    Do Caltrans and the FHWA expect that the new "Buy America" clarifications contained in SAFETEA-LU will have any effect on the de-federalization of Contract 04-0120F4? According to information received from the National Steel Bridge Alliance today, the recent legislation clarifies that the Buy America test is to be applied to the sum of all contracts for a particular project, not just contract by contract, thereby invoking Buy America provisions for the SAS Superstructure. As this issue will significantly affect bidding, bidders require a definitive clarification very soon.

    The Buy America requirements do not apply to this project. The language about the Buy America requirement applying to the sum of the projects is contained in the sense of Congress portion of the legislation, which is not law and is not binding.

    27.0

    I have gone to the online link provided to me by a Caltrans information source to find the plans and special provisions for the current project----the one we're to be bidding on. What I've seen so far looks to be the same as previously available 18 to 24 months ago. Are there changes? Some of the drawings appeared to be earlier than the corresponding earlier drawings, appearing original, unrevised. The many addenda from the previous bid package were not there. Was this an incorrect link? What is the correct one?

    It is not known to which online link the bidder is referring. However, the plans and special provisions for the current advertisement package can be downloaded from the following link:

    http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-0120F4

    28.0

    Reference Pg 81, SP Section 5-1.01, "Working Drawings," Paragraph A and Standard Specification Section 5-1.02. SP Section 5-1.01.A states that the Engineer will determine whether or not a working drawing is complete, but 5-1.02 states that the Contractor will determine what working drawings are necessary to adequately control the work. How will the Engineer determine what is needed to adequately control the Contractor's work?

    As provided in Standard Specification 5-1.02, the contract plans shall be supplemented by such working drawings prepared by the Contractor as are necessary to adequately control the work. Working drawings shall be subject to approval insofar as the details affect the character of the finished work and for compliance with design requirements applicable to the construction when specified or called for. Typically, the minimum requirements for a given working drawing are provided in the same section that requires that working drawing. Attention is also directed to the response for Inquiry #30.

    29.0

    Reference Pg 81, SP Section 5-1.01 "Working Drawings," Paragraph A. How long does the Engineer have to review the initial review submittal to determine if the submittal is complete?

    Per the same special provision, within 3 days of the receipt of the submittal by the Engineer, the Engineer will notify the Contractor in writing if the submittal is determined to be incomplete.

    30.0

  • back to top
  • Reference Pg 81, SP Section 5-1.01, "Working Drawings," Paragraph A. Please clearly define what comprises a "complete" submittal.

    As stated in Special Provision 10-1.17 "ACCELERATED WORKING DRAWINGS SUBMITTAL," for a submittal to be considered complete, all items listed under the individual submittal requirements shall be completed, and all facets of the operation/element fully developed.

    31.0

    Reference the cover page and Page 10 of the Special Provisions. Standard Specifications are listed as July 1999. The current Standard Specs are July 2002. Is the reference to 1999 correct?

    The references to the July 1999 Standard Specifications are correct.

    32.0

    Please explain the meaning of SP Section 5-1.023, "Unsatisfactory Progress."

    Please refer to inquiries 43, 44, and 45. If those inquires do not address the bidder’s question, please submit a new, more specific question.

    33.0

    The budget number in the Proposal is $1.45 billion. The envelope to turn in the Proposal has $1.625 billion printed at the bottom of envelope. What dollar value is correct?

    The $1.6 billion figure is the Department's budget allocation which includes the engineer's estimate of the bid items, supplemental work, and state furnished materials. The $1.45 billion number is the rounded engineer's estimate of the bid items.

    34.0

    At the Technical Outreach Meeting on August 16, 2005, it was stated that the companies that were previously audited and received a "contingent pass" or "pass" must be re-audited. There was considerable time and money spent by suppliers and by Caltrans (taxpayer money) to travel all over the world performing audits. The project today, size, weight, and material, is the same as previously. Why do these companies need to be re-audited?

    Companies need to be re-audited due to several factors some of which might include change of scope of work for such suppliers, change in management structures, change in joint ventures between companies, and the fact that these audits were performed over a year ago. These are some of the factors that the Department considered in its decision.

    35.0

  • back to top
  • Clarify requirement/status of AISC - quality certification for erection. The only reference is vague, on page 313 of Special Provisions, which states that field welding for field fabricators and erectors shall be certified AISC, Category CASE.

    AISC has a specific certification program for field fabricators and erectors. Hence, field fabricators and erectors shall be certified under the AISC Quality Certification Program, Category CASE, "Certified Advanced Steel Erector".

    36.0

    Will you consider newer welding inspection techniques such as phased array, which will save time?

    The contract does not provide for welding inspection techniques such as phased array. Should the Engineer determine that such inspection techniques are acceptable for specific weld types and locations, and efficient in reducing inspection time and contract cost, a contract change order will be required to allow the use of the proposed inspection techniques.

    37.0

    What were the last two major bridges using falsework from below? Where are they located? Were there similar seismic issues?

    The Yeongjong Grand Bridge in South Korea and the Konohana Bridge in Osaka, Japan. For further information, please refer to http://en.structurae.de/structures/.

    38.0

    The Contract calls for many U.S. fabrication standards such as AISC, ASTM, AWS, etc. Many foreign fabrication facilities are more familiar with local or internal standards that in many cases we are told are essentially equivalent to U.S. Standards. Will Caltrans allow the substitution of standards in such a case?

    All Contractors bidding on the project must have a uniform set of standards to bid and construct to. Therefore, where specific standards are specified, no substitutions will be allowed.

    39.0

    We expect to get our AISC certification by Mid-November. Can Caltrans help expedite this process?

    As AISC is an independent organization, the Department cannot provide any assistance with AISC certification. Also, please reference the response to Inquiry No. 47.

    40.0

  • back to top
  • What is the construction time allowed for the entire job?

    Contract time has been extended, please refer to addendum 7. The total number of working days for the contract is 2490. See Special Provisions Section 4 "Beginning of Work, Time of Completion and Liquidated Damages" and Section 10-1.01 "Order of Work" for more detail.

    As stated at the first bidder outreach, the total number of working days for the contract is 2130. See Special Provisions Section 4 "Beginning of Work, Time of Completion and Liquidated Damages" and Section 10-1.01 "Order of Work" for more detail.

    41.0

    Can you remove the small Caltrans office (TYLin) in the warehouse of Pier 7?

    The Department will not relocate the staff currently using the office space inside the warehouse. This may be revised only if a mutually acceptable contract change order can be negotiated at a future date.

    42.0

    Can you assign the entire Pier 7 to SAS contractor after the Skyway project is done?

    Substantial portions of Pier 7 will be available to the SAS contractor as the Skyway and E2/T1 contracts are completed. Please see Plot map titled "Pier 7- Area for contractor's use" in the Information Hand-out in Addendum no. 3 as well as section 5-1.18 "Areas for Contractor's Use" of the revised specifications in Addendum no.3.

    43.0

    Please refer to the fifth paragraph of Special Provision section 5-1.023, which states: "Funds kept or withheld from payment, due to the failure of the Contractor to comply with the provisions of the contract, will not be subject to the requirements of Public Contract Code 7107 or to the payment of interest pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 10261.5." We observe that Public Contract Code 7107 (h) states: "Any attempted waiver of the provisions of this section shall be void as against the public policy of this state." We and our suppliers and subcontractors require that the provisions of Public Contract Code 7107 will be followed. The wording of the quoted sentence must be changed in a way that clarifies that this only applies to the payment of interest on funds properly kept or withheld by the Engineer, without affecting the timing of payments, interest and attorney's fees on overdue or wrongfully withheld payments, etc.

    Special provision 5-1.023 "Unsatisfactory Progress" has been removed by Addendum 4.

    44.0

    Please confirm that the authority of the Engineer to withhold payments due to unsatisfactory progress (i.e., progress delays) is limited to the provisions of the first through fourth paragraphs of SP 5-1.023 and the application of Standard Specification Section 8-1.07, "Liquidated Damages." In other words, progress delays alone do not rise to the level that allows the Engineer discretion to withhold payments in addition to those specified in the previous sentence of this Inquiry.

    Special provision 5-1.023 "Unsatisfactory Progress" has been removed by Addendum 4. The Department will comply with the terms of the contract.

    45.0

  • back to top
  • When will the funds withheld under SP 5-1.023 be paid if there is never a time that the provisions of the fourth paragraph of SP 5-1.023 allow the withheld funds to be paid to the Contractor? Within 60 days after completion as provided in Public Contract Code 7107?

    Special provision 5-1.023 "Unsatisfactory Progress" has been removed by Addendum 4.

    46.0

    Please amend the fifth paragraph of SP 5-1.25, "Payments", to clarify that the timing of progress payments for stored materials will be according to receipt and proper storage of materials designated for this project, the progress of the work and a schedule of values to be submitted to the Engineer for approval. In other words, rod, wire, mill steel, rough castings and other components (which are of such character that they are adaptable to another use) will be paid for as long as they have been purchased and designated for this project and properly stored, and work-in-progress (partial assemblies, fabricated subassemblies, segments, lifts, etc.) will be paid as the work progresses, without waiting until final assembly prior to placing in a locked fence area or locked warehouse. Unless Caltrans is willing to make this clarification, other significant improvements in payment terms will be required in order to bid. We note that Caltrans never adequately addressed the universal concern of payment terms expressed during the Inquiry process for the previous bid. Similar concerns are already being raised again by other bidders (see Inquiries 2 and 3).

    See Addendum 3 for changes to Special Provision 5-1.25.

    47.0

    Special Provision 10-1.59, "Steel Structures," requires that the fabricators and suppliers shall be certified under the AISC Quality Certification Program. Unfortunately, we are not the member of AISC. But we are certified conformity with the quality system of GB/T19001-2000(idtISO9001:2000) standard and the environmental Management System of GB/T24001~ISO14001:1996. Can we substitute the AISC certificate with an equivalent one such as the above two certificates. Or is it still a must that the fabricator shall be a member of AISC. We worry about the time to get through the certifying process.

    Certification of suppliers and fabricators under ISO 9001:2000 quality standard is an acceptable substitution for AISC Quality Certification Program. Substitution of other certification standards will be considered by the Engineer on a case-by-case basis upon receipt of English documentation by the certifying authority fully describing the certification standard.

    Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES," the second paragraph as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    48.0

    Regarding the AISC certificate, does the word "suppliers" in the second paragraph of SP Section 10-1.59 mean all the raw material supplers such as the manufacturer of the steel plate, rib, U-through, all other steel accessories (nut, bolt, shear stud), welding materials and protection materials? Or is it just the same meaning as the fabricators. Many Chinese material manufacturers may not have that certificate, but they are competitive and run a certified quality management system.

    The word "suppliers" is applicable to fabricators and their subcontractors that will be fabricating any sub-components. However, raw material suppliers must be certified in accordance with ASTM standards.

    49.0

    How can we secure extra copies of the Information Handout (see Special Provision 5-1.13, PROJECT INFORMATION)? Only one set is provided to "prime bidders".

    We have subcontractors, engineers and suppliers who may need to refer to relevant parts of the Information Handout. Could this be posted on the Caltrans website where it could be available for downloading? Or could extra sets be made available for ordering, and if so, from what office?

    Copies of the Information Handout are available for purchase from Ford Graphics, 2210 Magnolia Street (near West Grand Ave.), Oakland, CA 94607; phone (510) 451-9060, fax (510) 595-2363.

    50.0

  • back to top
  • A. Does the USCG permit mentioned in Special Provision Section 5-1.36 limit/affect the delivery of structural steel in any way?

    B. Where on the project site can the delivery vessel be moored? For how long?

    A. Yes. Please refer to requirements of the USCG Permit and SP 5-1.36 that require the free navigation of the waterway and timely notification to the USCG of any and all events that may affect navigation.

    B. This will be coordinated with the USCG when anchor mooring plans are submitted for approval. The BCDC Permit, Section II, N, requires that a U.S. Coast Guard approved checklist be submitted to BCDC prior to the use of any barges in the bay. If mooring of a vessel on one spot is to be more than six months, then the mooring needs to be permitted by BCDC.

    51.0

    Please extend the completion dates for each of the four Phases by at least one year (add 365 days to the working days allowed for each of the 4 phases). We do not expect to be able to complete in less time because of delivery schedules imposed by suppliers and other contract requirements. We also refer to Inquiry 6 posted on the website by another bidder.

    Contract time has been extended, please refer to addendum 7.

    The Department requires additional information from the bidder to evaluate this request for additional contract time. Please provide specific information on delivery schedules (describing which contract items are affected) and specific contract requirements leading to the request for additional time. These are required in order to evaluate the request.

    52.0

    This bidder does not expect to complete the work for Phase 1 until the end of 2008 (due to the anticipated delivery schedule for the pipe beams and a variety of other reasons). Will Caltrans provide the F4 contractor access for cranes and laydown in Area FP, west side of Pier Cap W2, until this work can be completed (see SP 5-1.18, "Areas for Contractor's Use")? Unless the F4 contractor will have priority for the access in Area FP necessary to complete Phase 1, Caltrans should revise the date that the P4 contractor will gain possession until one year later.

    SP 5-1.18 "Areas for Contractor's Use" has been modified in Addendum No. 3 to provide the contractor access to Area FP until the completion of Phase 1 work. The bidder is reminded that Phase 1 shall be completed wiithin the time specified for Phase 1 work completion in Section 4 "Beginning of Work, Time of Completion and Liquidated Damages."

    Contract time has been extended, please refer to addendum 7.[Note: This sentence added, 2/2/2006]

    53.0

    Will Caltrans make more space available to the SAS Superstructure contractor at Pier 7 for parking, staging of materials, etc. as the Skyway winds down? It will be very helpful to receive approximately 2 additional acres for parking in early 2007, followed by more space after the Skyway contract is finished.

    Substantial portions of Pier 7 will be available to the SAS contractor as the Skyway and E2/T1 contracts are completed. Please see Plot map titled "Pier 7- Area for contractor's use" in the Information Hand-out in Addendum no. 3 as well as Section 5-1.18 "Areas for Contractor's Use" of the revised Special Provisions in Addendum no. 3.

    54.0

    Will employee parking and boat access using the area available to the Skyway contractor on the north side of the freeway be available to the SAS Superstructure contractor after the Skyway is completed? Or will this area be completely occupied by the Oakland Touchdown West Bound construction? If there are available windows of time or available areas that could be used, please advise.

    The Contractor will have access via the completed Westbound Oakland Touchdown and Skyway structures commencing January 1, 2010. See Adendum #5 for details.

    Employee parking and boat access will be available to the Contractor at Pier 7. See Addendum #3 for available areas.

    55.0

  • back to top
  • See Special Provision 10-1.41, TEMPORARY TOWERS, and the table contained in the fifth paragraph of the subsection "Temporary Tower Design." Please specify the edition (year and version) and the exact title of each code that is to be used.
    • The current AISC design code is known as the "Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, March 9, 2005 (ANSI/ASCE 360-05)." Is this what is intended? Or is the 1999 AISC-LRFD specification intended?

    • The current edition of API RP2A-WSD is December 2000, and the current edition of API RP2A-LRFD is dated July 1993. Which code is intended? Both are mentioned in the Design Criteria (Materials Information Handout).

    • Is the new "AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 2nd edition" intended as the current edition of the "AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Construction Code"?

    • Is Revision 32, dated 11/01, intended as the current edition of the "Falsework Manual"?

    Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41, "TEMPORARY TOWERS," subsection "TEMPORARY TOWER DESIGN", the table in the fifth paragraph as revised in Addendum No. 3.
    • The 1999 AISC-LRFD edition should be used.

    • The July 1993 API RP2A-LRFD edition should be used.

    • The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications 2nd edition should be used.

    • Revision 32 of the State of California Deptartment of Transportation Falsework Manual dated November 2001 should be used.

    56.0

    See Special Provision 10-1.41, TEMPORARY TOWERS, and the sixth paragraph of the subsection "Temporary Tower Design" which states: "In case of a difference between the code clauses, the more stringent clause shall apply." This statement creates the possibility for confusion and ambiguity in interpreting design requirements. Does Caltrans intend this to apply only to a difference in clauses within a single code, or must all codes be examined to determine the more stringent requirement among all of the codes? Please confirm our understanding of the intent of the above quoted sentence, which is summarized as follows:
    • AISC-LRFD will only apply to "structural steel", except for "tubular members and connections", in which case API RP2A will apply.

    • AASHTO-LRFD will only apply to "concrete".

    • ASCE 7-95 will only apply to "wind loads" (and the classification as "essential facilities" for purposes of seismic design).

    • The California "Falsework Manual" will only apply to situations not covered by any of the above, such as cables and timber fastenings, unless the contractor proposes another suitable standard that is acceptable to the Engineer.
    If our summary does not reflect Caltrans' intent, then Caltrans must revise the subsection "Temporary Tower Design" to be more specific in clarifying how the contractor's designer is to apply the more stringent clauses of multiple codes.

    The bidder's interpretation of the various code applications is correct for the most part. Please note that as per SP 10-1.41 "Temporary Towers," subsection "Temporary Tower Design," as revised in Addendum No. 3, all connections shall be designed to be stronger than the connected members. Therefore, only for connections between rolled sections and tubular members shall the most stringent code requirements between AISC-LRFD and API RP2A-LRFD govern.

    Otherwise, the intent is to apply a particular code consistently to a particular structure/material type.

    • AISC-LRFD applies to rolled sections (i.e. wide flanges, tees, angles, etc.). API RP2A-LRFD applies to tubular sections, including piles.



    • AASHTO-LRFD applies to concrete structures.



    • ASCE-7-95 applies to wind loads only along with the requirements of the special provisions (i.e. wind speed). The "essential facilities" classification does not apply for seismic purposes. The Special Provisions provide the seismic performance criteria for the temporary towers.



    • The Caltrans Falsework Manual should cover all other conditions.

    57.0

    Can Caltrans provide a Design Manual and a Prototype Design for a generic temporary tower (foundation, towers and box girder cradle), including all supporting design assumptions, loads, calculations and drawings? This will help clarify uncertainties in how to apply certain design criteria specified by Caltrans. To be useful to the Contractor, this should be in sufficient detail to address all design issues that Caltrans intends the contractor's designer to address, including preventing damage to box girders from seismic events and meeting all other performance requirements that are stated in the special provisions. It also must be supplied by early October 2005 in order to have any impact on Contractor's pricing for bids due on February 1, 2006.

    A draft prototype design with guidelines has been posted at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/sasoutreach/. The draft prototype design includes two Temporary Tower design examples with various specification and code references. The draft design examples will be discussed at the November 30, 2005 SAS Contractor Outreach.

    Sketches (on 8.5" x 11") describing the overall configuration of the Temporary Towers have been included with the design examples.

    The design examples do not include a box girder cradle. Please note that the intent of the girder cradle is to distribute the reaction from the temporary tower so that the stresses in the box girder are less than those stipulated in the design criteria.

    58.0

    Special Provision 10-1.41, TEMPORARY TOWERS, subsection "Temporary Tower Design", states: "The total design settlement of temporary towers shall not exceed 25 mm." The design for settlement is part of the pile capacity and allowable bearing pressure calculations provided by the Department. Since the Contractor does not know the basis for the Department's foundation designs or whether those designs are adequate to meet this performance requirement, the Contractor should not have this design responsibility imposed on him. Please delete or clarify this requirement.

    Please note that the temporary tower design calculations shall show that the total design settlement of the temporary tower does not exceed 25 mm at the mud line for the governing design load combination. Field measurements are not required.

    Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41, "TEMPORARY TOWERS," subsection "TEMPORARY TOWER DESIGN", as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    59.0

    Special Provision 10-1.41, TEMPORARY TOWERS, subsection "Seismic Design Loads," states: "The seismic performance of the temporary towers shall be such that the bridge superstructure is undamaged and not stressed excessively." This requirement should be deleted. It is impossible (and unnecessary) to design temporary works that guarantee a bridge and all appurtenances under construction with many intermediate stages will be completely undamaged after the design seismic event. The specification has elsewhere specified the required strength in the box girder during a seismic event (see Special Provision 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES) and prescribed that the towers and permanent structures during construction shall be considered "essential facilities" per ASCE 7-95. These provisions are adequate to prevent serious damage to the girders.

    Please note that the temporary tower seismic performance design calculations shall demonstrate that the demand to capacity ratio of the superstructure shall be less than 1.0 during construction.

    Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41 "TEMPORARY TOWERS", subsection "TEMPORARY TOWER DESIGN", as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    Also, please reference the response to inquiry no. 56 for comments regarding ASCE 7-95.

    60.0

  • back to top
  • Special Provision 10-1.41, TEMPORARY TOWERS, subsection "Seismic Design Loads," states: "The temporary towers shall remain serviceable and capable of carrying the design loads." This sentence should be deleted or significantly modified. Normal design codes for seismic loading provide for collapse prevention only. Higher levels of protection for repairable damage, or for continued serviceability, are sometimes prescribed for lifeline structures. We note that these temporary structures are already classified as "essential facilities" per ASCE 7-95. But going beyond that to require serviceability for temporary falsework is an extremely onerous, costly, and unnecessary requirement. It is also arguably inconsistent with the specification allowing yielding braces and piles in concentrically braced frames (of course significant damage would have to be repaired as necessary to allow continuation of erection). The specification as it is written elsewhere is consistent with a "repairable damage" design philosophy, which is adequate for a low probability event. Please clarify what is intended.

    The Special Provisions require that the temporary towers be designed to remain elastic for all load combinations. Therefore, the temporary towers should remain serviceable (essentially elastic) after the specified seismic event. Note that isolation system may be used which will reduce the seismic demands (per Addendum 6).

    Also, please reference the response to inquiry no. 56 for comments regarding ASCE 7-95.

    Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41 "TEMPORARY TOWERS", subsection "TEMPORARY TOWER DESIGN", subsection "Seismic Design Loads," the first paragraph, which requires that structural yielding must only occur in the ductile bracing. If such yielding takes place in the bracing, then the temporary towers will be considered serviceable. In the event of the specified seismic event, the temporary towers can be repaired quickly, if required.

    Also, please reference the response to inquiry no. 56 for comments regarding ASCE 7-95.

    61.0

    Special Provision 10-1.41, TEMPORARY TOWERS, subsection "Seismic Design Loads," states: "Extreme fibers of the structural steel piles may yield to a maximum of 2% strain." This should be deleted as it is arguably inconsistent with other specifications and literature with respect to steel ductility in seismic design and other design parameters specified by the Department. If not deleted, please clarify what is intended.

    The 2% strain limit has been removed. Please refer to Addendum 6.

    The temporary support structures may exhibit some inelasticity. Any damage is to be limited to the yielding of the ductile bracing.

    The 2% strain limit is intended to allow for some minor yielding in the extreme pile fiber under the specified seismic loading condition. This relatively small amount of pile yielding is to require a design that would respond to the specified seismic loading in such a way that following such a seismic event, post earthquake checks would focus on the bracing as the structural fuse, and little or no concern would need to be focused on the foundation.

    This represents good design as the foundations would be difficult to physically access and evaluate following an earthquake.

    62.0

    Special Provision 10-1.41, TEMPORARY TOWERS, subsection "Seismic Design Loads," states: "Longitudinal and transverse static push-over analyses shall be used to verify that temporary towers capacities exceed the demands corresponding to 1.50 times the peak seismic displacements." This may have been added as a way to consider amplification of the ground motions through the soft soils for the towers in deep soils. However this will add a great deal of cost to the west towers on rock, which are not subject to this amplification through the soils. In attempting to simplify requirements, the Department has ended up with seismic loading which is overly conservative where the towers are founded on rock and possibly non-conservative where founded in deep soils. This bidder believes this approach is not in keeping with reasonable standards for seismic design. We do not believe that a highly complex analysis is required to handle the varying ground amplification at the different tower locations. We suggest that the Department delete the requirement to multiply displacements by 1.5 times and provide an amplified spectrum to be used for temporary towers in the deep, soft soils, whereas the existing firm ground response spectrum can be used for the towers founded on firm ground.

    The 1.5 factor for the push-over analysis is used as an indication of overall ductility of the temporary structure and does not apply to soil amplification in the Bay Mud. Please note that this 1.5 factor for the push-over analysis has been modified in Addendum 6. Per Addendum 6, the temporary tower structural system shall have a minimum displacement ductility of 2.

    The 1.5 factor for the push-over analysis is used as an indication of overall ductility of the temporary structure and does not apply to soil amplification in the Bay Mud.

    63.0

    The contractor is responsible for the risks of tsunami and earthquake up to predefined limits (see the special provision relating to INSURANCE). But Standard Specification Section 7-1.165, "Damage by Storm, Flood, Tsunami or Earthquake," also states: "The Contractor shall bear the entire cost of repairing damage to the work which the Engineer determines was due to the failure of the Contractor to comply with the requirements of the Plans and Specifications, take reasonable and adequate measures to protect the work or exercise sound engineering and construction practices in the conduct of the work, and those costs shall be excluded from consideration under the provisions of this section." Available limits of insurance for design and construction errors and omissions arising out of seismic and tsunami events are far below the possible consequences of inadequacies for this major construction, imposing unusual risks on the contractor. Caltrans should absolutely cap the contractor's liability for seismic and/or tsunami damage to the work at $20 million. Caltrans should also eliminate the application of the second sentence in paragraph C of standard specification section 7-1.165 with respect to damage to the work caused by tsunamis or earthquake. Caltrans has defined the seismic and tsunami design criteria and should therefore assume the full responsibility for those criteria, including the potential for contractor errors that cause seismic damage to the work exceeding $20 million that are not detected during the process of the Engineer's approval of those designs and procedures.

    The Department will take responsibility for its design criteria. Relieving the Contractor completely of errors and omissions of complying with the criteria appears to unfairly burden the Department with quality of workmanship of design work and means and methods that it has limited control over. The Department believes that section 7-1.165 1-1.165 as modified in the special provisions adequately allocates the risk for the above mentioned occurrences.

    64.0

    At the Outreach Meeting of Aug. 16, Caltrans said that they made a full scale tower and miniature Tower, which are located in Univ of Nevada and San Diego. Will you bring these Towers to Pier 7 warehouse at least 7 - 10 days before the next Outreach Meeting, which is scheduled for Sep. 23? This will help not only Prime contractors, but also fabricators.

    The tower models are no longer available. However, shear link test pieces are available for inspection by appointment at the Department of Transportation, Public Information Office, 311 Burma Road, Oakland,CA; phone (510) 286-7165.

    65.0

  • back to top
  • We have purchased your official paper version of the Special Provisions, and found that there are discrepancies between the paper version and the electronic-file version on your website. In order to avoid unnecessary confusion by such different provisions, please indicate clearly the points of difference between these two versions.

    For example, we have found the following discrepancy in your document: Page 233, SP sub-section "Temporary Tower Foundations - Driving System Submittal", there are 2 paragraphs shown in between the paragraph "F" and the last paragraph. However, these 2 paragraphs do not exist in the electronic-file version.

    Please refer to the disclaimer on the front page of the electronic version of the specifications.

    The two missing paragraphs under subsection " Temporary Tower Foundations - Driving System Submittal," of the special provisions have been added to the posted electronic version of the specifications:

    The Contractor shall allow the Engineer 15 days to review a driving system submittal. The Contractor shall use the driving system and installation methods described in the approved driving system submittal for each temporary tower location. Any change in hammers from those submitted and approved by the Engineer shall also meet the requirements for driving system submittals. Revised and new driving system submittals shall be approved by the Engineer prior to using corresponding driving systems on temporary tower piling. The Contractor shall allow the Engineer 15 days to review each revised and each new driving system submittal after a complete set has been received, as determined by the Engineer.

    66.0

    We refer to the BCDC Permit No. 8-01, contained in the Information Handout and the approximate quantities and descriptions for "Temporary Bay Fill", "Yerba Buena Island Transition/Suspension Span" (Item 1.A.2.a of the permit). Please answer the following questions:

    A. What constitutes "approximately 1.60 acres of temporary, high-level suspended fill to construct portions of 'falsework'" and how is the area of the "high-level suspended fill" calculated?

    B. If the area of the "high-level suspended fill" is calculated based on the total plan view area of the outer perimeter of temporary tower pile caps in the Bay required for Contract 04-0120F4 and if this area is more than the "approximately 1.60 acres" described in the BCDC permit, what flexibility will be permitted by BCDC for a larger area? We foresee a larger area than 1.60 acres, taking into account the outer perimeter of ship collision protection.

    C. Is there any "falsework" for the YBI Transition Structures that might reduce the total area of "high-level suspended fill" allowed by the BCDC permit for Contract 04-0120F4? If so, what is that suspended fill area?

    D. What constitutes "temporary submerged fill for 'falsework' piers" and how is the total volume of fill calculated? Does the volume of water displaced by temporary piling and submerged support structures determine the volume of submerged fill? Also confirm the water elevation used for the volume calculation.

    E. What flexibility will be permitted by BCDC for a larger volume of temporary submerged fill for "falsework" piers? We foresee substantially more than 2776 cubic yards, considering the total submerged volume of all temporary tower piling and related support structures.

    F. Is there any "falsework" under the YBI Transition Structures that might reduce the total volume of "temporary submerged fill for 'falsework' piers" allowed by the BCDC permit for Contract 04-0120F4? If so, what is that volume of submerged fill?

    G. What constitutes temporary, submerged cofferdam fill and how is the volume of cofferdam fill calculated? What water elevation is to be considered in this calculation? Please confirm our assumption that the references to temporary, submerged fill to construct portions of two cofferdams are intended for Temporary Tower C foundations and that this volume of solid fill is considered separately from Item E above.

    A. High-level suspended fill is characterized as the area of the falsework that is above mean sea level and extends beyond the footprint of the new bridge (area of permanent fill).

    B. Bids must be based on existing permits. You may request changes to the permit and we will work with you in an effort to secure those changes. Agency approval is not guaranteed.

    C. No.

    D. Any fill below mean sea level is considered submerged fill and is calculated by measuring the volume of water displaced from mean sea level to the bottom of the bay. Yes, the volume of water displaced by submerged support structures is the volume of temporary fill in the bay. (Hollow piles displace much less water than solid piles). The Mean Sea level is at zero elevation per NGVD of 1929.

    E. See Answer B, above.

    F. No.

    G. Temporary submerged cofferdam fill is the volume of water displaced from mean sea level to the bottom of the bay. The references to temporary, submerged fill to construct portions of two cofferdams may be used for Temporary Tower C foundations and these allocations are separate from the 2776 cubic yards discussed above in item E.

    67.0

    We refer to the BCDC Permit contained in the Information Handout and requirements for Temporary Construction Access (Section H of the BCDC Permit) where it states: "Any fill placed for construction access and work platforms shall be pile-supported or floating only . . . The permittee is strictly prohibited from using solid fill in the Bay for construction access and work platform purposes with the exception of minimum amounts necessary of earthen fill to create the minimum necessary grade transitions from the land to pile-supported work platforms . . ." We interpret this solid fill prohibition to apply to construction access and work platforms other than temporary submerged fill for cofferdams and falsework (temporary towers) addressed elsewhere in the permit. Please confirm our interpretation.

    Installation of the rock socketted piles from floating equipment in the shallow water for Temporary Tower C is not practical due to the draft requirements for the marine equipment required and fluctuating tides. Also, the foundations are too far offshore, and the congestion around the Torpedo House is too great, for the piles to be installed from the landside. We assume that "approximately 12,072 cubic yards of temporary, submerged fill to construct portions of two cofferdams" are contemplated for this purpose (see Item 1.A.2.a of the BCDC Permit contained in the Information Handout). Please confirm that bidders can place this volume of clean, temporary, rock fill inside cofferdams for the Temporary Tower C foundation, which will be removed after construction.

    Your interpretation is correct. The solid fill prohibition is to apply to construction access and work platforms other than temporary submerged fill for cofferdams and falsework (temporary towers) addressed elsewhere in the permit.

    Bidders can place this volume of clean, temporary, rock fill inside cofferdams for the Temporary Tower C foundation, which will be removed after construction.

    68.0

    Please refer to the responses to Inquiries 1 and 7 posted on the website. Bidders should have access to the previous bid inquiries and responses. This relevant information should not be withheld from prospective bidders, even though Caltrans has determined that they are not valid and cannot be applied to the current advertisement package. It may assist bidders in formulating and submitting new inquiries for unresolved issues that have not been addressed in the current advertisement package.

    The current Advertisement package (as advertised August 1, 2005) reflects the work as currently anticipated by the Department. New inquiries should be submitted based on bidders’ review of the current Advertisement package. The previous inquiries and responses are not valid and cannot be applied to the current Advertisement package.

    69.0

    Caltrans has specified the minimum design criteria for the temporary towers and the permanent work. Because the magnitude of risk faced by the contractor due to extreme events beyond the control of the contractor is so great, Caltrans should assume responsibility if those design criteria prove inadequate for extreme events during construction. Please cap the Contractor's responsibility/ liability for repair of damage to the in-place construction at $20 million, if the cause of damage was not allowed for in the design criteria and not attributable to the contractor (in the same manner that it caps seismic liability at $20 million).

    The Department will take responsibility for damage "that exceeds the lesser of $20 million or 5 percent of the amount of the Contractor's bid for bid comparison purposes" in accordance with special provision 5-1.39 if the cause of damage is attributed to an occurrence which exceeds its design criteria.

    70.0

  • back to top
  • There is insufficient material in the box girder steel plates, diaphragms, floor beams, etc. to support the self-weight of box girders during shipping and erection. They are designed to be supported on suspenders hanging from the cables. Any thickened plates and/or stiffeners to solve this problem must be removed according to the special provisions and prior statements from the Department and the Engineer. This approach increases the price and the time to complete the work. Please reconsider and allow more flexibility on this issue.

    Please note that all temporary attachments shall be removed from the Tower and Orthotropic Box Girder. This inquiry is too general as it stands and cannot be addressed. The Contractor is advised to provide specific details of what he has in mind in future bidder inquiries for this to be considered (the bidder should submit his proposal of specific attachments he wishes to leave in place).

    In addition, please reference the Special Provisions, section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "ERECTION PLAN," the eighteenth paragraph as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    Also, please reference inquiry no. 9 and the associated response.

    71.0

    Can Caltrans furnish bidders with a final design of the Skyway Temporary Towers AE and AW and as-built locations of the piles? If this information is not available, then please advise if anything in the Information Handout for the Skyway Temporary Towers AE and AW has changed or if it remains the same.

    Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 5-1.13, "PROJECT INFORMATION," subsection "STRUCTURE MATERIALS INFORMATION," Item O "As-built plans of temporary towers AE and AW," in Addendum No. 4.

    Please note these are "Approved working drawings of temporary towers AE and AW (Contract 04-012024)" and not "As-built plans" as stated in Addendum No. 4. As-built plans of the temporary towers and piles are not available at this time. This typo will be corrected in an addendum in early January.

    72.0

    Will the Contractor be allowed some flexibility to make minor design changes on the saddles, such as the height, width and divider plates of the trough/compartments?

    Please refer to Addendum 5 for the Saddle Casting Performance Specification and "Alternative Saddle Details" sheets (790A to 790D of 1204).

    73.0

    The special provision WORKING DRAWINGS states: "Working drawings shall be stamped and signed by an engineer who is registered as a Civil Engineer in the state of California." How is this intended to apply to working drawing submittals for mechanical, electronic, elevator and electrical systems?

    The mechanical, electronic, elevator and electronic drawings shall be stamped and signed by a Civil engineer who is registered as a Civil Engineer in the state of California.

    74.0

    Special provision CABLE SYSTEM, Erection PWS Cables, states: "The footbridge and the storm system shall meet the requirements of ANSI/ASCE 7-95"? While this code is relevant to loads, load factors and load combinations, it cannot be applied to the design of the footbridge elements (anchorages, support ropes, cross bridges, frames, walk surfaces and other structural members). Will the contractor be permitted to propose an alternative code for approval by the Engineer? If not, what code or design criteria are to be applied to designing the elements of the footbridge?

    The specified code is intended to provide loadings and serviceability requirements. The Contractor may propose an alternate code for the structural design of the footbridge and storm system, subject to Cal-OSHA and other applicable minimum standards.

    Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.60, "CABLE SYSTEM," subsection “ERECTION,” subsection “PWS Cables,” the first paragraph as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    75.0

  • back to top
  • Is a storm system (see plan sheet 972/1204) mandatory for the footbridges if the contractor demonstrates wind stability for the footbridges using methods other than a storm system?

    A storm system is mandatory for the footbridges. However, the Contractor may propose alternative details for the storm system as part of the cable system working drawings, subject to review and approval by the Engineer, to satisfy the requirement of the storm system. Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.60 "CABLE SYSTEM," subsection "ERECTION," subsection "PWS Cables," and Plan Sheet 972 of 1204 as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    76.0

    In the plan sheet 750/1204 there is a "hole for jacking rod" in Section D-D. How are these holes intended to facilitate jacking in a limited anchorage space? We think additional holes will be required in the lower flange plate of the suspender bracket for both the suspender rods and the jacking rods referred to above. Also, the nuts on the suspender socket rods must be adjusted in order to install suspenders or make subsequent adjustments. What does the designer have in mind?

    The holes shown in Section D-D on Plan Sheet 750 of 1204 are intended for suspender replacement in the future. While the holes are not directly suitable for load transfer to the cable, they may be used by the Contractor as part of his erection procedure (i.e. suspender shimming). The Contractor may propose additional holes, subject to review and approval by the Engineer. These holes must be closed later.

    Please reference Plan Sheet 750 of 1204 as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    77.0

    Please confirm that the Contractor is not responsible for seismic damage to work performed under other contracts (e.g., Piers W2, T1, E2, YBI structures, etc.) and that the $20 million cap on seismic damage in the INSURANCE portion of the special provisions applies to work under this contract (04-0120F4).

    The Contractor is not responsible for damage to other work performed under adjacent contracts that is proximately caused by a seismic event. For this contract 04-0120F4, Standard Specification Section 7-1.165 only applies to damage to the work under this contract that is proximately caused by a defined "act of god" if the work is built in accordance with accepted and applicable building standards and the plans and specifications. Section 7-1.165 does not provide a cap on liability for collateral damage to work under other contracts which is caused by acts or omissions of the Contractor. The Department will take responsibility for damage on this contract only "that exceeds the lesser of $20 million or 5 percent of the amount of the Contractor's bid for bid comparison purposes" in accordance with special provision 5-1.39 provided that the in-place work is built in accordance with accepted and applicable building standards and the plans and specifications. Note that the Department believes the temporary structure design criteria is adequate to prevent damage in a low level seismic occurrence.

    The provision applies to the work under this contract. Section 7-1.165 does not provide a cap on liability for collateral damage to work under other contracts which is caused by acts or omissions of the Contractor should an earthquake exceed 3.5 on the Richter scale. The Department will take responsibility for damage "that exceeds the lesser of $20 million or 5 percent of the amount of the Contractor's bid for bid comparison purposes" in accordance with special provision 5-1.39 if the cause of damage is attributed to an occurrence which exceeds its design criteria.

    78.0

    Please confirm that the weight uncertainty that is contemplated in the design and that can be accommodated by the Alternative Camber Method, varying reactions at Hinges A and K, and suspender shimming adjustments allowed for on the plans, is as follows: "The design weights shown on the plans reflect the nominal values. It is expected that the fabricated weight will be about 3% higher than the weight based on the nominal values. The Contractor shall as part of his weight control plan, explain and document his estimated range of uncertainty between the actual weights and the nominal weights which may be computed from the fabrication drawings. Additional weight uncertainty beyond these measures is expected to be in the order of 1-2%, and is within acceptable design tolerances. If the Contractor chooses to fabricate the suspender before the actual weight is determined, then the Contractor shall account for the additional variation in installed quantities and fabricate suspenders with sufficient shimming to perform adjustment later as necessary."

    This bidder inquiry is paraphrasing what is specified in subsection "Erection Plan" and subsection "Weight Control" of SP 10-1.59 "Steel Structures". The bidder's question is not clear. Please ask specific questions concerning the special provisions instead of rewording it.

    79.0

    Refer to plan sheets 724 and 725/1204, Crossbeam at East Anchorage No. 1 and No. 2. Please confirm that temporary holes to allow passage of strands, rods or cables through the crossbeam and box girders will be permitted to facilitate the indicated jacking requirements.

    The Contractor will be allowed to use temporary openings for the passage of strands, rods, or cables, and the suggested locations of such openings are shown on the plans. The Contractor shall submit his detailed jacking proposal to the Engineer for review and approval.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES", subsection "ASSEMBLY", subsection "Box Girder," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    80.0

  • back to top
  • Please confirm that Caltrans will not perform any QA audits of the fabrication and/or erection of the TEMPORARY TOWERS.

    Fabrication of the temporary towers will not require an audit of the fabricator's ability to perform the required work. In addition, the fabricator will not be subject to Department approval. The Contractor is responsible for the design, fabrication, erection, and maintenance of the temporary towers and shall develop and submit working drawings as required by the special provisions. The Department is responsible for the review and approval of the working drawings and for inspection of the work to verify that the towers are fabricated, erected, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the approved working drawings.

    81.0

    Please confirm that suspender socket and rope strength tests specified in CABLE SYSTEMS of the special provisions may be performed on "virgin rope" before pre-stretching, at the supplier's discretion.

    The socket and rope strength tests may be performed using virgin ropes. However, no adjustment to the test results will be permitted in consideration of the use of such rope in place of pre-stretched rope.

    82.0

    Regarding WELDING (SP 8-3), please confirm the following:

    a. When additional NDT is requested by the State, it is the State's intent to use the same NDT method that was originally specified.

    b. An additional NDT method may only be used to gain additional information concerning a questionable anomaly or in an area that is not accessible to the chosen NDT method due to geometry or other constraint.

    c. For a weld that only a percent of the weld requires NDT, the Engineer may select an area to be tested that is a different location than was selected by the Contractor on the same weld.

    When additional NDT is requested, it is the State's intent to use the same NDT method that was originally specified. An additional method may only be utilized to gain additional information concerning a questionable anomaly or in an area that is not accessible to the chosen NDT method due to geometry or other constraint. For welds that only a percent of the weld requires NDT, the Engineer may select an area to be tested that is a different location than was selected by the Contractor on the same weld.

    83.0

    Regarding the PAIQ, MFSQA and other bid submission requirements, please confirm that the Department is not restricting the ability of bidders to change fabricators and suppliers after bidding. Bidders may submit information for all parties contemplated, but bidders may also later change and use a fabricator or supplier that was not contemplated or listed in the bid submission.

    The Department is not restricting the ability to change fabricators and suppliers after bid from those contemplated or listed in the bid, except that such substitutions will be required to go through the audit process. Bidders should submit information for all parties contemplated.

    The Department is not restricting the ability to change fabricators and suppliers after bid, except that such substitutions will be required to go through the audit process. Bidders may submit information for all parties contemplated.

    The Department is not restricting the ability to change fabricators and suppliers. Bidders may submit information for all parties contemplated.

    84.0

    Please confirm that the US Coast Guard only requires one navigational channel to be open at a time (see plan sheet 967/1204, Construction Sequence No. 1).

    It is required that at least one navigational channel to be open at a time. Brief channel closures will be inconvenient to vessel traffic. Any brief channel closure needs to be absolutely necessary and it must be coordinated with Caltrans and US Coast Guard in advance.

    85.0

  • back to top
  • Please confirm that vertical seismic accelerations can be ignored for purposes of designing the temporary towers, even though the dead load factor for the seismic load combination is only 1.0 and these structures are classified as "essential facilities" under ASCE 7-95.

    Yes, vertical accelerations can be ignored. Also, please refer to the response to Bid Inquiry #56 for comments regarding ASCE 7-95.

    86.0

    We refer to Inquiry #2. The grounds that we propose to improve the partial payment amount to 50% of contract amount are as follows.

    BQ items listed in I through IV below are assumed to be supplied from foreign suppliers. It means these volumes are "materials furnished but not incorporated in the work". The total sum of I through IV is approximately 50 % of the previous bidding price.

    I. Full(100%) of bid amount for the following BQ items are applied:

    "FURNISH TEMPORARY TOWERS"
    "FURNISH SPHERICAL BUSHING RING BEARING (HINGE K)"
    "FURNISH STRUCTURAL STEEL (BRIDGE)"
    "FURNISH STRUCTURAL STEEL (BRIDGE)(TOWER)"
    "FURNISH STRUCTURAL STEEL (BRIDGE)(TOWER STRUT)"
    "FURNISH STRUCTURAL STEEL (BRIDGE)(BOX GIRDER)"
    "FURNISH STRUCTURAL STEEL (BRIDGE)(BIKEPATH)"
    "FURNISH STRUCTURAL STEEL (BRIDGE)(SADDLE)"
    "FURNISH STRUCTURAL STEEL (BRIDGE)(PIPE BEAM)"
    "FURNISH STRUCTURAL STEEL (BRIDGE)(PIPE BEAM FUSE)"
    "FURNISH PWS CABLE SYSTEM"
    "SERVICE PLATFORM"
    "FURNISH SIGN STRUCTURE (TRUSS)"
    "METAL (BARRIER MOUNTED SIGN)"
    "STEEL BARRIER (TYPE 732 MODIFIED)"

    TOTAL I = 43.5% of the previous bidding price.

    II. 80% of bid amount for the following BQ items are applied:

    "CLEAN AND PAINT STRUCTURAL STEEL"
    "CLEAN AND PAINT STRUCTURAL STEEL (TOWER)"
    "CLEAN AND PAINT STRUCTURAL STEEL (BOX GIRDER)"
    "CLEAN AND PAINT STRUCTURAL STEEL (BIKEPATH)"

    TOTAL II = 1.32% of the previous bidding price.

    III. 50% of bid amount for the following BQ items are applied:

    "FURNISH AND INSTALL SPHERICAL BUSHING BEARING (PIER E2)"
    "FURNISH AND INSTALL SHEAR KEY (PIER E2)"
    "WIND VORTEX GENERATOR PLATES"

    TOTAL III = 0.24% of the previous bidding price.

    IV. 25% of bid amount for the following BQ items are applied:

    "MISCELLANEOUS METAL (BRIDGE)"
    "BIKEPATH RAILING"
    "TRAVELER SUPPORT RAIL"
    "SAS SUPERSTRUCTURE GIRDER WESTBOUND"
    "SAS SUPERSTRUCTURE GIRDER EASTBOUND"

    TOTAL IV = 0.32% of the previous bidding price.

    TOTAL I thru IV = 45.38% of the previous bidding price (Say, 50% of the previous bidding price).

    In the general international supply contract, it is normal for the full amount of the contract to be paid before shipping out the materials. Now it should be considered that this contract (04-0120F4) will be the reputable international contract, and Caltrans is strongly requested that partial payment shall be made in conformity with the international business practices. Otherwise, foreign bidders and/or suppliers will not be attracted to this bid, or even if they participate in this bid, they will add their interest on loan to their bidding price. As a result, both cases will affect the bid price and bring the same situation as the previous bid.

    See Addendum 3 for changes to Special Provision 5-1.25.

    87.0

    What scour depth should be considered in the design of the TEMPORARY TOWERS? The design criteria in the special provisions are silent on this point, but the “Hydraulic Modeling and Scour Analysis” report in the Information Handout and the API-RP2A-LRFD recommended practice indicate this should be considered.

    The recommended scour depth can be found in the "Geotechnical Foundation Report for the Yerba Buena Island Approach and Self-Anchored Suspension Bridge, June 2002" under Section 7 - "Suspension Span - Temporary Towers". Section 7.6.5 states "As a minimum a general scour of 0.5 m and additional local scour of one pile diameter should be considered".

    This report is listed as Item G. of the Geotechnical Materials Information section of the Information Handout covered under SP 5-1.13 "Project Information".

    88.0

    Epoxy Asphalt Concrete Surfacing is sensitive to temperature, rain and dew. The bond coat and paving that is specified can generally be applied within the specified parameters only during certain months of the year unless enclosures or other special measures are utilized. Please specify if enclosures are required or what other special measures would be accepted to allow paving at any time of the year.

    SP 10-1.40 "Epoxy Asphalt Concrete Surfacing" does not require the Contractor to pave during specific times of the year. If the Contractor chooses to work at any given time of the year, it is the Contractor's responsibility and ways and means to ensure that working conditions as prescribed in the SP 10-1.40 are satisfied during the bond coat and paving construction.

    89.0

    Several experienced saddle casting manufacturers and fabricators and some experienced suspension bridge engineers have confirmed that there may not be enough information indicated on the plans to complete patterns and working drawings for casting and fabricating the Saddles (e.g., cable path through the tower saddle). Further explanation or additional information from the Engineer may solve this problem. Is this an example of the kind of problem to be solved through RFI’s and the working drawing campus during the early months of the project?

    The saddle geometry is complete on the plans and has been used repeatedly and independently used to develop computer models and to-scale views on the plans. Please ask more specific questions if the bidder believes there is not enough information on the plans to complete the patterns and working drawings for casting and fabricating the saddles.

    90.0

  • back to top
  • A redesign of the saddles (e.g., stiffener spacing to provide better access) may be required in some instances in order for manufacturers to produce them to the required tolerances and other quality acceptance criteria. Is this an example of the kind of problem to be solved through RFI’s and the working drawing campus during the early months of the project? Or will Cost Reduction Incentive Proposals be required before any design changes of this nature will be considered?

    The purpose of the Working Drawing Campus (WDC) is to facilitate resolution of all issues related to preparation and approval of working drawings. Contractor proposed changes would be among the issues for which the WDC provides an appropriate forum for discussion and resolution. Acceptability of such proposals and the format of the resulting change order will be determined on a case by case basis. An RFI (Request for Information) is an informal correspondence intended to track requests for information about, or clarification of, contract requirements and expedite responses thereto. An RFI is not an appropriate format for proposing design changes nor is it a substitute for any contractually mandated correspondence or notice. Please note that the WDC does not replace the RFI process.

    91.0

    STEEL STRUCTURES (SP 10-1.59) under Erection Plan, paragraph J, states that changes to the erection plan based on measured reactions that vary from reactions provided by the Engineer will be paid as extra work. Working drawings and other elements of work might be affected if Hinge A is not available for measuring the reactions by July 1, 2007 and significant variations are eventually found. Should that occur, does Caltrans also intend to pay for changes to the work that are necessitated by variations in the measured reactions at Hinge A?

    The inquiry errs in its paraphrasing of the Special Provisions. The Special Provisions stipulate compensation for extra work only in the event that the Engineer directs the Contractor to modify the erection plan pursuant to the Contractor submitting measured reactions at Hinge A that exceed 2.25 MN. Such direction is at the Engineer's discretion.

    If the Engineer does so direct the Contractor, it is the intent of the specification that the Contractor be compensated for all additional costs directly resulting from approved changes to the erection plan necessary to address the greater reaction.

    92.0

    In what timeframe does the Department commit to reply to RFI’s that affect critical path activities, as long as the Contractor justifiably identifies them as such at the time of submittal?

    The Department is committed to working with the Contractor to prioritize RFI's to facilitate responding to the most critical requests as rapidly as possible. There will be no specific commitment of time to respond to RFI's. The Department has established the "Working Drawing Campus" as defined in SP 10-1.16 to speed up both the RFI and working drawing processes. The campus has been very successful on the Skyway project.

    93.0

    The COMPONENT TESTING DETAILS (plan sheets 1162, 1164 and 1165/1204) specify a coefficient of friction of 0.05, whereas plan sheet 1163/1204 specifies a coefficient of friction of 0.07. While a coefficient of friction of 0.05 is sometimes possible under laboratory testing conditions, it cannot always be assured. We cannot confirm the 0.05 coefficient can be obtained until the prescribed tests have been performed. What flexibility exists if the testing results do not meet the friction coefficient requirement?

    All tests with acceptance criteria of max COF = 0.05 have been changed to max COF = 0.07. The lubricant shall satisfy the 0.07 max COF requirement for the specified tests.

    In addition, please note Plan Sheets 1162, 1164, 1165, and 1166 of 1204 have been deleted in Addendum No. 3.

    94.0

    TEMPORARY TOWERS, Subsection Temporary Tower Design, states: “Allowable stresses in the box girder shall not exceed the allowable values given in AISC.” Since AISC-LRFD (1999) does not use the term “allowable stress”, is this intended to mean “factored load demands shall not exceed resistance capacity”? Or is something else intended? Please clarify.

    Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41 "Temporary Towers," subsection "Temporary Tower Design," as revised in Addendum No. 3. The demand to capacity ratio in the box girder shall not exceed 1.0.

    95.0

  • back to top
  • TEMPORARY TOWERS, Subsection Temporary Tower Design, states: “The design of the temporary towers shall conform both to the service load and the ultimate limit state criteria set forth in these special provisions as well as in the referred codes.” Are “service load criteria” intended to mean “serviceability limit states” as defined by AISC-LFRD (1999)? What “service load criteria”, if any, are to be considered when API-RP2A-LRFD (1993) is applied? Please clarify.

    The service load criteria will be met by the load combinations specified in SP 10-1.41 "Temporary Towers," subsection "Temporary Tower Design," subsection "Design Load Combinations for Load Factor Design". The ultimate limit state criteria will be met by the specified pushover analyses, in subsection "Seismic Design Loads". Please refer to Addendum No. 3.

    96.0

    Under STEEL STRUCTURES, FABRICATION and ASSEMBLY, please reduce the shop size and tower assembly requirements to provide that one lift and a contiguous segment are sufficient for shop trial assemblies to check the interface between two lifts. The fabrication plan can be tailored to assure this is adequate for proper alignment and tolerances.

    The shop size requirements have been modified. Please refer to Addendum No. 2. In addition, please note that SP 10-1.59 "Steel Structures," subsection "Assembly," subsection "Box Girder," states that the last segment of each lift shall be matched to the two segments that follow. The Contractor is free to match these three segments before he connects the last segment to its lift. This is consistent with the shop size requirements.

    97.0

    What is intended by the sentence under Box Girder Assembly: “This requirement shall also apply to segments shipped from the fabrication site to an assembly site where segments will be joined into lifts”? Does this require two shop trial assemblies of 3 contiguous segments at both locations or only one shop trial assembly of 3 contiguous segments at either location?

    The intent is to trial fit between each adjacent segment, whether in the fabrication site or the assembly site. As per the Special Provisions, the preassembly procedure shall as a minimum consist of assembling three contiguous segments accurately adjusted for line and camber. Successive assemblies shall consist of at least one segment of the previous assembly plus two or more segments added at the advancing end.

    98.0

    Referring to Standard Specification Section 7-1.16, CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORK AND MATERIALS, how will the Department apply the term “public enemy”? Does this term include terrorist acts similar to the World Trade Center or the Oklahoma City Federal Building, or does it only apply to nations and their citizens who are at war with the USA?

    Attention is directed to addendum 6 which adds special provision 5-1.395 to address this issue for this contract.

    99.0

    We request the Department to reconsider the requirement under STEEL STRUCTURES, SEA TRANSPORTATION that prohibits erection of damaged lifts until after repairs are made. We believe it is possible to have pre-approved corrective procedures that will cover most situations, and the Contractor should be allowed reasonable discretion in the timing of repairs. If the damage is relatively minor, the Contractor in consultation with the fabricator, and after informing the Engineer, may decide that repairs can be safely performed in compliance with code requirements after erection. The delays and costs imposed by the present requirements are unduly burdensome to the fabricator and Contractor, and prices must be raised to compensate for these risks unless the requirements are changed.

    The damaged segments may be repaired after placing on temporary supports as permitted by the special provisions and with the Engineer's approval. The segments shall not be installed (i.e. connected) to their final position until all repairs have been satisfactorily completed.

    Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "Sea Transportation" as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    100.0

  • back to top
  • When constructing its mock-ups for the Tower Base, did the Department simulate all actual conditions, including welding processes and procedures, heat input prior to, during and after welding, the confinement of heat input within the enclosed steel spaces, the limited access on all sides, etc., that will be encountered on site? What was the temperature rise in the confined interior space relative to ambient air temperature outside? What kind of radiant heat effects did the welders or welding operators experience? What welding processes, procedures and equipment were used? Please be prepared to discuss or advise when the mock-ups are made available for inspection by the bidders and fabricators.

    The Department has constructed no mock-ups of the tower base. The Department did have scaled down sections of other tower segments and components fabricated for use in testing, however they were discarded and no longer exist. There were no records kept of temperature or its effect on personnel fabricating the test specimens. There are no available records of the welding equipment, processes, and procedures used in fabrication of the test specimens.

    101.0

    The Construction Sequence shown on plan sheets 967-971/1204 contemplates that box girders will be placed on the temporary towers and/or trusses during interim construction stages without being attached to adjacent box girders. For purposes of applying Standard Specification 7-1.165, DAMAGE BY STORM, FLOOD, TSUNAMI OR EARTHQUAKE, please confirm that box girders will be classified as “in-place construction” and/or “incorporated into the work” when they are erected and connected to the temporary towers, trusses and/or adjacent box girders according to the approved erection plan.

    For purposes of applying Standard Specification 7.165, box girders will be classified as "in-place construction" and/or "incorporated into the work" when they are erected and connected to the temporary towers, trusses and/or adjacent box girders according to the approved erection plan.

    In reference to discussion at the September 23, 2005 outreach, please note that the special provisions contain a different definition of 'erection' for purposes of full compensation of the item price.

    102.0

    Regarding the WORKING DRAWING SUBMITTAL SCHEDULE (SP 10-1.18) and ACCELERATED WORKING DRAWINGS SUBMITTAL (SP 10-1.17), when the Engineer takes most or all of the allowed review time to review a particular submittal on the critical path and requires a re-submittal, what happens if the remaining allowed review time for that re-submittal is less than the 14 days required for WORKING DRAWINGS (SP 5-1.01)? Will an extension of time be granted and will TRO be paid if that is demonstrated to be the controlling operation and no “state owned float” is available to the Department to mitigate the delay?

    Section 5-1.01 Working Drawings states "After a revised set of drawings have been received by the Engineer, the new review time for that set of revised drawings will be the original review time, less the time already spent under review before rejection. In no case shall the review time allotted the Engineer upon receipt of a resubmittal be less than 14 days."

    An extension of time will not be granted and no additonal TRO will be paid to the contractor.

    103.0

    What constitutes a “submittal set” for purposes of partial payment under ACCELERATED WORKING DRAWINGS SUBMITTAL (SP10-1.17)? Using the temporary towers as an example, must a “submittal set” include working drawings and design calculations for all temporary towers? Or is the Contractor allowed to break the temporary towers down into a multiple, logical “submittal sets” for purposes of securing partial payments? A similar principle would apply to Integrated Shop Drawings, Box Girders, Tower, Erection Plan, Castings, Fabrication/Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups, and Cable System.

    The term "submittal set," in the last paragraph of the referenced special provison, refers to a complete submittal. A logical breakdown of individually complete submittals may be submitted with the schedule of costs required by the special provision for the approval of the Engineer.

    104.0

    Please confirm that work trestles, barges, floating cranes, anchoring systems, tugboats, crewboats and all other marine equipment and facilities to provide marine access may be included in the payment item Establish Marine Access (see special provision 10-1.215).

    Work trestles, barges, floating cranes, anchoring systems, tugboats, crewboats and all other marine equipment and facilities to provide marine access shall be included in the payment item "Establish Marine Access". Please see section 10-1.215 of the specifications "ESTABLISH MARINE ACCESS". This work shall consist of furnishing, erecting, maintaining and removing barges, trestles and other facilities to provide marine access to the job site. This work shall be separate from and in addition to the work specified in Section 11, "Mobilization," of the Standard Specifications.

    105.0

  • back to top
  • Please confirm that the Engineer will approve working drawings “as noted” where errors or deficiencies are not significant or extensive enough that resubmission for approval is reasonably required. This does not apply to incomplete submittals or extensive deficiencies.

    The Engineer will approve working drawings "as noted" where errors or deficiencies are not significant or extensive enough that a re-submission is reasonably required.

    106.0

    Please confirm that it is acceptable to clamp the suspender ropes to assist in installation and adjustment.

    The Contractor may clamp the suspenders during his operations. However, the methods used shall be such that the galvanization of the wires remains intact. Suspender system installation procedures shall be submitted as part of the cable system working drawings under SP 10-1.60 "Cable System," subsection "General," subsection "Working Drawings."

    107.0

    Please confirm that bidders are expected to provide one PAIQ, consolidating all the contracting tiers’ plans into one coherent answer for each question. The actual response documents from suppliers, fabricators and subcontracted tiers are not required.

    It is expected that the Bidder provide one PAIQ, consolidating all the contracting tiers' plans into one coherent answer for each question. The actual response documents from the contracting tiers are not required.

    108.0

    Please confirm that the shop trial assembly of the east anchorage cross beam to the girders shall demonstrate that the tolerances of abutting ribs and skin plates have been achieved. Jacking the girders together in the shop to overcome built-in camber is not required to demonstrate the final bolted fit of the cross beam.

    Jacking the girders together at panel 126 will not be required in the shop. The Contractor, during final erection, shall field-drill the bolt holes in one or both sides of the east anchorage crossbeam splices. The Contractor shall be responsible for the successful fit-up of all components.

    Shop trial assembly of the anchorage crossbeam shall demonstrate that the tolerances of abutting ribs and skin plates have been achieved.

    The 15 mm transverse cambers in the box girders at the anchorage crossbeam shall be verified against the alignment of "W" and "E" lines. Please refer to SP 10-1.59 "Steel Structures," subsection "Assembly," subsection "Box Girder."

    109.0

    Please confirm that individual monthly amounts for MOBILIZATION accumulate, so that the Department will have included 15% of the total contract amount or 100% of the bid price for mobilization, whichever is less, by the 10th monthly estimate.

    Mobilization payments provided in Special Provision 10-1.21 are the incremental payments in each respective estimate and they are cumulative. In the tenth month, 100% of the mobilization item or 15% of the total contract amount, whichever is less, will be paid.

    110.0

  • back to top
  • For seismic analysis and design of the temporary towers and box girders, please confirm that the Department intends that the accelerations from the spectral coordinates are applied through the centers of mass per mode. Such applications are carried out in common bridge design in California and are widely available in automated computer codes commercially available. The Department does not intend that the acceleration be applied at the point of fixity in the foundations, at the mud line or at the surface, although the effective point of fixity of the foundations is relevant to the computer model developed for modal spectral analysis.

    The Contractor's interpretation is correct.

    111.0

    We refer to the BCDC Permit No. 8-01, Rev. 10 (contained in the Information Handout) and the approximate quantities and descriptions for “Temporary Shoreline Band Structures, YBI Transition/Suspension Span,” (Item 1.A.1.a on page 6 of the BCDC permit). Please answer the following questions:
    1. What constitutes “approximately 0.13 acres of temporary, high level suspended structures for portions of ‘falsework’,” and what defines the area?

    2. Is there any “falsework” for the YBI Transition Structures that might reduce this total area for Contract 04-0120F4?

    3. What constitutes “420 square feet for temporary ‘falsework’ piers” and what defines the area?

    4. Are there any “falsework” piers for the YBI Transition Structures that might reduce this total area for Contract 04-0120F4?

    BCDC Permit No. 8-01 has been revised through Amendment #14.

    a. The ".13 acres of temporary high level suspended structures" refers to the total area in plan view of the bridge temporary towers and falsework support towers which will be located within the 100' shoreline band on YBI.

    b. No, there will not be any falsework for the YBI Transition Structures that might reduce this total. With BCDC Amendment No. 14, The Department has obtained more acreage from BCDC for the YBI contracts as needed.

    c. The "420 square feet for temporary falsework piers" refers to the trestles and other temporary structures located within the 100-foot shoreline band of BCDC's jurisdiction. This area represents the total area in plan view allowed for all contracts on and around Yerba Buena Island (YBI Transition Structures (0102P4), South/South Detour (0102R4), E2/T1 (0120E4) and SAS contracts).

    d. The permitted areas are granted to the contractors on a first come, first served basis. With BCDC Amendment No. 14, the Department has obtained more acreage from BCDC for the YBI contracts as needed.

    112.0

    We would like to request the RFP for Contract 04-0120F4 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project.

    There is no RFP (Request for Proposal) for this project. Contractors can order a bid package (Plans, Special Provisions, and Proposal and Contract book) or a non-bid package (Plans and Special Provisions) from the Caltrans Plans Counter; Phone (916) 654-4490, Fax (916) 654-7028.

    The Plans and Special Provisions can also be downloaded from the following link:

    http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-0120F4/

    113.0

    Is there a list available of general contractors/primes that are available to contact to subcontract structural steel work through?

    A list of plan holders, along with their contact information, can be found on our website at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_status/afb.html Click on "List of Plan Holders on Projects Out To Bid", then enter the contract number (04-0120F4) in the appropriate box, then click "Start Search".

    114.0

    The Special Provisions currently require the temporary towers to be designed for a given vessel impact force. This requirement precludes the use of energy absorbing systems to decrease the impact force. Would it be acceptable to Caltrans for the Contractor to use the barge and impact velocity previously supplied by Caltrans as a basis for designing an energy absorbing system? With this type of system it would possible to significantly reduce the vessel impact design force currently stated in the Special Provisions.

    The Contractor may design and supply an impact energy absorption system in order to prevent damage to the temporary tower structures at no additional cost to the State. Please refer to SP 10-1.41 "Temporary Towers," subsection "Temporary Tower Design," subsection "Vessel Impact Design Loads" in Addendum No. 3.

    115.0

  • back to top
  • Dwg 471/1204, section D-D:
    A concrete blockout recess is shown at the bottom of the cap beam for the dead end of the PT bars. Is it required that the dead end be exposed for stressing?

    Please reference Plan Sheet 471 of 1204 as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    The concrete blockout recess shown at the bottom of the cap beam for the dead end of the PT bars (Section D-D on Plan Sheet 471 of 1204) is not required. At the Contractors option, the blockout does not need to be provided.

    116.0

    Dwg 980/1204:
    Step 4.1 shows removal of shoring after step 3.6 (stressing of vertical tendons). However, to be able to install the vertical tendons the shoring and soffit form must be removed first. Please resolve this sequence conflict.

    The shoring can be removed after stressing the Hinge K Beam PT rods in order to be able to install the vertical tendons.

    Please reference Plan Sheet 980 of 1204 as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    117.0

    Dwg 980/1204:
    Step 3.2 is to stress cap beam transverse tendons, then in step 5.3 we are to stress cap beam transverse tendons. Please define which tendons get stressed in each step.

    The stressing sequence of the cap beam transverse tendons has been provided.

    Please reference Plan Sheet 980 of 1204 as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    118.0

    Dwg 853/1204:
    Section B-B gives an inside diameter of 2220 mm for the floor beams opening, but Dwg 860/1204 calls for this opening to be radius of 1170mm or diameter of 2340mm. Which is correct?

    The 2220 mm dimension (Section B-B, sheet 853/1204) corresponds to the inside diameter of the pipe sleeve. Given that the pipe sleeve thickness is 60 mm, the outside diameter of the pipe sleeve is 2220 + 2x60 = 2340 mm. The diameter of the opening in the diaphragm is also 2340 mm in order to receive the pipe sleeve. This is consistent with the 1170 mm opening radius shown on sheet 860/1204.

    119.0

    SP 10-1.20 calls for the document management system to be installed and ready for use the first day of the contract. Time will be needed to mobilize and set up the project office facilities before this can be completed. We recommend a minimum of 60 days after NTP to get the document management system installed and functioning.

    SP 10-1.20 has been modified. See Addendum 3.

    120.0

  • back to top
  • SP 10-1.50, "SHEAR KEY (PIER E2)", subsection "SHEAR KEY STORAGE":

    It appears that this paragraph refers to storage of spare shear keys but there is not a requirement to supply spares. Unless spare shear keys are required, this paragraph should be deleted.

    Spare shear keys are not required.

    Please note the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.50, "SHEAR KEY (PIER E2)," subsection "SHEAR KEY STORAGE" has been deleted in Addendum No. 3.

    121.0

    Dwg 830/1204 - Notes 3 & 4 conflict. Which is correct?

    The Contractor shall furnish the anchor bolts and core the holes. The anchor bolts shall be installed by others. That is, installation of the anchor bolts is not part of this contract.

    Please reference Plan Sheet 830 of 1204 as revised by Addendum No. 3.

    122.0

    Dwg 939/1204 - Note 4. Which drawings are the "road plans" where the elevation details can be found?

    Refer to Plan Sheet 69 (M-33: Elevator Detail No. 1) and 70 (M-34: Elevator Detail No. 2) of 1204.

    123.0

    SP 10-1.60 - Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand.
    Paragraph 13 states that "strands shall be wound on reels" but the previous Bidder Inquiries stated that there are no objections to coiling methods. Please revise the last sentence which infers that reels must be used for shipment.

    As per SP 10-1.60 "Cable System," subsection "General," subsection "Shipping, Handling and Storing Materials," the strands shall be reeled onto shipping reels with a barrel diameter not less than 2000 mm. However, if an improved method allows the reel drum (or equivalent) to be removed in order to ship the strand on a "shipping platform" then the coiled strands shall be secured to the shipping platform with a minimum loop diameter of 2000 mm. These shipping platforms shall be constructed to protect the PWS strands against damage and to support the coiled PWS against any instability.

    Note that reels can be wound with the reel axis perpendicular or parallel to the ground as long as the PWS strands can be unreeled at the construction site without difficulties, i.e., without tangling.

    Please refer to Addendum No. 4.

    124.0

    SP 10-1.32 - Vibration Monitoring.

    Please confirm that if blasting is used for rock excavation for temporary towers, that 50mm per second particle velocity is an acceptable occurrence. If not, state what threshold is to be met.

    Blasting for rock excavation for temporary towers is not allowed.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.41 "TEMPORARY TOWERS," subsection "TEMPORARY TOWER FOUNDATIONS," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    125.0

  • back to top
  • SP 10-1.59, "Steel Structures," subsection "Sea Transportation". Please confirm that the contractor may unload and store steel but not erect it prior to the Engineer inspection.

    The Contractor may unload and store steel prior to the Engineer's inspection.

    126.0

    Does this contract get access at all times on the Torpedo Factory Road through Area PR?

    The contractor will have access via Macalla Road and Torpedo Factory Road. Please see revised SP 5-1.18 "Areas for Contractor's Use" in Addendum no. 3.

    127.0

    The prices for Epoxy Asphalt Binder, bond coat, cable wrap Z wire, Macalloy rods & cable zinc paste, as stated in the special provisions are only guaranteed until Dec. 31, 2005 which is before the bid date. Please provide revised pricing and delivery dates from these sole source suppliers?

    For sole source supplier pricing and delivery acceptance terms please note the following:

    For epoxy asphalt and epoxy asphalt bond coat please reference the Contract Special Provisions Section 10-1.40 "EPOXY ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACING," subsection "SOLE SOURCE SUPPLIER," fourth paragraph, as revised by Addendum No. 3.

    For cable wrap please reference the Contract Special Provisions Section 10-1.60 "CABLE SYSTEM," subsection "MATERIALS AND FABRICATION," subsection "Cable Wrapping Wire," seventh paragraph, as revised by Addendum No. 2.

    For Macalloy rods please reference the Contract Special Provisions Section 10-1.43 "HIGH STRENGTH PRESTRESSING ROD (75 MM)," subsection "HIGH STRENGTH PRESTRESSING ROD MANUFACTURER," eighth paragraph, second sentence which states " The total price will be increased 5% for orders placed with Macalloy Limited after December 31, 2005, and on or before December 31, 2006, provided delivery is accepted between 8 and 20 weeks after the order is placed."

    For cable zinc paste please reference the Contract Special Provisions Section 10-1.60 "CABLE SYSTEM," subsection "MATERIALS AND FABRICATION," subsection "Zinc paste waterproof system," sixth paragraph, second sentence which states in part "...the total price will be increased 5% for each year thereafter, provided delivery is accepted within 6 months after the order is placed."

    128.0

    Dwg E 202 (Sheet 227/1204):

    Are we to provide holes in the steel or inserts in concrete for the future light pipe system?

    Holes in the steel for the future light pipe system shall be provided by the SAS contractor. For the westbound structure, see Detail 3 on Plan E-67 for conduit location and plan sheet no. 965 for detail of the conduit penetrations. The location of these penetrations are found on Plan sheets E-96 through E-101.

    For the eastbound structure, the SAS contractor shall provide holes under the steel barriers. For conduit location, see Detail 3 on Plan sheet E-161 as well as revised plan sheet E-207 in addendum no.3. For conduit penetration, see plan sheet 965. Future light pipe along the southern edge of the eastbound structure (bike path) will be serviced by the PB-LTG pull-boxes within the barrier which are shown on plan sheets E-135 through E-140.

    No concrete inserts are necessary along the SAS superstructure, as it is entirely a steel orthotropic structure.

    129.0

    Dwg 953 and 954/1204:

    Are crossbeam outrigger holes in the top flange and exterior web to be provided on both sides of all crossbeams? Are fill bolts to be installed in these holes for future removal by state maintenance workers?

    There are a total of 36 outriggers, which shall be furnished by the Contractor (see Note 4 on Plan Sheet 953 of 1204). These outriggers will be used for maintenance of both sides of all crossbeams (with or without utility platforms). Therefore, crossbeam outrigger holes in the top flange and exterior web are to be provided on both sides of all crossbeams.

    Please note that the mounting angles and fill bolts shall be furnished for all crossbeams and shall be installed by the Contractor.

    In addition, please reference Plan Sheet 954 of 1204 as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    State maintenance workers will move the outriggers from one crossbeam to another in the future.

    130.0

  • back to top
  • Refer to Special Provision "10-1.60 CABLE SYSTEM", subsection "Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand". According to the SP, "One outside gauge wire shall be colored and precision-measured". If one gauge wire would be colored, it would not be clear to confirm the length-mark and the colored paint would be damaged through the process of length measuring. We propose to arrange a colored wire and a length-measured gauge wire independently.

    The color and gauge markings serve to verify two different aspects of the strand erection. At the Contractor's option the gauge wire may be a separate uncolored wire.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.60 "CABLE SYSTEM," subsection "Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    131.0

    Refer to subsection "Cable Wire" of 10-1.60, "Cable System" in the Special Provision. Wire rod for cable wire is allowed welding joint. From our experience welding joint of wire rod is prohibited especially for main cable wire. We understand the cable wire for SAS is specified as higher strength wire than the conventional. We cannot foresee whether any problem may occur in the service stage as well as the construction stage if wire rod contains welded joints. Please reconsider whether Caltrans allows welding joint of wire rod.

    Welded wire rod joints in the PWS strand will not be allowed.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.60 "CABLE SYSTEM," subsection "MATERIALS AND FABRICATION," subsection "Cable Wire" and subsection "Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand (PWS) as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    132.0

    Refer to Special Provision "10-1.60 CABLE SYSTEM", subsection "Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand". According to the SP, "The end sections of socketed strands shall be proof tested by loading to 900Mpa to ensure no socket slippage and no damage to strand zinc coating". In the production process of PWS, Pre-Compression/Loading work of socket is done to eliminate the pull-out/displacement of the socket cone during service. Please clarify the requirements of loading condition.

    PPWS is carried out Pre-Compression/Loading process to eliminate socket slippage during service for completed PPWS in Japan. Such Pre-Compression/Loading manner is that socket metal shall be compressed from backside of socket. This method is called as "Pre-Compression process". Is this "Pre-Compression Process" acceptable for proof loading the strand to 900MPa to ensure no socket slippage during service?

    (Submitted sketch - Inq_No_Sketch in pdf).

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.60 "Cable System," subsection "Materials and Fabrication," subsection "Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    The proposed Precompression Loading shall be performed on the strand specimens prior to strength testing required in SP 10-1.60 "Cable System," subsection "Materials and Fabrication," subsection "Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand." If part A of the strength test demonstrates elongation of the strand with no sign of slippage, then the proposed Pre-compression Loading may be used as the socket proof test for the strand socket.

    133.0

    Refer to Special Provision "10-1.60 CABLE SYSTEM", subsection "Wrapping of the Cable". According to the SP, "Wrapping wire splicing shall be done using electrical resistance welding". The wrapping wire specified in SAS is specially developed as a S-shaped Wrapping Wire. We propose that such splicing method shall follow the wrapping wire manufacturer's recommendation.

    Yes, the wrapping wire splicing shall follow the wrapping wire manufacturer's recommendation.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.60 "CABLE SYSTEM," subsection "ERECTION," subsection "Wrapping of the Cable," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    134.0

    SP 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES", subsection "SEA TRANSPORATION" states: "Upon arrival at the project site, the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer a daily log of actual sea conditions corresponding to those used in developing the transportation plan for the route taken by the transport ship as published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. " NOAA wave data collection points may not cover every location on the ocean. Thus it is requested to apply alternative data source of visual observation report from captain of the ships as usually applied in transportation report.

    The captain's log of actual sea conditions is not an acceptable substitute for sea conditions as published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For portions of the route taken by the transport ship where NOAA data is not available, a captain's daily log of sea conditions is acceptable.

    135.0

  • back to top
  • The seventh paragraph in SP 10-1.69,"CLEAN AND PAINT STRUCTURAL STEEL" states: "The Contractor shall provide suitable enclosures., and throughout the curing period per the manufactures' recommendations and these special provisions."

    It will take several weeks, sometimes several months, for paint films of the water/solvent based zinc rich paint to cure completely. It is impractical that painted components/structures need to be kept placing in the enclosures with atmospheric conditioners for several weeks/month as the requirement in the Special Provisions is applied. It is impractical. We propose that "The Contractor shall provide suitable enclosures ... ,and throughout the drying period per the manufactures' recommendations and these special provisions."

    The Contract Special Provisions, Section 10-1.69,"CLEAN AND PAINT STRUCTURAL STEEL," requires that atmospheric conditions be controlled within the limits and for the duration of time recommended by the coating manufacturer for curing and until the coating passes the solvent insolubility test. The actual time necessary will depend on the specific coating chosen by the Contractor and actual environmental conditions experienced by the applied film.

    136.0

    We would like to propose alternative length of girder segments and lifts. It will bring significant various merits by making typical girder segments at shop, such as saving time, minimizing a review time of shop drawings, standardized quality control, weight control, transportation, even the lesser risk and erection time at site and so on. Will you accept alternative joint locations for site and shop?

    It was confirmed in the previous inquiry but not applied in the current special provisions. Please reflect to the special provisions in addendum.

    Please note that the splice locations shown on the plans are schematic only and the Contractor may select alternate splice locations that satisfy his means and methods.

    The bidder's proposal is acceptable as long as the requirements of the plans and special provisions are satisfied. Please refer to SP 10-1.59 "Steel Structures," subsection "Erection Plan," tenth paragraph which states that "Erection of each box girder from Pier W2 to Hinge A shall be completed with a maximum of 20 lifts." Also please refer to Plan Sheet 622 of 1204 for allowable splice locations. Also refer to response to Bid Inquiry #18.

    137.0

    We refer to SP 10-1.59,"STEEL STRUCTURES", subsection "FABRICATION", subsection "Fabrication/Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups".

    If two independent fabrication facilities are fabricating different portions of the tower, are two separate mockups required at each facility? We understand if both facilities use the same procedures, only one set of mockups is required. Please confirm. It was confirmed in the previous inquiry but not applied in the current special provisions. Please reflect to the special provisions in addendum.

    If both facilities use the same procedures, only one set of mock-ups will be required for the tower.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "FABRICATION," subsection "Fabrication/Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    138.0

    SP 10-1.59,"STEEL STRUCTURES", subsection "TEMPLATE" states: "The State will furnish to the Contractor a steel template with holes that correspond to the as-fabricated location of the tower anchorage anchor bolt pipe sleeves and dowels...."

    If the date shown in SP 10-1.01,"ORDER OF WORK" is not matched to our fabrication schedule of the tower base, is it acceptable that our shop drawings are supplied without the indication of anchor holes, then start fabrication, and revise the shop drawings according to the as fabricated drawing for shortening the construction schedule? It was confirmed the previous inquiry but not applied in the current special provisions. Please reflect to the special provisions in addendum.

    Yes, it is acceptable for shop drawings to be supplied without the indication of anchor holes in order to start fabrication, thereby shortening the construction schedule. Revised shop drawings reflecting the as-fabricated conditions can be submitted at a later date.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "TEMPLATE," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    139.0

    We refer to SP 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES", subsection "FABRICATION", subsection "Rib Plates". Although the minimum length of a rib is specified as 10m, is it acceptable to joint two ribs in conformance with AWS D1.5 and approved by the Engineer before attaching to the deck plate? (Because physical fabrication of ribs is limited.)

    Please note that the ribs for the demonstration tests shall be formed in the longest length to be used in production. If the ribs will be welded before bending in production, the demonstration test shall include the welds.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "FABRICATION," subsection "Rib Plates," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    140.0

  • back to top
  • We refer to SP 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES".

    Do Fabricators and suppliers for all miscellaneous steel inside the tower such as ladders, handrails, platforms, doors etc. need to be certified under Certification of AISC Category Cbr, Major steel bridges with endorsement F, Fracture Critical members? It was confirmed the previous inquiry but not applied in the current special provisions. Please reflect to the special provisions in addendum.

    Fabricators and suppliers for all miscellaneous steel inside the tower such as ladders, handrails, platforms, doors etc. do not need to be certified under Certification of AISC Category Cbr, Major steel bridges with endorsement F, Fracture Critical members.

    AISC certification is not required for the tower strut facade, tower skirt, nor miscellaneous metal listed in SP 10-1.73 "Miscellaneous Metal (Bridge)".

    141.0

    SP 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES", subsection "ASSEMBLY," subsection "Tower" states: "The pin holes for the cross bracing may be bored in the shop to match field measurements subject to review and approval by the Engineer." Would field boring of the pin holes be acceptable to avoid affecting the construction schedule?

    Yes, field boring of the pin holes is acceptable.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "ASSEMBLY," subsection "Tower," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    142.0

    We refer to SP 10-1.69 "CLEAN AND PAINT STRUCTURAL STEEL", subsection "PAINTING", subsection "1 Adhesion". It is impossible to obtain 4 Mpa of adhesion within reasonable period before appling the top coat in shop when we choose solvent base coating. The Contractor will miss a chance to choose a Type-1 coating unless this requirement is relaxed.

    Specifications require that all areas of inorganic zinc coating, where finish coats are specified, shall be water rinsed. A minimum time of 72 hours shall be allowed between application of inorganic zinc coating and water rinsing, except as approved by the Engineer. The actual time necessary to achieve a 4MPa adhesion value will depend on the specific coating chosen by the Contractor and actual environmental conditions experienced by the applied film, but either type primer is capable of achieving the required adhesion value in this time period.

    143.0

    SP 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "ASSEMBLY," subsection "Tower" states: "Bolt holes for the shear link connection plates may be field drilled.."

    Does this mean that the Contractor does not have to pre-assemble the tower struts into their tower connections? Is the Contractor allowed to omit the pre-assembly between tower shaft and the tower struts at the fabrication shop? Please clarify. It was confirmed in the previous inquiry but not applied in the current special provisions. Please reflect to the special provisions in addendum.

    If the Contractor chooses to field-drill the holes for the tower shear link connections, then trial assembly of tower struts is not required. Rough fit check is still recommended.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "ASSEMBLY," subsection "Tower," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    144.0

    We refer to SP 10-1.59,"STEEL STRUCTURES", subsection "FABRICATION", subsection "Fabrication/Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups".

    Can the steel equivalent to ASTM G345, HPS485W be used for steel mock-ups? It is considered the main purpose is checking if those portions are weldable. It is difficult to get materials particularly such as HPS485W in a short time and to get small amount of special materials for mock-up test. That means we will not be able to start mock-up test timely. It will impact overall fabrication period, ultimately construction period as well by time lost unnecessarily.

    Yes, steel equivalent to ASTM Grade 345 and HPS485W can be used for the steel mock-ups.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "FABRICATION," subsection "Fabrication/Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    145.0

  • back to top
  • We refer to SP 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "TEMPLATE". Please clarify the delivery conditions of a steel template. The date shown in SP 10-1.01,"ORDER OF WORK" is the date when a fabricator (shop) can receive a steel template at shop or the date when the general contractor can receive it at site?

    The date shown on SP 10-1.01 "Order of Work" is the date when the general contractor receives the template at the jobsite.

    146.0

    We refer to the sheet 565/1204. Regarding tower section mock-up, is it acceptable that we use of substitute steel structures instead of the spherical bushing because of difficulty of getting it in a short time? We think that the purpose of mock-ups are fully attained without the actual spherical bushing.

    Yes, it is acceptable to substitute the spherical bushing with structural steel for tower section mock-up. Please refer to Addendum 6.

    147.0

    We refer to SP 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection, "WELDING OF HPS485W STEEL". The use of FCAW is necessary at least for the welding of diaphragms to the tower skins and the welding of the diaphragm webs to the bottom plate. The use of SMAW at those portions (CJP weld for the plates with over 60mm thickness) is not practical. When the use of FCAW is considered, the requirements on filler metal for Other Process (FCAW) specified in the specifications are too strict. The requirements of low hydrogen level need to be relaxed.

    Please note that the Special Provisions hydrogen requirement follows the AISI/FHWA "Guide" to welding HPS485W steel (see section 3.03B of Appendix A). The Guide describes FCAW consumables that have been successful and that meet this requirement.

    148.0

    We refer to SP 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES", subsection "ASSEMBLY", subsection "Box Girder". To make the support conditions at the pre-assembly stage be the same as those in the final installed condition is impossible. We intend to pre-assemble the girder segments on the condition that each segment is supported at multiple points as usually applied in other bridge projects. Is this intention acceptable? This should be contractor's means and methods but please clarify.

    Yes, it is acceptable to pre-assemble the girder segments on the condition that each segment is supported at multiple points. The supports shall follow the camber profile and shall be located on the floorbeams at maximum intervals of 10 m.

    Please reference the Special Provisions section 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "Assembly," subsection "Box Girder," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    149.0

    SP 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "SHOP WELDING," subsection "Welding of Closed Ribs to Box Shell Plate" states: "A gross notch is defined as an abrupt change of internal root reinforcement reentrant angle that is less than 90 degrees in any direction." Please show us some sketches in order that we can correctly understand the definition of a gross notch.

    The term gross notch has been removed. Please refer to revisions in SP 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "SHOP WELDING," subsection "Welding of Closed Ribs to Box Shell Plate," Item B.3, in Addendum No. 4.

    Also, please note that a revised sketch has been provided in the Information Handout in Addendum No. 4.

    150.0

  • back to top
  • SP 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "SEA TRANSPORTATION" states: "The Contractor shall provide all necessary and safe access for the Engineer inspection including removal of bracing and fastening members". How much access must the Contractor provide to inspect the fabricated items? The access is going to be provided only at supporting points. Is that acceptable?

    The Engineer will require full access to inspect the entire shipped unit, including access to the shipping vessel.

    151.0

    When does Caltrans intend to issue the promised major addendum?

    The Department currently plans to issue a Contract Addendum on September 30, 2005.

    152.0

    When does Caltrans commit to reply to all Inquiries submitted prior to September 7, 2005? (This includes everything through Inquiry 111). If this will not happen within the next 2 weeks, then please address all unanswered Inquiries through 111 during the meeting (and more recent Inquiries when possible).

    Inquiries #1 through #158 were addressed during the technical outreach meeting held on September 23, 2005. The Department's final written response to each question will be made available to all bidders in accordance with the bidder inquiry provisions of the Notice to Contractors (pages 1-2 of the Special Provisions).

    153.0

    Is it reasonable for Caltrans to reply to future Inquiries within 2 to 3 weeks after submittal (depending on complexity)? If not, please explain what we can expect in terms of future response times to Inquiries.

    The response time after submittal of an inquiry depends on the subject, complexity, and potential requirement for addendum. To the extent feasible, all bidder inquiries submitted for consideration will be investigated, and responses will be posted in accordance with the bidder inquiry provisions of the Notice to Contractors (pages 1-2 of the Special Provisions).

    154.0

    Please refer to Inquiry 57. Will Caltrans supply a Design Manual and a Prototype Design for a generic temporary tower? If so, when?

    The temporary tower design examples that will be included as part of the Information Handout are targeted for an addendum to be issued in mid December.

    However, to allow discussion at the November 30, 2005 SAS Contractor Outreach a draft prototype design with guidelines has been posted at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/sasoutreach/.
    [Note: Preceding paragraph posted 11/18/05].

    155.0

  • back to top
  • Should we interpret the reply to Inquiry 107 to require that we must submit actual response documents from suppliers and fabricators with our bid? Suppliers and fabricators who do not perform construction at the site are not classified as "subcontractors" under the Public Contract Code, which may lead to confusion in our application of the term "subcontracted tiers".

    The answer to inquiry 107 has been modified. The actual responses from suppliers and fabricators are not required, however their responses should be incorporated into the Bidder's plan.

    156.0

    Upon the conclusion of Phase 2, "as-built" surveys will be necessary to confirm that final bridge deck profiles are within tolerance and/or to determine and confirm suspender adjustments that will assure the proper moments and grade tolerances. These measurements and adjustments can occur before final paving (and can be confirmed with a quick survey after final paving). If the P4 Contractor must physically attach the approach spans to Hinge K at W2 before the Contractor can proceed with "as-built" surveys, this must be accomplished within one month after Phase 2 is finished to avoid impacting the Phase 3 completion date. Please advise what is expected and intended.

    As per SP 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "ERECTION PLAN," the Contractor is required as part of his preliminary erection plan to demonstrate an understanding of the structural system and an ability to perform erection analyses to account for varying conditions due to changes in installed weight or in the specified hinge reactions.

    Therefore, the Contractor may propose the use of analysis to determine the affect of paving on the suspender adjustments.

    The same section of the Special Provisions states that the Contractor shall readjust the suspenders, based on final erection analysis including measured reactions at Hinges A and K, or as directed by the Engineer.

    It is not the intent that the Contractor be delayed or perform extra work because of construction by the P4 Contractor at Hinge K. In the event that Hinge K construction will not be complete by the milestone on the Contractor's critical path, then the Contractor will be directed as to how to proceed.

    157.0

    Referring to Caltrans' reply to Inquiry 73, we are confused by the reply. It seems that no Civil Engineer should stamp and sign mechanical and electrical drawings that are outside his area of competence, especially if he was not "in responsible charge" of the preparation of such drawings. Please clarify what is intended so we can better understand the reply.

    The stamp by a civil engineer is a certification that the details presented are compatible with the contract structural plans, including the relevant structural details presented on other working drawings. A mechanical or electrical stamp may also appear as appropriate, but may not be used in place of a civil stamp.

    158.0

    The reply to Inquiry 83 is unclear on whether bidders may also later change and use a fabricator or supplier that was not contemplated or listed in the bid submission. Please confirm that such post-bid changes will be allowed.

    The response to inquiry 83 has been modified.

    159.0

    We are a contractor wishing to joint venture with a DVBE contractor in order to qualify for DVBE participation on this project. We have the following questions:

    A) What is the % goal on this project? It is left blank in the specifications and we have missed the outreach meeting.

    B) If we bid as a subcontractor joint venture with a DVBE company, will our participation count as 100% towards the participation goal?

    C) If we choose to form a JV partnership, does it have to be pre-approved before the bid, or can it be finalized after the bid?

    A.) The Department has established a DVBE goal of 1% and a small business goal of 2%. See Addendum #2.

    B.) Based on the California Code of regulations Title 2, Division 2, Chapter 3, Subchapter 10.5, Section 1896.62 (http://www.calregs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=158991&infobase=ccr&softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg42), an awarding department shall grant the DVBE credit to a joint venture, providing that the joint venture satisfies all of the following three requirements:
    • The bidder uses the DVBE partner's status to claim credit, AND
    • The DVBE partner satisfies the requirement of 51% percent ownership and control in an independent enterprise outside of the joint venture, AND
    • Each DVBE partner is responsible for a clearly defined portion of the work, identified both as a task and as a percentage share/dollar amount of the overall response to the solicitation. The amount claimed as DVBE participation in the response to the solicitation (bid) cannot exceed the share of the work claimed by the DVBE partner in the joint venture agreement.
    C.) If the contractor chooses to bid as a joint venture, then the bid should be in the name of the joint venture, and the agreement should be submitted with the bid documentation. Refer to SP 2-1.02 "DISABLED VETERAN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DVBE)," which states:
      "D. A DVBE joint venture partner must be responsible for specific contract items of work, or portions thereof. Responsibility means actually performing, managing and supervising the work with its own forces. The DVBE joint venture partner must share in the ownership, control, management responsibilities, risks and profits of the joint venture. The DVBE joint venturer must submit the joint venture agreement with the Caltrans Bidder DVBE Information form required in Section 2-1.04, "Submission of DVBE Information," elsewhere in these special provisions."

    160.0

  • back to top
  • Please refer to Inquiry 154 and the discussion at the September 23 Technical Meeting regarding sample designs and clarifications of design criteria for temporary tower and permanent works during construction. When will the Technical Information Handout (sample design illustrations) and the revised special provisions for the temporary towers be issued to bidders? Unless everything will be clarified in the expected October 5th addendum, please post answers to Inquiries 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 94, 95, 111 and 114 by October 5th and advise when the Technical Information Handout (sample design illustrations) will be issued. We require this information by October 5th so we can proceed with preliminary engineering necessary to secure pricing for piles and fabrication (if we are going to meet the February 1, 2006 bid date).

    Please reference the response to bid inquiry no. 154. The answer to inquiry no. 61 has been posted. The Department will answer all other inquiries as soon as possible.

    161.0

    Referring to Inquiry 80 and the discussion at the September 23 Technical meeting, we suggest including the following in the special provisions: "The Contractor shall perform all QC inspection of the fabrication, erection and maintenance of the temporary towers and other temporary works that is specified and included in the approved erection plan and working drawings. The Engineer may perform QA inspection of the fabrication, erection and maintenance of the temporary towers and other temporary works that is consistent with the approved erection plan and working drawings."

    Please see the response to inquiry no. 80. The proposed language will not be added to the specifications.

    162.0

    Does this project have any federal funds in it (FHWA)? Why are there no DBE goals on this contract?

    Contract 04-0120F4 does not have federal funds and therefore does not have DBE goals.

    163.0

    What is the domestic steel availability for the following grades of steel? A709M HPS485W, Pipe Beam Grade 690, Pipe Beam/Shear Link Grade 485.

    International Steel Group, Inc. has confirmed that they are capable of supplying this steel grade in plate thicknesses.

    Please note that this may not be the only domestic steel supplier, and there may be additional suppliers that can supply these or other grades of steel to contract requirements.

    In addition, Buy-America provisions do not apply to this contract, so steel may be purchased internationally.

    164.0

    From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    Caltrans says in the meeting today it will return critical drawings early, but that gains Caltrans a significant amount of State Owned Float given the extraordinarily large amount of time allowed for drawing approval. This creates an inequitable situation working against the Contractor and fabricators, especially considering the replies to Inquiries 92 and 102 (Caltrans has a generous amount of time to respond, but if Caltrans is early on anything, they gain a significant amount of State-Owned float to use later against the Contractor for Caltrans' own problems). Please remedy this inequity.

    The Department will only accrue State Owned Float if the particular drawing returned early is the controlling operation at the time of return. The accrual of State Owned float does not alter the contractual completion date. State Owned Float is only used to mitigate past or future State delays by offsetting potential time extensions. See SP 10-1.13 Progress Schedule (Critical Path Method) for the definition of State Owned Float and its use.

    165.0

  • back to top
  • From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    Caltrans wants candid input from the Contractors, subcontractors, fabricators and suppliers to make this job better. The biggest help Caltrans can provide to Contractors during the remaining bid period is to post replies for straightforward Inquiries within 7 business days after submitting and reply to complex Inquiries within 14 business days after submitting. Many issues are so complex that several exchanges are needed to resolve the problem through the written Inquiry process. Contractors are frustrated by the amount of time it takes Caltrans to reply to the simplest of Inquiries and the inadequacy of some replies when we finally get them, so this process needs significant improvement timewise. We encourage Caltrans to address this critical issue.

    The Department will post responses to all inquiries as soon as possible. The response time after submittal of an inquiry depends on the subject, complexity, and potential requirement for addendum. To the extent feasible, all bidder inquiries submitted for consideration will be investigated, and responses will be posted in accordance with the bidder inquiry provisions of the Notice to Contractors (pages 1-2 of the Special Provisions).

    166.0

    From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    Bolted deck splices have been used for this and similar paving systems on other orthotropic decks, and could be preferable to pick up time on the schedule. Please investigate further before dismissing the possibility. Contractors should have the option, as this could reduce costs and schedule.

    The skin plates of field splices of the Box Girder shall be welded as per the Plan Sheet 634 and 635 of 1204 and Special Provision 10-1.59 "Steel Structures."

    167.0

    From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    There is not any appreciable savings for aerial spinning. We already investigated. Maximum $10 million. We disagree that the voids ratio increases significantly for Aerial Spinning. Our repeated experience suggests only 19% voids ratio for aerial spinning (at saddles and cable bands). However, this particular project with the wrap-around saddles greatly complicates the matter.

    Please refer to the response to inquiry no. 20.

    168.0

    From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    We understand that global stresses in the box girders should not exceed allowable. But preventing all localized damage in the box girders is not economically feasible. Is the girder supposed to be able to take the 1.5 pushover? Or is that just the temporary towers?

    The support system for the box girder and its connection to the temporary towers shall be designed such that the demand to capacity ratio shall not exceed 1.0. The pushover is to be performed as an indication of temporary tower ductility and does not need to include the box girder, but should include the box girder dead load. Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41 "Temporary Towers," subsection "Temporary Tower Design," as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    169.0

    From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    Regarding Inquiry 61: Is the 2% yielding limit on the piles applied only for purposes of the pushover analysis?

    The 2% strain limit has been removed. Please refer to Addendum 6. Please note that yielding of the piles, if any, is only allowed for the push-over analysis.

    Yes. Please refer to the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41 "Temporary Towers," subsection "Temporary Tower Design," subsection "Seismic Design Load" as revised in Addendum No. 3.

    170.0

  • back to top
  • From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    Inquiries 63 and 69: If Caltrans were to adopt these suggestions, it would solve many problems surrounding the design of the temporary towers and permanent works during construction. The way the specs are drafted, and the ambiguities in the specs as they presently exist, makes it possible for Caltrans to escape reimbursing the Contractor (especially if San Francisco and Oakland are flattened and California has no way to pay the Contractor). This is the fundamental risk issue for the Contractor. Moreover, the ship impact loading specified is not adequate to withstand the impact of a large ship broken loose during the chaos of a big windstorm or tsunami. What happens to the box girders and adjacent towers when one temporary tower gets knocked out? The Contractor is still on the hook for 5% of the loss if we did everything perfectly correct (that's around $50 to $75 million worst case, assuming we got relief on liquidated damages).

    See the responses to inquires 63 and 69.

    171.0

    From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    Going back to Inquiries 57, 59, 60, the performance specification requires "no damage". We can handle global stresses in a computer model just fine. But we cannot handle the "no damage" performance requirements. That is the issue. There will be some damage after a design event, but it would not likely be anything that repair procedures for the in-place construction could not deal with. We need to understand very clearly what your performance and serviceability requirements are.

    If the design requirements for the specified load combinations and for the pushover analysis specified in the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41 "Temporary Towers," subsection "Temporary Tower Design," have been satisfied, and the temporary towers have been constructed to the contractor's design/working drawings, the performance and serviceability requirements for the temporary towers are satisfied.

    Please note the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41 "Temporary Towers," subsection "Temporary Tower Design," subsection "Seismic Design Loads," which states "The seismic performance of the temporary towers shall be such that the bridge superstructure is undamaged and not stressed excessively" has been deleted in Addendum No. 3.

    172.0

    From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    Going back to Inquiries 43, 44 and 45, Caltrans does not seem to understand the open-ended ability to withhold funds from progress payments, in addition to liquidated damages, that is a significant risk concern for Contractors. Standard Specification 9-1.06, Partial Payments, states: "No monthly estimate shall be required to be made when, in the judgment of the Engineer, the work is not proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the contract." Late completion is not in accordance with the provisions of the contract. Caltrans has never clarified any cap or limit on the money that could be withheld if the Contractor is late, and we saw 43, 44 and 45 as a step in the right direction to fix this problem. Liquidated Damages (including a specified cap in addition to liquidated damages) can be clearly specified as the sole remedy for late completion, thereby overriding SS 9-1.06 as it relates to late completion, and this will reduce risks to the Contractor, fabricators, sureties, etc. that must be considered in pricing.

    The Department is restricted by the contract as to how it responds to work not in accordance with the contract. In the case of when the "work not in conformance with the contract terms" is item work not complete, the Engineer can withhold item payment or take specified deductions. In the case of concern to this question, failure to keep up with the milestones, the contract also provides such remedies as the liquidated damages or contract termination should the problem be failure to supply an adequate working force or material of proper quality. Note that special provision 5-1.023 "Unsatisfactory Progress" has been removed by Addendum 4.

    173.0

    From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    Will SBE and/or DVBE subcontractors on the construction contract be allowed to also serve as sub-consultants for upcoming Caltrans SAS contract administration consulting contracts?

    As it presents a potential appearance of a conflict of interest, the Department will not hire a consultant to administer a contract on which the consultant is simultaneously working for the contractor. However, consultants are free to apply for other positions offered by the Department that do not have such a conflict of interest.

    174.0

    From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    Will the field painting contractor be allowed to use the bridge travelers? Allowing their use will be a substantial cost savings to the State.

    The Contractor is not prohibited from using the traveler scaffolds to accomplish other items of work. However, the Department assumes no responsibility for making this equipment available for the Contractor's use at any time within the duration of the contract. Further, the Department assumes no responsibility for any delay to any item of work directly or indirectly related to the availability or proper functioning of the traveler scaffolds.

    Full payment for maintenance travelers will not be made until the Contractor has completed his use of the traveler scaffolds and restored them to an "as new" condition.

    175.0

  • back to top
  • From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    Is it correct to assume that when a company has multiple locations under its direct ownership or subcontract, that each facility used in the SFOBB fabrication must be audited and also have AISC certification or equal alternate, ISO, etc. If so, must each location or sister company submit its own audit application or can a general audit request be filed covering all potential locations, sister companies, or subcontracts?

    It is correct that when a company has multiple locations under its direct ownership or subcontract, each facility must be audited, and must have AISC or ISO certification. The certification program is facility specific and each facility must be certified. A company with multiple locations may submit one Department audit request for multiple facilities. However, a separate Self-Audit (MFSQA) must be submitted for each facility to be audited.

    176.0

    From 9/23/05 Outreach:

    Re. Question #88: Is there any consideration to use a thin polymer overlay versus epoxy asphalt? Other orthotropic decks have used polymer overlays that can be applied in or near the steel fabricator. This shop application would only require application in the cut back areas of the field panel splice welds.

    Polymer overlay was considered and found to be unacceptable for this project. The Contractor's bid should comply with the requirements of the contract documents using Epoxy Asphalt Concrete Surfacing.

    177.0

    Will there be another Outreach prior to opening bids?

    Another Outreach is planned for November 30, 2005 in Oakland. Information will be forthcoming on the SAS Outreach web page at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/sasoutreach/

    178.0

    Is the weathering requirement of the A709 steel necessary?

    No substitution of Steel Grades is permitted. Steel Grades for this project shall be as per Plans and Special Provision 10-1.59 "Steel Structures".

    179.0

    We see no reason to schedule another Technical Meeting on November 30 (see Inquiry 177) unless the Department issues all anticipated addenda and replies to most Inquiries by the end of October/early November. Bidders need at least 3 weeks time to study and adequately consider this information before attending another Technical Meeting. Based on the reply to Inquiry 154, an additional meeting or teleconference for bidders will likely be required in January unless that complete information on the temporary towers is provided before the next Technical Meeting. The format of the meeting should be changed to address only matters of concern to participants, as there is no reason to repeat matters that have been adequately addressed in the addenda or the replies to Inquiries.

    Comment noted.

    180.0

  • back to top
  • Time-related overhead (TRO) payments must be sufficient to cover the actual costs of bonds, insurance, delay costs for establish marine access (see SP 10-1.215) and other TRO costs for all contracting tiers including fabricators. As pointed out in numerous Inquiries during the previous bid advertisement, the Department significantly underestimated the total TRO costs for this particular project, which are more than 20% of the total contract price. During the first half of the project, TRO costs, and the cash flow necessary to fund those costs, are a more serious problem for fabricators and the contractor; however, once fabrication is winding down and erection is well underway, the present 15% cap is barely adequate to cover actual TRO costs (including bonds, insurance and delay costs for establish marine access). To reduce financing costs and make this project more attractive to bidders, the Department should either: (i) increase mobilization payments to 20% or (ii) increase the TRO cap to 25% / 2 = 12.5% during the first half of the project ($170,000 per day based on the advertised price and schedule) and maintain the existing 15% / 2 = 7.5% TRO cap for the last half of the project and any delays for which TRO is paid ($102,000 per day).

    This inquiry does not contain sufficient detail to justify a change. The Department’s cash flow analysis does not support a change to either limit at this time. Please note that both the mobilization and TRO items are only limited in the amount that is paid prior to contract acceptance.

    181.0

    Further to Inquiries 2 and 86 and SP 5-1.25, PAYMENTS, please confirm our understanding that once materials with "Furnish" bid items (e.g., Bid Item Nos. 52 and 55) are delivered to the site in good condition, the 25% cap on "payments for material furnished but not incorporated in the work" no longer applies to these particular materials. These on-site materials will be eliminated from the 25% cap and paid for under the appropriate Bid Item even though they are not yet installed. If our understanding is incorrect, then the 25% cap must be increased to allow for materials delivered to the site but not yet installed. Please clarify the intent of SP 5-1.25 in this respect.

    Attention is directed to the various measurement and payment sections for specific wording for the furnish bid items. Typically, when materials are furnished "to the jobsite ready for erection", the corresponding payment for material furnished but not incorporated in the work converts to the appropriate Furnish bid item.

    182.0

    Referring to the Department's reply to Inquiry 92 and further to the discussion at the September 23 Technical Meeting, the Contractor and fabricators for the tower and box girders cannot plan their work or commit to any working drawing schedule as long as there is no timeframe in which the Department must reply to RFI's. RFI response times are just as critical to the Contractor's performance and working drawing schedule as submittal review and approval times. In a perfect world the Contractor would not need to submit RFI's, but that will not be the case on this complex project (based on everything we have observed during more than 2 years of studying the plans and specifications). We ask the Department to either define a time in which responses to prioritized RFI's will be provided or to include language in the special provisions allowing for a Right-of-Way Delay if the response time for any RFI can be demonstrated to increase time on the critical path. This latter method would be a more equitable way for the Department to use its "state-owned float" for early approval of submittals (see Inquiry 164).

    As stated in the response to Bidder Inquiry 92 the Department is committed to working with the Contractor to prioritize RFI’s to facilitate responding to the most critical responses as rapidly as possible. The Department will not commit to a specific response time for RFI’s. The Standard Specifications and Special Provisions have sufficient provisions to provide for Right of Way delays and use of State Owned Float if the Department’s actions or inactions impact the controlling operation. See Standard Specification 8-1.09 Right of Way Delays and Special Provision 10-1.13 Progress Schedule (Critical Path Method).

    183.0

    Please confirm that the prohibition against splicing wires in a suspender rope is not intended to apply to wires prior to drawing and galvanizing.

    Yes, the prohibition against splicing wires in a suspender rope is not intended to apply to wires prior to drawing and galvanizing.

    184.0

    The reply to Inquiry 81 states that "no adjustment to the test results will be permitted in consideration of such rope in place of pre-stretched rope." Does this mean that the actual breaking strength of the "virgin" rope that was tested is presumed equal to the breaking strength of pre-stretched rope? If something else is intended, please clarify what is meant by "no adjustment to the test results will be permitted."

    No. For virgin rope the breaking strength test will be accepted only if the virgin rope used in the test breaks at or above the required strength.

    185.0

  • back to top
  • Further to Inquiries 63 and 69 and discussion at the September 23 Technical Meeting, the Contractor is required to repair all damage to in-place construction caused by tsunami up to 5% of the total contract amount (tsunamis are not capped at $20 million as are earthquakes). This makes the Contractor responsible for as much as $100 million in tsunami damage to the work, in addition to damages to equipment, facilities and stored materials that will not be reimbursed by the Department. The Contractor can insure (or self-insure) tsunami or earthquake damage to the in-place construction up to $20 million (design and contractor errors and omissions included), but limits much above that level are not likely available in today's insurance markets at any cost. The Contractor can also insure (or self-insure) the in-place construction for the portion of damage caused by storms, floods or other natural disasters that will not be reimbursed by the Department. The Contractor gets heartburn thinking about pricing the risk for damage to the in-place construction over $20 million that was not allowed for in the design criteria established by the Department (e.g., large ship collision or bigger earthquake). The Contractor also recognizes when applying Standard Specification Section 7-1.165, Paragraph C, that the Department should not be responsible for the Contractor's willful misconduct.

    Please replace the first paragraph in the Special Provisions, under INSURANCE, with the following language:
      The following sentence is added to subparagraph A in Section 7-1.165, "Damage by Storm, Flood, Tsunami or Earthquake, of the Standard Specifications, for this contract only:


        "'Occurrence' shall be amended and extended to include an event that was not allowed for in the design criteria established in the Plans and Specifications, provided that such event cannot be attributed to the Contractor."


      The first sentence in Subparagraph F in Section 7-1.165, "Damage by Storm, Flood, Tsunami or Earthquake", of the Standard Specifications, is revised as follows for this contract only:


        "Payment for Repair Work - When the Occurrence that caused the damage was a tsunami, earthquake or event that was not allowed for in the design criteria established in the Plans and Specification, provided that such event cannot be attributed to the Contractor, the State will pay the cost of repair, determined as provided in Subsection E, that exceeds $20 million. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Contractor shall bear the proportional share of the cost of repair, determined as provided in Subsection E, that can be attributed to the willful misconduct of the Contractor or $20 million in repair cost, whichever is greater."
    If accepted, this language would solve our problem and enable better pricing to benefit the citizens of California.

    See the responses to inquires 63 and 69.

    186.0

    Further to Inquiry 70 and discussion at the September 23 Technical Meeting, we simply want to know whether or not the Department will invoke CRIP if we demonstrate after award a reasonable reinforcement solution that is not detrimental to the design if left in place after construction.

    The Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59 "Steel Structures," subsection "Erection Plan," as revised in Addendum 3 requires that all temporary attachments be removed. Should the Contractor propose that specific temporary attachments remain in place and demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Engineer that such a change will have no design impact, the Engineer will consider such a change. If the Contractor further demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Engineer that such a change will not result in a cost savings, the Engineer will consider such a change without invoking the CRIP provisions. In any case, execution of a Contract Change Order will be required for such a change.

    187.0

    Further to Inquiry 99 and discussion at the September 23 Technical Meeting, the Inquiry was only intended to address the requirement that "[a]ll repair work shall be completed on each segment prior to erection." This strict prohibition is costly, unnecessary and contrary to custom and practice in the steel bridge industry. We are not asking for the SEA TRANSPORTATION provisions to be deleted, only modified to allow appropriate repairs after erection. We ask the Department to revise the special provisions in a way that allows the Contractor and the fabricator to anticipate the most likely types of shipping damage, secure the Engineer's pre-approval of repair procedures for such shipping damage and proceed with erection without waiting for repairs (if repairs can be satisfactorily performed after erection).

    Given all the other precautions that are prescribed under SEA TRANSPORTATION, the risk of major damage that would prevent erection (multiple cracks, particularly in areas that will be stressed after erection, or extensive damage that cannot be successfully repaired after erection) is very small. However, some shipping damage, including possible isolated cracks, can be expected on a project of this magnitude. As the special provisions are currently drafted, the time required to prepare procedures, secure approval and make minor repairs (minimum 30 days) will be very costly and disruptive to the work, requiring the Contractor and fabricator to include contingencies in their pricing for delay costs and liquidated damages. Please change the language of the special provisions to permit repairs using pre-approved procedures when they can be satisfactorily performed after erection.

    The special provisions have been revised to address this issue. Please refer to SP 10-1.59 "Steel Structures," subsection "Sea Transportation" revised in Addendum 3.

    188.0

    ESTABLISH MARINE ACCESS (see SP 10-1.215) makes no provision for payment of costs as they are incurred to design, manufacture and transport custom marine equipment that will be built or modified for this particular project, or for costs exceeding the $38,500,000 cap. This work is also specified to be separate from and in addition to mobilization. Please include the following language in the fourth paragraph: "The Contractor may include as part of his schedule of values the costs to design, manufacture and transport custom marine equipment built or modified for this project before it arrives on site. When approved by the Engineer, such values will be used to determine progress payments for establish marine access during the time of designing, manufacturing and transporting such equipment."

    Please refer to addendum 5 revisions to special provision 10-1.215 which clarifies provisions for payments of costs as they are incurred, as approved by the Engineer.

    The Department does not anticipate a change to the maximum value of this item of work as defined in the Special Provisions, Section 5-1.25 "PAYMENTS," the second paragraph, item E. "Establish Marine Access."

    The intent of the specification is to provide payment for items necessary to provide marine access to the jobsite once those items are furnished, erected, maintained or removed from the jobsite. The inquirer is correct that the referenced specification makes no provision for early payment of costs incurred to design, manufacture or transport. However, the Contractor's approved schedule of values can incorporate these costs. The payment schedule for these costs would then be determined by the Contractor's schedule of furnishing, erecting, maintaining and removing items to or from the jobsite.

    The Department does not anticipate a change to the maximum value of this item of work as defined in the Special Provisions, Section 5-1.25 "PAYMENTS," the second paragraph, item E. "Establish Marine Access."

    189.0

    The reply to Inquiry 89 may well be the case, but it does not answer the question that was asked. The point of the question is that the Contractor and its engineers and fabricators may not understand every subtlety of the information that is provided on the plans without the benefit of additional discussion, information and clarification.

    Additional discussion, information and clarification may be provided through the use of RFI's and the Working Drawing Campus. Please see response to Bidder Inquiry No. 90.

    190.0

  • back to top
  • At the Outreach Meeting on September 23, 2005, a presentation was made showing scale models of the tower elements. Please provide a report from the fabricator and erector of these elements with particular attention to the constructability of the tower and the splice, where interferences were encountered, the tools employed in constructing the mock up, the tolerances specified, the tolerances achieved, the time involved in assembling the splice, and any other pertinent information.

    A report from the fabricator or erector of the models is not available. However, in an effort to share as much information as possible the Department has compiled a report which attempts to document the fabrication process for these models. The report has been posted at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/sasoutreach/.

    191.0

    Addendum 2, Special Provision 5-1.28, GENERAL MIGRATORY BIRD PROTECTION, provides that the Contractor will not receive compensation for disruptions to controlling operations caused by migratory birds and nesting unless the work is suspended for an "unreasonable period of time" (as defined by Standard Specification Section 8-1.05, Temporary Suspension of Work). Any temporary suspension that affects controlling operations is "unreasonable" for this contract. The Department must clarify by amending the special provisions as follows: "A temporary suspension due to migratory birds and nesting will be assumed prima facie as an unreasonable delay if it affects controlling operations on the critical path."

    Attention is directed to Addendum 6 for changes to Special Provision section 5-1.28. The Contractor shall keep all work areas free of bird nests during nesting season to avoid delays. Evaluation of delays, should they occur, will not change.

    Caltrans will not change this special provision. The contractor needs to keep all work areas, both temporary and permanent, free of bird nests during nesting season to avoid unnecessary delays.

    192.0

    Referring to Inquiry 78 and the reply, the Contractor cannot be expected to confirm prior to bidding that following the procedures outlined for the Alternative Camber Method will accomplish the intended result within all other specified tolerances and requirements of the Plans and Specifications. The Department is in a position to make such a determination at this time.

    A. The bidder requires confirmation that Inquiry 78 is a correct understanding of the general weight parameters.

    B. The bidder requires confirmation that the Alternative Camber Method will accommodate varying reactions at Hinges A and K, suspender shimming adjustments allowed for on the plans, and tolerances such as angular kinking limits at segment ends due to adjustments to accommodate camber changes, within those general weight parameters.

    Those weight parameters are restated as follows for further clarification:
      1) The weights calculated from the fabrication drawings could be as much as 3% greater than the nominal values shown on Plan Sheet 741/1204. However, this "variation" cannot be determined until such time as the approved fabrication drawings are available to calculate the weights. This is what the bidder means in Inquiry 78 by "it is expected that the fabricated weight will be about 3% higher than the weight based on the nominal values." (Of course it could be less.)

      2) The Contractor shall explain and document his estimated range of "uncertainty" between actual weights (what the bridge components would actually weigh if they were weighed, something not required by the special provisions) versus the nominal weights calculated from the fabrication drawings. This is the "estimated range of error of weight determination" referred to in the special provision under "Weight Control". This range of error will take into account normal variations (variations in unit weights, mill tolerances, sample weights, etc.). This is expected to be in the range of -1% to +5% of the weight calculated from the fabrication drawings (within 95% confidence).

      3) Beyond what is contemplated in "1" plus "2," additional "weight uncertainty" for steel is expected to be in the range of -2% to +2% (this additional uncertainty is within acceptable design tolerances).
    No known fabricator is willing to assume responsibility for determining the final fabrication camber. As this is such a significant departure from steel bridge industry practice, this bidder is unwilling to assume the risk of proceeding with the Alternative Camber Method unless the Department confirms the information stated in Inquiry 78 and above.

    A) Inquiry 78 confuses actual and nominal weights as used in the special provisions. The Contractor has not been asked to determine actual weights, unless he chooses to do so by weighing. The Contractor has not been asked to estimate a range of uncertainty between actual weights and nominal weights, but rather has been allowed to assume a value of 3%. The Contractor is being asked to estimate his range of error in determining the weight at each stage. For example, at the earliest stages quantity take-offs will be based on the bid documents. If the final installed weight is to be based on the quantities taken from approved shop drawings plus 3%, then the range of error will be the expected difference between design drawing take-offs and final as-built quantity take-offs. It is expected that the Contractor's construction and design-build experience will facilitate such an estimate. It is also true that 1-2 % would be a reasonable range of uncertainty, but the Contractor must assume some responsibility for any number he proposes. Aside from this the Inquiry 78 reflects the requirements intended by the design.

    B) The Alternate Camber Method has been provided to limit the Contractor's risk in early fabrication of the box girder. By following this method, according to the plans and Special Provisions, the Contractor will not be responsible for any changes due to variation in the measured Hinge A and K reactions. These variations have been considered in the specification of the Alternate Camber Method.
    • The weight variation due to variation in the thickness of rolled sections has been determined to be 3%. The Contractor is asked to provide his estimate of the variation between design drawing take-offs and as-built plan take-offs.


    • In the Special Provisions 10-1.59 STEEL STRUCTURES, WEIGHT CONTROL, the Contractor may base his erection analysis on the weights taken off the fabrication drawings plus 3%, which considers the variation of weight due to mill practices. The only uncertainty that the Contractor is asked to evaluate is that due to the difference between design drawings and as-built drawings. The Contractor is expected to disclose this variation in his weight control procedure and to be responsible for any deviation beyond his expected range of variation. .


    • The roles of fabricator and erection engineer are being confused in this inquiry. It is the Contractor's responsibility to manage the disciplines. The fabricator should be given a curvature to fabricate. Using the Alternative Camber Method, this curvature is provided in the plans and needs no further qualification, except for the following: the Contractor must show in his erection plan and weight control procedure that he can meet the moment requirements shown on the plans. This can be accomplished by adjustments to the suspension system, and demonstration of the Contractor's ability to analyze and design for this will allow the Contractor to hand the cambers given on the plans to the fabricator. It is the Contractor's responsibility to enlist suitable erection engineering capability, such that the fabricator will not be assigned any risk in his task.

    193.0

    We do not understand the meaning of "open water construction operations will not be allowed between December 1 and March 31" (see Addendum 2, Special Provision 5-1.29, ENVIRONMENTAL WORK RESTRICTIONS, subsection "Pacific Herring"). The BCDC permit prohibits dredging from December 1 to March 3 of any year, but the special provisions extend this date and prohibit additional activities (pile driving outside cofferdams and any activities which place debris in the water or increase water turbidity). Approval by the BCDC and the Engineer to work during this period seems to depend on meeting all three conditions stated in the special provisions.

    A. Is there a particular area or zone of the Bay that is considered "open water"? For example, does "open water" have a certain depth, or is it a certain distance away from the shoreline? Does it apply to the navigation channel areas near the SAS Superstructure?

    B. Please advise, point by point, whether any of the following anticipated activities applicable to the SAS Superstructure are subject to open water construction operations restrictions between December 1 and March 31:
      1) Drilling or driving steel piles for the temporary towers outside of cofferdams.
      2) Installing and removing cofferdams, clean granular fill and/or piles for elevated work access structures in the area near the shoreline.
      3) Setting pile templates and driving frames for the temporary towers, which includes some pile driving.
      4) Removing piles by cutting or extracting.
      5) Steel erection and demolition work near the shoreline (watercraft propellers, spuds and anchor lines may increase water turbidity near the shoreline and at the water surface).
      6) Steel erection and demolition work in the navigation channel between Piers T1 and E2 (unclear whether water turbidity stirred up by anchors and anchor lines in deep water is a matter of concern that will affect spawning between Dec 1 and Mar 31).
    If any of these or similar activities are not allowed in this timeframe, the restrictions could have a profound effect on price and schedule that bidders must take into account.

    C. Please clarify and confirm the nature and a more precise description of all "open water construction operations [that] will not be allowed between December 1 and March 31" and/or the conditions under which certain operations will be allowed.

    In the Final Environmental Impact Statement for this project, the Department made a commitment to protect herring habitat from construction operations. However, if a herring spawn is observed during the monitoring period, construction activities that have a potential to impact the spawn may be suspended. The Department anticipates that dredge, fill, and pile installation/removal operations would be activities having a potential impact on the spawn. There are no herring-related restrictions on scheduling other items of work. Special Provision section 5-1.29 has been revised. See Addendum No. 4.

    194.0

    Referring to Addendum 2, special provision section 2-1.055, SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION, do we correctly understand that the Contractor has the flexibility to meet or exceed the 2% SBE participation level after award, without any obligation to supply documentation with the bid or prior to award (except listing proposed subcontractors in excess of 0.5% of the total contract price)? If our understanding is incorrect, what documentation must be submitted with the bid and after the bid?

    There is no documentation required in the contract specifically for Small Business participation monitoring contained in special provision section 2-1.055 "SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION," except should the bidder request Small Business Preference in accordance with special provision section 2-1.05 "SMALL BUSINESS PREFERENCE." Changes to special provision section 2-1.055 are not anticipated prior to bid.

    195.0

  • back to top
  • Cost Reduction Incentive Proposals (CRIP) will be difficult or impossible to implement for issues affecting early portions of the work, especially early working drawings for steel fabrication on the critical path (such as the tower bases). In view of the variety of comments from speakers at the September 23rd Technical Meeting, it is also unclear to what extent, if any, the Department actually intends to apply CRIP to issues affecting steel fabricator practices (alternative design details, welding procedures and processes, etc.) and constructability issues (bolting and welding access, relaxing weld inspection criteria in difficult access areas, tolerances that cannot be achieved with reasonable efforts, etc.). Please understand that this is a "generic" Inquiry to establish a principle to be followed after award (many issues will not even be analyzed and detected until the working drawing process gets underway after award). Please confirm that these kinds of voluntary changes to facilitate fabricator practices and constructability, which is the custom and practice in the steel bridge industry, subject to approval by the Engineer, are not subject to CRIP. If CRIP will be imposed for these kinds of proposed voluntary changes, bidders need to know so they can include in their price and schedule.

    Acceptability of any proposed change will be determined on a case by case basis and administered in accordance with the contract as determined by the Engineer.

    196.0

    When will the photos of the tower mock-ups mentioned at the September 23rd Technical Meeting be posted on the website?

    The photos of the fabrication of the tower shafts and struts (i.e. shear-links) presented at the September 23, 2005 Self-Anchored Suspension Span (SAS) Superstructure Contractor Information Meeting have been posted at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/sasoutreach/. The photos are included in a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation under the section titled September 23, 2005 - SAS Outreach Meeting.

    197.0

    The response to Inquiry 96 addresses box girders, but the Inquiry asked about tower assembly requirements. Please confirm that one lift and a contiguous segment are sufficient to check the interface between two tower lifts (same as three contiguous segments of box girders).

    Yes, one lift and a contiguous segment are sufficient to check the interface between two tower lifts. Please see Addendum 4.

    198.0

    Does a prequalification vendor list exist for the following items: 10-1.19 - ELECTRONIC MOBILE DAILY DIARY SYSTEM DATA DELIVERY; 10-1.20 - DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ?

    A prequalification vendor list does not exist for DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. The Integral Vision is the only vendor for DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. Please see revised specifications, 10-1.20 in addendum no.6. Also, The ELECTRONIC MOBILE DAILY DIARY SYSTEM DATA DELIVERY specifications, Section 10-1.19 only requires submittal of certain information in a text file format, and as such, there is no prequalification vendor list.

    The pre-qualification vendor list is composed of vendors that are presently in use on the new Bay Bridge projects.

    ELECTRONIC DATA DELIVERY (Diary System)
    - Integral Vision
    - Bear River

    DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
    - Integral Vision

    199.0

    What are the minimum specifications required to meet the PMIV Document Management System?

    The Document Management System is sole source. Please see revised specifications, Section 10-1.20 in Addendum no. 6. The Department expects the Document Management System to have all the features supplied by the PMIV program. These features are summarized at http://www.integralvision.com/doccontrol.html

    200.0

  • back to top
  • Will Caltrans be offering any additional outreach meetings after the next scheduled meeting of November 30, 2005? And if so what are the dates of those future meetings?

    Currently, no further outreaches have been planned beyond November 30, 2005. However, bidders are encouraged to periodically check the SAS Outreach web page at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/sasoutreach/ for the latest outreach information.

    201.0

    SPECIAL PROVISION 1-1.41 TEMPORARY TOWER

    The seismic design requirements for the temporary towers continue to cause confusion despite the stated goal of simplifying the design process.

    Caltrans has stated the intent of the current seismic criteria is to provide a level of safety commensurate with the exposure and the state does not intend the Contractor to perform complicated analysis for the temporary towers (e.g. amplify the spectrum through the mud, time history analysis, etc.). From our preliminary design of the temporary towers, we find that the effective lateral load that the temporary towers must be designed for is more than .20g. This does not appear to be in line with what Caltrans is trying to achieve.

    We request that Caltrans simplify the seismic design criteria to requiring the temporary towers to be designed for .10g laterally and longitudinally, and that the lateral and longitudinal loads be combined with the 30% rule (i.e. 1.0 lateral + 0.3 longitudinal, and 0.3 lateral +1.0 longitudinal). .10g is the factor specified in the SAS Bridge design criteria for seismic loading during construction.

    We feel that this clarification would provide the level of seismic safety that the State is looking for while significantly reducing the design schedule risk (by simplifying the analysis). It would make the design of the temporary towers less complicated and would result in less confusion surrounding the seismic criteria.

    Section 7.1.2 of the SAS Design Criteria has been revised to reference the response spectrum provided on plan sheet 968 of 1204. Please refer to Addendum 7.

    202.0

    SPECIAL PROVISION 1-1.41 TEMPORARY TOWER

    The temporary tower design criteria are referenced in two paragraphs which are in conflict with each other.
      I) Under the heading TEMPORARY TOWER DESIGN the fifth paragraph states (underlines added):

      Temporary towers shall be designed in accordance with the following criteria/codes:

      Subject Design Code or ReferenceYear
      Structural Steel AISC-LRFD Current Edition
      Structural Steel - Tubular
      Members and Connections
      API RP2A Current Edition
      Concrete AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Construction Code Current Edition
      Wind Loads ASCE 7-95 1995
      Falsework State of California Dept. of Transportation
      Falsework Manual
      Current Edition

      In case of a difference between the code clauses, the more stringent clause shall apply.

      II) Under the heading TEMPORARY TOWER DESIGN, under the description "Design Load Combinations for Load Factor Design" it is stated (underline added):
      Temporary towers shall be designed using the following load combinations:
      1.1 DL + 1.3 LL
      1.0 (DL + LL + 0.5 Wind + Current + Vessel Impact)
      1.0 (DL + LL + EQ)
      1.0 (DL + LL + Wind)
    The load factors specified in part II above are significantly less than those specified in the AISC-LRFD code. Designing the temporary towers to the reduced load factors will result in structures with less factor of safety than is reasonably prudent. Given the critical nature of the temporary towers and the dire consequence associated with failure, the reference to reduced load factors should be eliminated or brought in line with the factors specified in the AISC-LRFD code.

    A 1.4 DL load combination was added. Please see Addendum No. 3.

    Also, please note that there was a typographical error in Addendum No. 3: the Wind Load factor should be 1.3 when combined with DL and LL (i.e. 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL + 1.3 Wind + 1.3 Wave & Current). Please see Addendum No. 4.

    203.0

    The following sentence has been added to the Special Provisions, section 10-1.69,"CLEAN AND PAINT STRUCTURAL STEEL", subsection "APPLICATION" in Addendum 3:
      "Airless spray methods shall not be used except on the outside of the shell plate of the deck and outside flat surface of the tower."
    Is it your intention that inside surface of the deck / tower needs to be painted by brushes or/and rollers, or to be painted by air spray? If you would like to apply paints by brushes or/and rollers for inside of deck/tower, efficiency and quality will be decreased significantly. And if you would like to apply paints by air spray, efficiency will be decreased as well. In any case it will impact to cost and time. Why is the use of airless spray methods not allowed for inside but outside although the same paint is to be applied to inside/outside? Please re-consider and clarify the reason of prohibition of the use of airless spray methods, or amend the Special Provisions if necessary.

    Section 59-1.03 of the Standard Specifications prohibits all use of airless spray methods. The cited section of the Special Provisions is intended to relax this prohibition and allow use of airless spray methods, if desired by the Contractor, on areas of steel with relatively simple geometry. The Department has prohibited the use of airless spray methods due to excessive film thickness, runs and overspray in areas of complex steel geometry. In locations where airless spray methods are prohibited other methods such as brushes, rollers, or air spray may be employed to apply coatings.

    204.0

    Welding is one of the key factors essential for the successful completion of SAS project not only for the time, but also for the quality of the products. Following are our comments regarding welding that will contribute to the improvement of the project efficiency.

    1. Change the CJP to PJP if designer allows it.
    1. Drawing #583 : CJP welding joints of the diaphragms.
    2. Plan B, C and D of Drawings # 586:CJP welding between struts diaphragms and skin plates of the tower.
    3. Drawing #588 : CJP welding joints such as the welding between longitudinal stiffener and diaphragms.

    2. Clarify the length and/or range of CJP welds.

    1. Plan A and/or Plan E of Drawings # 586 : We believe that CJP welds can be used only for the limited area, such as direct connection parts or its adjacent parts with tower struts.

    3. Change the fillet welding to PJP with small volume of welding if designer allows it. Drawing #588 : The 30mm size fillet welds.

    Please kindly re-consider the above and revise the relative documents. We believe that this modification will contribute to the project greatly.

    Please note that CJP welds specified throughout the project plans have been reviewed, including those welds addressed by this inquiry. Where consistent with the design requirements, many CJP and large fillet welds have been changed to PJP. In some cases the Contractor has the option to provide equivalent PJP welds in lieu of fillet welds. Please refer to Addendum No. 4.

    205.0

  • back to top
  • Preparation schedule of OBG for starting of fabrication is as attached. From this flow, the following consideration (improvement) should be done. One activity on the critical path of the attached is Mock Up test by wood. It is difficult for us to understand why wood mock-up is necessary. The purpose of mock-up for deck is checking the quality of 80% penetration welding. And access for welding is not critical for this 80% welding. Please clarify the purpose of this wood mock-up of OBG, and delete it if unnecessary.

    Inquiry 205 Attachment (MS Excel file, ~41kb)

    Please note that the requirement for wooden mockups has been removed. Therefore, no wooden mockups are required. Please refer to Addendum No. 6.

    206.0

    Some activities on the critical path of Inquiry #205 attachment are "Review by the Engineer (request for approval)".

    Attached schedule was studied based on the assumptions, which are:
      "Approval will be issued by 2nd revision" and "The engineer will use full days of his right for review."
    In the current Special Provisions, fabricator can't take risk to reduce these periods, and automatically the total schedule will be made longer. Please reconsider the approval process or take risk of this delay by Caltrans.

    The Department does not anticipate changing review times provided for in the contract, although it is committed to reviewing working drawings in the shortest time possible. Please note however that the Contract milestones and working days have been modified, see Addendum #5.

    207.0

    The above schedule (refer to Inquiry #205) has not been changed from the last bid in 2004; and the requirements of Special Provisions have not been changed either. But only the completion of project period was shortened by 180 days in the Special Provisions. Fabricators can not absorb this 180 days. We believe that project period should be the same as that of the last year's, if Catrans hasn't changed any critical conditions. Please reconsider the project period and improvement of the bid condition.

    Contract milestones and working days have been modified, see Addenda #5 and #7.

    Contract milestones and working days have been modified, see Addendum #5.

    208.0

    Mock up and Fabrication Procedure:

    Most of the products have no relation with the Mock-up test. Will Caltrans review the working documents separately from Mock-up, which have no relation with mock-up? And will Caltrans accept to execute the actual fabrication works without approval of mock-up, if the works have no relation with mock-up, such as base block of tower, bulk head of OBG etc.?

    The priority of shop drawing review may be determined by the Contractor in advance. If the element of work does not require a mock-up and is not related to an element of work requiring a mock-up, the Contractor may proceed with shop drawing submittal, approval and fabrication without approval of the mock-up.

    209.0

    When this project was bid in 2004, the specifications contained an additional 6 months to complete all of the project milestones. After analyzing the schedule carefully, and in close consultation with major subcontractors and suppliers we have concluded that the currently specified completion durations are too short. In addition, recent increased worldwide demand for fabricated steel has further impacted resources available to deliver the steel for this project within the currently specified contract time. As a result of current circumstances, and the demands of the specifications, we respectfully request that a 12 month time extension be applied to phases 1 through 4.

    The Phase 1 milestone has been eliminated. Six months have been added to the working days for the remaining milestones. See SP 4 "Beginning of Work, Time of Completion, and Liquidated Damages" and SP 10-1.01 "Order of Work" in Addendum #5.

    Note that contract time has been extended again, please refer to addendum 7. [This sentence added on 2/2/2006]

    210.0

  • back to top
  • We have made a considerable effort to analyze the contract requirements, discussed milestone delivery dates for the fabricated steel components with potential fabricators, and developed a thorough schedule for the entire project. Through this process, it is apparent that the contract completion periods for Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 each must be extended 12 months for this project to be complete in accordance with the project plans and specifications.

    The need for more time is driven by the linear nature of the work as specified and designed. Based on past experience coupled with reasonable interpretation of the specifications it is likely to be nearly three years before the first steel arrives at the job site. It is not possible to then complete all of the steel erection, cable construction, load transfer, and all other related work in the remaining time allotted for Phases 2, 3, and 4.

    Extending the completion period by twelve months for each phase is necessary to ensure our continued pursuit of this project. Please provide an answer within the next seven calendar days so we can plan accordingly.

    The Phase 1 milestone has been eliminated. Six months have been added to the working days for the remaining milestones. See SP 4 "Beginning of Work, Time of Completion, and Liquidated Damages" and SP 10-1.01 "Order of Work" in Addendum #5.

    Note that contract time has been extended again, please refer to addendum 7. [This sentence added on 2/2/2006]

    211.0

    It is impossible to purchase WT section steel shown in the sheet 627/1204 in our country. Will it be allowed that WTs are built up from plates as shown in the attached sketch as alternative? The quality of the OBG will be the same as it is. The weight of the OBG increases approx. 0.42% (see attached sketch). If built-up method is not allowed, that will impact cost and time.

    Attachment for Inquiry 211 (MS Excel file, ~ 42kb).

    Contractors are advised to bid according to the current contract plans and specifications. The contract makes no provision for substitution of WT rolled sections with built-up sections. The Department will consider proposed changes to the contract in accordance with Special Provisions Sections 5–1.114 "CORRIDOR VALUE ANALYSIS," 5-1.15 "COST REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROPOSALS," and Standard Specification Section 4-1.03 "CHANGES" after the contract has been awarded.

    212.0

    Please confirm our understanding that the Department intends the following by its reply to Inquiry 182: "The Department will grant an extension of time and pay TRO if the Department's response time to any RFI can be demonstrated by the Contractor to increase time on the critical path and no 'state owned float' is available to mitigate the delay."

    Bidders must clearly understand what schedule and cost risks they are to assume. This bidder cannot find a clear statement in the special provisions or standard specifications regarding RFI's (unlike the situation with Working Drawings submittals, which are specifically addressed in the last paragraph of SP 5-1.01, and other submittals and approvals that depend on the Department's response time). If our understanding is not the Department's intent, then please provide a clear, concise response, such as: "An extension of time will not be granted and no additional TRO will be paid to the contractor for RFI's."

    Attention is directed to subsection "Time Impact Analysis" of SP 10-1.13. If the Contractor believes the Department's actions or inactions, including the response to a written request for clarification or information, cause an unnecessary or unreasonalbe impact to the controlling operation, then contractor shall submit a "Time Impact Analyis." If the Department agrees the impacts were unnecessary or unreasonable and the "Time Impact Analysis" has merit under the terms of the contract, the Department may grant a time extension or implement other mitigation, otherwise no time extension or TRO will be granted.

    213.0

    The responses to Inquiries 63, 69, 170 and 185 are not part of the contract, and they are also not consistent with the standard specifications and special provisions through Addendum 3. This bidder requires further clarification of what responsibilities are being assumed by the Department for payment of costs and its design criteria.
    1. Will the special provisions be changed to reflect the replies to Inquiries 63, 69, 170 and 185? (The bidder interprets the special provisions and standard specifications as follows: (i) when the Occurrence that caused the damage is a tsunami exceeding the design criteria, the State will pay the cost of repairs that exceeds 5% of the contractor's bid; (ii) when the Occurrence that caused the damage was a storm, flood or other natural disaster exceeding the design criteria, the State will pay 90% of the cost of repairs that exceeds $100,000; and (iii) when the Occurrence that caused the damage was an earthquake exceeding the design criteria, the State will pay the cost of repairs that exceeds the lesser of 5% of the contractor's bid or $20 million.) If the special provisions will not be changed, please confirm that the bidder's interpretation is the Department's intent, or clarify the Department's intent in a way that is clear and contractually enforceable (so bidders can understand and price the risks they are required to assume).

    2. Will the special provisions be changed to include a vessel collision exceeding the Department's design criteria within the definition of "Occurrence"? (The bidder interprets the standard specifications and special provisions to place full responsibility on the contractor to repair damage caused by vessel collision, unless the collision both exceeds the Department's design criteria for vessel impact and results directly from an "Occurrence" as defined in the standard specifications. In other words the contractor must assume all repair costs resulting from vessel collision not caused by an "Occurrence" as defined by the standard specifications, even if the impact force exceeds the Department's design criteria.) If the special provisions will not be changed, please confirm that the bidder's interpretation is the Department's intent, or clarify the Department's intent in a way that is clear and contractually enforceable (so bidders can understand and price the risks they are required to assume).

    The comments in inquiries 225 and 234 have been taken into account in the development of this response. The responses to inquiries 63, 69, 170 and 185 are in compliance with the contract. Further, it is believed that the responses to inquiries 63, 69 and 170 all generally respond positively to the bidder’s specific hypothetical situations. Inquiry 63 also appears to be asking for relief from standard specification section 7-1.165 subsection C, which will not be granted for the reason stated in the response. Inquiry 185 proposed specification language which the Department believes is unnecessary for a similar reason and so the language was not adopted.
    • It appears from the question and the previous inquiries that the bidder is concerned ONLY about occurrences greater than the temporary tower design criteria. Note that the contract also provides for occurrences that are less than the criteria, even though the Department believes the criteria is adequate to prevent damage in a low level "Occurrence."

      Special Provision section 5-1.39 states ”When the Occurrence that caused the damage was a tsunami, the State will pay the cost of repair determined as provided in Subsection E, that exceeds 5 percent of the amount of the Contractor's bid for bid comparison purposes. When the Occurrence that caused the damage was an earthquake, the State will pay the cost of repair determined as provided in Subsection E, that exceeds the lesser of $20 million or 5 percent of the amount of the Contractor's bid for bid comparison purposes." Standard specification section 7-1.165 states: “When the Occurrence that caused the damage was a storm, flood or other natural disaster, the State will participate in the cost of the repair determined as provided in Subsection E in accordance with the following:…On projects for which the Contractor's bid for bid comparison purposes is greater than $2000000, the State will pay 90 percent of the cost of repair that exceeds $100000.”

    • The contractor is responsible to repair damage caused by a vessel collision, unless the vessel collision results directly from an "Occurrence" as defined in the Standard Specification section 7-1.165. Please note that the operation of section 7-1.165 is not dependent on whether the "Occurrence" exceeds the Department's design criteria. The specification does not require a change.

    214.0

    Addendum 3 and the reply to Inquiry 46 do not directly clarify the problem addressed in the Inquiry, which is restated as follows: "How quickly will the contractor be paid for materials furnished but not incorporated in the work, and how will the Department determine the timing and amount of each partial payment for work-in-progress?" Please clarify the Department's intent by replying to each of the following questions:
    1. Does the Department intend to make partial payment for materials located inside a controlled-access fabrication facility, but not necessarily "in fenced areas with locked gates or in locked warehouses"? In other words, how strictly will the "locked" access requirement be enforced before partial payment can be made? Please explain the Department's concern that requires "locked gates and warehouses." Are there other ways to satisfy the Department's concern? What meets the Department's intent for "locked" access?

    2. What does the Department require as "evidence satisfactory to the Engineer that its storage is subject to or under the control of the Department"? How does the Department intend for the prime contractor to satisfy this requirement at a fabrication facility in a foreign country or during transit on international waters? How does the Department intend to enforce and exercise its "control"?

    3. Steel suppliers/fabricators may incur $100's of millions of dollars of shortfall in cash flow for work-in-progress unless the Department clarifies its intent to make partial payments as outlined below. Does the Department intend to make partial payments according to satisfactory progress at the fabrication facility as follows (please reply to each item separately):

      1) raw material received and stored (rod, wire, mill steel, rough castings, etc.)?

      2) completed subassemblies, prior to assembly into segments?

      3) completed segments?

      4) completed lifts?

      5) completed trial assembly of affected segments and/or lifts?

      6) painting and preparing completed segments, lifts and/or assemblies for shipment?

      7) completed segments, lifts and or assemblies loaded and stowed on board ready for ocean transit?

    Attention is directed to Addendum 5 for clarifications to Special Provision section 5-1.25. For materials furnished but not incorporated into the work, the specification provides for the Contractor to submit a list defining work progress milestones for approval. When approved, the Department will make payment upon the Contractor’s request in any given progress pay estimate upon verification of work progress. The request must be submitted monthly and contain an invoice for the work complete of the date of the invoice and form CEM-5101. The form (copy available upon request from the Duty Senior) is simply a standardized way to summarize the request for payment and includes a short affidavit that says the material is separated from other like material, is only for use on the contract, and the Department is permitted to verify the information. The Department’s materials inspection personnel will be used to assist the Engineer in verifications.

    a) The Department will consider a suitably controlled-access facility as a secured area.

    b) The advance payment bond or first demand bank guarantee satisfies the Department’s requirement for control of the material outside the United States. Subject to other provisions of the contract, should the material be paid for then not provided and the payment not recoverable from the Contractor, then the Department would seek compensation under the bond or guarantee.

    c) For purposes of partial payment for structural steel, materials furnished but not incorporated into the work may include payments for milestones such as raw material received and stored, certain completed subassemblies prior to assembly into segments, completed segments or lifts, completed trial assembly, and 100% complete piece. Loading materials on board for shipping seems to be a transport cost which would be covered shortly thereafter by “Furnish” item payments when materials arrive onsite, ready for erection. Note, however, that paint is not permitted for partial payment as material furnished due to its shorter shelf life, however, as fabricated pieces are painted, the Department will consider making appropriate partial payment of the item lump sum. Approval of any of these milestones is subject to review of the details by the Engineer.

    215.0

  • back to top
  • Addendum 3 and the reply to Inquiry 187 do not address the specific concerns stated in the last sentence of each paragraph of the Inquiry. The issue is the cost and delay impact of waiting approximately 30 days while repair procedures are developed, submitted, reviewed and approved by the Engineer (before the Engineer's approval is finally given for erection to proceed). The special provisions should provide for pre-approved repair procedures for relatively minor, typical repairs, and erection should be allowed to proceed at the discretion of the contractor and fabricator if they believe such repairs can be satisfactorily performed after erection (of course, at their own risk pending eventual approval of the repairs by the Engineer). The Department should re-examine the effect the present prescriptive requirements, or bidders should include the cost of compliance when pricing the work.

    The revised Sea Transportation specification in Addendum 3 allows the Contractor to repair the steel segments on temporary supports with the Engineer's approval as long as repairs can be satisfactorily performed after erection. The specification allows submittal and approval of the repair plan after placing the segments on temporary supports. Pre-approval of repair procedures cannot be given due to the variability and uncertain nature of damage. The specifications will not be revised further.

    216.0

    Please re-issue the Weld Inspection Tables contained on pages 21 and 22 of Addendum 3 (TOWER and OTHER WELDS NOT SPECIFIED ABOVE). The incorrect formatting makes them unintelligible. The correct column headings must be shown and all rows must be correctly formatted to make sure the intent is clear and unambiguous.

    The formatting of Weld Inspection Tables contained on pages 21 and 22 of Addendum 3 (TOWER and OTHER WELDS NOT SPECIFIED ABOVE) has been corrected. See Addendum No. 4.

    217.0

    At the November 30 Outreach Meeting, please confirm that fabricators are now satisfied with the payment terms that have been established by the Department through Addendum 3. These payment terms are summarized as follows:
    1. 15% cap on mobilization, payments in proportion to the total fabrication price as partial payments are made by Caltrans to prime contractor according to the schedule in the prime contract, if fabricator furnishes the prime contractor an acceptable supply bond or first demand bank guarantee (see SP 10-1.21, MOBILIZATION).

    2. 15% cap on TRO, payments in proportion to the total fabrication price as monthly partial payments are made by Caltrans to prime contractor, if fabricator furnishes the prime contractor an acceptable supply bond or first demand bank guarantee (see SP 10-1.14, TIME RELATED OVERHEAD).

    3. Materials furnished but not installed in the work, as partial payments are made by Caltrans to prime contractor, if fabricator furnishes the prime contractor an acceptable, additional advance payment bond or first demand bank guarantee (see SP 5-1.25, PAYMENTS).

    4. Partial payments for Working Drawing Campus and approved Accelerated Working Drawings, as partial payments are made by Caltrans to prime contractor, if fabricator furnishes the prime contractor an acceptable supply bond or first demand bank guarantee (see SP 5-1.25, PAYMENTS).

    5. Discuss Inquiries 2, 46, 86, 180 and 181. Does the approach taken by the Department solve all problems for the cash flow of the fabricators? If not, what else do fabricators require to make the cash flow situation acceptable to them?

    The Department shared its basic cash flow assumptions in the Powerpoint presentation at the November 30 outreach. Please note Addendum 5 changes to payment provisions special provisions sections 5-1.25 “Payments” and 10-1.215 “Establish Marine Access.” The Department is not usually privy to the subcontracts between prime contractors and subcontractors, and therefore has little control over the details of such.

    218.0

    Unless the Department confirms its intent to extend the completion of each Phase of the project by one year, as requested in Inquiries 51, 52, 209 and 210, please discuss the following at the November 30 Outreach Meeting:
    1. Phase 1 - As presently designed, the Hinge K pipe beams are needed in the early stages of forming, placing rebar and ducts, prior to any concrete pours in the W2 Cap Beam (see Sheet 980/1204, Pier W2 Construction Sequence and Sheets 841-845/1204, Hinge K Layout and Details). Unless the Hinge K pipe beams can be redesigned by the Engineer for installation after the concrete cap is poured or unless they can be provided as Owner-furnished material by the time Pier Cap W2 shoring and formwork is installed, completing Phase 1 within 650 days will not be possible. The previous bid allowed 850 working days (28 months) instead of the current 650 working days (21 months) now permitted, and the Department was advised that schedule could not be achieved because the pipe beams could not be delivered in time.

    2. Assuming it takes 1000 days to complete Phase 1 and in order to meet the Phase 2 completion date, the F4 contractor will also require access to "Area FP" earlier than 450 days after the completion of Phase 1. Principally this access is required to install work platforms, saddle supports and saddles on Pier W2 prior to cable erection, and it can be coordinated with the Engineer and the P4 contractor as provided in SP 5 -1.18. This problem is alleviated if Phase 2 completion is extended by one year.

    3. Phases 2, 3 and 4 - Referring to Inquiries 6, 92, 99, 102, 182, 187, 192 and 205 through 210, it is clear that no one considering bidding this project believes the completion dates established by the Department are attainable. If the Department is still unconvinced, please discuss each of these Inquiries and the effects of the responses on the completion schedule. Also discuss the impact of determining final fabrication camber on working drawing and box girder delivery schedules.

    Note that Addendum #7 adds 6 months to the working days specified in Addendum #5.

    A. The Phase 1 milestone has been eliminated.

    B. The Phase 1 milestone has been eliminated. The contractor will have access to Area FP until completion of the Phase 1 (former Phase 2) milestone. Area FP has been modified, see Sheet C-3 "Areas for Contractor's Use" in Addendum #6.

    C. Six months have been added to the working days for the remaining milestones.

    See SP 4 "Beginning of Work, Time of Completion, and Liquidated Damages," SP 5-1.18 "Areas for Contractor's Use" and SP 10-1.01 "Order of Work" in Addendum #5.

    219.0

    Please update bidders on the problems with the Skyway pipe beams and box girders at Hinge A. Will there be any impact to this F4 contract bid? If so, how? And when will bidders be advised in writing?

    As with any large construction project issues will arise during the course of construction that must be resolved. The Department is rapidly resolving all such issues on the Skyway contract. Should revisions to the SAS contract be required to address any issue, an addendum or change order will be issued as appropriate.

    220.0

  • back to top
  • Please update bidders on the anticipated completion schedule for the E2/T1 Foundation contract. Does a March 31, 2008 completion date still appear attainable?

    March 31, 2008 remains the anticipated date that the tower foundation and E2 foundation and piers will be available to the SAS contractor.

    221.0

    In Addendum 3 of Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES," it specifies that ISO 9001:2000 certification standard may be substituted for the AISC Quality Certification Program. We think ISO 9001:2000 certification standard may also be substituted for the certification "SSPC-QP3" specified in the S.P. 10-1.69 "CLEAN AND PAINT STRUCTURAL STEEL" because S.P. states that AISC's Sophisticated Paint Endorsement (SPE) quality program will be considered equivalent to SSPC-QP3. This will realize your intention to expand the possibility for involvement of potential subcontractors. Please clarify.

    No. AISC's Sophisticated Paint Endorsement (SPE) quality program is a separate standard from the AISC Quality Certification Program. Possession of ISO 9001:2000 certification does not relieve the Contractor from the contract requirements regarding required certifications, which state:

    "For cleaning and painting of structural steel in a permanent painting facility, certification in conformance with the requirements in Qualification Procedure No. 3, "Standard Procedure For Evaluating Qualifications of Shop Painting Contrators" (SSPC-QP 3). The AISC's Sophisticated Paint Endorsement (SPE) quality program will be considered equivalent to SSPC-QP 3."

    222.0

    Please refer to the reply to Inquiry 188. Does the Department intend to make the indicated payments for costs incurred during design, manufacturing and transport of marine access equipment and facilities, before they are delivered and furnished at the site? The reply says they may be included in a payment schedule without stating when the payments will be made. We want to make sure that the Department intends to make partial payments as costs are incurred, without waiting for the equipment to arrive on site.

    Please refer to addendum 5 revisions to special provision 10-1.215 which clarifies provisions for payments of costs as they are incurred, as approved by the Engineer.

    223.0

    The advance payment bond or first demand bank guarantee required by SP 5-1.25, which applies to payments for materials stored outside the USA, is a problem that may stop potential fabricators and bidders. What are the Department's concerns that would not be satisfied by "all-risk" property insurance instead? If the Department will allow property insurance in lieu of bonds or bank guarantees, this can be more easily and economically provided and will allow more foreign fabricators to compete. The Department's current requirements have severely curtailed foreign competition because few fabricators have the financial resources to provide security up to 40% of the total contract amount plus a supply bond for their fabrication contract.

    The Department will not permit “all-risk property insurance” in lieu of an advance payment bond or first demand bank guarantee. Insurance does not function as a financial instrument that indemnifies parties for default of financial agreements. Please note that the special provision only requires the amount that is wished to be recieved as partial payment for materials and fabrication outside the US to be bonded. Also, the Department only requires the Contractor to provide the applicable bond or first demand bank guarantee, and has no requirements in this specification on the relationship between the Contractor and its fabricators.

    224.0

    The Liability Insurance requirements of the 1999 Standard Specifications have been changed by Addendum 3 to require primary limits of $10,000,000 for each occurrence and $20,000,000 general aggregate. These limits are far in excess of limits typically afforded under ISO CG0001 policies. Can these liability insurance limits be satisfied with excess liability insurance?

    Attention is directed to Addendum 6 for revisions to the insurance minimums.

    225.0

  • back to top
  • Please confirm that the following quotes (see 4th and 5th paragraphs on page 1-6 of the California Falsework Manual) correctly reflect the Department's policy and intent with respect to approval of the Contractor's temporary tower designs and working drawings:

    a. "[A]pproval of the drawings constitutes acceptance by the State of the falsework design and such construction details as may be shown on the drawings, and an acknowledgement that the design does in fact meet the contract requirements."

    b. "Falsework drawings shall not be approved until, and unless, the structure representative is satisfied that the proposed falsework design complies in all respects with all applicable contract requirements."

    Please confirm that the Department will follow this policy when applying standard specification 7-1.165, "Damage by Storm, Flood, Tsunami or Earthquake".

    The quoted statements are a part of the Department’s internal policy, and as such the Department’s review will attempt to assure that the submittal does comply with the contract. However, please note that approvals of working drawings are given in accordance with the contract, of which standard specification section 5-1.02 states in part, “It is expressly understood that approval of the Contractor's working drawings shall not relieve the Contractor of any responsibility under the contract for the successful completion of the work in conformity with the requirements of the plans and specifications. Approval of working drawings shall not operate to waive any of the requirements of the plans and specifications or relieve the Contractor of any obligation thereunder, and defective work, materials and equipment may be rejected notwithstanding the approval.”

    The Department will follow the contract when applying standard specification section 7-1.165. In particular, please note subsection C which states “Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the Contractor of the responsibility to protect the work from damage. The Contractor shall bear the entire cost of repairing damage to the work caused by the Occurrence which the Engineer determines was due to the failure of the Contractor to comply with the requirements of the Plans and Specifications, take reasonable and adequate measures to protect the work or exercise sound engineering and construction practices in the conduct of the work, and those repair costs shall be excluded from consideration under the provisions of this section.”

    226.0

    Reference Special Provision 10-1.60 CABLE SYSTEM, Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand (PWS). The Special Provisions are unclear regarding whether the individual wires within each strand have variable lengths or whether the individual wires within each strand have the same length. It is our understanding that all wires within a strand are the same length. Is this correct?

    The Contractor shall restrain the strand wires as required to prevent local bulging of strand wires during erection. This may be accomplished by various methods including variation in wire length, clamping and banding of strands. The Contractor may elect to have all wires in each strand to be of equal length, if this is consistent with his erection procedures. Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.60, "CABLE SYSTEM," subsection "MATERIALS AND FABRICATION," subsection "Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand (PWS)," as revised in Addendum No. 6.

    227.0

    After due consideration, we oppose the Department's suggestion of A+B bidding made at the November 30th Outreach Meeting. We are in agreement with all potential bidders that a 12 month extension for all Phases is appropriate for this project. We also note that the Department evaluates the risk of overrunning the present schedule is in the range of 21 months (September 30, 2005 report to the legislature). We believe the risk of this happening is reduced by more than 12 months if the 12 month extension is granted now rather than later, as this will lead to more orderly planning and progression of the work and more certainty of the outcome.

    Contract time has been extended, please refer to addendum 7.

    Please see Addendum 5 for contract time extention and removal of the current phase 1 milestone. A+B bidding is not anticipated to be added to the contract at this time.

    Please see Addendum 5 for contract time extention and removal of the current phase 1 milestone. A+B bidding is not anticipated to be added to the contract at this time.

    228.0

    When can we expect the presentations, exhibits and cash flow charts discussed at the November 30th meeting be posted on the website?

    The November 30 outreach presentation is available now for viewing at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/sasoutreach/index.html

    229.0

    Addendum 3, special provision Section 10-1.41, modified the temporary tower design criteria to now require: "Temporary towers shall consist of ductile steel braced frames. . .," whereas Page 16, paragraph 5 of the Temporary Tower Design Example states: "In order to meet the pushover demand capability, all connections are required to be stronger than the yield capacity of the diagonal members . . . This requirement produced some very heavy connections with many bolts, and thus it is recommended that some type of base isolation system be incorporated . . ." Why would ductile steel braced frames be needed if isolation or other methods alone work? Please amend the design criteria to allow isolation or other design concepts in lieu of ductile steel braced frames.

    Isolation may be used as part of the Temporary Tower structural system to reduce seismic demands. Please note that the braced frame shall be ductile and the connections shall be designed to be stronger than the members. The connections must be stronger than the capacity of the members if the bracing is assumed to yield during the pushover analyses. It would not be consistent to allow a member to yield if the connection could not resist that load. Please refer to the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41 "TEMPORARY TOWERS," subsection "TEMPORARY TOWER DESIGN," as revised in Addendum 6.

    230.0

  • back to top
  • For the Design Example for Temporary Tower G, approximate calculations indicate that the piles may be well beyond yield at their point of fixity in the soil, for both ship impact and seismic. Page 20, last paragraph states that "the soil and piles yield earlier than the bracing". Although this may be acceptable performance for this temporary structure, avoiding collapse without unduly stressing the box girders, it is contrary to the response to Inquiry 61 which states: "Any damage is to be limited to the yielding of the ductile bracing." In fact flexural hinges in pipes will likely provide more reliable cyclic behavior than yielding and buckling bracing.

    Page 20 goes on to state that "Stiffening the piles and softening the diagonal bracing somewhat would provide a better balance between the two systems." Stiffening the pile will simply attract higher seismic loads, and the forces will go up at a similar rate as the pile's yield strength. That was the reason we presented Inquiry 61. Yielding braces is an inappropriate mechanism for a structure founded in these water depths with these soft soils. If in fact it is even possible to soften the braced tower and stiffen the piling such that the braces will yield before piles, it will certainly be far more expensive while achieving no significant benefit.

    Please eliminate the requirement that pile yielding cannot exceed 2% strain in pushover.

    Pages 167 & 168 of the Temporary Tower Design Example present a brief summary of the maximum pile forces for both and Seismic Vessel Impact load conditions. All cases meet the API code check requirements.

    The statement quoted from page 20 applies only to the pushover results. A braced frame designed to code requirements actually behaves more like a truss with relatively small member end moments.

    As a next iteration, the tower would probably include a fender to take advantage of the recently allowed vessel impact energy absorption system. This would allow the diagonal bracing to be sized for the seismic demand, and in combination with a slightly thicker pile, may allow the bracing to yield before the piles, and thus provide an even more ductile structure. These changes are not expected to increase seismic response significantly.

    The 2% strain limit for the piles in the push-over analysis has been deleted. Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41, "TEMPORARY TOWERS," subsection "TEMPORARY TOWER DESIGN," subsection "Seismic Design Load," as revised in Addendum No. 6.

    231.0

    The Temporary Tower Design Example is incomplete and falls short of the prototype design requested in Inquiry 57. Among other things, it does not demonstrate the feasibility of:
    1. a ship impact energy absorption system that is suitable for this site and that will satisfy the design criteria (allowed by Addendum 3 and suggested in the Design Example, previously prohibited except as a Cost Reduction Incentive Proposal),

    2. a ductile steel braced frame as required by the design criteria (new added requirement in Addendum 3, previously not required), or

    3. spreading the box girder loads to the cradles without temporary reinforcement of the box girders (something we previously investigated and cannot solve without temporary reinforcement that must later be removed).
    Designing solutions for each of these situations are not trivial exercises that can be accomplished in a few weeks. Instead of clarifying matters, the Design Example creates more uncertainty in how to apply all design criteria without addressing all design issues that the Department intends the contractor's designer to consider (not what was requested in Inquiry 57). The Design Example also illustrates that the design criteria specified by the Department do not work without modification.

    For both examples the report points out that the specifications are not fully met but gives the impression that they can be met easily in further design iterations. Statements made in the November 30th meeting reinforce this impression. Having performed those additional iterations in our own work, we can say with conviction that, if it is even possible to modify the designs to meet the specifications, then the material requirements and costs will be dramatically higher.

    This bidder requests that the Department modify the specifications and provide a design example that meets those specifications. We cannot accept the Department's proposed solutions and the existing design criteria without proof they will work, as our own investigations indicate otherwise. In the absence of proof, we will have to follow our own best judgment in pricing towers that fully meet the final design specification.

    The temporary tower design example provided is one example of how the specifications can be satisfied. It is not a design recipe. Temporary towers shall be designed in accordance with the specifications within the required design parameters.
    • A previous Bidder Inquiry requested than an energy absoption system be allowed and this was included in Addendum #3. A ship impact energy absorption system would be relatively easy to incorporate into the Tower G configuration presented in the Design Example using one of the Figure 2-6 Fender Framing Options. The vertical fender element absorbs the bulk of the impact force by both bending and crumpling, locally. The local impact distortion leads to a significant impact force reduction without affecting the tower members significantly.


    • See response to BI #229.


    • The cradle design is not part of the Temporary Tower Design Example.
    While these may not be trivial exercises, designing for the above items are well-established procedures.

    Regarding Item a), The barge displacement is given in the Special Provisions and it would be traveling at the 2 Knot current velocity. The tower deflects a certain distance due to the designated impact force and thus the barge must decelerate to zero within that distance. Allowing the impact displacement or distortion to double through the use of a simple fender/crumple device reduces the resulting force by half and thus seismic demand should govern the design of Tower G.

    Regarding Item b), Tower G as designed is inherently a ductile structure as evidenced by the pin based pushover results. By tuning the brace size and pile thickness slightly, a new pushover analysis should indicate a more ductile behavior where some of the braces buckle prior to the piles yielding. These changes are not expected to significantly influence the final weight of the tower and piles, together.

    Introducing a sliding surface at the bearing level for Tower C (with some form of fuse or positive restraint system), the seismic demand is limited to the coefficient of friction. This could allow a significant reduction in the member sizes and bolted connections and should result in a more ductile structure.

    There appears to have been some misunderstanding of BI#57. The bidder appears to have wanted to see a prototype design for each tower whereas the State provided a Design Example. It is not appropriate for the State to prescribe means and methods to the Contractor.

    The bidder should consult with an engineering firm experienced with ductile steel braced structures as well as vessel impact and seismic design.

    232.0

    The Temporary Tower Design Example illustrates difficulties in interpreting and applying the Department's design criteria:
    1. What wind loads are to be applied to the temporary towers? (The Design Example on page 10 directly contradicts the special provisions. Addendum 3 wind requirements are clear in what they specify. This must be clarified.)

    2. Why must tension connections "be designed to resist the tensile yield capacity of the member"? (This is not a stated design requirement, but it is repeated throughout the Design Example. Although it is implied by the AISC Seismic Provisions, AISC does not apply to the tubular structures used in the Design Example).

      "Ductile" bracing code requirements dictate extremely large and expensive connections, as pointed out in the Design Example. If the specification were to allow isolation or other generally accepted seismic design concepts, as suggested at the November 30th meeting, then ductile bracing should not be required for these temporary structures. Bracing connections could be designed for the maximum demand at much lower cost.

    3. What provision of the plans and/or specifications allows the use of isolation concepts mentioned on page 6 of the Design Example? (The special provisions specifically require a "ductile steel braced frame". Isolation methods are included among several alternative seismic design solutions, but those other solutions are not considered "ductile steel braced frames" in common seismic design terminology.)

    4. Why was it necessary in the Design Example on page 20 to perform a pushover analysis of Tower G, pinned at the base, to demonstrate ductility of the tower superstructure? (What in the codes or special provisions requires such an approach?)

    5. Why does the Design Example on page 12 introduce new criteria for dead load factors? (Also see Inquiry 202. Although we and our engineering advisors fully agree with the author of Inquiry 202 that AISC/ASCE dead load factors of 0.9 and 1.2 for seismic, ship impact and wind load cases are more appropriate for these critical structures, considering that vertical earthquake accelerations are to be ignored, this is not what the Department has specified. The Department's requirements should be changed to match AISC/ASCE.)

    6. How is the 25 mm pile settlement restriction intended to apply? (Page 18 of the Design Example indicates that piles must be lengthened to reduce settlement, but it is unclear whether the ultimate limit state/pushover was examined in making this determination. Please clarify whether the ultimate limit state should be considered in determining the governing load combination or whether this only applies to design service loads.)
    These are a few examples that reinforce this bidder's concern that there are problems interpreting and/or applying the Department's design criteria. This is a primary reason the bidder asked for an illustrative design. The Design Example confirms difficulties designing the temporary towers to meet all currently specified criteria. Unless the Department eliminates these uncertainties, bidders must consider them when pricing the work.

    1. The wind loads used in the Design Example were conservative. As stated on page 10 in the report, "in order to generate a consistent set of wind loads on the entire structure, the lower values generated by ASCE could be used for both deck and tower, since this would generate a higher overall consistent loading condition". Thus the value given in the report per the ASCE procedure should be applied for the deck along with the slightly reduced values per the ASCE procedure for the tower members themselves (i.e. instead of 1440kN/m2 at the top of the tower, 1095kN/m2 would be more consistent - see wind load table on page 159 for the remainder of the values). Using the higher Falsework wind load values is also acceptable.

    2. See response to BI#229.

    3. See response to BI #229.

    4. It was noted that all of the "ductility" was in the piles and non-linear soil and thus the tower was pinned at the base to verify its own inherent ductility. See also response to BI #230.

    5. See the load combinations per Addendum 3 of the Special Provisions.

    6. The 25mm pile settlement was intended as a limiting criteria to prevent minimal tower designs with plunging piles. The settlement criteria is only to be applied to the load combinations specified; not the pushover requirement.
    The Temporary Tower Design Example attempted to address the numerous Bidder Inquiries aimed at the alleged inconsistent and contradictory Drawings and Specifications. The Design Example team had no significant difficulty in gathering the design requirements, developing a tower configuration to address those requirements and analyzing that tower structure. As a result of that process, the Special Provisions have been clarified and the total tower demand could be further reduced by utilizing a vessel impact energy absorption system as well as seismic isolation.

    233.0

    The Design Example does not state the location of loading assumed for the ship impact, and it can be interpreted that the load is applied through the centerline of the structure. The special provisions are silent on this. Applying the impact at the corner is much more severe and governs the design. The specification and design example should be modified to clarify this important issue.

    As stated at the November 30, Outreach, the Design Example applied the vessel impact load to a corner leg at Elev. +3.5 from both orthogonal directions as well as the diagonal direction, as an example. Additionally, the vessel impact load was manually checked at two other elevations (Elevs. +7.6m and -1.8m); again at the corner leg.

    The impact load should also be applied to a center leg as a check; however, this is not expected to govern since the load is resisted by a larger portion of the structure. Damage to a corner leg is always more detrimental to structural stability than damage to a center leg.

    The vessel impact loading should be applied at several locations around the structure and at several elevations in order to determine the governing load condition.

    234.0

    The Department’s replies to Inquiries 63, 69, 170, 185, 213 and 225 will increase the contract price. If the State will not be responsible for domestic and foreign terrorist acts (see Inquiry 98), that will also affect the contract price. The Contractor must consider the risk that the Department will not reimburse the Contractor for catastrophic damage to the in-place construction, as well as the cost uncertainty (or unavailability) of insurance for these risks in current property insurance markets. Please revisit Inquiry 185 for a proposed solution to this issue. The intent of the proposed solution is to reimburse the Contractor for catastrophic losses to the in-place construction due to events not allowed for in the specified design criteria, provided that the event is not attributable to the Contractor (e.g., domestic and foreign terrorists, third party ship collision, etc.) The Contractor would remain fully responsible for its own willful misconduct (e.g., intentional failure to take proper precautions, intentional failure to promptly remedy non-conforming situations, gross design errors and omissions, etc.), as well as events attributed to the Contractor (e.g., damage caused by the Contractor’s operations, dropping a girder during erection, collision of its marine equipment, etc.).

    As stated in inquiry 63, it is believed that standard specification section 7-1.165 as modified in the special provisions adequately and clearly allocates risk for the bidder’s stated concerns. The language proposed in inquiry 185 is not acceptable to the Department. Attention is directed to the responses for inquiries 213 and 225 for more detail.

    235.0

  • back to top
  • Please refer to the reply to Inquiry 191. The answer is unacceptable, because the Contractor lacks the authority under SP 5-1.28 to act as suggested in the reply. Once affected bird nesting is detected, the Contractor is prevented from working without written approval of the Engineer, and the Engineer must direct any corrective measures. The Department should change this special provision as requested, or it should revert to the original text of SP 5-1.28.

    The response to inquiry #191 has been revised. Attention is directed to Addendum 6 for changes to Special Provision section 5-1.28. The Contractor will now have authority to keep all work areas free of bird nests during nesting season to avoid unnecessary delays, and it is important to note that the Department will pay for this activity as Extra Work. However, evaluation of time delays has not been changed.

    236.0

    In reference to question 198, "Does a prequalification vendor list exist for the following items: 10-1.19 - ELECTRONIC MOBILE DAILY DIARY SYSTEM DATA DELIVERY; 10-1.20 - DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM?" How do vendors become prequalified and/or listed as a competing vendor in order to bid on items: 10-1.19 - ELECTRONIC MOBILE DAILY DIARY SYSTEM DATA DELIVERY; 10-1.20 - DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM?

    Please refer to the revised response to bidder's inquiry#198. The Integral Vision is the only vendor for DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. Please see revised specifications, 10-1.20 in addendum no.6. Any subcontractor who is interested in any work related to ELECTRONIC MOBILE DAILY DIARY SYSTEM DATA DELIVERY needs to contact the prime contractor.

    237.0

    Can the contractor request the use of an equivalent system for items: 10-1.19 - ELECTRONIC MOBILE DAILY DIARY SYSTEM DATA DELIVERY; 10-1.20 - DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM?

    The answer to this inquiry for DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM is NO. Please see revised specification, Section 10-1.20 in addendum no.6 that requires the SAS contractor to provide a DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM which is the latest version of PMIV by Integral Vision. The answer to this inquiry for ELECTRONIC MOBILE DAILY DIARY SYSTEM DATA DELIVERY is also NO. The ELECTRONIC MOBILE DAILY DIARY SYSTEM DATA DELIVERY specifications, Section 10-1.19 only requires submittal of certain information in a text file format, and as such, there is no appropriate equal.

    238.0

    What is the intent of the state's use of item: 10-1.19 - ELECTRONIC MOBILE DAILY DIARY SYSTEM DATA DELIVERY and based on the data content requirement for this item, will the state accept the delivery of data in equivalent formats provided that the data content requirement for this item has been met?

    The intent is to collect the 'minimum' required data from the contractor so that we can accurately capture the work. The format will vary depending on the program used but any program chosen must at least capture this required data and be able to work with it in the format specified.

    239.0

    Payment Bond.
    Reference is made to section 5-1.017 of Special Provisions and 3-1.02 of Standard Specifications. Please confirm such payment bond cover the payment from Contractor to foreign sub-contractor outside U.S. who will supply Contractor with furnished structural steel, cable etc. in case of Contractors failure in payment.

    The payment bond covers the payment from the Contractor to a foreign sub-contractor the same as it would for a U.S. subcontractor.

    240.0

  • back to top
  • Stop Notice.
    Reference is made to section 9-1.05 of Standard Specifications. It is written that Caltrans may retain out of any amounts due the Contractor, sums sufficient to cover claims, filed pusant to Section 3179 et seq. of the Civil Code. Stop notice information may be obtained from the Departmental Disbursing Office at 1801 30th street, East Building, Sacramento, California.

    Please confirm that the foregn suppliers of structural steel, cable etc. can file the Stop Notice and Caltrans will retain the amount from the Contractor for the foreign suppliers.

    The administration of stop notices is the same for foreign sub-contractors as it is for a U.S. subcontractor.

    241.0

    Something has been omitted at the very end of page 10 of Addendum 4.

    Yes. The correction will be made in the next addendum. The completed section reads:
      In the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.60, "CABLE SYSTEM," subsection "MATERIALS AND FABRICATION," subsection "Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand (PWS)," the following paragraph is added after the third paragraph:

      "Across the saddles, where curvature is significant, the parallel wire strands shall be pre-formed during shop fabrication to the appropriate radius, and strand clamps applied as necessary to maintain the wire alignment and prevent subsequent wire longitudinal slippage during strand reeling, unreeling and erection. The strand clamps shall be removed at suitable intervals during the strand erection procedure. The strand clamps shall not damage the PWS wires."

    242.0

    At the November 30th Contractor Outreach, Department staff indicated that the requirements for a wood mock-up would be removed. When will these be removed from the contract by addendum?

    The Department intends to remove the wood mock-up requirements by addendum in early January.

    243.0

    Reference Special Provision 5-1.017 Contract Bonds.

    A surety company is questioning the compliance of the specified $350 million performance and payment bonds with state law. Their conclusion is that the $350 million requirement does not comply with the minimum performance and payment bond requirements set forth in Section 10222 of the California Public Contract Code and CALTRANS does not have the legal authority to reduce the bond limits under Section 30154 of the Streets and Highway Code. They believe that a contractor cannot rely upon a contract or bid specification that requires anything other than a 50% performance bond and a 50% payment bond not to exceed $500 million.

    For our sureties to price the bonds for this project, provide a legal opinion addressing the applicability of Section 10222 of the Public Contract Code and Section 30154 of the Streets and Highway Code to this project. If CALTRANS determines that they have the discretion to reduce the bond requirements below the limits listed in Section 10222 of the Public Contract Code, confirm that this will not lead to rejection of the contract award.

    This contract is a seismic retrofit toll bridge project. Public Contract Code section 10222 states that its minimum bond limits are not controlling over the discretion given the Department by Streets & Highways Code section 30154. Pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 30154, the Department does have the statutory authority to set the amounts of the performance and payment bonds for this contract. Moreover, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 180.1, this contract is not subject to Public Contract Code section 10222. It is not anticipated that the prescribed limits of the performance and payment bonds will lead to rejection of all bids.

    244.0

    At the November 30th Contractor Outreach, during the discussion on the Temporary Tower Design Example, a caller asked for the definition of "ductility". Has that been developed by Caltrans? If so, how?

    The Temporary Tower Design Example has been revised and now includes the definition of "ductility" on page 5. Please refer to the the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/sasoutreach/

    245.0

  • back to top
  • Why are the SBE and DVBE goals so low? Will points be given for DVBE goal?

    The Department conducted an intense analysis, including a peer review process, in order to establish the goals. The Department will not award DVBE points towards bids.

    246.0

    What load can be temporarily applied to the suspender brackets while performing:
    - the main cable rendering;
    - the load transfer to cables;
    - the "lift off?"

    Please clarify what is intended by "main cable rendering".

    For "load transfer to cables" and "lift-off", the following information are provided to aid the Contractor in his bid preparation:

    For loads applied to the bottom of the bracket and directed vertically or inclined in the transverse direction of the bridge by up to 45 degrees from the vertical, the allowable load shall be half the combined breaking strength of the ropes that will be attached to the bracket, according to the plans.

    Note that for the longitudinal direction of the bridge no loads shall be applied to the bracket.

    247.0

    Please define "materials furnished but not incorporated into the work." Can these partial payouts be paid as progress payments to the fabricator based on a schedule of payment values provided by the fabricator?

    Please note Addendum 5 changes to payment provisions special provisions sections 5-1.25 “Payments” and the response to Bidder Inquiry #214.

    248.0

    In the last Outreach meeting, Caltrans said "Material Order for Tower and OBG could be done shortly after NTP". But this requirement will increase the risk of the fabricator. To minimize or decrease the risk, could you provide the Material Calculation List which shows how 183,000kg for furnish structure steel(Bridge), 13,095,000kg for Tower, 29,065,000kg for OBG, 1,273,000kg for Bikepath, 250,000kg for miscellaneous metal were calculated; and what size of plates are contained in these items? Please consider that this information can't mitigate all risk, but it is good help for us.

    The quantities of the referenced pay items can be determined from the details shown on the plans. The plate sizes are shown on the plans. Quantity calculations will not be provided.

    Please note that the quantities shown in the Engineer's Estimate are approximate as stated in the Standard Specifications, Section 2-1.02 "APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE."

    249.0

    Shop welding will be essential for the successful completion of SAS project, not only for the time, but also for the quality of the products. The following is our request regarding the welding of the Tower that will contribute to the improvement of the project efficiency.

    1. Change the CJP to PJP if designer allows. (1) CJP welds between tower diaphragms and designation number B and D skin plates of the tower shown on the FOR DIAPHRAGM TYPE 2 AND 3 of Plan Sheet 586.

    Please kindly re-consider the above and revise the relative documents. We believe that this modification will contribute to the project greatly.

    The requested weld has already been changed to PJP. Please refer to Addendum 4.

    250.0

  • back to top
  • We have found that time is not sufficient for us to prepare the project proposal by the February 1, 2006 bid opening date, as the technical requirements for the project are complicated. Therefore, we request a six month extension for submission of bid proposal.

    The bid opening date has been changed to March 22, 2006. See Addendum #7.

    251.0

    Reference is made to section 5-1.25, "Payments," of Special Provisions and Addendum No.3 issued on November 7, 2005.

    In accordance with Addendum No.3, the payment for materials furnished but not incorporated in the work shall not exceed 40% of the total contract amount.

    Please clarify whether the full amount of materials can be paid if aggregate amounts of such materials are not more than 40% of total contract price of the Contractor.

    Please note Addendum 5 changes to payment provisions special provisions sections 5-1.25 “Payments.”

    If by "full amount of materials," the bidder means the cost of raw materials, materials payments typically do pay the full cost upon presentation of paid invoice, subject to the terms of the contract.

    If by "full amount of materials," the bidder means the cost of fabricated materials, please refer to the response to bidder inquiry 214 and Addendum 5.

    252.0

    Reference is made to Section 5-1.25, "Payments," of Special Provisions, Addendum No. 3 issued on November 7, 2005, and Construction Manual 3-907D.

    Because of the huge volume of steel structures, timely payments during the fabrication are indespensable for the fabricators.

    Please confirm the payment for Structural Steel under Material on Hand payment will be applicable with the following timing:
    • Payment for raw material (steel plate etc.) at the of receipt/inspection of the raw material in fabrication shop.

    • Progress Payment for fabrication work at the completion of each panel assembly /inspection.

    • Progress Payment for fabrication work at the completion of each segment assembly/inspection.

    • Progress Payment for fabrication work at the completion of each lift assembly.
    Also, please confirm that full amount of structural steel can be paid before under "Material on Hand" payment in case aggregated amounts for material on hand payment do not exceed 40% of the total Contract Price.

    Attention is directed to Addendum 5 for clarifications to Special Provision section 5-1.25 and Bidder Inquiry 214 for a more detailed response.

    As provided in Special Provision section 5-1.25, for purposes of partial payment for structural steel, materials furnished but not incorporated into the work (material on hand) may include payments for milestones such as raw material received, certain completed subassemblies prior to assembly into segments, and completed segments or lifts.

    Assuming the approved materials furnished list of elements with details includes the materials for which payment is requested and other materials do not cause the payments to reach either the limit or the maximum capacity of the advance payment bond, the full cost of fabricating structural steel would be paid by materials furnished payments.

    Approval of any of these milestones is subject to review of the details by the Engineer.

    253.0

    In the "Important Special Notices" of the SAS specifications, the fourth paragraph notes that MFSQA guidelines are available on-line at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobb.html#04-0120F4. This link leads to a "Web Page Not Found" error message on the Caltrans web site.

    The referenced website has been checked, and is working properly. The MFSQA guidelines are available on-line at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobb.html#04-0120F4. Click on the link titled "Pre-Bid Manufacturing/Fabrication Facility Audit Review Request Guidelines".

    254.0

    Where can the current status of MFSQA pre-bid audits for this bid-letting be found on Caltrans' website? Have any suppliers applied for and/or received "passes" or "contingent passes" on their MFSQA pre-bid audits?

    Several facilities have submitted requests for a pre-bid Maunfacturing and Fabrication Self Qualification Audit (MFSQA). The Department is currently in the process of auditing these facilities. The current status of pre-bid audits can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/Inquiries/prebid_Audits.pdf

    Note that this site has been modified to provide current status of each facility's self audit (MFSQA) and audit by the Department.

    255.0

  • back to top
  • Reference is made to Special Provisions 10-1.59, Steel Structures,Fabrication / Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups.

    Regarding the Mock- Ups for the Tower, your answer to Inquiry #208 allows to proceed with the shop drawing and fabrication work for the part not required to make Mock-Ups.

    Considering the purpose of Mock-Ups as described in the relevant section of Mock-Ups, which is verification of fabrication and erection procedures, the Mock-Up item F. Tower Section shall mean the complicated structure of the tower with crossing brace and strut. Thus we consider that shop drawings, material procurement, and fabrication for Segment 1A can proceed without Mock-Up. Please confirm.

    **Segment 1A means the very bottom segment composing Lift 1 with the height of approx. 13m.
    **Lift 1 means the bottom lift with the height of approx. 47.3m.

    This will provide the fabricator a great possibility to shorten the delivery schedule.

    The intent in requiring mock-ups is to provide confirmation that the proposed fabrication or erection procedure will work as it is detailed in the Contractor's Fabrication/Erection Procedure.

    Specifically for Segment 1A, the mock-ups of the Tower Section at Elev 89 will provide some insight and benefit for the lower section. However, the Tower Section at Elev 89 mock-ups are not a prerequisite for the fabrication of Segment 1A provided the fabrication and erection procedures for Segment 1A are submitted along with the relevant shop drawings.

    256.0

    Please confirm that there is no limitation on weld overlap for melt-through or root reinforcement internal to the closed rib of the rib to deck plate welds as long as the required 80% average penetration (or 70% isolated penetration) is achieved. (See changes introduced by Addendum 4 to SP 10-1.59, Welding of Closed Ribs to Box Shell Plate. Prior to Addendum 4, there was a prohibition against such overlap exceeding 2 mm, but that has now been removed.)

    There is no limitation on weld overlap for melt-through or root reinforcement internal to the closed rib of the rib to deck plate welds provided the reentrant angle between the melt-through and the rib is not less than 45 degrees.

    257.0

    We refer to Addendum 4 and the new requirements for tower assembly.

    a. Please confirm our understanding of the new requirement, which can be summarized as follows: The last segment of a tower lift must be matched to the next two segments of the following tower lift. It is not enough to match the end of a tower lift and the contiguous segment of the adjacent lift (because three contiguous segments are required).

    b. Please clarify the intent of the new requirement, which is as follows: "In addition, the ends of a lift and an adjacent segment shall be abutted together . . . to assure proper fit." Will this requirement be satisfied by matching one tower lift and the adjacent segment of the following lift at one point in time, before the adjacent segment is assembled and welded into the following lift? This will require matching the other end of the following lift to its adjacent segment once the following lift is assembled and welded.

    The Contractor's understanding of items a and b is correct.

    258.0

    The reply to Inquiry 172 seems to address our concerns about the Department's withholding of funds. Our understanding of the reply is that the Department intends to apply standard specification 9-1.06 to bid items that are incomplete or non-conforming. The Department does not intend to apply standard specification 9-1.06 to withhold funds due to late completion (failure to meet milestones). In the case of failure to meet milestones, the Department's sole remedy will be liquidated damages and/or contract termination. Please confirm that our understanding, as stated above, is a correct statement of the Department's intent. Otherwise, we will require a clearer statement of the Department's intent prior to bidding.

    The Department will apply standard specification 9-1.06 to bid items that are incomplete or non-conforming. The Department will not use standard specification 9-1.06 to withhold a monthly estimate payment due to late completion or failure to meet milestones. In the case of failure to meet milestones, the Department's remedy will be liquidated damages as provided for in Special Provision section 4 "Beginnning of Work, Time of Completion and Liquidated Damages," and/or contract termination as provided for in Standard Specification Section 8-1.08, "Termination of Control."

    259.0

    A "Revised Temporary Tower Design Example" is now posted on the SAS Superstructure Outreach website. After a cursory look we could find one change on page 5, a definition for "ductility". Are there any other changes? If so, please identify each page number and change (so we do not miss anything)."

    Also, please confirm the following:

    a. There will be no restriction or limitation on the types or kinds of "external" energy dissipation systems to achieve "ductility" (any generally accepted seismic design concept will be permitted).

    b. If the energy is dissipated solely within the "external" system, the "internal" structural components and their connections shall be designed for the maximum demand (no need to develop the full tensile yield capacity of the member in connections, only satisfy the demand).

    c. If the energy is dissipated solely within the "external" system, what alternative design criteria should be applied for the ultimate limit state (since non-linear pushover analysis may not be appropriate)?

    The definition for "ductility" was the only change.

    a. The type and kind of isolation system to achieve ductility are part of the Contractor's means and methods.

    b. No. All connections shall be designed to be stronger than the connected members. Please refer to Addendum No.6.

    c. The specified design criterion for the ultimate limit state is intended to prove that the overall structural system is ductile. Where the Contractor chooses to use isolation systems, the Department will consider proposed changes to the design criteria in the contract in accordance with the Special Provisions Section 5-1.114 "CORRIDOR VALUE ANALYSIS" and Section 5-1.15 "COST REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROPOSALS" and Standard Specification Section 4-1.03 "CHANGES" after the contract has been awarded.

    260.0

  • back to top
  • The SEA TRANSPORTATION provisions through Addendum 5 state: "The Contractor shall obtain the Engineer's approval prior to placing a damaged segment on temporary supports." Segments must be removed from the shipping vessel and placed on temporary supports (on a dock, on a barge, etc.) when they arrive on site, but we understand this requirement will prohibit the Contractor from unloading segments without the Engineer's approval if this occurs before the Engineer's visual inspection and acceptance. If our understanding is incorrect, please clarify the intent.

    The intent of the specification is to require the Engineer's inspection and approval prior to erection of the steel segments on temporary supports such as falsework. Placing the segments on approved temporary supports such as a barge or dock, as an intermediate step prior to erection, will not require the Engineer's approval.

    261.0

    Design criteria for the temporary towers (see SP 10-1.41) were not addressed in Addendum 5. There are a number of outstanding Inquiries on this subject. Does the Department expect to issue all anticipated revisions/clarifications of design criteria for the Temporary Towers (SP 10-1.41) in the next addendum due in early January?

    Please reference the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.41 "Temporary Towers," as revised in Addendum No. 6.

    262.0

    In order to bid on this project, we hereby request a two (2) month bid date extension AFTER all of the following issues have been addressed:
    • Final clarification of the design criteria for the temporary towers.
    • Issuance of any addenda that will impact cost.


    • Final clarification of bonding requirements (please see inquiry 243).


    • The milestone dates are extended six months beyond requirements in Addendum 5 or liquidated damages will be waived for six months after the Addendum 5 milestones.


    • Confirmation is made that liquidated damages will be the sole remedy for failure to meet milestones.


    • Inclusion of a waiver of consequential damages, and a limitation on damages in the event of any termination for default (other than for abandonment) equal to the penal sum of the performance bond.


    • Due to the unusual nature of this project and the maximum potential loss, inclusion of a maximum aggregate limit on the Contractor's liability for loss or damage to the Work, regardless of cause, in the event of catastrophic property damage.

    The bid opening date has been changed to March 22, 2006. See Addendum #7. Please note the following responses.

    1. Addendum #6 responds to bidder requests for clarification on the temporary tower design criteria. Please refer to addendum #6 and the responses to inquiries submitted to date for final clarifications to the design criteria for the temporary towers.

    2. Addendum #7 addresses significant issues raised by bidders.

    3. Please refer to the posted response to inquiry #243. There are no changes necessary to the bonding requirements as a result of this inquiry.

    4. Please see addendum #7

    5. Liquidated damages may not be the sole contractual remedy for failure to meet milestones. In accordance with Standard Specification Section 8-1.08, "Termination of Control," failure to supply an adequate workforce, or in any other respect to prosecute the work with due diligence and force specified by the contract, is grounds for termination of the Contractor's control of the work.

    6. Neither a waiver of consequential damages nor a limitation on damages in the event of termination for default will be provided.

    7. A maximum aggregate limit on liability regardless of cause is not appropriate. Note however, changes in addendum #6 regarding insurance and liability for terrorism, and existing contract terms provided by Standard Specification section 7-1.165, "Damages by Storm, Flood, Tidal Wave or Earthquake," as modified by Special Provision section 5-1.39.

    Please see attached news release dated January 19, 2006:

    SFOBB News Release, Jan. 19, 2006 (pdf, 233kb)

    263.0

    Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59, "STEEL STRUCTURES", sub section "INSPECTION AND TESTING", "1. BOX GIRDER", "1.1 Box Shell" requires 100% UT for diaphragm plate to closed rib CJP weld. We think, however, that there is no space to perform UT on the current plan (drawings). Please refer to DETAIL A on sheet 628/1204. Dimension of initial cut line needs to be increased from 12mm to approx. 30mm. Please clarify, because this change affects our cost.

    Contractors are advised to bid according to the current contract plans and specifications. The Department will consider proposed changes to the contract in accordance with Special Provisions sections 5-1.114 "CORRIDOR VALUE ANALYSIS," 5-1.15 "COST REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROPOSALS," and Standard Specification section 4-1.03 "CHANGES" after the contract has been awarded.

    264.0

    We refer to sheets No. 608/1204 to 612/1204. Plans require the following:
    • Mill to bear between the top end of grillage segment(s) and grillage top plate (See sheet 609 and 612/1204).
    • Mill to bear between the bottom end of grillage segment(s) and the top end of Lift 4 (See sheet 608/1204).
    In addition, Grillage top plate is one plate. (It does not have any splices.) That means elevation of the top end of each lift-4 must be in the same plane after the Lift-4 are erected. This condition does not give fabricators and erectors any room to adjust deviation.

    The following 2 points need to be considered and accepted:
    • Requirement of mill to bear between the bottom end of grillage segment(s) and the top end of Lift 4 is mitigated (deleted).
    • Oversized bolt hole is applied to the splices between grillage and Lift-4.

    Mill to bear requirement on sheet 608 of 1204 for tower splice #4 should have been removed to be consistent with Addendum 6 revisions to the Special Provisions which allows mill to bear or shimming for all tower bolted splices. Note that mill to bear fit-up (without shimming) is required between the tower grillage and the grillage top plate.

    Please note oversize holes are not permitted, but subdrilled and reamed holes may be used to adjust shaft alignment.

    265.0

  • back to top
  • SP 5-1.18, AREAS FOR CONTRACTOR'S USE, permits the Contractor to use the completed Skyway structures during specified times. However, the Contractor is required to clear the westbound Oakland Touchdown and Skyway of all equipment and materials six months prior to Phase 2 completion (to allow paving under contract M4). This six-month period leading up to Phase 2 is foreseen for preparing the deck and paving the westbound and eastbound lanes of the SAS Superstructure. Will the F4 Contractor be able to coordinate continuous access to travel through this area during this six month period, provided that no equipment or material is stored in the area? If there are any limitations on travel through this area for any extended period (more than a few days), what limitations can we expect? Or will the F4 Contractor be prohibited from using the Skyway Westbound lanes during this six month period as access for SAS Superstructure paving and other completion activities? Please clarify what is intended.

    The Contractor will be permitted access to and use of the westbound Skyway and Oakland Touchdown during the six month period prior to Phase 2 completion to access the SAS structure. The Contractor should anticipate short interruptions (no more than a few days at any one time) in access and changes in the exact access routing due to the work requirements of others. Work by the Contractor and others in these areas will be coordinated at the Weekly Coordination meetings specified in the last paragraph of SP 10-1.10 "Cooperation." It is the intent of the Department to utilize these Weekly Coordination meetings to facilitate development of the proper course of action to minimize impacts (cost and schedule) to the Corridor by evaluating potential impacts to the individual contractors and the overall East Span project.

    266.0

    Please change the replies to Inquiries 60 and 61 to reflect Addendum 6 changes. We understand as the result of Addendum 6 that the ductile mechanism may occur in the piles instead of the bracing. Please confirm that our understanding is correct.

    The temporary tower structural system shall remain essentially elastic for the design response spectrum provided. Structural steel bracings, piles, and any other ductile mechanisms except vertical load carrying members may yield during the push-over analysis which is used to verify that the structural system has a minimum displacement ductility of 2.

    This inquiry also references Inquiries 60 and 61. Please refer to the revised responses for these inquiries.

    267.0

    Bidder Inquiry 210 stated our need for an additional twelve months on the completion milestones defined in Special Provision Section 4 as applied to the four phases of work defined in Special Provision 10-1.01. CALTRANS' response refers to changes made by Addendum 5. These changes include elimination of the milestone to complete the W2 crossbeam, adding six months to the milestones defined in the other three phases, and renumbering of the phases.

    The contract completion dates of the redefined phases of work in Addendum 5 still do not provide sufficient time to complete this contract. As stated in Bidder Inquiry 210, we need an additional twelve months but Addendum 5 has only provided six months. An additional six months must be added to the newly defined phases to enable our team to submit a responsive bid for this project.

    Six months have been added to the completion milestones specified in Addendum #5. See Addendum #7.

    268.0

    Considering the revised design criteria provided in Addendum 6, please reply to Inquiries 201, 225, 231, 232, 259 and 261 with detailed explanations so we can better understand the intent.

    Please refer to the responses of the referenced inquiries.

    269.0

    Referring to the revised design criteria for the temporary towers included in Addendum 6, please confirm that ductile moment frames and any type of ductile braced frame (moment and braced frames as defined by AISC Seismic Provisions, 1997) will be accepted as meeting the intent of "ductile steel braced frames" as long as the ultimate displacement to yield displacement ratio is at least 2.

    Contractors are advised to bid according to the current contract plans and specifications. The bidder's understanding is inconsistent with the contract specifications. The definition of "ductile steel braced frame" does not include ductile moment frames and any type of braced frame. The Department will consider proposed changes to the contract in accordance with Special Provisions sections 5–1.114 "CORRIDOR VALUE ANALYSIS," 5-1.15 "COST REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROPOSALS," and Standard Specification section 4-1.03 "CHANGES" after the contract has been awarded.

    270.0

  • back to top
  • "All connections shall be designed to be stronger than the member connected" (see **footnote under the revised table of codes, Addendum 3, page 9, Temporary Towers). Strictly applied, this will drive up the cost of the temporary towers dramatically because numerous connections such as column splices, floor beams and capacity protected braces now require design for full tensile capacity of the section. We assume this is not the Department's intent. In view of Addendum 6, please confirm that this is intended to apply only to those structural members that must be ductile (i.e., braces, piles, etc. designed to yield under seismic loading). Please confirm that this is not required for capacity protected members and their connections that have loads limited by isolation or fuse mechanisms.

    Contractors are advised to bid according to the current contract plans and specifications. The bidder's understanding is incorrect. The contract requires all connections to be stronger than the members connected in all cases. The Department will consider proposed changes to the contract in accordance with Special Provisions sections 5–1.114 "CORRIDOR VALUE ANALYSIS," 5-1.15 "COST REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROPOSALS," and Standard Specification section 4-1.03 "CHANGES" after the contract has been awarded.

    271.0

    The temporary tower special provisions, as amended by Addendum 6, now allow base isolation, but still require "ductile steel braced frames" and "the temporary tower structural system shall have a displacement ductility of 2". "Ductility" concepts are not relevant to an isolated structural system, and the Department's intent is unclear. In a base isolation system common practice is to design components for the maximum forces that can be transmitted to them (otherwise there is no benefit in isolating). Will this be acceptable?

    Contractors are advised to bid according to the current contract plans and specifications. The Contractor's proposal is inconsistent with the contract requirements and is, therefore, not acceptable. The Department will consider proposed changes to the contract in accordance with Special Provisions sections 5–1.114 "CORRIDOR VALUE ANALYSIS," 5-1.15 "COST REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROPOSALS," and Standard Specification section 4-1.03 "CHANGES" after the contract has been awarded.

    272.0

    Referring to Addendum 6 changes to SP 5-1.25, GENERAL MIGRATORY BIRD PROTECTION, is the Contractor permitted to proceed with any lawful means necessary to use exclusion devices or to remove and dispose of partially constructed and unoccupied nests (proceeding Force Account without waiting for a change order from the Engineer for the Extra Work)? If this is not the case, objections stated in Inquiries 191 and 235 still stand.

    The Contractor is permitted to proceed with any lawful means necessary to use exclusion devices or to remove and dispose of partially constructed and unoccupied nests. Note that the Contractor is advised to discuss appropriate means and methods with the Department, and should notify the Engineer prior to starting such work to ensure that the work is accounted for in the Department's records when paying submitted extra work bills.

    273.0

    Referring to the second sentence of the reply to Inquiry 77, the Department confirms it will take responsibility for collateral seismic damage to work under other contracts "that exceeds the lesser of $20 million or 5 percent of the amount of the Contractor's bid for bid comparison purposes" in accordance with special provision 5-1.39 if the cause of the damage is attributed to an occurrence which exceeds its design criteria, although this is not stated in the contract. Please clarify the following:
    • Will the lesser of $20 million or 5 percent be a combined single limit for each seismic occurrence exceeding the design criteria, inclusive of damage to the in-place construction under this contract as well as collateral damage to work under other contracts? If this will not be the case, please clarify what is intended.

    • How will the Department determine when a seismic occurrence exceeds it design criteria? Will a seismic event which exceeds the acceleration response spectrum chart on Construction Sequence 2, sheet 968 of 1204, be dispositive in determining that an occurrence exceeds the design criteria? If not, please clarify what is intended.

    A. The limit provided in Standard Specification 7-1.165 as modified by Special provision section 5-1.39 is a single limit for damage to the in-place construction under this contract caused by each seismic occurrence. Note that the response to inquiry 77 has been revised to clarify intent.

    B. An actual horizontal (transverse and longitudinal) response spectrum, developed using data from seismographs and/or accelerometers in the vicinity of the bridge, will be compared with the design horizontal response spectrum (shown on sheet 968 of 1204) to determine whether or not the actual seismic forces exceed the design seismic forces.

    274.0

    Please see Inquiry 218(a). Please confirm that "blockouts" of the concrete for Pier Cap W2 will be permitted so that Hinge K Pipe Beams can be delivered and installed later, after the main concrete pours of Pier Cap W2, without affecting removal of formwork and falsework on the box girder side (which could affect the entire project schedule).

    The contract plans are detailed considering the pipe beams are installed before W2 Cap Beam concrete pour. Please note that the early Phase 1 milestone (650 working days) has been eliminated in Addendum 5. Six months have been added to the working days for the remaining milestones in Addendum 7. W2 cap beam work is now included in the new Phase 1 milestone, which has 2130 working days. This should be sufficient time for fabrication of the Hinge K pipe beams. The Contractor should bid according to the current plans and specifications. The Department will consider proposed changes to the contract in accordance with Special Provisions Sections 5-1.114 "CORRIDOR VALUE ANALYSIS," 5-1.15 "COST REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROPOSALS," and Standard Specification Section 4-1.03 "CHANGES" after the contract has been awarded.

    275.0

  • back to top
  • Please confirm that Step 1.b on sheet 983 of 1204 is performed "by others".

    Step 1.b on plan sheet 983 of 1204 is performed "by Others" as indicated on the plans.

    276.0

    We have been asked by Primes to use the Item Numbers listed in Special Provisions to help identify bid items in our quote. We have the following questions:
    • Does "Item 62 Furnish Structural Steel ( Pipe Beam)" refer only to the four pipe beams at Hinge K, as shown on sheets 427 and 428?

    • Could you please identify the sheets associated with Item 65 (Pipe Beam Fuse)?

    • Is it certain that Hinge A is provided by a previous or separate contract, and is not one of the bid items on the SAS? If not, under what Item Number is it associated and what sheets cover this item?

    • Under what Item Number do the Cable Bands and Cable Clamps fall?

    1. Furnish Structural Steel (Pipe Beam) refers only to the four pipe beams at Hinge K.


    2. Please refer to plan sheet 844 of 1204 for details of Pipe Beam Fuse.


    3. Hinge A Pipe Beams will be furnished by Others. Please refer to "Scope of Work on the Interface at Hinge A" on sheet 849 of 1204.


    4. Cable Bands and Cable Clamps are included in Item Number 66 Furnish PWS Cable System.

    277.0

    Are there going to be any flame cut edges on the steel in this project? If so, what is the process for removing the magnetite byproduct; it is not specified in the specifications. Who is ultimately responsible for removing the magnetite prior to abrasive blasting?

    The special provisions allow the Contractor to use flame cutting in structural steel fabrication. The amount of flame cutting depends on the Contractor's means and methods. The special provisions require the Contractor to chamfer sharp edges and to prepare thermal cut edges by grinding or other methods. See Section 10-1.69 "Clean and Paint Structural Steel" subsection "Material Anomalies". Preparation of thermal cut edges is the responsibility of the Contractor. The contract does not dictate which of the Contractor's forces must do this work, only that it is done.

    278.0

    You reference the faying surfaces requiring a different milage of paint than the other surfaces. What are "faying surfaces", and whose responsibility is it to mark them out on the drawings for the coaters?

    A faying surface is a contact surface of a high strength bolted connection. The RCSC document referenced in Section 10-1.69 "Clean and Paint Structural Steel" contains the definition of a faying surface. Marking out faying surfaces on the drawings is the responsibility of the Contractor. The contract does not dictate which of the Contractor's forces must do this work, only that it is done.

    279.0

    Refer to SP 10-1.69 Clean and Paint Structural Steel:
    • What is the Cal-Trans approved procedure for field surface preparation of the exterior exposed portions of the A490M bolts shop coated with Dacromet 320P prior to application of the polysiloxane finish coat?


    • Is a prime coat required on the A490M bolts shop coated with Dacromet 320P prior to application of the polysiloxane finish coat. What material if required has Caltrans approved for this use.


    • Should the shop applied Dacromet 320 P coating on the A490M Bolts be damaged by torque wrenches during the bolting procedure what procedure should be followed for field repairs. The Dacromet 320 P is a shop applied baked on coating applied by a propriatery shop facility that can not be applied in the field.


    • Do Dacromet 320 P coated interior exposed bolts and nuts require further field applied coating.

    a & b) Dacromet is a proprietary metallized coating. The special provisions Section 10-1.69 "Clean and Paint Structural Steel", subsection "Painting", subsection "Finish Paint" state: "Galvanized or metallized surfaces designated to receive finish paint shall be cleaned in accordance with the requirements of SSPC-SP 1 and then primed with a galvanized surface primer recommended by the manufacturer of the polysiloxane finish paint. The complete finish paint system on galvanized fasteners shall have a minimum adhesion rating of 4 when measured in accordance with ASTM D 3359." There are several manufacturers of polysiloxane finish paints. The manufacturer of the finish paint should be consulted to determine if they require a primer in order to comply with specified adhesion requirements.

    c) Dacromet 320 P is very resistant to damage. Minor scratches or dings in the Dacromet coating comprising less than 5% of the surface of the head of the bolt or nut are self-repairing. Damage exceeding this limit should be repaired in accordance with the requirements of Section 75-1.05 of the Standard Specifications.

    d) Only if the area is designated to receive finish coats and to repair damage as noted above.

    280.0

  • back to top
  • Caltrans has indicated that exterior exposed galvanized bolts shall receive an SSPC SP-1 surface preparation and be primed with the manufacturer of the polysiloxane finish's recommended galvanized metal primer.
    • If application of the galvanized primer requires abrasion of the bolt heads prior to application via light sandblasting, what is the approved procedure for repair of adjacent inorganic zinc painted surfaces if they are damaged by the sandblasting application?


    • What material shall be used if such repair is required?

    a & b) See Section 59-1.05 of the Standard Specifications. Such damage caused by the Contractor's operations shall be repaired by the Contractor, at the Contractor's expense, with materials and to a condition equal to that of the coating specified.

    281.0

    Regarding SP 10-1.69 Clean and Paint Structural Steel, do interior splice plates require caulking?

    Yes. See Section 59-2.12 of the Standard Specifications.

    282.0

    In reference to Inquiry #199, we must understand what the minimum specifications are for item 10-1.19 in order to properly and fairly bid this item? Again, as a publicly bid item, what are the minimum technical specifications required to bid and provide item 10-1.19? (Note: It is assumed that the bidder is referring to Bid Item #2 and Section 10-1.19 of Special Provisions, "Electronic Mobile Daily Diary System Data Delivery.")

    The requirements for text file data to be submitted to the Department for Bid Item #2 "Electronic Mobile Daily Diary System Data Delivery" are clearly spelled out in special provision section 10-1.19. Bidders should refer to the contract special provisions. It is noted that Inquiry #199 requests information about bid item #139, "Document Management System," the requirements for which are provided in special provision section 10-1.20. As stated in the response to Inquiry #199, this item is a sole source item.

    283.0

    If the Document Management System is sole source and is expected by Caltrans to be supplied by PMIV, then why was this item in the specification for bidding to the public rather than issue a consulting agreement with PMIV?

    The Department is permitted to use sole source items for specific items of work where no other known material of equal or better quality will perform the same function or to preserve uniformity with existing installations. In 2003, the Department reviewed several systems for documenting, tracking, and responding to RFI's and submittals. PMIV was found to be the only product that had the range and capacity necessary for the contract in place at the time, the Skyway project. It was also determined that there is value in using the same product across all the SFOBB projects. The Department has recieved concurrence to use PMIV as a document management system for this contract from FHWA.

    For the SAS contract, the words "or equal" were inadvertantly included in the original advertised special provision. When it became apparent from previous inquiries that there was confusion caused by these words, the words were removed as part of a specification update in Addendum #6. PMIV has provided a written price guarantee to the Department for that item of work as shown in the special provisions. The contract for supplying this item will be between the Contractor and PMIV.

    284.0

    In Addendum #6, why has the price (for Document Management System) been reduced to $880,000? What new arrangements did Caltrans make with PMIV? Is this a signed contract with Caltrans? If so, where can we view and/or receive a copy of this document/agreement under the public code for contracting?

    The estimated price has been reduced because the estimated quantities were changed in Addendum #6. There are no new arrangements with PMIV; this is the estimated cost based on the lower estimated quantities. The PMIV agreement is available for inspection by appointment at the Department of Transportation, Duty Senior's Desk, 111 Grand Ave, Oakland, CA, (510) 286-5209.

    285.0

  • back to top
  • What is the relationship with Caltrans and PMIV (please clarify)? Also, how did one vendor become selected as a sole source without prior approval from the State Controller's Office or Caltrans Headquarters?

    Please see the response to Inquiry #283.

    286.0

    In reference to Inquiries #237 and #238, the prequalified vendor listed for item 10-1.19 is PMIV. Was there a public interest finding document that refers to PMIV's technology? If so, was this public interest finding document issued and singed prior to the bid? Where can we view and/or receive a copy of a public interest finding document as per required in public code contracting in the state of California? (Note: It is assumed that the bidder is referring to Bid Item #2 and Section 10-1.19 of Special Provisions, "Electronic Mobile Daily Diary System Data Delivery.")

    It is assumed the question refers to Bid Item #139, "Document Management System," the requirements for which are provided in special provision section 10-1.20. Please see the response to Inquiries #283 and #284.

    287.0

    We have reviewed the plans and special provisions for the tie-down cables at W2, and need some clarifications.

    The plans call for "epoxy-coated monostrand" with a note further clarifying it as "Each individual epoxy-coated monostrand shall be fully coated with corrosion inhibiting grease and then encapsulated by a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or high-density polypropylene (HDPP) smooth sheath".

    SP 10-1.44, "Cable Tie Down," states, "The individual strands of a tendon shall be fully coated with corrosion inhibiting grease and then encapsulated by a smooth sheath. The corrosion inhibiting grease shall fill all space between strand wires. The sheath shall be extruded onto the strand by an approved method that insures that all spaces between the sheath and the strand and between the strand wires are filled with corrosion inhibiting grease."

    The space between individual wires can either be filled with epoxy as on epoxy coated strand, or it can be filled with corrosion inhibiting grease, but not both.

    Please clarify that individual strands are:
    • Epoxy coated, or


    • Coated with corrosion inhibiting grease and then encapsulated by an extruded HDPE or HDPP smooth sheath, or


    • Epoxy coated, then coated with corrosion inhibiting grease and then encapsulated by an extruded HDPE or HDPP smooth sheath.
    If a) or c) is selected, please specify the type of epoxy coating.

    Option B is correct. Each individual (non epoxy-coated) strand shall be coated with corrosion inhibiting grease and then encapsulated by an extruded HDPE or HDPP smooth sheath.

    Please note the Department reserves the right to make changes to the contract in accordance with the Standard Specifications Section 4-1.03 "CHANGES" after the contract has been awarded.

    288.0

    The tie-down cable details show a guide pipe, a transition pipe, and inside the transition pipe a HDPE pipe. The transition pipe is to be filled with corrosion inhibiting grease. We assume that the space inside the HDPE pipe is to be filled with grease, and not the space between transition pipe and HDPE pipe. Please clarify.

    The space inside the HDPE pipe need not be filled with grease. The tie-down cable details shown on sheet 521 of 1204 are for general information and vary per manufacturer's details. The space between the HDPE pipe and the transition pipe shall provide corrosion protection per the manufacturer.

    289.0

    At one place in SP 10-1.44, "Cable Tie Down," reference is made to "...replacing individual tendons". Another section of SP 10-1.44 states "Cable tie-downs shall be designed and installed to facilitate strand replacement and tendon adjustment." Please clarify, do you need provisions to replace individual strands within a tendon, or provisions to replace full tendons?

    Cable tie-downs shall be designed and installed to facilitate replacement of individual strands within a tendon.

    290.0

  • back to top
  • The guide pipe at the dead end anchorage (top end) is specified as OD=508 and t=38. All other components of the tie-down anchorage system are to be designed by the contractor. Is there any purpose for this pipe except load transfer and anchorage geometry? Can the size of the pipe be changed to optimize the anchorage configuration?

    The guide pipe (at dead end anchorage) shall be of the specified OD and thickness and shall match up with the existing steel pipe.

    291.0

    Is there an example available on the assembly sequence of the tower leg at Elevation 89m?

    Yes, an example of the assembly sequence of the tower leg at Elevation 89m, along with photos, is available at the following website:

    http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/sasoutreach/

    292.0

    As manufacturers of standard and special construction fasteners and accessories, we would like obtain a bill of material for such items as are required for the above referenced project so that we may submit quotations to the prime bidders.

    The quantities of the referenced items can be determined from the details shown on the plans. Quantity calculations will not be provided.

    293.0

    Refer to Plan Sheet 737 of 1204, titled "East Cable Anchorage Details". Note 3 states, "Surface shall be finished to ANSI 500". Does this note (apply) for all the surfaces, or only for the surface specified in this drawing?

    Note 3 applies only for the surface specified on the drawing (bearing surface visible in View C-C and circumferential surface which is 80 mm diameter and 35 mm deep).

    294.0

    The width of a pair of divider plates within the saddle chamber is 56mm, which means it only can use 10 wires in the bottom layer for each PPWS, which also creates 7 wires in the top layer. Such configuration structure is not stable. There is no way and method to clamp it and keep the shape for pre-bend. Refer to attachment shape1.pdf.

    shape1.pdf

    The normal configuration in practice is 11 wires both in the bottom layer and in the top layer. Each strand is unit by unit (layer by layer) in the saddle troughs, which will not intervene each other, and it is easy for PPWS erection and installation. Refer to attachment strand.pdf.

    strand.pdf

    The Contractor is given the option of using the Alternate Saddle Design which allows wider saddle troughs with wider strand compartments for a wire packing arrangement consistent with his erection procedures. Please refer to sheets 790A thru 790D and SP 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES, subsection ALTERNATE SADDLE DESIGN in Addendum 5. The 11 wires both in the bottom layer and in the top layer arrangement in the strand.pdf attachment to this inquiry is an acceptable alternative.

    295.0

  • back to top
  • Refer to Special Provision "10-1.60 CABLE SYSTEM", subsection "MATERIAL AND FABRICATION," subsection "Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand (PWS)". We note that, in Addendum #6, the requirement to pre-form the PWS strands such that the length traveled by each wire within a strand accounts for the saddle curvature, has been removed. This correction indicates (that) the large wire-length difference in the finished cable is allowed, especially in the West Span. The requirement in connection to wire-length difference in either PWS or air spinning has been tighter in the current suspension bridge projects, but Addendum #6 is supposed to be the setback from the current tendency of specification.

    As a manufacturer and an experienced constructor of many PWS cables, we believe that removing such a requirement will lead to problems during the erection of the PWS cable of the SAS, especially around the West Deviation saddles. Please re-evaluate such a change.

    Special Provisions Section 10-1.60 "CABLE SYSTEM", subsection "MATERIALS AND FABRICATION", subsection "Shop Prefabricated Parallel Wire Strand (PWS)" as modified in Addendum 6 gives the Contractor the flexibility to erect the PWS cable based on his means and methods. These provisions require that the PWS wires within each strand do not bulge anywhere along the length of the PWS strand after each strand has been erected.

    It is recognized that across the saddles where curvature is significant (e.g., west deviation saddles) the wires in a PWS strand will travel different length. This difference shall be engineered by the Contractor to satisfy the requirement of "no wire bulging" under PWS self weight. Note that if the wire length difference is confined to a short length of the PWS strand, then the wires within the PWS strand will probably bulge.

    The Contractor and PWS Fabricator shall perform the necessary engineering to determine the best way to satisfy this requirement.

    296.0

    What is the basis for defining the SAS contract 04-0120F4 as a seismic retrofit contract?

    Streets and Highways Code (SHC) section 180 et seq. provides for the seismic retrofit of certain highway structures. SHC section 180 defines "project" as either the modification of an existing highway structure or the replacement of a highway structure by a newly constructed structure. SHC section 188.5 identifies the existing San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge as part of the toll bridge seismic retrofit program and requires that it be replaced by a newly constructed structure, of which Contract 04-0120F4 is a component.

    297.0

    Are the transportation for the engineer boat operators considered covered work for the purposes of prevailing wages?

    Please refer to the recent Department of Industrial Relations ruling on this matter posted at http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/Coverage/2004-023and2003-046.pdf
    It is our understanding that while water taxi operation falls in the category of a towboat operator, prevailing wages are not required for water taxi work. Prevailing wages are triggered only (1) when the boat hauls material to the public work site from a dedicated source or (2) when the boat is involved in the immediate incorporation of materials into the project.

    298.0

    A. Do all A490 bolts required for this project need the Dacromet 320P coating, or does this only apply to certain bolts?

    B. Do all washers and nuts associated with the A490 bolts also require the Dacromet 320P coating?

    A & B) All high-strength fastener assemblies consisting of A490 bolts shall have the Dacromet 320P coating per the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "FABRICATION," subsection "Bolted Connections." High strength fastener assemblies include a high-strength steel bolt, nut, and hardened washer.

    A. All A490 bolts required for this project shall have the Dacromet 320P coating.

    B. Per the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.69 "CLEAN AND PAINT STRUCTURAL STEEL", as exposed new metal surfaces washers and nuts associated with the A490 bolts shall be cleaned and painted. Exposed surfaces include all surfaces exposed to the atmosphere.

    Please note the Department reserves the right to make changes to the contract in accordance with the Standard Specifications Section 4-1.03 "CHANGES" after the contract has been awarded.

    299.0

    Is it possible for Caltrans to postpone the current bid date, currently set for March 22, 2006, to a later date to alow sufficient time to assemble a bid package?

    Currently, there are no plans to postpone the bid opening.

    300.0

  • back to top
  • We understand that the bid bond is set for about $140 Million, performance bond for $350 Million, and payment bond for $350 Million. Is it possible to accept such bonds in a form of bank guarantees from backs in China?

    Bonding agencies are required to be an admitted surety insurer as defined by the California Code of Civil Procedure section 995.120. Bank guarantees are not an acceptable replacement for the bid, performance or payment bonds. However, please note Standard Specification section 2-1.07, which allows for specified alternatives to a bidder's bond.

    301.0

    Is it possible to have foreign nationals to perform construction labor and management duties? What are the requirements from Caltrans?

    Labor rules may be found in various sections of the Contract, as well as Federal, State, and Local laws. This question is too broad to make specific references to requirements.

    302.0

    Fabricators are advising prime bidders that the approximate quantity of the test samples of plate and shapes from the heats, type and thicknesses/shapes that must be sent to Caltrans' testing lab in California will be around 40,000 kg. These samples will have to be shipped to and tested by Caltrans before the affected materials can be used in fabrication because it would be an unreasonable risk for the fabricator to proceed until the materials are tested and approved by Caltrans. Would it be possible for Caltrans to witness testing where the material is delivered and approve its use without waiting for test results from the Caltrans testing lab?

    Contractors are advised to bid according to the current contract plans and specifications. The Department will consider proposed changes to the contract in accordance with the Special Provisions Section 5-1.114 "CORRIDOR VALUE ANALYSIS" and Section 5-1.15 "COST REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROPOSALS" and Standard Specification Section 4-1.03 "CHANGES" after the contract has been awarded.

    303.0

    Per Section 8-4 of the special provisions, the CWI inspectors are to be certified by AWS in accordance with the requirements of AWS QC1. Will Caltrans consider accepting certification of welding inspectors by other testing organizations with equivalent requirements to AWS QC1?

    The Department will only accept CWI inspectors that are certified by AWS as required by the special provisions.

    304.0

    Special provision section 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES, subsection "Erection Plan," requires all temporary connections to be submitted with the erection plan and approved by the Engineer. Will the Contractor be permitted to weld temporary studs to the lower 10 m sections of the tower base for attaching heating coils for preheat and postheat for the field welds at those locations (subject to approved procedures for installation and removal of the temporary studs)? This would be an automatic Nelson® type stud welding process for threaded studs approximately 6 mm x 25 mm in size.

    Temporary Nelson studs may be welded to the lower 10 meter sections of the tower base. Locations of temporary studs shall be shown on the shop drawings and shall be subject to review and approval by the Engineer. Removal of the temporary studs shall be in accordance with the Special Provisions Section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES", subsection "ERECTION PLAN", last paragraph.

    305.0

  • back to top
  • Please confirm our understanding that "erection procedure" as the term is used in SP 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES, subsection Working Drawings and Fabrication/Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups, is the same thing as "preliminary erection plan" and "erection plan" described in the same section (also as per Section 55 of the Standard Specifications and standard industry practice). If something else is intended, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain the difference.

    The phrases "preliminary erection plan" and "erection plan" are the names of two submittals for the erection of the entire bridge, which are defined in detail in 10-1.59 STEEL STRUCTURES, subsection ERECTION PLAN. The Fabrication/Erection procedure is one submittal for each of the complex assemblies listed in SP 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES, subsection Working Drawings and Fabrication/Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups). As stated in the spec, the Fabrication/Erection procedure shall include the assembly and welding sequence, and bolt tightening procedure and shall be of sufficient detail to demonstrate the proposed fabrication/erection procedure of the components that make up each assembly.

    306.0

    Please confirm our understanding that "fabrication procedures" as the term is used in SP 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES, subsection "Working Drawings" and "Fabrication/ Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups" are the same thing as "shop practices" described under "Working Drawings". If something else is intended, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain the difference.

    Fabrication procedure and shop practices are separate submittals. Fabrication and erection procedures show the sequence and method of fabricating or erecting the specific component. Shop practices generally refer to the use of shop components such as jigs, fixtures, etc., to aid in the fabrication/erection process. Some overlap of the submittals may be inevitable. All of the topics addressed in the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59, "Working Drawings" and "Fabrication/Erection Procedure and Mock-ups" must be addressed, either in drawings or procedure format.

    307.0

    Please confirm our understanding that fabrication and erection welding, qualification and inspection procedures are different submittals, separate and apart from "working drawings" and "shop practices." In other words, fabrication working drawings and fabrication shop practices can be approved without having approved welding, qualification and inspection procedures, except for the specific components listed in SP 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES, subsection "Working Drawings" and "Fabrication/ Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups." If something else is intended, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain what is required.

    The Contractor's understanding is correct, they are separate submittals. Please note the working drawings are required to show weld joint designation per AWS D1.5 (for standard joint ) or WPS number (for non-standard joint).

    308.0

    Fabricators have brought to our attention the fact that working drawings for components where mock-ups are required cannot be approved until after approval of the fabrication and erection procedure and nondestructive examination procedure. See SP 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES, Subsection WORKING DRAWINGS, second paragraph (which refers to Subsection FABRICATION, "Fabrication/Erection Procedure and Mock-ups"). There are other references to "erection procedure" in the plans and specifications that affect the timing of approval of working drawings for fabrication and/or the start of fabrication.
    • Please confirm our understanding that such references to the "erection procedure" only apply to the approved "preliminary erection plan" and field assembly and bolt-tightening procedures applicable to the mock-up. If something else is required, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications where the additional requirements are listed.


    • Please confirm our understanding that the "erection plan" for components where mock-ups are not required may be submitted at any time without affecting fabrication working drawing approvals and fabrication as long as they are approved prior to erection. If something else is required, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications where the additional requirements are listed.


    • Except for the bolt tightening procedure, please confirm our understanding that there are no other requirements for the "erection procedure" associated with the approval of the mock-ups. See SP 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES, "Fabrication/Erection Procedure and Mock-ups". If something else is required, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications where the additional requirements are listed.

    a. As stated in the response to BI 305, fabrication/erection procedure (component assemblies) and preliminary erection plan (entire bridge) are separate submittals. Fabrication/Erection procedures are defined in SP 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES, subsection Working Drawings and Fabrication/Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups.

    b. Approval of working drawings of components where mock-ups are not required is not contingent upon approval of the fabrication and erection procedure. Please note the Department reserves the right to make changes to the contract in accordance with the Standard Specifications, Section 4-1.03 "CHANGES."

    c. The same paragraph which requires the bolt-tightening procedure also requires procedures for the assembly and welding sequences, the proposed fabrication procedure, and details to verify the inspectability of welds as part of the fabrication/erection procedure.

    309.0

    According SP 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES, subsection Erection Plan, "[t]he Contractor's preliminary erection plan shall demonstrate to the Engineer that the Contractor has sufficient understanding of the structural system and is able to perform all required erection analysis and designs, to adequately detail and fabricate the temporary and permanent structures, and to account for varying conditions due to changes in installed weight." We understand that a description of general methodology, resumes and experience for the steel detailers and engineering firms involved, software that will be used, methods for analyzing the box girders and the suspension system, and illustrations of analyses performed during the pre-bid period would be expected as part of the preliminary erection plan submission. Supplemental calculations are specified for the erection plan, but not for the preliminary erection plan. If supplemental calculations must also be submitted with the preliminary erection plan to demonstrate the Contractor's capability in this regard, this will significantly delay preparation and submittal of the preliminary erection plan and will have serious negative implications for the overall project schedule.

    Please confirm our understanding that supplemental calculations are not required as part of the submittal for the preliminary erection plan to demonstrate the Contractor's understanding and ability to perform. If our understanding is incorrect, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain what is required.

    The Contractor's understanding is correct. Supplemental calculations are not required in the preliminary erection plan.

    310.0

  • back to top
  • Since the sea transportation and erection plans will not be completed and approved until fabrication is well underway, close to the time of loading and erecting lifts, it will not be possible to include all details of attachments for transportation and lifting, including location, welding and removal procedures, on the steel fabrication working drawings. Some temporary attachments for transportation and lifting may have to be field welded either at the fabrication site loading dock or at the jobsite (including vertical and overhead welding positions).

    Please confirm our understanding that the Contractor is permitted to field weld such temporary attachments and connections in any welding position as long as they are later removed, subject to other provisions in the plans and specifications (e.g., approved sea transportation and erection plans and procedures, approved welding procedures, approved inspection procedures, prohibited locations, approved removal procedures, etc.). If our understanding is incorrect, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain what is permitted.

    Under 10-1.59 STEEL STRUCTURES, subsection SEA TRANSPORTATION, second paragraph, a transportation plan including support and tie-down details and calculated stresses must be submitted at least 60 days prior to loading. If the Contractor's schedule is such that field-welding will be used, then this shall be stated in the transportation plan and the applicable requirements under subsection FIELD WELDING shall be met. Stress calculations under the transportation plan shall reflect the actual welds to be used. In addition, all restrictions and requirements on the use of attachments or lifting attachments in special provisions section 10-1.59 STEEL STRUCTURES shall apply.

    311.0

    Please confirm our understanding that "proposed attachment locations for transportation and lifting of each section" for the preliminary erection plan only requires the general arrangement and proposed locations, which may be changed during detailed development of the erection plan. Approval of fabrication working drawings for the box girders and tower is not subject to approval of the precise locations and details of attachments for transporting and erecting each lift, including stress effects on the permanent structure (because they need not be submitted until later as part of the sea transportation and erection plans). If our understanding is incorrect, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain what is required.

    As the box girders and to a great degree the tower shafts are repetitive units, various typical lifting concepts may be approved subject to limits on the applied load, the thickness of plates receiving the attachment, the proximity of stiffening plates or conflicting permanent details. The precise locations and details of attachments for transporting and erecting each lift, including stress effects on the permanent structure need not be submitted until later and shall conform to the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59 "Steel Structures".

    312.0

    Please confirm our understanding that "methods for transportation and lifting of each section" for the preliminary erection plan only requires the general arrangement and methods to be used. Approval of fabrication working drawings for the box girders and tower is not subject to approval of the precise details and methods for transporting and erecting each lift (because they need not be submitted until later as part of the sea transportation and erection plans). If our understanding is incorrect, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain what is required.

    In the preliminary erection plan all details of erection are not required for the approval of the box girder or tower fabrication drawings, provided that the general arrangement of lifting attachments is shown.

    Details and methods for transporting and erecting each lift need not be submitted until later and shall conform to the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59 "Steel Structures."

    313.0

    Please confirm our understanding that "methods for aligning adjacent deck sections during erection" for the preliminary erection plan only requires the general arrangement and methods to be used. Approval of fabrication working drawings for the box girders and tower is not subject to approval of the precise details and methods for aligning adjacent deck sections during erection (because they need not be submitted until later as part of the erection plan). If our understanding is incorrect, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain what is required.

    Details and methods for aligning adjacent deck sections during erection need not be submitted until later and shall conform to the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59 "Steel Structures."

    314.0

    Please confirm our understanding that "locations of temporary supports and reinforcing" required for the preliminary erection plan only applies to the general arrangement and methods. Approval of fabrication working drawings for the box girders and tower is not subject to approval of the precise locations of temporary supports or details of the reinforcing that will be required (because they need not be submitted until later as part of the sea transportation plan and erection plan). If our understanding is incorrect, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain what is required.

    Precise locations of temporary supports or details of the reinforcing that will be required need not be submitted until later and shall conform to the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59 "Steel Structures."

    315.0

  • back to top
  • Please confirm that "methods for analyzing the box girders and crossbeams for moments, stresses, deflections, and cambers throughout the proposed erection sequence" and "methods for analyzing the suspension systems for deflections and tensions throughout the proposed erection sequence" for the preliminary erection plan only requires the general analytical methods and software that will be used (because supplemental calculations need not be submitted until later as part of the erection plan). If our understanding is incorrect, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain what is required.

    The Contractor's understanding is correct. Supplemental calculations are not required in the preliminary erection plan. The purpose for this submission and review is to ensure that the Contractor has a clear understanding and is prepared to perform the required analyses. As stated in bid inquiry 309 this can be established through a clear explanation of the intended methods and procedures.

    316.0

    In an effort to avoid unnecessarily high levels of risk contingency in our pricing, please advise whether the Department is willing to include contract language that confirms that the Contractor shall have no liability for lost toll revenues except to the extent of the liquidated damages for delayed completion that are expressly set forth in the Contract Documents.

    The Department will not hold the Contractor liable for lost toll revenue for delayed completion. Further contract addenda are not anticipated at this time.

    317.0

    Please clarify the reply to Inquiry 184. We understand that "the virgin rope breaking strength test will be accepted only if the virgin rope used in the test breaks at or above the required strength." (Of course the virgin rope must test at or above the required strength to be acceptable, but that was not the intent of the question that was asked in the second sentence of the Inquiry.) The "no" reply to the question can be interpreted to mean: "No, the breaking strength of the virgin rope cannot be presumed equal to the breaking strength of pre-stretched rope [and a separate breaking strength test will be required for the pre-stretched rope]." Is this the Department's intent, or does the Department intend that if the virgin rope tests above the required strength, then no further break tests are required?

    Yes, the Department intends that if the strength tests of the virgin rope break at or above the required strength then no further break tests are required for strength.

    318.0

    Erection of the box girders cannot start until after formwork and falsework on the box girder side of Pier Cap W2 are removed (months after the Hinge K pipe beam is installed). If box girder erection cannot start, the entire project will be delayed. The reply to Inquiry 274 reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem described in the Inquiry and the effect that the reply will have on our bid price (because we must add significant contingencies to our price to bid as requested in the reply). Please revisit the reply to Inquiry 274.

    At this time, the response to Inquiry #274 will not be revised. The inquiry appears to be means and methods specific.

    319.0

    Please reference Special Provision Section 10-1.59 titled STEEL STRUCTURES, subsection titled WORKING DRAWINGS, second paragraph: "Approval of working drawings for components where mock-ups are required will be contingent on successful completion of the mock-up and approval of the fabrication and erection procedure and nondestructive examination procedure."
    Please reference Addendum No. 5 dated December 21, 2005, page five (5), third to last paragraph: "The Contractor shall receive approval from the Engineer for the preliminary erection plan and the weight control procedure prior to any approval of working drawings for the fabrication of the box girder structural steel, tower structural steel and the cable system."

    It was noted in the Outreach meeting of November 30, 2005 that the precedence of numerous procedures (shop practices, fabrication procedures, erection plan, erection procedures, welding procedures, weld qualification tests and inspection and test procedures are the principal ones), mock-ups and their respective approvals before approval of OBG/Tower fabrication working drawings seriously affected the project schedule. This is because fabricators and contractors are unwilling to assume the risk of ordering materials before fabrication working drawings for the Tower and OBG are approved (many materials have lead times of six months or more). It was suggested that Caltrans remove the contingency that mock-up and procedure approvals must be concluded before approval of fabrication working drawings to alleviate this problem.

    Reviewing the special provisions through Addendum 7, and considering the replies to Inquiries 208 and 255, we understand that each of the following elements are required prior to approval of fabrication working drawings for the indicated parts of the OBG or Tower:
    • Preliminary Erection Procedure (tower and deck preliminary erection procedure may be submitted separately)
    • Weight Control Procedure (does not affect approval of tower working drawings)
    • Tower Diaphragm Type 3B fabrication and erection procedure (does not affect approval of OBG working drawings or tower base segment 1-A working drawings)
    • Tower Diaphragm Mock-Up (does not affect approval of OBG working drawings or tower base segment 1-A working drawings)
    • Tower Lift erection splice fabrication and erection procedure (does not affect approval of OBG working drawings or tower below first erection splice working drawings.)
    • Tower Lift Erection Splice Mock-Up (does not affect approval of OBG working drawings or tower below first erection splice working drawings)
    • Deck Plate Section fabrication and erection procedures (does not affect approval of tower working drawings or other components and subassemblies of the OBG working drawings that are not part of the mock-up)
    • Deck Plate Section Mock-Up (does not affect approval of other subcomponents and subassemblies of the OBG working drawings that are not part of the mock-up; however, must be completed before approval of the deck plate panel working drawings and OBG working drawings and shop practices for assembly of panels into segments)
    • Tower Section fabrication and erection procedures (does not affect approval of OBG working drawings or tower base segment 1-A working drawings)
    • Tower Section Mock-up (does not affect approval of OBG working drawings or tower base segment 1-A working drawings)
    • WPS's for the above mock-up components only
    • PQR's for the above mock-up components only
    • Inspection and testing procedures for the above mock-up components only

    Please confirm that our understanding is correct. If our understanding is incorrect, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain what we have missed.

    The interpretation of submissions by the Contractor is generally correct.

    However, note that per the Special Provisions, Section 10 1.13 "PROGRESS SCHEDULE (CRITICAL PATH METHOD)", and Section 10-1.18, "Working Drawing Submittal Schedule," the Contractor shall submit an interim Baseline Schedule under which the Engineer and the Contractor can fully address this inquiry.
    Please note the following are examples of submittals that were not considered in this inquiry. These are additional submittals which are required prior to approval of some working drawings:
    • Camber as addressed under SP 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "WORKING DRAWINGS," fourth paragraph, especially item 4, and also note 2 on "Camber Schedule" sheet (643/1204).
    • Approved Weight Control Procedure: See note 1 on "Camber Schedule-B" sheet (645/1204).
    • Fabrication of the east transition, panel 95 to Hinge A, must consider hinge reactions provided by the Engineer at the approved milestone.
    • Geometric Layout of the East Transition: See note 3 on "Girder at East Transition No. 9" sheet (691/1204), "General Layout of Cable Saddles and Saddle Grillages" on "East Saddle Details No. 1" sheet (784/1204), and note 5 on "East Saddle Details No. 2" sheet (785/1204).
    Please also see the response to inquiry #307.

    Finally, please be advised that nothing in this inquiry response shall be interpreted as relieving the Contractor from any and all requirements of the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES."

    320.0

  • back to top
  • As the result of changes in the Special Provisions through Addendum 7, our understanding is that approved erection procedures and approved shop WPS's, PQR's and inspection and test procedures are not required before fabrication working drawings can be approved for all locations where mock-ups are not required (see Fabrication/ Erection Procedure and Mock-Ups, third paragraph, Items A through Q) and where fabricated subassemblies are not significantly affected by the outcome of the mock-ups. We also understand that working drawings for fabricated subassemblies require all information listed under "Working Drawings", excluding shop practices, that pertain to that particular subassembly. This will allow early approval of working drawings for fabricated subassemblies to proceed concurrently with the development of shop WPS's, PQR's, inspection and test plans and shop practices. This will also allow for earlier procurement of material. Please confirm that our understanding is correct. If our understanding is incorrect, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that explain what we have missed.

    In accordance with SP 10-1.59, "Steel Structures," approval of working drawings for fabricated subassemblies may proceed concurrently with the development of shop WPS’s, PQR’s, inspection and test plans, and shop practices.

    321.0

    Please compare the reply to Inquiry 192.A with the requirements of the Weight Control Plan and Note 1 on sheet 643 of 1204, which reads: "The Contractor shall compute transverse camber offsets at all locations, based on the actual weight and support constraints consistent with his erection methods and submit for approval by the Engineer". There are other places in the plans and specifications where the term "actual weight" appears. What does the Department intend by the term "actual weight" if it does not mean the weight of a piece that is determined by weighing (as stated in the reply to Inquiry 192.A)? Also, how will it be possible for the Contractor to apply the Alternative Camber Method or to compute the transverse camber offsets until after the "actual weights" are available? This is a serious conflict that must be rectified prior to bidding.

    The term "actual weight" refers to the physical weight of the bridge, as could be verified by weighing. Under SP 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," subsection "WEIGHT CONTROL," first paragraph, and item A of the second paragraph, the Contractor is required to monitor and control the actual weight and to explain his methods to determine this weight.

    The specifications do not require the Contractor to demonstrate any particular method of estimating weight variance, such as weighing the structure. However, the Contractor is required to provide some credible method to meet the requirements of WEIGHT CONTROL. In various inquiry responses it has been stated that one acceptable method to certify the actual weight would be to perform a weight take-off from the contract plans and to document, based on appropriate construction experience, how the actual weight is expected to vary from the initial estimate. The Contractor may also propose some other reasonable method.

    322.0

    Please confirm that the accuracy of the Engineer's "own weight estimate used in the developing the Alternative Camber method" is sufficiently close to the "weight based on quantities taken from approved shop drawings plus 3%" that the Alternative Camber will work by minor trimming and adjusting of segment ends from Panel 95 to Hinge A, without the necessity of readjusting fabrication camber at every floorbeam to meet all required tolerances.

    The Contractor may develop shop drawings based on the camber given under the Alternative Camber Method.

    The design intent is that adjustment for weight variance takes place by suspender tension adjustment and with allowances in the profile of the suspended structure.

    The successful erection of the bridge does not depend on the accuracy of the cambers and weights shown on the plans. The detailing of the suspension system provides more than adequate means to adjust for variation in weight, provided that the weight control procedure is properly followed.

    Minor trimming of segment ends is permitted subject to the kinking tolerance specified

    323.0

    Please confirm that the Engineer's "own weight estimate used in developing the Alternative Camber Method" is shown in Table 1, Sheet 741 of 1204. If this is not the case, please confirm that the Engineer will supply its "own weight estimate used in developing the Alternative Camber Method" to the Contractor after award. If there is a requirement in the plans and specifications for the Contractor to perform its own take-off of weights from the plans, please point us to that requirement (we cannot find it).

    The weights shown in Table 1 on sheet 741 of 1204 are the Engineer’s estimated weights as used in the design.

    The camber provided in Table 1, sheet 643 of 1204 is based on the conjugate beam analysis of the bridge, using the target moment diagram shown on sheet 643 of 1204.

    With respect to the Contractor's performing weight take-off, see response to bidder inquiry #321.

    A Contractor must estimate the suspended weight of the bridge at all stages of fabrication and erection in order to meet the requirements of the weight control procedure and erection plan.

    324.0

    "Angular kinking limits" of 0.003 radians at each floorbeam are referred to in Note 9, sheet 643 of 1204. Are these to be considered and applied when developing the final fabrication camber for panels 95 to Hinge A, as described in Note 3, sheet 645 of 1204? Or can this angular kinking limit be ignored? If it can be ignored, does any another criteria apply except meeting the tolerances specified in special provision 10-1.59, STEEL STRUCTURES, GENERAL, Items A and B?

    Yes, angular kinking limits are to be considered and applied in accordance with the contract.

    325.0

  • back to top
  • Referring to the reply to Inquiry 192.B.1:
    • Please point us to the place in the plans and specifications where "the Contractor is asked to provide his estimate of the variation between design drawing take-offs and as-built plan take-offs" (we cannot find it).


    • What is intended by the term "as-built plan take-offs"? Please point us to the place in the plans and specifications where this is mentioned (we cannot find it).


    • What is intended by the term "design drawing take-offs"? Please point us to the place in the plans and specification where this is mentioned (we cannot find it).

    a. See response to #321.

    b. The as-built plan take-offs are calculated from the approved shop drawings.

    c. The design drawing take-offs are calculated from the contract plans.

    326.0

    Special Provision Section 10-1.01, ORDER OF WORK, specifies that there are to be no further lane closures after Phase 2 completion. Is this intended to apply to temporary single lane night closures as described under special provision sections 10-1.26, 10-1.27 and 10-1.28, as long as no work is being performed over traffic?

    Please see special provision section 10-1.01 . After phase 2 is completed, there shall not be any single or multi lane closures on the bridge.

    327.0

    As required by the bidding documents, a qualified bidder for this project has to hold the Californian "A" LICENSE. Our company has an "A" LICENSE, but not Californian "A" LICENSE. We have studied various ways to acquire this license, but we found that it takes a long time (2-4 months). Is there a feasible and speedy way to solve this problem?

    The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) is responsible for the processing and approval of license applications. Consequently, the Department can not directly affect the time the CSLB needs to review and approve a bidder's license application. Upon notification that a license application has been submitted, the Department could request that the CSLB, consistent with its policies and procedures, process the application in a timely manner, given the urgent nature of this construction project.

    328.0

    For the time being, we don't have any partners network in the US, and know little about US laws and regulations in this field. It is difficult for us to find suitable and sufficient US partners to form a consortium for this project, as we understand a consortium with local companies is the best and only practical form to contract such a big project. How can we find reliable and qualified construction companies and construction teams to form the consortium?

    The Department cannot recommend specific potential partners.

    Please note: a list of current plan holders may be found by going to the website:
    http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/weekly_ads/index.html
    Scroll down the page and click on the link to the "List of Plan Holders on Projects Out To Bid" and search by contract number "04-0120F4".

    329.0

    As we tried before, the US visa needs at least two month to get from the US Embassy in China, and its formalities are too complicated. Is there any way to get a visa quickly?

    The Department is not familiar enough with the visa process to be able to assist.

    330.0

  • back to top
  • Drawing E-208 note #3 calls for a ground conductor in each cable tray. Detail #6 of same drawing calls for the ground conductor only in the 15KV tray. Drawing E-211 also shows a ground conductor only in the 15KV tray. Does every tray require a ground conductor or just the 15KV tray?

    The cable tray installation shall comply with National Electrical Code (NEC) Article 318-7 - "Grounding", as required in the Special Provisions, Section 10-3.08, Cable Tray Ladder Type, Quality Assurance. NEC Article 318-7 requires all trays and tray sections to be effectively bonded to ensure electrical continuity and shall have the capacity to conduct safely any fault current likely to be imposed on them.

    The grounding design for the SAS Structure calls for a 500 kcmil continuous ground conductor in the 15 kV trays only (see sheet E-111, note no.1). The 500 kcmil bare ground system conductor, spanning the entire SAS, shall physically be attached to the 15 kV cable trays in accordance with Drawing E-208, Detail #6. The other cable trays on the SAS Structure shall be bonded to the 500 kcmil ground conductor in accordance with drawing E-111, sheet note #3.

    331.0

    Special provisions Section 4, BEGINNING OF WORK, TIME OF COMPLETION AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES is worded in a way that causes $54 million liquidated damages (LD's) to be owed for overrunning each of the Phase 1, 2 and 3 milestones by 180 days. In an effort to avoid unnecessarily high risk contingencies in our pricing, please advise whether the Department is willing to modify the contract with a no cost / no credit change order after award to change this situation.

    The amount that will be owed is calculated as follows: (overrun Phase 1 by 180 days x $100,000/day = $18 million, since these days are not concurrent with the LD's assessed for Phases 2 or 3) + (overrun Phase 2 by 180 days x $100,000 = $18 million, since these days are not concurrent with the LD's assessed for Phases 1 or 3) + (overrun Phase 3 by 180 days x $100,000/day = $18 million, since these days are not concurrent with the LD's assessed for Phases 1 or 2) = 3 x $18 million = $54 million.

    The sequential, linear nature of the Designated Portions of Work make it unreasonable to impose three times the level of LD's for essentially the same delay (whatever caused Phase 1 to finish late). The specification says that for Phase 2 and Phase 3 completion, LD's will be imposed at the end of a time period after Phase 1 or after a certain day, whichever occurs first. So if the Contractor completes Phase 1 on day 2310, he has to complete Phase 2 on the same day to avoid being charged LD's for failure to complete Phase 2 by day 2310.

    The specification can be changed to remove the requirement to have Phases 2 and 3 finish by a certain working day. The sole criteria should be completing Phase 2 within 180 days after Phase 1 and completing Phase 3 within 360 days after Phase 1. If the Contractor must pay LD's for completing Phase 1 late, he should still have 180 days and 360 days to complete Phases 2 and 3 respectively before additional LD's would be assessed.

    The Bidder's interpretation of the application of Liquidated Damages is correct. However, a delay to the first milestone does not necessarilly result in a delay to milestones 2 and 3.

    332.0

    Please confirm the limits of the Skyway Temporary Towers AE and AW that will remain in place after the Skyway completion date. Please confirm that the temporary platforms and piles to the west, north and south of the AE and AW concrete pier caps will be removed by the Skyway contractor. We understand that the piles and concrete pier caps supporting Temporary Towers AE and AW will remain in place for removal by the F4 Contractor.

    The temporary platforms and piles to the west, north, and south of the AE and AW concrete pier caps will be removed by the Skyway contractor. Piles and concrete pier cap supporting temporary towers AE and AW will remain in place for removal by the F4 contractor.

    333.0

    With respect to your response to Inquiry 316, please confirm that the Contractor will not be liable for lost toll revenues under any circumstances. We understand that the Department does not intend to issue further addenda prior to the bid date. Can we assume for bidding that contract revisions necessary to reflect the response to Inquiry 316 and this Inquiry will be made after the bid date but prior to contract execution?

    The Department will not hold the contractor liable for loss toll revenue that results from the contractor' failure to complete the project by the contract completion date. Bidders should not expect a contract language revision for this matter.

    334.0

    With respect to your response to Inquiry 273.b, there is no indication of how soils amplification will be considered. The Department has confirmed on numerous occasions (through outreach meetings, inquiries during the previous and current advertisement and the specified design criteria) that soils amplification has been considered and included in the horizontal response spectrum (shown on Sheet 968 of 1204). Please confirm that soils amplification will be considered when developing an actual response spectrum from seismographs and/or accelerometers in the vicinity of the bridge if that data does not include the full effect of soils amplification at the location of the temporary towers.

    Where appropriate, soil amplification will be considered.

    For temporary towers with foundations supported on rock:
    The actual rock outcrop spectrum with 5% damping (as reported by the California Department of Mining & Geology at YBI for the seismic event in question) will be compared to the specified response spectrum (on sheet 968 of 1204) modified to account for the specified structural ductility. This comparison will be made at the primary periods of vibration of the temporary towers.

    For temporary towers with foundations supported in mud:
    The actual rock outcrop spectrum with 5% damping (as reported by the California Department of Mining & Geology at YBI for the seismic event in question) will be used to develop the effective spectrum at the effective point of fixity of the foundations (considering soil amplifications). This spectrum will then be compared to the specified response spectrum (on sheet 968 of 1204) modified to account for the specified structural ductility. This comparison will be made at the primary periods of vibration of the temporary towers.

    335.0

  • back to top
  • Please confirm our understanding that, in the event of conflicts between what the plans and/or specifications require, and what is stated in any Information Handouts, the requirements of the plans and special provisions for Contract 04-0120F4 supersede anything stated in the Information Handouts.

    In the event of conflicts between what the plans and/or specifications require, and what is stated in any Information Handouts, the requirements of the plans and special provisions for Contract 04-0120F4 supersede anything stated in the Information Handouts.

    336.0

    Please provide the anticipated timeframe and procedures to grant permission for a land based concrete batch plant within the CALTRANS Right of Way on Yerba Buena Island.

    Assuming the plant is for this contract only, any request must come through the Prime Contractor. The plant must be within the Areas Designated for the Contractor's Use (refer to plan sheets 13 and 14 Construction Details - Areas for Contractor's Use" and Special Provisions Section 5-1.18 "Areas for Contractor's Use"), and comply with all permits necessary, as noted in the Special Provisions. Since the Department does not control the issuance of permits, we can not state the time required to get permits, as this varies by permitting agency.

    Also, refer to the following websites: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr/indusfaq.html

    http://www.biomitigation.org

    337.0

    Is the Caltrans policy for testing UT personnel that is posted on the SAS Outreach Website applicable to Contractor personnel on this project? If so, where is this specified in the plans or special provisions? To what welds does it apply? Does this apply to the fabricator's and contractor's UT personnel in the fabrication shops? On the jobsite? Which Bid Items?

    The "Qualification Requirement for Ultrasonic Testing Personnel," as shown on the outreach website, does not apply to any bid items for the SAS contract. Qualification for NDT technicians are detailed in the Special Provisions, Section 8-3.01, "Welding," and Section 10-1.59, "Steel Structures."

    338.0

    At least one general contractor group is looking at full field application of the top coat after erection. Given the size and configuration of the structure, standard Caltrans controls for dust, overspray, and collection of wash water will be difficult if not impossible to achieve.
    • Will the contractor be allowed to filter (via a screening fabric) and then allow water to drop into the bay rather than collect all water used for washing the primed sections of the bridge prior to application of the field applied finish coat?

    • Will the regulations on environmental controls, dust and overspray emissions be relaxed for this project as full containment will not be possible to achieve?

    No exemptions to the regulations and standards have been granted by federal or state regulatory agencies for this project. In all cases of discharge to water or air, best available controls must be implemented to prevent the discharge, as is the case with the wash water, or keep the emissions within allowable limits.

    339.0

    The reply to Inquiry 310 did not directly confirm field welding positions addressed in the second paragraph of the Inquiry. Please confirm our understanding that temporary attachments and connections, including lifting attachments, may be field welded in any welding position. If field welding in the vertical or overhead position is prohibited, please point us to the place in the plans or specifications that state this.

    The Department interprets "welding position," as stated in inquiry 310 and in this inquiry, to be an issue of the Contractor's means and methods. However, regarding attachments, the Contractor is reminded that all restrictions and requirements on the use of attachments or lifting attachments in the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.59 "STEEL STRUCTURES," shall apply. In addition, welding procedures and welding personnel qualification shall meet all requirements of the Special Provisions, Section 8-3.01 "WELDING."

    340.0

  • back to top
  • In the specifications, and Addenda 1-7, I have reviewed the Insurance requirements for the Prime Contractor of $50,000,000 in excess liability coverage, but am unclear as to how this would affect the Subcontractors. Should all subs assume that this will be a "flow-down" requirement or would the decision rest with the successful low bidder (The Prime)?

    Submitted for consideration.

    341.0

    The reply to Inquiry 322 states: "The Contractor may develop shop drawings based on the camber given under the Alternative Camber Method." Insofar as fabrication camber for Panels 95 to Hinge A is concerned, this reply seems to directly contradict what is stated in Notes 1, 2 and 3 on Sheet 645 of 1204. Please confirm that the reply to Inquiry 322 is intended to apply to fabrication camber for Panels 95 to Hinge A, using camber values from Table 1 on sheet 643 of 1204 and Table 2 on sheet 644. Insofar as adjustments for Panels 95 to Hinge A are concerned, please confirm that "[t]he design intent is that adjustment for weight variance takes place by suspender tension adjustment and with allowances in the profile of the suspended structure" as stated in the reply to Inquiry 322 (not by adjusting according to Note 3 on sheet 645 of 1204). This is a crucial issue for the fabrication schedule of the project, so please be clear in the reply so we and our fabricators can properly assess the situation in preparing our bid.

    As stated in Note 1 on Plan Sheet 645 of 1204, under the "Alternative Camber Method," the camber values are provided for fabrication from panel points 8 to 95 only. The response to BI 322 was addressing the question of accuracy and does not change the notes on Plan Sheet 645 of 1204.

    342.0

    The reply to Inquiry 321 confirms the meaning of the term "actual weight" but does not resolve the conflict pointed out in the specific requirements of Note 1 on sheet 643 of 1204 (time required to compute transverse camber offsets at all locations based on the actual weight will delay preparation of shop drawings for the box girders). What is the purpose of the transverse camber offsets and notes shown on Sheet 644 of the plans? Which way is the Contractor supposed to do it? Are both methods to be applied simultaneously to develop transverse camber offsets? (If both methods are required, further detailed explanation of intent is required.)

    The third sentence of the second paragraph of the reply to Inquiry 321 may be inconsistent with Note 7 on sheet 741 of 1204, which states: "Weights are provided for information only. These weights are to be used to for computation of suspension cable layout, deck profile and box girder dead load moment diagram. Actual weights shall be shall be evaluated by the Contractor based on fabrication shop drawings." If such information is sufficient to develop more sensitive cable, suspender and deck geometry, it should certainly be adequate for computing fabrication camber (unless better information is available). We cannot find a requirement that the Contractor is to "certify the actual weight." Please point us to it.

    The Contractor is required to provide and follow a weight control procedure as described and applied in the plans and special provisions (including Table 1 and Note 7 on sheet 741 of 1204, Table 1 and Notes on sheet 643 of 1204, Table 2 and Note 1 on sheet 644 of 1204, and Notes 1, 2 and 3 on sheet 645 of 1204). The Contractor is also required to compute "transverse camber offsets based on actual weight" (time required to compute transverse camber on such a complex structure will delay preparing shop drawings from Panels 8 to 95, which defeats the purpose of the Alternative Camber Method and introduces significant uncertainties into the box girder fabrication schedule), but "transverse camber offsets" are provided on Sheet 644 (an acceptable solution). What is the intent?

    On the issue of developing transverse camber offsets necessary to prepare shop drawings for box girders, the bidder has been unable to interpret the plans and specifications satisfactorily due to the above mentioned discrepancies and problems. On Sunday, March 19, 3 days prior to bidding, the Department has yet to clarify this issue through the Inquiry process in a way that the bidder can understand what is required. Also see Inquiries 323 and 341, which remain unanswered as of Sunday, March 19.

    Response to Paragraph 1:
    If the Contractor follows the Alternative Camber Method described on Plan Sheet 645 of 1204, then the cambers (longitudinal and transverse) for PP 8 to 95 are provided for his use on Table 1 (643/1204) and Table 2 (644/1204).

    Note that transverse camber is primarily camber in the crossbeams and not the box girder.

    Response to Paragraph 2:
    Please note that the Contractor is introducing two new words, "to be" into Note 7 of Plan Sheet 741 of 1204 that completely change the meaning of the note.

    Note 7, as stated on Plan Sheet 741 of 1204, is consistent with the response to BI 321, and, therefore, consistent with the plans.

    With respect to the second portion of this paragraph, the Contractor shall satisfy the weight control plan as stated in the Special Provision, Section 10-1.59 "Steel Structures."

    Please note that clarifications to this subject have been issued through numerous BI responses and the word "certify" was used in the response to BI 321.

    Response to Paragraph 3:
    The transverse camber offsets provided on Plan Sheet 644 of 1204 are to be used for PP 8 to 95 when using the Alternative Camber Method.

    Response to Paragraph 4:
    Since the advertising of this package on August 1, 2005, the requirements of the Alternative Camber Method and weight control have NOT changed.

    343.0

    The replies to Inquiry 325 did not directly answer the questions that were asked. We appreciate the clarifications in "b" and "c" - they were helpful in unraveling some of the Contractor's confusion. The reply to Inquiry 325 "a" did not clarify the question that was asked to this bidder's satisfaction. On Sunday, March 19, three days prior to bidding, we continue to await a clear answer to Inquiry 323, which is closely related to Inquiry 325 "a".

    The special provisions require that the Weight Control Procedure include the estimated range of error of weight determination for each weight component at each stage.

    Previous inquiry responses, including #321 have indicated acceptable methods to do this which are not given in the Specifications. The Contractor is required to use the "actual weights" as stated in the plans and specifications, and remains responsible to propose acceptable means to do so.

    344.0

    Would you tell us the web address where Caltrans will post its live video of SAS-bid opening?

    http://www.dot.ca.gov/bidopening/