CONTRACTOR'S INQUIRY RESPONSES

December 31, 2003

CONTRACT NO. 04-0120R4
CONSTRUCT SOUTH/SOUTH DETOUR
County Route: SF-80-7.8/8.2

 

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.



Total Number of Inquiries: 288

Inquiry Index
20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 120 | 140 | 160 | 180 | 200 | 220 | 240 | 260 | 280
Inquiry No. Inquiry Response

1.0

This project has a liquidated damage clause requiring a sum of $200,000 per day assessment for failure to perform within the allotted contract duration. Also, the same liquidated damage amount will be assessed for failing to vacate area “CPR” within the allotted 10-month window of availability.

West Approach Project in San Francisco on Route 80, has a liquidated damage requirement of $17,500 per day. How can this excessive amount of $200,000 per day be assessed for Contract 04-0120R4 when an adjoining critical project has an amount considerably less? We believe that $25,000 per day is of sufficient deterrent for contractors to process the contracts judiciously without having to jeopardize the solvency of their firms. With the current volatility in securing performance bonds in today’s surety market, the lower threshold of liquidated damages will most likely allow and encourage more bidders to participate in bidding this project.

We strongly urge a reduction in the liquidated damage amounts for both the final contract duration as well as the interim milestone for area “CPR” to a more reasonable $25,000 per day.

This project is corridor critical to the SFOBB East Span. Delays might lead to costly overruns in the completion of adjacent contracts. The high cost of delaying adjacent projects justifies the high liquidated damages being assessed for job completion as well as those being assessed for not vacating area "CPR".

2.0

Is it possible to obtain the 193 contract plans in Microstation (.dgn) format instead of .tiff format?

Electronic files for the 193 plan sheets are not available in Microstation (.dgn) format. However, Microstation files showing topographic maps for Yerba Buena Island (YBI) and alignments for the new bridge and temporary detours for San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) East Span I-80 have been included in Addendum #4.

3.0

We would be more interested in the pursuit if Caltrans were to limit the competition to no more than 3 short-listed teams. This allows the Department greater assurance of the quality of both the design and construction. The Design Build Institute of America encourages a short-listing process as well.

Bidders will not be shortlisted.

4.0

Typically, a design build project has a stipend established at about half of the cost of the proposal submission. We estimate this pursuit to cost about $500,000 making the stipend level closer to $250,000. Here again, the DBIA encourages a stipend of .2% - .3% of the project cost as a stipend.

Bidder compensation has been modified, see Addendum #2

5.0

  • back to top
  • In lieu of setting the 668-day project delivery schedule, allow the design build teams to establish their own schedule. This can still be evaluated in the A+B format.

    Unless changed by Addendum the number of working days will remain unchanged at 668.

    6.0

    We suggest the following regarding the LD’s:

    A Place a cap on all of the liquidated damages. Capping LD’s is a recognized cost-effective approach to construction contracts. We suggest a cap of $1,000,000.

    B Reduce the set amount of the LD’s. The $200,000/day seems well over the amounts established on the balance of the SFOBB projects. The $41,000/10 minutes for traffic related delay also seems disproportionate. Hereagain, we suggest a total cap of $1,000,000.

    C Provide an award as well as a penalty for the design-builder’s schedule performance. It will be more attractive to the bidding competition to find a way to first win the project and then find ways to better the schedule if they have the motivation.

    A. Section 4 of the special provisions has been modified, see Addendum #2.

    B. Liquidated Damages amount has been reduced (see Addendum #2). Deductions for late reopening of lane closures has also been reduced (see Addendum #5).

    C. The project will be awarded based on A+B bidding. Incentives will not be provided.

    7.0

    We have reviewed the Special Provisions relative to the above referenced project and feel compelled to convey to you a list of contract risk issues that would cause us to not pursue the project. We believe our risk profile assessment is consistent with industry practice for large design build transportation projects and we are providing this input to the State so that certain procurement process refinements may be affected and thereby result in a reasonable field of qualified bidders.

    The design-build industry is not adverse to assuming significant risk. However, the most successful (and economical) projects allocate risks in large part based upon the respective party’s ability to manage each risk. Owners receive a better "buy" and projects achieve greater success when design builders assume risk that they are best suited to manage.

    With this rationale in mind, the design build industry has worked with many owners to formulate relatively consistent risk profiles on some of the nation’s most significant design build transportation projects. Such projects include all of the southern California toll roads, the Legacy Parkway in Salt Lake City, SR-125 in San Diego, US 70 in New Mexico, TREX in Denver and SH-130 in Texas. Caltrans’ proposed Special Provisions for the Temporary Bypass Structure (TBS) project contain provisions which are inconsistent with what we believe to be industry norms relative to design build risk allocation. Our concerns are as followed:

    A) Special Provision 2-1.03: Caltrans is proposing to pre-qualify firms rather than short list. This proposed procurement process will demand an inordinate expenditure of personnel and financial resources related to the requirement for bidders to submit Concept Drawings. When coupled with the fact that a relatively small stipend award is limited to the second and third low bidders, many capable firms will likely elect to not pursue this project because the cost of pursuit is not commensurate with the chance of success.

    Consistent with the industry standard for significant design build transportation project procurements, we suggest that a short list of 3 qualified firms be selected to bid the project.

    B) Special Provision 2-1.06: Due to the technical nature of the project and the requirement for Concept Drawings, we estimate that $500,000 will be expended toward design in order to submit a responsive bid. The $100,000 bidder compensation appears to be below the industry norm for significant design build procurements for transportation projects.

    We suggest that Bidder Compensation be increased to $250,000.

    C) Special Provision 4: Based upon our preliminary schedule analysis, a completion date with-in 668 calendar days is not feasible due to the design and review process. We suggest a Completion Date of 728 calendar days.

    D) The liquidated Damages amount ($200,00 per day) appears excessive relative to other comparable projects. For example the Carquinez project had $50,000 per day LDs and the SFOBB Foundation project has $100,000 per day LDs.

    E) Special Provision 4: There is no aggregate cap on Liquidated Damages exposure. Due to the relatively high LD amount and the unrealistic Completion Date, the lack of a cap on LD exposure will result in many responsible firms electing to not pursue this project. These Project elements could also pose significant challenges in the bon/insurance market. We suggest that the State seriously investigate bond availability for this risk profile and consider establishing an aggregate cap on Liquidated Damages.

    F) Special Provision 10-1.30 : There is no aggregate cap on "Late Reopening" penalties. We suggest establishing a $1,000,000 or other suitable aggregate cap for these damages.

    If the nexus of the proposed LD amount relates to the potential for the State to incur damages as a result of the Yerba Buena project delays causing delays to the SFOBB project, we request that the subject LD amount be reduced to between $50,000 and $100,000.

    A) Bidders will not be shortlisted.

    B) Bidder compensation has been modified. See Addendum #2

    C) Section 4 has been modified. See Addendum #2.

    D) Section 4 has been modified. See Addendum #2.

    E) Section 4 has been modified. See Addendum #2.

    F) Traffic specifications have been modified. See Addendum #5.

    8.0

    I would like definitive determination of my firm’s eligibility to provide geotechnical design support services (i.e. soil and rock engineering design) for the 04-0120R4 contract. Our company is currently a subcontractor on Caltrans QA Welding Inspection contract (contract no. 59A0254) for Caltrans bridges statewide. We has been approached by a contractor-engineer team desiring our company to provide design and construction services to Caltrans for the Yerba Buena Island Temporary Bypass Structure project.

    Is our company eligible to provide geotechnical engineering services to the contractor-engineer team if our contract is through the lead engineering firm (not directly to the contractor)?

    If a contractor-engineer team submits our name as their geotechnical design firm, would that team be disqualified from the procurement?

    The answers to these questions are urgent due to the SOQ (PBQQ?) submittal date. Please respond ASAP.

    Your company is currently involved in inspection of the SFOBB projects for the Department. As such, it would be a conflict of interest to also be a contractor whose work would be potentially subject to such inspection.

    9.0

    Are the "As Built" drawings available for the Route 80 structures that are to be demolished under this contract? Where can these drawings be viewed? Can copies be made of the "As Built" drawings?

    Attention is directed to the second and third paragraphs of Section 5-1.13 "Project Information" of the special provisions. Upon submission of the required written information, the Duty Senior will contact the requesting party to set up an appointment to review, inspect or copy the as-built plans.

    10.0

  • back to top
  • Will this project be subject to any special U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) requirements, such as those required under DOL's "Mega Project" Designation?

    Attention is directed to section 14 of the Special Provisions. In accordance with Section 7-1.01, "Laws to be Observed," of the Standard Specifications, the Contractor shall comply with all laws, regulations, and requirements imposed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Bidders are encouraged to contact the Employment Standards Administration, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Oakland District Office, 1301 Clay Street, Suite 1080N, Oakland California 94612, (510)637-2938 or (510)637-2938 Ext. 31 for information regarding DOL requirements. Bidders are cautioned to get all responses in writing.

    11.0

    Does "Buy America" apply to the Temporay Steel on the By-Pass Structure? In prior out-reach meetings it was stated that all temporary steel did not require "Buy America".

    The statement was correct. See Addendum #5 for clarification.

    12.0

    The plan sheets available on the website and information on the CDs in the Information Handout are all in .pdf file formats. This format does not allow us to use the data as a basis for layout and design of the Temporary Bypass Structure. Can the project plans be made available in .dgn format?

    Please see response to Inquiry #2 and Addendum #4.

    13.0

    Addendum 1 changed the bid date to August 19, 2003. Will the date given in SP 3-1.01A Pre-Award Meeting be changed?

    The date for the pre-award meeting has been changed to August 27, 2003. Please see Addendum #2.

    14.0

    Some of the plan sheets seem to be copies or repeated:

    * Sheets 83A-83F and Sheets 84-89
    * Sheet 93 and Sheet 94
    * Sheet 118 and Sheet 127
    * Sheet 123 and Sheet 128
    * Sheet 120 and Sheet 129
    * Sheet 126 and Sheet 130
    * Sheets 137-138 and Sheets 140-141

    Please advise or clarify as to the correct plan sheets to use.

    See Addendum #2. Duplicate sheets have been deleted.

    15.0

  • back to top
  • Cannot find reference for sections on Sheets 131 and 132. Please clarify.

    These sections were cut from the partial plan on sheet 121. Sheet 121, 131 and 132 have been updated in Addendum No. 7, dated August 04, 2003. In sheet 131, Section A-A has been changed to L-L, and B-B has been changed to M-M. In sheet 132, C-C has been changed to N-N, and D-D has been changed to P-P.

    See Addendum #7.

    16.0

    Notes on Sheet 121 give directions to locate Sections 1-1, 2-2, etc, but the sections given in the graphic are labeled L-L, M-M, etc. Please clarify section label and location of section view.

    Notes on sheet 121 have been updated in Addendum No. 7, dated August 04, 2003. This sheet reflects alignment of the on-ramp (temp) and associated support limits. The section labels remain the same and lead the user to the revised sheets 131 & 132.



    See Addendum #7.

    17.0

    Regarding Sheets 133 through 136, the plan titled "Operation Sequence No. 2" ends with Step 22, then "Operation Sequence No. 4" starts with Step 19 and ends with Step 24, and there is no "Operation Sequence No. 3". Please clarify if Sheet 134 or 136 depicts correct Construction Sequence and if there should be a Sequence No. 3 sheet.



    See Addendum #2. Sheets 133 through 136 are deleted. New plan sheets 133A and 134A were implemented in Addendum No. 7, dated August 04, 2003, and updated in Addendum #9. These sheets follow the Stage Construction sheets shown in the Roadway Plans.

    See Addendum #2. Sheets 133 through 136 are deleted. Sequence will not be dictated by the plans.

    18.0

    Cannot find reference for Section 3-3 on Sheet 139. Please clarify.

    See Addendum #2. Sheet 139 has been deleted.

    19.0

    The CD's provided with the Information Handout do not contain Structure Material Information Items 1, 6, 7, and 9 listed in SP 5-1.13 Project Information. Please provide this information.

    Item #9 was included in addendum 1. Item #1 has been changed in addendum 5. Items #6 and #7 have been removed in addendum 5.

    20.0

  • back to top
  • On Sheet 142 there are two conflicts with the cross-hatched area where no footings are allowed. On the left side of the sheet the callout for the Abutment and Approach Foundation limits are inside the hatched area. If the abutment foundation goes in this area, it should not be hatched. Near the middle of the sheet, the arrow from the text goes beyond the hatching to the east side of the road. This arrow should be shortened to stop at the hatched area. Please clarify.

    See Addendum #2, the confusing note has been removed. The top of slope to the curb should not have been hatched as that is where the abutment can be located. The limits of the hatching have been clarified in Addendum # 7 and 9.

    See Addendum #2.

    21.0

    Sheet 144 and 145 call out vertical clearance of 5.10 m and Sheet 148 and the specifications call out 4.65 m. Please clarify.

    The vertical clearance 4.65m in the Special Provisions is for falsework, temporary supports. The 5.10m is the final temporary bypass structure openings only, as designated. See Addenda #3 & #5, Sheets 144, 145 & 148

    Sheet 148 of 193 has been revised in addendum 5.

    22.0

    On Sheet 102, Figure 4.2 (d) says to "provide 50 mm sawcuts as shown on plans." Sawcut detail cannot be found on other contract drawings. Please clarify.

    Sawcuts are no longer required on existing columns at the YBI Viaduct. Notations in the plans and design criteria (sheets 101 and 102) have been removed in Addendum #9 to reflect this change.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    23.0

    Sheet 114 says to fill pedestrian undercrossing with cellular concrete and sheet 162 says for existing stair/pedestrian undercrossing to be removed. Please clarify. If cellular concrete is to be used, under which bid item is this work to be paid and what are specifications for cellular concrete?

    See Addendum #3. Sheet 114 has been revised.

    24.0

    We would like to inspect the cores from the geotechnical investigation. Where and when can we view them?

    A tour is scheduled for May 20th and June 27th, 2003 for contractors to view core samples at the Caltrans Transpotation Laboratory at 5900 Folsom Blvd in Sacramento, CA. Click ClicK Here for details

    25.0

  • back to top
  • We would like to visit the site to perform some test digs and soil sampling along the new viaduct alignment. This would be inside the USCG area. How and when can this be arranged?

    USCG should be contacted directly for any work within USCG's property. Please contact Lt. Cherian Zachariah at (415)399-3504 for more information.

    26.0

    We're interested in getting CD-ROM copies containing "Project Information" as described in Section 5-1.13 of the contract's "Special Provisions". We need the copies ASAP so any help will be much appreciated.

    Information Handout for contract 04-0120R4 can be obtained through Caltrans Plans Counter in Sacramento. Please see below for contact numbers and location.

    Caltrans Plans Counters
    1120 N St., Room 200
    Sacramento, Ca 95814
    Tel: 916-654-4490
    Fax: 916-654-7028

    27.0

    Please advise on the outcome of the Pre-Bid Qualification Questionnaire (PBQQ) response, more specifically, the number of responses and who responded to the PBQQ.

    The following prime contractors were determined to be qualified to bid:
    Modern Continental Co.
    Kiewit Pacific Co.
    FCI Constructors/Balfour Beatty Joint Venture
    Washington Group International, Inc.
    CC Myers, Inc.
    California Engineering Contractors, Inc
    Shimmick Construction Co. Inc/Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture

    28.0

    Please provide as-built drawings of the existing Bay Bridge from station EM 49+67 to EM 56+40 and from station WM 49+67 to WM 56+40.

    Please refer to inquiry #9.

    29.0

    Please provide project plans electronic files (.dgn format).

    Please see response to Inquiry #2 and Addendum #4.

    30.0

  • back to top
  • On sheets 97 & 102, is Support Structure Location D necessary or optional, as long as the deflection criteria are met?

    Design Criteria requires this support, therefore Support Structure Location D is not optional.

    31.0

    On sheet 98, Criteria 4.2 - 2nd paragraph specifies the locations of the expansion joints, can the contractor adjust these location based on their own design? If these locations cannot be varied, please provide the reason behind these criteria.

    The Contractor may adjust the location of joints based on their own design, provided it meets the requirements outlined in the Section 5-1.14 "Contractor Design" and Design Criteria for expansion joint requirements. The number of joints is determined by environmental/noise restrictions. The location of joints shown in the plans was to define the limits of the TBS segments for bidding purposes. See addendum 10 dated 9/22/03. Also see response to Inquiry #32.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    32.0

    a) On sheet 98, Criteria 4.2 - 4th paragraph specifies expansion joints between West Tie-in frames, are these expansion joints required?

    b) If the contractor's design can meet the seismic design criteria without expansion joints between the frames, will the design be acceptable?

    Expansion joint requirements at the West Tie-In were revised in Addendum 9 on sheets 98 and 101. The expansion joint between Frames 1 and 2 of the West Tie-In is optional. The expansion joint between Frame 2 and 3 of the West Tie-In is required. See addendum 10 dated 9/22/03. See also response to Inquiry #31.

    a) Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    b) No, expansion joints are required between the frames.

    33.0

    a) On sheet 98, Criteria 4.2 - 6th paragraph, West Tie-In, Frame 2: description states “provides support in line with the existing floor beams”; does this mean support is to be provided at each floor beam location?

    b) Does this mean new supports are to be parallel to existing floor beams?

    A support for each floor beam is required due to existing structure conditions. New supports do not have to be parallel to the existing floor beams. The locations and details of the supports were given on Sheet 104 in Sect. 8 of the Design Criteria in Addendum No.7, dated August 4, 2003. The design and details of the south edge girder support for the West Tie-In frames were given in Addendum 9. Please note sheet 98 was updated in Addendum #9



    a) Yes.
    b) No

    34.0

    On sheet 99, Criteria 4.7.1 specifies elastomeric bearings, lead-rubber bearings and PTFE bearings as approved load-limiting devices, can any other effective load-limiting devices be used?

    The types listed are the only acceptable bearings.

    35.0

  • back to top
  • On sheet 101, Figure 4.2 Option A specifies unrestrained load-limiting device in transverse direction at the west end of the Viaduct structure, this arrangement will cause an unsymmetrical seismic response in the transverse direction. Can the contractor use a ductile load-limiting device that is transversely restrained to induce symmetrical structural response under transverse seismic load?

    We disagree with the assumption stated in the 1st part of the question. For the 2nd part of the question, the answer is no, the design criteria shown on the plans does not allow a restrained load-limiting device.

    36.0

    On sheet 101, Criteria Fig. 4.7.1 (a), can the gap between the new detour structure and the South edge beam be eliminated (rigid connection) for the duration of the detour if the resulting combined structure meets the seismic design criteria?

    No.

    37.0

    Sheet 102 shows construction steps. Are these just suggested construction steps or design criteria?

    The construction steps are Design Criteria requirements, not optional "suggested" construction steps.

    38.0

    On sheet 102, Criteria Fig. 4.2 (b) states “Exp. Jts. from bents 42 to YBI have been sealed”: Please clarify; are the joints no longer necessary? What does YBI refer to in this case?

    The joint details are clarified in Design Criteria Figure 4.2(a) of sheet 102 in Addendum No.7, dated August 04, 2003 and updated in Addendum #9, dated September 04, 2003. YBI is the existing structure. YBI in this case was a typo and has been corrected to refer to Pier YB1. Joint Details are given in Addendum No. 9, Sheets 136A-136D.



    See Addendum #7.

    39.0

    On sheet 102, Criteria Fig. 4.2 (c) and (g) specify "vertical and lateral" support at locations C and D respectively; is the "lateral support" requirement at these locations correct? If so, please explain why?

    Yes, the lateral support requirement is correct at these locations. It is required by the design criteria.

    40.0

  • back to top
  • Sheet 103 specifies the locations of the expansion joints, can the contractor adjust these location based on their own design? If these locations cannot be varied, please provide the reason behind these criteria.

    See Responses to Inquiries No. 31 & 32. The location may be adjusted.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    41.0

    On sheet 104, Criteria 8.7.1 specifies the differential vertical deflection be limited to d <= 0.004 * Lspan, please clarify the definition of Lspan and also **% of d.

    See addendum #5.

    42.0

    On sheet 105, Criteria 9.2 & 9.3 specify temporary anchorage in the transverse and longitudinal directions. However, on drawing Sheet No. 149, temporary anchor is specified in vertical and transverse direction in the Elevation. Please clarify.

    Temporary anchorage is required in the transverse and longitudinal direction. Sheet 149 has been updated in Addendum No. 10. Dated 9/22/03.



    Temporary anchorage is required in the transverse and longitudinal direction. Sheet 149 has been updated in Addendum No. 7, dated August 04, 2003.

    See Addendum #7.

    43.0

    Sheet 105, Criteria 10.4 item ii): The total force for the entire skidway support system should be specified rather than total force per skidway because number of skidways should be decided by the contractor.

    This has been addressed in addendum # 5.

    44.0

    Sheet 105, Criteria 11.6: How shall the total design seismic force of the East Tie-In span be decided? Is a stand alone analysis acceptable? Since existing Pier E1 is a stiff tower, must the load-limiting device shown on Figure 4.7.1 (b) on drawing Sheet No. 101, Design Criteria No. 6 be applied in the design?

    Seismic forces should be derived in accordance with the design criteria . For the 2nd part of the question Stand alone analysis is an acceptable method. For the 3rd part of the question The load-limiting device shown on Figure 4.7.1 (b) on drawing Sheet No. 101, Design Criteria No. 6 does not apply to Pier E1.

    45.0

  • back to top
  • On sheets 117 & 119, Is the new South edge beam (by others) going to be continuous or “split” at existing joint locations (bent 42-43 and 45)? Can it be made temporarily continuous, for the duration of the detour?

    The design and details of the south edge girder support for the West Tie-In frames were given in Addendum 9.



    The new edge beam will be split at existing joint locations and must remain articulated.

    46.0

    Sheet 119 shows two areas of vertical support limits, can the shaded area shown on attached Sketch 1 be allowed for vertical support too?

    Support structure limits have been updated in sheet 119 in Addendum No. 7, dated August 04, 2003. See Addendum #7.

    47.0

    Sheet 147: Please provide the foundation type and elevation of Bent W3W & W3E.

    The details for this future construction are not available at this time.

    48.0

    The Bidder's Compensation of $100,000 is too low for a design-build job especially with the risks involved in the roll-in/roll-out concept. The effort by the designer and the contractor to assemble an estimate and proposal package is substantial so a compensation of $300,000 would be more meaningful. Also, if Caltrans wants to ensure multiple bidders, all responsive, yet unsuccessful, bidders should be compensated, not just 2nd and 3rd place. In light of the addition of Bidders Compensation on 04-0120E4, which does not involve Contractor Design, please consider raising the value of the compensation and making it available to all bidders.

    The Bidder's Compensation has been increased, please see addendum 2. The number of bidders receiving the compensation will not change.

    49.0

    Can the final dispositions of all alternative concept analyses made by Caltrans during their value engineering phase be made available so that valuable design effort is not spent on alternatives that Caltrans has already rejected?

    See Addendum #7.

    50.0

  • back to top
  • Can the proposed new East Bay Bridge plans be made available, in electronic format if possible, for purposes of checking alignments and clearance to temporary structures required for this contract?

    Please see response to Inquiry #2 and Addendum #4.

    51.0

    Can a tour of the existing truss structure and pier tops be arranged?

    A site tour will be conducted on Thursday, June 26 and Tuesday, July 1, 2003. The tour will commence at 8:30am. To reserve a space for a site tour, contact the District 4 Duty Senior by fax or e-mail. The District 4 Duty Senior fax number is (510) 622-1805 and the e-mail address is Duty_Senior_District04@dot.ca.gov. Click Here to view more information and to reserve a space on-line.

    PLEASE NOTE: JUNE 26 TOUR IS FULL.

    52.0

    Are the various existing security and communications items attached to the existing bridge to be removed and relocated to the Temporary Bypass Structure by the Contractor or Engineer?

    By the Contractor, as provided in Section 5-1.14 "CONTRACTOR DESIGN" and Section 10-1.15 "TEMPORARY BYPASS STRUCTURE" of the special provision

    53.0

    Under Bridge Removal on page 189 of the specifications it says miscellanous facilities shall be relocated prior to beginning bridge removal operations and it also discusses the disposition of removed materials that are not to be salvaged or reused. Please clarify what, if any, facilities or materials are to be re-used, relocated, or salvaged.

    Salvage items have been identified in Section 10-1.38 of the special provisions in Addendum No. 9 and 10. Materials to be reused or relocated are as specified in the plans and special provisions.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    54.0

    Plan sheets 122 through 126 call out the edge girder as designed by others, but sheet 95 gives quantities for the edge girder. Please clarify if the Contractor is to consider the design of the edge girder.

    Sheet 95 edge girder quantities were removed in Addendum No. 7, dated August 4, 2003. Design details for the south edge girder support were given in Addendum No. 9, Sheets 135A-135P

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    55.0

  • back to top
  • Section 5-1.13 of Project Information of the Special Provisions under Materials Information Available For Inspection states “BCDC Permit Application and Permit”. Will the Temporary Bypass Structure(TBS)require the contractor to obtain and pay for a permit from BCDC?

    Section 5-1.34, as revised in Addendum 2, states that a BCDC permit has been issued and an amendment to the permit for work to be performed under this contract has been submitted to BCDC for their review and approval. A copy of the permit may be obtained at the Department of Transportation, Plans and Bid Documents at (916) 654-4490 and is also available for inspection at the Duty Senior's office at (510) 286-5209. A copy of the approved letter from Caltrans to BCDC requesting the amendment to the BCDC permit will be included in the information handout . If the Contractor elects to perform activities potentially within BCDC's jurisdiction but not included in the permit or proposed permit amendment for this contract, he will be required to submit plans to the Engineer for review. The Engineer will evaluate such plans provided by the contractor to determine whether the work is necessary and whether it is within BCDC jurisdiction. Caltrans will then determine if a permit amendment from BCDC is necessary. If deemed necessary, Caltrans will secure the amendment and pay for the amendment. However, the contractor will be responsible for factoring in any delay in obtaining the permit into the contract work days bid.

    56.0

    Will the TBS require mass concrete temperature control? It is a temporary structure.

    Yes, if the contractor's design requires mass concrete, then the Contractor will be required to furnished an appropriate mass concrete specification.

    57.0

    The designation at Station 49+00.000 on the EM Line is BC on Sheet L-1. Should this be EC instead of BC?

    See Addendum #5.
    The designation at station 49+00.000 shall be changed from EM to WM and shall be as follows:

    WM 49+00.000 POT

    In addition all designations on this sheet shall be changed from EM to WM

    WM 49+67.137 POT=
    WD1 49+67.137 BC

    58.0

    The Station Equation shown on Sheet L-3 at WD1 56+38.892 POT=WM56+40.793 . POT appears to be incorrect. Should the Station Equation be WM 56+38.892 POT=WD1 56+40.793 POT?

    The plan sheet is correct, WD1 56+38.892 POT=WM 56+40.793 POT.

    59.0

    As described in Section 5-1.14 Contractors Design of the "Notice to Contrators and Special Provisions”, the Engineers design and calculations shall be independently checked by another Engineer both of which are required to be registered as a Civil Engineer in California. Can an engineer not involved in the design but working for the same engineering company perform the independent check?

    Yes, provided that the checker is a registered engineered in the State of California.

    60.0

  • back to top
  • Please define what is and what is not State–authorized design software?

    The requirement for State-authorized design software as stated in Section 5-1.14 "CONTRACTOR DESIGN," subsection "DESIGN," subsection "TBS Design Calculation," item "i" was deleted in Addendum #5.

    61.0

    For Proposal Drawings, can one section represent more than one bent if they are the same?

    Yes, if the site constraints are the same.

    62.0

    How many teams were deemed qualified to submit a bid?

    Please see response to Inquiry #27.

    63.0

    What design speed is required for the TBS?

    The design speed is 80km/hr. The formulation of the design criteria as provided on the plans has taken into consideration the design speed for the TBS.

    64.0

    Will an electronic copy of the new alignment be available during bid preparation?

    Please see the information handout CD in Addendum #4.

    65.0

  • back to top
  • Are designers calculations required for the Escrow of Bid Documentation as described in Section 2.05? Also, will check design calculations be required for the Escrow?

    Design and check calculations for the bridge plans used for estimating and scheduling purposes would fall into the category of "documentary and calculated information generated by the Contractor in preparation of the bid" and should be included in the escrow bid documents, in accordance with SP 2-1.05.

    66.0

    Will the “Contractors Engineer” be required to certify falsework and shoring used for the TBS?

    The engineer who designs the falsework and shoring will have to provide the required certification as provided by the Standard Specifications.

    67.0

    When will the elements on the plans designated “to be designed by others” be designed? Will the Contractor be required to detail these elements? Do they need to be done before the contractor can complete the WEST TIE-IN design and details?

    The Design details for the south edge girder support were given in Addendum No. 9, Sheets 135A-135P. The contractor shall incorporate these details in the West Tie-in design.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    68.0

    With regards to submittal of the Proposal Drawings, page 77, Section 5-1.14 of the Special Provisions:

    a. Item 4.d. We assume reinforcement is not required to be shown for each foundation. Is this correct?

    b. Item 4.g. We assume reinforcement is not required to be shown for each structural member, only type and size. Is this correct?

    a) Reinforcement is not required to be shown for each foundation.


    b) Reinforcement is not required to be shown for each structural member, only type and size.

    69.0

    Ref the DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS on page 79 of the special provisions. It is apparent from the last paragraph that partial submittals will be allowed. How small can these submittals be? For example does the WEST TIE-IN need to be complete or will you accept a full design with the only the substructure detailed? This would allow substructure work to start. If we do make multiple submittals will you work on all of them at the same time?

    Section 5-1.14, "Contractor Design," of the special provisions has been revised in both Addendum No. 7 and Addendum No. 9. The submittal requirements have been clarified.

    70.0

  • back to top
  • Will the State furnish the contractor with the Furgo –EMI Foundation Report Dated June 2002?

    See page 74 of the special provisions, "Geotechnical Material Information." Item 7 is the requested report.

    71.0

    Will the existing structure as built plans be furnished during bid phase?

    See Inquiry #9.

    72.0

    Spec Section 10-1.21 Working Drawing Campus; Please expand on the concept from a standpoint of “Release for Construction“ packages. We assume this project will be performed Fast –Track with foundation elements being installed prior to approval of the superstructure. What submissions are anticipated (35%,60 %,100% ,Final ,etc) and will the WDC serve to expidite reviews? Who will the State have at the WDC? The process would be enhanced if people of like capability and responsibility are present from both the State and the Contractor /Engineer.

    Section 10-1.21 has been deleted. See Section 5-1.14 "Contractor Design" as provided in Addendum #5 for the submittal process. Section 5-1.14 has been revised in Addenda No. 7 , 9 and 10 to clarify the submittal process.



    Section 10-1.21 has been deleted. See Section 5-1.14 "Contractor Design" as provided in Addendum #5 for the submittal process.

    73.0

    The specification requires dynamic monitoring for piles with capacity greater than 900KN. Does this requirement apply to pinpiles and or uplift piles (such as rock anchors)?

    In the Special Provisions this language is referring to falsework DRIVEN piles. Page 19 of the Special Provisions at the top of page, Section 51-1.06 B, "Falsework Construction, " of the Standard Specifications is amended by adding the following paragraphs: - For falsework piles with calculated loading capacity greater than 900 kN, Contractor shall conduct dynamic monitoring of pile driving and.... Page 148 of the Special Provisions, the second paragraph, "TEMPORARY SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION" it read as follows: - Attention is directed to paragraph 1 through 7 of Section 51-1.06B, "Falsework Construction, " of the Standard Specifications. All reference to faslework in these paragraphs shall also apply to temporary support. Now since Section 51-1.06 B "Falsework Construction, " of the Standard Specifications has been amended as indicated above, then the amended section will apply everywhere such section is call for. Having that cleared, the Standard Specifications or the Specials do not differentiate between different types of DRIVEN piles. The way it reads now that any ( DRIVEN) pile used in the construction of FW or Temporary support with loading capacity of 900 kN, the Contractor will have to conduct dynamic monitoring of pile driving and conduct penetration and bearing analyses based on a wave analysis.

    74.0

    When will the State furnish the design of the edge girder for the West Tie-In? Please define exact limits as to what scope of work is to be paid under base bid and what will be paid as Extra Work Section 10-1.15.

    See response to Inquiry #67 for design of edge girder. Measurement and Payment for the South Edge Girder has been added in section 10-1.155 "South Edge Girder Support" of the special provisions in Addendum #9



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    75.0

  • back to top
  • Does the temporary support structure have to meet the seismic load and criteria as for the TBS? Has the State looked into the existing structure to determine if this is technically feasible to meet this criteria?

    Yes to both questions.

    76.0

    Will the State furnish design calculations for the existing structure for the Structure Support Location design?

    No.

    77.0

    Will the use of high early strength concrete be acceptable in concrete structures?

    If it is part of the design proposed by the contractor and authorized for construction by the State.

    78.0

    Will Caltrans accept AASHTO - LRFD design criteria?

    No

    79.0

    Is lightweight concrete acceptable for use in superstructure construction?

    Yes, see Criteria 2.1.1

    80.0

  • back to top
  • What is the basis for “Force –based “design? Would a structure that satisfies displacement criteria, including consideration for P-Delta effect, be considered satisfactory without considering the force demand /capacity?

    This provision was deleted in Addendum No. 3

    81.0

    On the West tie-in, when will the edge beam "designed by others" be provided to the bidders? We were unable to locate this information in the bid documents. Reference sheet 101 of 193.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work. See response to Bidder's Inquiry #67.

    82.0

    Considering the temporary nature of the Temporary Bypass Structure, and the fact that the as-builts are in English units, will the state consider changing the requirement for the TBS submittals to be in metric to be in English units. This would save considerable costs for the project. Reference Section 5-1.14 of the Special Provisions.

    All TBS submittals shall be in metric as provided in the Special Provisions.

    83.0

    Reference Sheet 98 of 193, Design Criteria 4.1.3, please define the term "no significant" reduction in strength capacity. Can this be clarified to be a percentage of the maximum resistance?

    Clarified in Addendum #3.

    84.0

    Reference Sheet 98 of 193, Design Criteria 4.1.3, please define the term "ideal elastic displacement

    Clarified in Addendum #3.

    85.0

  • back to top
  • Reference sheet 101 of 193, where are the 50 mm saw cuts to be made to the existing columns, we were unable to locate these on the bid documents? This information is needed in order to understand the State's fusing concept.

    See response to Bidder Inquiry #22



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    86.0

    Reference Sheet 102 of 193, figure 4.2(b), what is the meaning of sealing the expansion joints? Does this mean sealing for water intrusion and replacing existing seals?

    The joint seal is not for water intrusion, but is part of an interim retrofit measure. The joint seal detail is clarified in Design Criteria Figure 4.2(a) of sheet 102 in Addendum No.7, dated August 04, 2003. Joint details are provided in Addendum No. 9, Sheets 136A-136D.



    See Addendum #7.

    87.0

    Reference Sheet 103 of 193, Design Criteria 5.1, what commercially available modular joints can satisfy the State's expansion joint criteria of opening and closing without damage except at the seals. We are concerned with having to test joints and prove that they can withstand earthquake movements at speed. Will other types of joints besides modular joints be considered if damage can be limited?

    The joint seal system must be designed and proposed by the contractor. Without knowing what structure type the contractor is designing, we cannot approve a joint seal system. There are many systems that have been approved in the past for Caltrans projects. Bidders can contact joint seal manufacturers for information on approved CT systems that they may use in their proposal and will work with their design. Testing at earthquake movement speed is not required. Other joint types may be considered if Section 5.1 of the Design Criteria and the SSP are satisfied.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    88.0

    Reference Sheet 142, please provide examples of what will be considered a "permanent" foundation. Will piles cut off 1m below original ground be considered permanent"

    The Reference Sheet 142 has been revised in Addenda no. 2, 4, 9, & 10 . See Section 5-1.14 "Contractor Design" of Addendum 10 dated 9/22/03. “Permanent” foundations and supports are those which will support the TBS while it is in service.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    89.0

    Reference Special Provisions, Section 2-1.06, why must the low bidder compensate the 2nd and 3rd low bidders in a pass through, can't the State pay the stipends?

    Providing the bidder compensation in accordance with Special Provisions Section 2-1.06 is desirable from an administrative and timeliness standpoint.

    90.0

  • back to top
  • Reference Special Provisions, Section 5-1.14, why are quantity calculations (design and check) required for the TBS?

    The contractor is taking on the role of designer and this is the standard practice for the administration of the contract during construction.

    91.0

    Reference Special Provisions, Section 5-1.14, page 78, what design software is "State-authorized"-please provide a comprehensive list of all approved software or eliminate this requirement.

    The requirement for State-authorized design software as stated in Section 5-1.14 "CONTRACTOR DESIGN," subsection "DESIGN," subsection "TBS Design Calculation," item "i" was deleted in Addendum #5.

    92.0

    Reference Special Provisions, Section 5-1.14, page 80, where are the structure mounted signs on the TBS?

    See “Pavement Delineation and Sign“ Plans.

    93.0

    Reference sheet 100 of 193, why are columns 46, 47 and 48 required to be removed if they do not interfere with the traffic opening?

    It is unclear why sheet 100 is referenced. Column removal is required for existing structure seismic response.

    94.0

    Will a different design criteria apply to the newly constructed portions of the west tie-in that are permanent?

    No.

    95.0

  • back to top
  • Sheet 98, section 4. Seismic design, what are pertinent provisions of SDC?

    This notation has been revised. The word “pertinent” is struck from design criteria on Sheet 98, Section 4, in Addendum 11.

    See Addenda #3 and #5.

    96.0

    Sheet 105, section 10.3, the maximum deflection shall not exceed 10mm. Why?

    The skidway beam is required to be very stiff for movement control reasons.

    97.0

    Reference sheet 142 of 193, the note on the plan indicated that the area with no permanent viaduct supports goes beyond the shaded area. This note is in conflict with the note shown in the Legend. Please clarify limits of no permanent viaduct supports.

    See Addendum #2.

    98.0

    Clarify what items require a ductility of 3.0? For example, if the foundation rocks, none of the tower elements will yield if design for a force 1.3 times the rocking force and therefore, everything above the foundation is capacity protected.

    Inelastic response is not required for the displacement limit state (DLS). In section 4.1.4, the DLS is defined as 3 times the elastic displacement of the design evaluation event (DEE). Section 4.7.1 of sheet 99 was clarified in Addendum No. 5, dated June 27, 2003. Yielding of anchors was removed as allowable fuse.



    See Addenda #3 and #5.

    99.0

    On sheet 98, 4. Seismic Design, 4.2 Structure Types and Articulation. Clarify the articulation of the proposed west tie-in. Can the west tie-in be a single structure without intermediate expansion joints provided it does not restrain movements at the existing expansion joints?

    See the responses to Bidder Inquiries #31 & 32.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    100.0

  • back to top
  • On sheet 100, 4. Seismic Design, 4.12 Design Seismic Loading-Temporary Construction, Falsework, and Shoring - Do the requirements of the second paragraph apply to each stage of construction? Clarify the vertical load requirement - is the intent to scale the vertical spectrum to 2/3's of the horizontal?

    See Addendum #5. The vertical load requirement has been clarified.

    101.0

    Provide clarification of the concepts envisioned for the support structures A through D at the west tie-in. Where lateral load resistance is specified, clarify where resistance is transverse, longitudinal, or both?

    Support structure location A lateral resistance is both longitudinal and transverse. Support structure location B lateral resistance is both longitudinal and transverse. Support structure location C lateral resistance is longitudinal only. Support structure location D lateral resistance is also longitudinal only. Figures on design criteria sheet no. 102 illustrate schematically the functions of the support structures. This sheet has been clarified in addenda 5, 7 & 9.

    See Addendum #5.

    102.0

    Sheets 103 and 139, clarify the stations at the proposed expansion joints.

    See the responses to Bidder Inquiries #31 & 32.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    103.0

    Sheets 119 and 121, verify the vertical support limits between ED1/WD1, the on-ramp, and the south edge of the existing structure. Should it extend to the edge of shoulder of ED1/WD1?

    Support structure limits have been updated in sheet 119 and 121 in Addendum No. 7.

    See Addendum #7.

    104.0

    Can the removal of all the site specific temporary improvements such as access trestle and viaduct haul roads and east "tie in" roll out structure be removed after the bid time frame that cannot exceed 668 days?

    Removal of all site specific temporary improvements must be completed by the specified maximum number of working days.

    105.0

  • back to top
  • Would it be acceptable, to leave these facilities in for the use of follow on contracts like the closure structure between bents 48 and W-2, the SAS contract, and the detour removal contract? This seems to be a good investment for the taxpayer.

    At this point it is the State's intent to have this Contactor remove all temporary facilities required for completing the contract work.

    106.0

    Is it possible for the area north of the existing structure south of the line between points N647433.701,E1836093.480 and N647384.250,E1836046.502 be given to this contract during the bridge removal because there is very little span to sit once the detour is in place. The coordinates are shown on sheet 19.

    No. Only the areas indicated on the plans as being for the contractor's use shall be used.

    107.0

    Access to the viaduct area from the Marine access area is restricted by ESA 8 and the "move in" area of the East "tie in". Is it possible to drive a trestle through the north east corner of ESA 8 and come on shore betwen the points N647279.424, E1836135.525 and N647321.280, E1836155.295. The coordinates are shown on sheet 19.

    A trestle can not be constructed in the location proposed by the bidder. The proposed location is in conflict with the relocated USCG Road.

    108.0

    Please clarify the location of BI 31 Temporary Fence (Type WN-1.8). Plan sheet 26 only shows fence details.

    The deployment of Temporary fence (Type WM-1.8) will be proposed by the Contractor and reflected in the SWPPP submittal to the RE. As with other temporary water pollution control items, the deployment is based on the function of the control measure and appropriate placement in the field commensurate to how extreme the disturbance is contiguous to the deployment. Please note the descriptive use/application for this item noted in the description on sheet No. 33.

    109.0

    Please clarify the location of BI 36 Remove Metal Beam Guard Railing. Cannot find on the drawings.

    The callout for the removal of MBGR is on sheet L-4. The callout was misspelled as Remove MBCR.

    110.0

  • back to top
  • Please define what is meant by "ideal" elastic displacement as noted on sheet 98 of the plans, Seismic Design Criteria 4.1.3, first paragraph.

    Clarified in Addendum #3.

    111.0

    Please clarify the tables shown on pages 78 and 79 of the Special Provisions. The table on page 78 asks for "check calculations" and "supplemental technical special provisions" for the "preliminary drawings" submittal, but the table on page 79 asks for "calculations and supplemental technical special provisions" at the "Final Design" stage.

    Section 5-1.14 of the Special Provisions has been revised. See Addendum #5, 7 and 9 for clarification.



    Section 5-1.14 of the Special Provisions has been revised. See Addendum #5.

    112.0

    On page 78 of the special provisions, Section 5-1.14 Contractor Design, under "TBS Design Calculation", item 1.i. mentions "State-authorized design software, as shown on the plans". Please clarify what software is State-authorized.

    The requirement for State-authorized design software as stated in Section 5-1.14 "CONTRACTOR DESIGN," subsection "DESIGN," subsection "TBS Design Calculation," item "i" was deleted in Addendum 5.

    113.0

    Criterion 4.1.3 states that the "structures shall be designed to respond in a stable manner (no significant reduction in strength capacity) under total global system displacement demands corresponding to 3 times the "ideal" elastic displacements."

    a) Please define the term "no significant" more clearly. Can this term be clarified as a percent of maximum resistance, e.g., 90%? Since displacement ductility of 3 is required, we have to assume that the P-Delta affects will result in some drop in the force resistance as the tower or column is pushed. It is not practical to assume that there will be absolutely no drop in force resistance; therefore, "no significant" need to be clearly spelled out.

    b) Please define the term "ideal elastic" more clearly. Does this statement imply that the analysis will not consider reduced EI to account for cracking of reinforced concrete elements?

    a) See Addendum #3. As shown on sheet 98 of 193, Seismic Design Criterion 4.1.3 has been revised.

    b) See Addendum #3. As shown on sheet 98 of 193, Seismic Design Criterion 4.1.3 has been revised.

    114.0

    Criterion 4.1.2 states that the design basis analysis will be performed using acceleration response spectra with 5% damping. Criterion 4.1.4 adds that the 5% damped spectra may be modified based on the effective damping of the system. The criteria also dictate design details such as expansion joints, bearings; permits use of non-linear tie-downs for foundations; and implies the incorporation of non-linear behavior for substructure components. These structural details and actions are not consistent with the requirement to utilize response spectrum analysis for the design basis. Please give us the rational for criterion 4.1.2. Under what circumstances would the designer be permitted to use non-linear time history analysis for design basis?

    See Addendum 3. As shown on sheet 98 of 193, Seismic Design Criteria 4.1.2 and 4.1.4 have been revised. Non-linear time history analysis will not be allowed.

    115.0

  • back to top
  • Criterion 4.8.1 states that the design flexural strength of ductile members shall not result in concrete strains exceeding .005 and rebar strains exceeding .015. Is this criterion specifically designed to precluding spalling of the concrete members? A well confined core within a concrete column can sustain strains over .005 without any degradation of the ductility of the element. Is this a serviceability requirement and if so, why dictate such narrow performance limits for a 5-year structure?

    See Addendum 5. Criterion 4.8.1 has been revised.

    116.0

    Criterion 4.2.2 states that for adjacent frames it is "strongly recommended" that the period ratio of the longer period frame to the lower period frame be equal to or greater than 0.7. This suggests that a reviewer would have trouble accepting any system that did not meet this criterion. Longitudinally, the viaduct will be relatively long period due to the placement of expansion joints at each end of the frame as well as the height of the frame above grade. Whereas, the west tie-in has very short columns and will be a very short period system. In addition, the east tie-in articulation is dictated by the criteria to be fixed bearing at E1 and expansion bearing at the common viaduct/east tie-in bent. This will also be a very low period frame due to the stiffness of E1, light weight of the east tie-in span and articulation of this frame. Please explain the rationale for this criterion.

    See Addendum #3. As shown on sheet 98 of 193, Seismic Design Criterion 4.2.2 has been revised.

    117.0

    Criterion 4.3.4 states that inelastic behavior shall be restricted to piers or approved devices. Please indicate where the list of approved devices can be found.

    See Addendum # 3 dated 6/6/03, design criteria 4.3.4 has been changed as indicated on sheet 99/193.

    118.0

    Plan page 97: 3.1.1 - f’c=35mPa (5100 psi). Why not 25 mPa?

    Specific material goals are eliminated in Addendum #3. The Standard Specifications set the minimum.

    119.0

    Plan page 97: 3.1.2.1 - Prestressed concrete f’c = 46 mPa. Why not 28 mPa or minimum required?

    Specific material goals are eliminated in Addendum #3. The Standard Specifications set the minimum.

    120.0

  • back to top
  • Is a prebid private design and idea review by QA people possible? Design type impacts the schedules. Reviews after the bid date are too late

    No. The Department will not do the pre-bid design review. See Addendum #8



    See Addendum #4

    121.0

    It was mentioned at the May 21, 2003 meeting: The foundations design could be submitted for review / approval. However, SP 5-1.14 contractor design says on page 78 in paragraph 1 under the first table that “preliminary design plans for foundations of a structure segment will not be reviewed prior to reviewing preliminary substructure and superstructure design plans for the same segment.” This implies that design submittals must be submitted by segment and not by element. Please clarify.

    Section 5-1.14 has been revised in both Addendum No. 7 and Addendum No. 9 to clarify the submittal process.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    122.0

    Several questions currently posted ask about the capping of LD’s and the 8 hr closure. To restate and highlight:

    a) consider capping LD amount accrued.

    b) extend 8 hr window for roll out/in.

    a) Section 4 has been modified. See Addendum #2

    b) Traffic specifications have been modified. See Addendum #5

    123.0

    Bidder Compensation (Section 2-1.06): We estimate it will cost in excess of $500,000 (including costs for design work required) to bid the project. The specified amount of $100,000 each to be paid to the second and third low bidders (unless the Department rejects all bids, in which case no amounts will be paid) is not adequate to ensure that an acceptable number of qualified teams will put their high pre-bid expenditure at risk to bid the job. We recommend that the Bidder Compensation amount be increased to $300,00 each. We also recommend that if the Department rejects all bids and cancels the solicitation, the first, second, and third low bidders would receive Bidder Compensation in the amount of $200,000 each.

    Bidders compensation for second and third low bidders has been changed to $200,000. See Addendum 2.

    124.0

    Time of Completion (Section 4): Our preliminary schedule analyses indicated that completion within the maximum 668 calendar days specified is an unreasonable expectation, particularly given the inherent additional time required for the design and review processes contemplated. We recommend that the allowed time for completion be increased to 730 calendar days.

    Unless changed by Addendum the number of working days will remain unchanged at 668.

    125.0

  • back to top
  • Vacate Area CPR (Section 4): The special provisions state that Area CPR shall be vacated by not later than March 31, 2005. This fixed date requirement puts the contractor at risk for bid date extensions, a variable or extended award period, delays caused be factors outside the contractor’s responsibility, etc. We recommend that this requirement be changed from the fixed date to allow (at least) 600 calendar days.

    The deadline date to vacate Area CPR has been changed to June 18, 2005. See Addendum 2.

    126.0

    Liquidated Damages (Section 4): Liquidated Damages (LD) in the amount of $200,000 per day is disproportionately high when compared to other projects of similar size. The San Mateo Bridge widening Project had $6,000 per day LD (admittedly very reasonable given the size of the project). Because we assume that current and/or subsequent SFOBB projects are dependent on completion of portions of this project, and therefore high LDs are warranted on this project, we recommend that the daily LD amount be revised to $50,000.

    Section 4 has been modified. Ssee Addendum 2

    127.0

    Late reopening of Closures (Section 10-1.30): The LDs associate with a full closure of the SFOBB are $41,000 per 10-minute interval ($246,000 per hours), with no cap. This requirement exposed the contractor to an unlimited risk of $6 million per day, particularly during the critical East Tie-In Span moving operation. We recommend that this LD risk be capped at not more than $2million. Additionally, we recommend that the State consider specifying an aggregate cap on LDs – particularly given the aggressive time for completion (high daily LD exposure) and high risk at the East Tie-In ) high late reopening LD exposure).

    Traffic specifications have been modified. See Addendum #5.

    128.0

    We request that the LD's be capped. None of the liquidated damages given in the specs - the end of job, the date to vacate area CPR, and the bridge opening time, are capped. A cap would reduce the amount of risk the contractor may add to his bid and would thus result in a lower bid amount.

    Section 4 has been modified. See Addendum 2.

    129.0

    Will Caltrans consider increasing the time allowed for the roll-out/in? The current 8-hour window is extremely risky. Is there any basis for this short duration? An 8-hour shutdown for the west end cutover may work, but not for the east end. To reduce the amount of risk and increase the likelihood of getting multiple bidders, this roll-out/in should be done during a Friday night-to-Monday morning shutdown window.

    The windows for full closures have changed. See Addendum #5.

    130.0

  • back to top
  • Do footings for the TBS need to stay within the "Limits of Support Structure" envelope shown on plan sheets 144 and 145?

    Yes.

    131.0

    We request the Bid Date be extended four weeks to September 16, 2003. The extent of the design effort, coupled with the outstanding design-related Bidder's Inquiries, requires additional time be allowed to fully understand and incorporate anticipated answeres to inquiries into the design.

    Unless changed by Addendum the Bid Opening will be August 19, 2003.

    132.0

    Page 2, of Addendum 2, removes the two notes listed on sheet 142: "No Permanent Viaduct Supports in this area, Temporary Support allowed provided proper slope stabilization measures are taken." and "Temporary and Permanent Viaduct Support Limits. (See Note 7)". No reference is made to the hatching of these areas. Is Caltrans directing that no temporary foundations can be built on this slope? Can temporary structures "bear" on this slope?

    Sheet 142 was revised with Addenda 2, 3, 4, 7, & 9. See legend for hatching. The slope area is restricted. Permanent and temporary supports and foundations are allowed on the restricted slope, however Bidders are advised to review the Section 5-1.14 "Contractor Design" of addendum 10 dated 9/22/03.for additional requirements for design and construction in the restricted slope area.



    See Addendum #7.

    133.0

    Addendum 2 adds language to SP 5-1.14 that says, "the TBS shall not be...constructed with supports that are required to be founded on sloping ground". Is it Caltrans's intent that no temporary erection bents or falsework, even pile-founded bents, are to be used to construct the span over the slope?

    Special Provision Section 5-1.14 was revised in various Addenda. See response to Inquiry #132.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    134.0

    Sheet 162 LOWER DECK PLAN shows limits of bridge removal denoted by the cross-hatching. Pavement removal between bents 48 and 50 is not shown, yet the FOUNDATION PLAN on the same sheet shows removal of the footings. There are no removal plans in the roadway portions of the plans. Please clarify that the pavement and other roadway items are to be removed.

    The existing pavement shall be removed. This is clarified in Roadway Plans in Addendum No. 7. Roadway plans include hatching for the pavement removal on Sheet L-4 (8/193), a grading plan on sheet G-1 (36A/193) and additional Roadway Excavation and Remove Base and Surfacing quantities on sheet Q-1 (80/193). A note was also added to Sheet 162/193 in Addendum No. 9 referencing roadway plans for pavement removal.



    See Addendum #7.

    135.0

  • back to top
  • For the foundation removal shown on sheet 162 between Bents 48 to 50A, is the roadway embankment material that is to be removed in order to access the footings, to be replaced after the demo operations? As there is no contour grading plan, it is unclear what the finish grades are for this contract. How is the exposed end of the pavement and substructure at Bent 48 to be left? Does this area need to be shored once the foundations are removed?

    Contour grading plan G-1 was added in Addendum No. 7. Temporary shoring is shown on sheet 106 in Addendum No. 9. The temporary shoring will be removed under 04-0120P4 contract.



    See Addendum #7. Roadway Embankement shall be replaced as shown on grading plan.

    136.0

    Elevation views on Sheets 164, 165, and 166 (Bents 49, 50, 50A, 50B, and 51) show a line noted as "Approx new finish grade at CL Bent". Is it the scope of this contract to grade these areas to this final grade elevation? If so, as there is no contour grading plan sheets, what is this elevation? SP 10-1.49 FINISHING ROADWAY says, "all disturbed areas shall be graded and finished to match pre-existing lines and grades." Please clarify this scope of work and payment.

    Sheets 164 and 165 were revised in addendum No. 7, dated August 4, 2003. Contractor shall grade the area as shown on the grading plan, Sheet G1 (36A/193), provided in addendum No. 7. Sheet 166 was also clarified in addendum No. 9.



    See Addendum #7.

    137.0

    Bridge Removal plans, Sheet 166, in detail for Bent 51, shows "New ret wall No. 50A". Cannot find this wall in the Structure plans. Please clarify this work.

    Note deleted in Addendum #3.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    138.0

    Addendum No. 2 has deleted the call-outs "No Permanent Viaduct Supports in this area, Temporary Support allowed provided proper slope stabilization measures are taken" and "Temporary and Permanent Viaduct Support Limits (see Note 7)" on Project Plan Sheet No. 142. However, the cross-hatched area still covers and conflicts with the call-out "Abutment & Approach Foundation Limits". Please clarify.

    See response to Bidder Inquiry #132



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    139.0

    Referring to sheet 151, within the cross-hatched envelope labeled "East Tie-in span installed": Can permanent foundations for the TBS be in this area? Are there any clearance restrictions on superstructure support for the TBS that extends below the lower deck? Can there be additional permanent TBS piers within this area?

    "Permanent" support structure limits for the TBS Structure at the East Tie-In segment are defined on sheet C-8 of Addendum No. 9. The constraints are a function of future supports and space required for the construction of the permanent SFOBB Transition Structure. The number of piers is only limited by obstructions and requirements to coordinate with other work at the site. Sheet 151 was updated in Addendum No. 9.

    See Addendum #7.

    140.0

  • back to top
  • On Project Plan Sheet No. 98, Seismic Design criteria No. 4.2.1, first paragraph, calls for "the ratio of effective stiffness between any two bents within a frame (including abutment/bearing)..." The terminology of "abutment/bearing" appears to be out of context in regards to the stiffness between any "two bents". Please clarify the intent of this criteria.

    The stiffness of the abutment and its bearing shall be evaluated for conformance to section 4.2.1 of the Design Criteria as shown on sheet 98/193. There will be no addendum for this issue.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    141.0

    We would like to visit the US Coast Guard site. How can this be arranged?

    The USCG contacts for access to the USCG facility on YBI are as follows:

    Prior to 7/1/03:
    Lieutenant Cherian Zachariah
    (415) 399-3504
    fax (415) 399-3434


    After 7/1/03:
    Lieutenant Scott Peterein
    same phone and fax numbers

    142.0

    We are unable to prepare the Conceptual Drawing Review package by the July 14 deadline and request a four week extension to both the review package submittal date as well as the bid opening date.

    The deadline has been revised, see addendum 6

    143.0

    Will Quality Assurance for South-South Detour during steel fabrication be performed by CALTRANS?

    According to Section 8-3.01, “Welding,” of the special provisions, and Section 55, “Steel Structures,” of the Standard Specifications, Quality Assurance will be performed by the Engineer (Caltrans).

    144.0

    Is AWS D1.5 or D1.1 applicable to these temporary structures if designed out of structural steel?

    See Addendum 3. Paragraph 3.3.4 on sheet 97 of 197, “Design Criteria No. 2,” clarifies which AWS specification applies.

    145.0

  • back to top
  • For Fabricators that are AISC Certified as Cbr for Major Steel Bridge fabrication, will the CALTRANS fabrication audit be required?

    CALTRANS fabrication audit specifications are not part of this contract. Fabricators have to meet all the requirements provided in Section 8-3.01, “Welding,” of the special provisions, and Section 55, “Steel Structures,” of the Standard Specifications and of the technical special provisions, Quality Assurance will be performed by the Engineer (Caltrans).

    146.0

    Who is responsible for quality assurance and quality control?

    See Addendum 5 and 9. Section 5-1.14, "Contractor Design," has been revised and clarifies quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) roles. Additionally, Section 8-3.01, "Welding," of the special provisions clarifies that QC is the Contractor's responsibility and QA is the Engineer's (Caltrans) responsibility.

    147.0

    Will all 142 contractor inquiries be addressed at the inquiry meeting on July 2nd?

    Pursuant to Addendum No. 4, to the extent feasible and at the discretion of the Department, an oral response will be provided to each written question. A technical panel will be available to review the inquiries, request further information from the bidder, and then provide preliminary feedback to the bidder. The Department's final written response to each question will be made available to all bidders in accordance with the bidder inquiry provisions of this Notice to Contractors. Bidders are cautioned that oral responses given at the meeting are not binding on the Department.

    To the extent feasible and at the discretion of the Department, an oral response will be provided to each pending unanswered written question which was submitted in accordance with the provisions of Addendum No. 4. A technical panel will be available to review said pending unanswered inquiries, request further information from the bidder, and then provide preliminary feedback to the bidder. The Department's final written response to each question will be made available to all bidders in accordance with the bidder inquiry provisions of this Notice to Contractors. Bidders are cautioned that oral responses given at the meeting are not binding on the Department.

    148.0

    Plan Sheet 107, Lower Deck Bridge Removal Plan, there is a note stating Remove columns 42, 43,44,and 45. Plan sheets 109 and 110 show Columns 39,40A, 46,47,and 48 being removed. We are assuming the note on Sheet 107 does not include all the columns that are being removed. Is this correct?

    The assumption made by the bidder is correct. Columns on the south side of the YBI Viaduct between Bents 38 and 48 shall be removed as shown on sheets 109 and 110. The note on plan sheet 107 has been corrected in Addendum 7.



    Response pending. Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    149.0

    Specification Section 5-1.14 "CONTRACTOR DESIGN" in the first paragraph under the "DESIGN" subsection says that the Concept Design for the TBS is available. Please send us a copy.

    Concept design for the TBS was given as information package to bidders in Addendum No. 7.

    150.0

  • back to top
  • On Plan Sheet 110, Section H-H Details, there is a reference to 100 mm at the bottom of the existing 1964 transverse beam. What does this 100 mm distance designate?

    100-mm indicated is the vertical offset from the bottom of the existing circa 1964 transverse beam to the bottom of the existing circa 1934 south edge girder. The as-built plans should be reviewed for clarifications.

    151.0

    Reference your response to question 56. This was intended to be a design question and not a construction question so we will try again. We have read the "Mass Concrete Report" which is for the replacement bridge. Is the contractor allowed to utilize concrete members that meet the ACI definition of mass concrete, and would require mass concrete temperature control by the other bay bridge specifications, but specify that it doesn't require mass concrete cooling in the TBS contract? It is a temporary structure and long term durability should not be an issue. We also note that the "BUY AMERICA" provisions have been waived since it is a temporary structure. This could have a major impact on the construction schedule and possibly rule out the use of large diameter CIDH pile and concrete columns because of the short Construction Schedule.

    The contractor is allowed to utilize elements that meet the ACI definition of mass concrete. Mass concrete cooling is not required, provided that the Thermal Control Plan submitted in accordance with the standard special provision 51-300a "Mass Concrete" , which may not require that the concrete be cooled. Mass concrete placement raises concerns with the structural integrity and monolithic action of the reinforced concrete element; therefore, a Thermal Control Plan will be required for the placement of mass concrete for the TBS

    152.0

    Reference the July 2 meeting: The second sentence of what is now the twelfth paragraph of the "NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS" states the panel may "request further information from the bidder". May other bidders present information relative to the question being discussed? We ask because there are several questions that other bidders have asked that we have an interest in also. If an open discussion is not going to be allowed then we may need to ask the same questions ourselves so that we may be a part of the dialog. This seems like needless duplication.

    It will not be necessary to duplicate the question to participate in any discussion of a question at the july 2 meeting. However, new information, followup questions and clarifications are encouraged to be in writing.

    153.0

    Is it possible for the state to answer questions in a more timely manner? We realize that you want to keep the number of addendums to a minimum and that the answers to some questions require an addendum. However, you must have the answer to question 119 by this time and you are probably going to change the minimum f'c by addendum otherwise you would just answer the question and say the specification will not change. Is it possible to answer this and other questions requiring an addendum in this manner? Prestressed concrete f'c will be changed to #### mPa and will be verified by addendum number # to be issued at a later date. Time is getting very critical.

    Inquiries pending an addendum will now have the following interim response:
    "Response pending. Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work."

    154.0

    Reference question 120, Addendum 4 Special Provision Section 2-1.07 subsection "PREBID CONCEPTUAL DRAWING REVIEW": The third, fourth and fifth sentences basically state we will be given one chance to get a design concept blessed. Will the Department's written comments on conceptual drawings include revision recommendations if the concept is rejected or partially rejected? Probably not, since it could be construed that the Department is assisting a particular bidder. This leaves the bidder the choice of submitting no bid or a bid with a modified or new concept that is not blessed. Is it possible to modify the specifications so that if a design concept submitted with the bid is not acceptable to the Department for reasons other than actual structural deficiencies that the bidder could get out because the bid was non responsive? (IE no forfeiture of their bid bond) It would be impossible with the short schedule to do another design at that time and not incur many millions of dollars in LD's.

    As stated in Special Provision Section 2-1.07, the Department will review the prebid conceptual drawings for general conformity with the design criteria as shown on the plans and as provided in the special provisions. The Department's written comments will inform a bidder whether the proposed conceptual design appears to meet the stated design criteria. If a bidder's proposed conceptual design does not appear to meet the design criteria, the Department's written comments will describe the apparent deficiency and identify the relevant design criteria. The Department will not provide any revision recommendations. The Department's review of the prebid conceptual drawings will not constitute acceptance or rejection of the bidder's proposed design. The specifications will not be changed.

    155.0

  • back to top
  • Reference Section 4 "BEGINNING OF WORK, ETC." paragraphs 4 & 5: What does paragraph 5 mean? We think you are trying to say that liquidated damages will be cut off when lane and shoulder closures are no longer required. Below is a summary of the way paragraphs 4 & 5 were handled previously by Caltrans in contract 07-3Q7404.

    "The work necessary to completely open the TBS structure roadway to public traffic, as defined below, shall be diligently prosecuted to completion before the expiration of the NUMBER OF WORKING DAYS BID beginning on the fifteenth calendar day after approval of the contract. The TBS structure roadway shall not be considered open to public traffic unless all traffic lanes in all directions are opened to public traffic. The TBS structure roadway will not be considered open to public traffic until the Contractor has completed the following work, as determined by the Engineer: Joint seal assemblies; concrete barriers; bridge work through finishing of the bridge deck in conformance with Section 51-1.17, "Finishing Bridge Decks," of the Standard Specifications; and traffic striping. After opening the TBS structure roadway to public traffic, lane closures will be permitted on the TBS. The Contractor shall pay to the State of California the sum of $100,000 per day as liquidated damages, for each and every calendar day's delay in completely opening the TBS roadway to public traffic in excess of the number of working days prescribed above.

    All work shall be diligently prosecuted to completion, and the contract accepted by the State before the expiration of the NUMBER OF WORKING DAYS BID + 150 WORKING DAYS beginning on the fifteenth calendar day after approval of the contract. The Contractor shall pay to the State of California the sum of $15,000 per day as liquidated damages, for each and every calendar day's delay in completing all work in excess of the number of working days prescribed above. "

    Paragraph 5 of section 4 has been revised, see addendum 6.

    156.0

    Reference Section 10-1.15 "TEMPORARY BYPASS STRUCTURE": Addendum 5 eliminates all reference to the edge girder. Contract plan page 106 still shows the design to be by others. This work was to be paid be paid as extra work. Where is it paid now? If it is to be included in the contractors work then when will the plans and specifications for this work be available?

    Addendum #9 added plans, specifications, and pay item for south edge girder support.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    157.0

    Reference Section 10-1.33 "PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN": How are they measured and paid? We can see on plan pages 62 & 63 that approximately 48 ea are required to make the 24 hour full closure. Are they counted again when we do the 8 hour full closures? Are there any PCMS signs required for the other lane closures on I80? If so how many and how are they measured and paid?

    Portable Changeable Message Signs used for complete bridge closures are shown on the plans and are measured and paid as specified in the Standard Specifications Section 12-4.01 (pg 121). A revised quantity for Portable Changeable Message Signs line Item 32 with Item Code 128650 was increased to 47 in Addendum No. 5. The price per unit (EA) per the Standard Specifications Section 12-4.01 includes operating and maintaining signs, so therefore if signs are needed more than once the unit price should be inclusive of that.

    Portable Changeable Message Signs are not necessary for lane closures per the Standard Plans for Traffic Control during Lane Closures on Freeway Mainlines.

    158.0

    Describe the Article 4.2 Segment and Articulation of the General Notes.

    a) Clarify the Framing Plan for West Tie-In.

    b) Clarify the framing System for Frame 2 of West Tie-In and who will be responsible for what part.

    TBS Frame 1 is a cantilever that supports the south edge girder and the TBS. Frame 2 is a cantilever that supports the south edge girder and the TBS and due to its location can be supported off TBS frame 1 and the TBS portal frame (Frame 3). The contractor is responsible for all West Tie-In TBS Frames. The framing is up to the contractor and should rest on the supports described above. Clarification was provided in Addendum #7. South Edge Girder support design was provided in Addendum 9..

    159.0

    Is the contractor allowed to modify the roadway profile?

    The eastbound and westbound profile of the TBS have been designed using applicable design standards and within environmental and site constraints. The profiles have been approved by Caltrans as is. Dependent on the design of the proposed structure, the contractor may propose to adjust the westbound profile to meet vertical clearance requirements. All proposed changes to the alignment geometry from that shown on the plans must obtain Caltrans approval for use in the design and shall be coordinated through the Engineer. These changes are considered to be CCOs.

    Please note that the Department will have no responsibility for schedule delay that the contractor may encounter as a result of change in geometry.

    160.0

  • back to top
  • Can the alignment of the TBS be adjusted as long as the same design speed is met?

    The westbound and eastbound horizontal and eastbound vertical roadway alignments of the TBS have been designed using applicable design standards and within environmental and site constraints. The alignments have been approved by Caltrans as is. Dependent on the design of the proposed structure, the contractor may propose to adjust the westbound profile to meet vertical clearance requirements. All proposed changes to the alignment geometry from that shown on the plans must obtain Caltrans approval for use in the design and shall be coordinated through the Engineer. These changes are considered to be CCOs.

    Please note that the Department will have no responsibility for schedule delay that the contractor may encounter as a result of change in geometry.

    161.0

    On the Foundation Plans in the Contract Plans it states "Avoid Utilities. May relocated by contractor subject to coordination with owner." Addendum #2 states "Avoid utilities see road plans for limits." The Road Plans show the utilities, but do not show limits. Addendum #5 places the following note on all Foundation Plans (Sheet 142 of 193 was the only Foundation Plan not replaced in Addendum #5): "All utility constraints are subject to contractors coordination with utility owner". Addendum #5 also places the following note on some of the utilities: "Utilities to be preserved." Is it Caltrans intension not to allow the contractor to relocate 150 mm diameter utilities, whose relocation could save the state millions of dollars in a more efficient TBS design? By placing numerous constraints in the contract you are not allowing the Contractor to proceed with the most economical design.

    The foundation plans have been revised, see addendum #9. The constraints to foundations are clearly shown, as are important utilities. The Contractor shall avoid impact to the utilities listed in section 10-1.22, "Obstructions" of the Special Provisions. See addendum #7. The following utilities shall not be relocated:

    (1) Relocated Pac Bell fiber optics.
    (2) High risk electrical lines (to be installed by the 04-0120Q4 contractor).
    (3) Sanitary sewer lift pump station plus the sewer line & manhole leading to the pump station.

    The contractor is responsible for the cost of coordination with utilities owners and Caltrans for any relocation, replacement or removal of existing utilities, other than those listed in Section 10-1.22, in accordance with Section 10-1.38, subsection "Relocation of Utilities" of the Special Provisions. Please also see page 3 of addendum #12.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    162.0

    Is it possible to get the electronic files, which shows the locations of the utilities?

    Utility sheets in dgn format are available in the information handout. They were included in addendum no. 7. The accuracy of the information must be verified by the contractor.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    163.0

    Viaduct Foundation Plan NO. 1 (sheet 142 of 193) of the Contract Plans refers to the hill with the following note: "No permanent Viaduct Supports in this area, Temporary Support allowed provided proper slope stabilization measures are taken". This note was removed in Addendum #2. Also in Addendum #2 the following line was added to Section 5-1.14 of the Special Provisions: "The Viaduct and West Tie-In segment of the TBS shall not be designed with supports nor be constructed with supports that are required to be founded on sloping ground where shown on the plans". Addendum #3 revised this sheet and the note was replaced. Addendum #4 again removed the note. Addendum #5 replaced all Foundation Plans except this sheet, also Special Provision 5-1.14 has been replaced and the aforementioned line has been removed. Every change causes us to change our design, please clarify what can and what can not be founded on the hill?

    See Response to Bidder Inquiry #132.



    Sheet 142 was revised with Addenda 2, 3, 4, 7 & 9. See legend for hatching. The slope area is restricted. No permanent TBS foundations are allowed in this area.

    See Addendum #7.

    164.0

    Viaduct Foundation Plan NO. 2 (sheet 143 of 193) of the Contract Plans refers to the area of building 75 and area of new electrical equipment (Station 53+80) with the following: "Avoid Utilities. May be relocated by contractor subject to coordination with owner." Addendum #3 revised this sheet with the following note referring to these areas: "Avoid utilities see road plans for limits." Addendum #5 now refers to this area with the following note: "Contractor shall not construct foundation in this area." Every change causes our design to change. If the building is being removed (Contract # 04-0120Q4), why can't TBS foundations be placed here? Can the location of the new electrical equipment be revised?

    Restrictions regarding Building 75 have been removed in Addendum #7. The location of the new electrical equipment will not be revised. Relocation of utilities will be subject to section 10-1.38 of the Special Provisions. Also, See Response to Bidder’s Inquiry #161.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    165.0

  • back to top
  • The realigned USCG road (Contract # 04-0120Q4) limits the locations for foundations on the south side of the TBS.

    A) Can this contract be delayed until after the TBS foundations are placed?

    B) Can the contractor place foundations under part of this road (replacing disturbed portions of the USCG at the contractors costs)?

    C) There would be a great savings to the state if the TBS contractor also performed the USCG road relocation contract.

    D) Can the location where this road crosses the TBS be temporarily adjusted for the placement of permanent bents or for the placement of falsework?

    A) No. This Contract was already awarded.

    B) No temporary or permanent foundations for the TBS will be allowed on/or below the new realigned USCG road. Caltrans consulted with USCG and USCG responded that their security and parking needs will not be met by allowing foundations to be constructed on/or below the realigned USCG road.

    C) This Contract has already been awarded.

    D) No. The alignment of the temporary USCG road will not be revised/adjusted. Caltrans consulted with USCG and USCG responded that their security and parking needs will not be met by allowing the new USCG road to be realigned.

    166.0

    The East Tie-In Foundation Plan (sheet 147 of 193) was replaced in Addendum #5. It now shows limits of support structure, which may negatively impact the design. The amount of steel required for the roll in span can be reduced along with erection costs if it has a main span with cantilevers on each end. Why can't the contractor place foundations under this span?

    The support structure limits shown on Sheet 147 are for the Viaduct segment as it feeds into this East Tie-In area. This was clarified in Addendum 9. The temporary support structure limits for the East Tie-In span are determined by the "Area for Contractor Use" as shown on the Roadway Plans C-3 sheet (19/193) and any hatched areas shown on Sheet 147. The limits of the East Tie-In superstructure and permanent substructure are defined on the C-8 sheet (23A/193) provided in Addendum 9.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    167.0

    In Section 5-1.14 of the Special Provisions under Design refers to the availability of a Concept Design for the TBS. This was requested. The revised Special Provision (Addendum #5) removes this reference. Will a conceptual design be available to the Contactor? If so when?

    See response to Bidder’s Inquiry #149.



    Concept design for the TBS is not available. The documents available are as listed in Section 5-1.13, "Project Information" of the special provisions as made current through Addendum 5.

    168.0

    For the West Tie-In (Sheet 47 of 193) - Has the existing bridge (floor beams, etc.) been analyzed to support the additional weight of AC surfacing? Support Structure Section sheets still specify Rubberized AC overlay. Please clarify type of overlay and structural adequacy.

    Note 2.2.2 on Design Criteria No. 1 in Addendum #5 revised the type of overlay on the existing YBI Viaduct from RAC to AC. The existing bridge floor has been evaluated for this additional AC.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    169.0

    For the West Tie-In (Sheet 106 of 193) - When will design and details of the south edge girder be provided? Addendums #3 and #5 deleted extra work clause for the edge girder. How will construction of "design by others" be compensated?

    See response to Bidder’s Inquiry #156.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    170.0

  • back to top
  • For the West Tie-In (Sheets 107 and 110 of 193) - Why is it necessary to remove the right column of Bent 47 and both halves of the right column of Bent 48? This will affect Bridge Removal Portion (Location A).

    Column removal is required for existing structure seismic response. Only one half of Column 48 will be removed, see sheet 110/193.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    171.0

    For the West Tie-In (Sheet 110 of 193) - Why is it necessary to remove all of the retaining wall at the south edge between Bents 46 and 48? This will affect Bridge Removal Portion (Location A).

    The retaining walls need to be removed to construct adequate foundations for Support Structure Location C, along the south edge of the Existing YBI Viaduct.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    172.0

    For the West Tie-In (Sheet 110 of 193) - Why is it necessary to remove the footings of the existing columns at Bents 40A to 45?

    The existing columns and foundations from Bent 40A to 45 are being removed to allow the TBS West Tie-In eastbound traffic to pass and to construct the South Edge Girder support design provided in Addendum 9, as shown on Sheets 109 and 110.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    173.0

    For the West Tie-In (Sheets 112 and 113 of 193) - Why is it necessary to remove the north side retaining wall? This will affect Bridge Removal Portion (Location A).

    There will be no addendum for this inquiry. Retaining walls are removed to facilitate installation of Support Structure Location A for the future work on contract 04-0120P4.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    174.0

    For the West Tie-In (Sheets 115 and 117 of 193) Sheets 115 & 117 - Why is it necessary to remove the right column and footing of Bent 40A as it appears to be in the gore area between the WD1 and WDR1 Lines? This will affect Bridge Removal Portion (Location A).

    The existing column and foundation for Bent 40A is being removed to allow the TBS West Tie-In eastbound traffic to pass under the South Edge Girder. An addendum will not be issued for this element of work.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    175.0

  • back to top
  • For the West Tie-In (Sheet 117 of 193) - Expansion joints centerline are not provided.

    Sheet 117 was updated in Addendum No. 7. The note regarding expansion joint locations was removed.

    See Addendum #7.

    176.0

    For the West Tie-In (Sheet 119 of 193) - Why is it necessary to continue south edge girder to Bent 48? Why is it necessary to remove existing south edge girder from Bent 46 to Bent 48?

    The limits of the South Edge Girder are shown on sheet 135A/193 as provided in Addendum #9. Removal of the girder from bent 46 to 48 is required because an intermediate termination point results in a configuration that does not satisfy the design criteria.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    177.0

    For the West Tie-In (Sheets 119 and 121 of 193) - After the right column has been removed at Bent 46, can a new column and footing be placed near the same location? Also, if the existing Bent 46 right column is adequate to support the loads, is it acceptable to leave it in place?

    Support structure limits have been updated in sheet 119 and 121 in Addendum No. 7. Bent 46 must be removed as shown on the plans.

    TBS columns and footings near this location are acceptable as long as they satisfy the design criteria and can be placed within the space and time constraints shown on the plans and outlined in the specifications. The Bent 46 right column must be removed as shown on the plans.

    178.0

    For the West Tie-In (Sheets 119 and 121 of 193) - Can the vertical support limits near the right columns of Bents 47 & 48 be extended to encompass the area bounded by the existing eastbound south edge of deck, the existing eastbound temporary on-ramp edge of travel way and the north edge of deck of the Temporary Bypass Structure?

    Support structure limits have been updated in sheet 119 and 121 in Addendum No. 7

    See Addendum #7.

    179.0

    For the West Tie-In (Sheets 131 and 132 of 193) - Where are Sections A-A thru D-D taken? They appear to be taken from sheet 121 but are labeled L-L, M-M, N-N and P-P. The notes on sheet 121 indicate Sections 1-1, 2-2, 3-3 and 4-4. Please clarify.

    These sections were cut from the partial plan on sheet 121. Sheet 131 and 132 have been updated in Addendum No. 7. In sheet 131, Section A-A has been changed to L-L, and B-B has been changed to M-M. In sheet 132, C-C has been changed to N-N, and D-D has been changed to P-P. See Addendum #7.

    180.0

  • back to top
  • For the East Tie-In (Sheet 169 of 193) - The existing south column at Bent YB4 is completely within support limits shown on sheet 147 of 193. Can this column remain and be incorporated into our design?

    Span YB4 and Span YB3 have to be removed in order for the column in question to be incorporated in the design of the contractors support structure. Utilization of this column still requires Contractor's design of the TBS to meet the TBS design criteria and all schedule and project constraints.

    181.0

    For the East Tie-In - Can a bracket or Corbel be added to existing Bent E1 to aid in our roll in/roll out?

    The Contract does not prohibit the usage of a bracket or a corbel added to existing pier E1, as long as it does not impact the structural integrity and seismic performance of pier E1.

    182.0

    The "Contractor's Inquiry Responses", which appear on the internet have been getting modified on a daily basis. Can the changes be highlighted to minimize the amount of time spent each time it is modified?

    A list of inquiries with new or updated responses (during the previous seven days) is now shown near the top of the "Contractor's Inquiry Responses" page. The list is updated daily.

    183.0

    On sheet 147 the support structure limit line ends at about station 54+75. Can we build permanent supports for the East Tie-In in the area from station 54+75 to pier E1?

    "Permanent" Support structure limits for the TBS Structure at the East Tie-In segment have been defined in Addendum 7 and 9 on sheets 147 and on Sheet C-8 (23A/193) in the Roadway plans in Addendum 9. The constraints are a function of future supports and space required for the construction of the Transition Structure.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work/strike>

    184.0

    What are the dimensions of the south edge girder (at the West Tie-In) that is to be designed by others?

    See response to Bidder’s Inquiry #67.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    185.0

  • back to top
  • Addendum 3, Plan Sheet 169, Elevation YB-3 revised the limits of removal on the north footing. The note now states "Remove footing". Is the entire north footing now to be removed, or just that portion shown hashed ?

    The entire footing is to be removed. This was revised in Addendum No. 7, dated August 4, 2003.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    186.0

    We are an interested subcontractor in traffic control. As this is a design-build, would you look at value-added traffic control when evaluating the over-all bid package? Or have you already planned the traffic control?

    Specifically, we would like to propose a "Smart Zone" ITS system that could automatically change the PCMS (item 32) as traffic conditions change based on preprogrammed scenarios. Please respond as soon as possible as I will need to approach the prime bidders starting Monday.

    This contract will be awarded based on competetive bidding. Any "value added" through innovative traffic control will be assessed by the bidder before submitting a bid. Once a Contractor is selected, the State will evaluate the Contractor's traffic control system proposed for use. This type of traffic control system may not be appropriate for the 24-hrs. closure since it is a one time single event; however, the 8-hr. closures might benefit from having a "Smart Zone" ITS system because the traffic volumes during these closures will be more predictable and the overall traffic impacts at the bottlenecks will be more manageable. Also the 8-hrs. closures are mulitiple events which will give the contractor opportunities to make adjustments to refine the operations to ensure that appropriate messages are displayed on the PCMS's. But to manage or respond to an incident or unforeseen traffic problems during a closure, the "Smart Zone" ITS system must be flexible enough to be overridden via manual/remote control so that appropriate (incident) messages can be displayed.

    187.0

    Our company provides temporary water treatment systems. In reading through the specs on this job, I did not find an estimated flow rate for the dewatering non storm water flows. Has one been made? It is very difficult to bid this system without.

    Per Section 10-1.04 Non-Storm Water Discharges, the maximum estimated groundwater flow rate is 180 L/minute and the treatment system shall be designed to accomodate this flow. The actual flow rate is dependent on the bidder designed excavation limits.

    188.0

    The major concern is to get traffic on the detour. After that, there is 3-4 months of work to remove the temporary stuff. Can there be a milestone for getting traffic on the detour with a high penalty for missing that date, and a secondary and lower liquidated damage for the cleanup work?

    Further milestones will not be added. Completion of all work, including cleanup, is a high priority as this project is in the way of other contracts. Attention is directed to section 4 of the special provisions for current milestones

    189.0

    Time is too short. It doesn't make sense to charge high LDs if the other projects are delayed. Each contract is a piece of the overall project "puzzle". Can provisions be added that if a contract ends up not being on the critical path, that no LDs are charged?

    To maintain equal footing and assumptions for all bidders, the Department will not revise the specifications.

    190.0

  • back to top
  • When was the last time Caltrans updated the overall program schedule? 668 days is not adequate and we question the validity of the schedule and liquidated damages. The unrealistic schedule and high liquidated damages will just end up added to our bid, and raise your price. Will E4 have bids opened on 7/15, or will it be postponed at 11:54 am on the day of bid opening again? F4 bid opening has been changed to October 21. Have these changes been reflected in the overall program schedule?

    The overall program schedule is constantly being evaluated.

    191.0

    Is there lead-based soil underneath the bridge? Are we supposed to test it and treat it if it’s contaminated? There is no bid item for clean up. The Golden Gate bridge is not continously painted as the Bay Bridge, and they had a major problem with cleanup. The soil is already on the ground and not addressed by other contracts. There needs to be a bid item for excavation of supports and removal of aerially-deposited lead.

    The plan sheet C-5 (page 21 of 193) describes the type of soil and contaminated areas. More information is included in the information handout under “ YBI Site Ivestigation Report “. The Contractor has the responsibility to quantify the amount of material that must be disposed and bid accordingly. Refer to Special Provisions Section 5-1.27 Hazardous Material and 10-1.42 Earthwork for more information.

    192.0

    Chart 7 was replaced by Chart 11 in Addendum 5, taking out the 4-hr daytime window for the E/B on ramp. We need that daytime closure for driving piles. Can we have that mid-day work window back?

    The contractor needs to adhere to Chart 11. This is the only Eastbound on ramp from Yerba Buena Island/ Treasure Island and must remain open as indicated in Chart 11.

    193.0

    On the south side of the bridge, lower deck, there are about a dozen cables. What's the plan for relocation? Can we just put in one big intercept at YBI, dig a trench, and get it out of the way? What do you plan to do during roll-in/roll out? Can we just put it underground at the start of the job?

    Addendum 5, Sheet 83F (E-9) has a table listing all the electrical utilities. Also, see U-sheets for relocation of 4" and 12" water lines. The plan during roll-in/roll out is to relocate the utilities. There is nothing in the specifications preventing the Contractor from relocating them at the beginning of the job.

    194.0

    What is the design review process going to be if this bid package already has 5 addendums that add notes, delete those notes, and 180 inquiries? Is this indicative of the design process? On another project we?re working on for a city with Caltrans as oversight, it took 1 year to get the ?QA? for our plans checked, and they came back with only minor comments, they didn?t like how certain things looked, etc. And that wasn?t even for a major structure.

    - Can you reduce submittal review times by 33%? Are you going to have enough Engineers working to fulfill your commitments? We are expected to have more shifts and work at least 6 days a week, 10-12 hours a day- can you match that?

    It is the Department's intent to meet the commitments it has made, and has a dedicated QA team just for this project. The Department's role is only to provide QA, as the Contractor is responsible as the Engineer-of-Record. The submittal review times were developed to include the limited resources available to the Department and overtime is expected. An addenda regarding this element of work will not be issued.

    195.0

  • back to top
  • Will design engineers be available for consultation during the designing process? The design campus was deleted in Addendum #5, taking with it the sentence saying design engineers and other staff would be available for consultation.

    Refer to inquiry #201.

    Yes, designers will be available in the RE office, or as necessary to the Contractor. The working drawing campus spec was deleted because it interfered with the QC/QA process. The Department’s role during design is just Quality Assurance. Also, deletion of the spec allows the Contractor to choose where its design staff will be located. Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    196.0

    Can we have more flexibility in submitting partial submittals? If you can issue 5 addenda as piecemeal additions to the bid package,can you give us the same flexibility? The specs say the Engineer will review a submittal for completeness, but each submittal has many components, some of which are less important, or some that take more time. Do we need all components to start the review process?

    Submittals determined to be incomplete will be reviewed to the extent possible. The twenty working day review period shall begin when a submittal is determined to be complete.

    197.0

    When do we get access to your design engineers? Can it be right at award? Not 15 days after with the notice to proceed, and not at the 60 days as per the original working drawing spec. We need to get started as soon as possible.

    The Department will make its engineers available after the contract is awarded. However, any work performed is at the contractor's risk until the contractor has been notified that the contract has been approved as set forth in Standard Specifications Section 8-1.03.

    198.0

    What is the intent of the specs? There are 3 confusing sentences. In Preliminary Design, it says submit by each TBS segment, meaning West-Tie In, East Tie-In, and Viaduct. In Final Design, it says submit by element, meaning we can submit the footing, columns and superstructure for the East Tie-In separately. In Construction Submittal, it says submit by segment of TBS again. Does this mean we can't start construction until an entire submittal for TBS segment (i.e. West Tie-In, East Tie-In, and Viaduct), is complete?

    Section 5-1.14 has been revised in both Addendum No. 7 and Addendum No. 9 to clarify the submittal process. Section 10-1.15 has been revised in Addendum No. 9 to clarify when construction is permitted.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    199.0

    Who is responsible for Quality Control during construction, us or you? For example, who's in the shop checking the welds and material?

    The shop drawings are approved by the Contractor’s Engineer of Record. Quality Control is always the Contractor’s Responsibility. Caltrans will perform Quality Assurance during construction the same as its other projects, including taking concrete samples and inspecting the shop.

    200.0

  • back to top
  • Reference Section 5-1.14 "CONTACTOR DESIGN" sub-subparagraph "Design Review Process" Is it possible to get the review times in the paragraph 6 table reduced by 33% and changed from weeks to days? This could be accomplished if Engineer would work 6 days a week and 10 hours per day during the review period. The last bullet paragraph under IMPORTANT SPECIAL NOTICES of the special provisions indicates that the contractor must work extended days and shifts to complete the job. A few engineers working over time would save the tax payer money versus 40 to 100 construction workers doing the same. We need all the time we can get.

    The submittal review times are the maximum review times expected by the Department. They are provided to give bidders a consistent basis upon which to base their bid and schedule. The times were developed to include the limited resources available to the Department and overtime is expected.

    201.0

    Reference section 10-1.21 " SUBMITTAL CAMPUS" which was deleted by addendum 5: We thought this was a good idea and very refreshing. The most important and uplifting idea was expressed in the second sentence of the first paragraph, "After the bid, the Department will make its Design engineers available for consultation on site with the contractors engineers and detailers who are preparing submittals". Will the design engineers still be available for consultation? Prior to a formal submittal can we make phone calls, visits and submit details and drawings to get specific comments? ( IE a consultation) Will we be able to get informal, piece meal, feed back on formal submittals so that changes can be made while the review is still taking place? Based on Section 5-1.14 "CONTACTOR DESIGN" as revised by addendum 5 it doesn't seem so. We think that this type of interaction and cooperation or team effort is absolutely necessary to get segments approved for construction in any kind of timely manner.

    The campus specification was deleted to allow the Contractor more flexibility to choose where its design staff will be located. The Contractor is encouraged to consult and meet with the Department before, during and after any submittals. The Department is committed to meeting with the Contractor and will provide appropriate feedback. See addendum 10 for meeting locations. As a reminder, the Contractor will be responsible for its own quality control.

    202.0

    Reference specification section 4: We echo questions 5, 7c, 104, 124 and our own question 155. The 668 day maximum construction schedule is not enough with the completion of the contact as presently specified. It is important that you separate as many activities as possible from this 668 day completion. Please give us a time other than project completion for the 668 day bid time frame. We are very afraid the design and review are going to take 6 months. The 2 tie-ins are very detail intensive. We understand that a consultant for the state would be given 9 to 12 months to do a design like this.

    Addendum #6 revises the maximum number of working days to 730.

    203.0

    Reference specification section 2-1.06 "BIDDERS COMPENSATION" as modified by addendum 2. We echo question 7B, 48 & 123. With the number of changes you are throwing at us the $200,000 bidder compensation for the 2 & 3 bidders is not enough. We have already had to start one segment over and now have that one plus another one on hold waiting for official answers. As the days go by the design and estimating effort is getting squeezed more and more. In our views, this contract is not ready to bid and all serious contractors are paying the price. Please reconsider allowing $300,000 compensation for all unsuccessful bidders.

    Bidder's compensation has been increased, please see Addendum #10.



    Response pending. Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    204.0

    We want to confirm your preliminary answer to question 149. We understood you to say the Concept Design for the TBS does exist as indicated in the original specifications but the bidding contractors will not be allowed to review them or get copies.

    Concept design for the TBS was given as information package to bidders in Addendum No. 7.

    See Addendum #7.

    205.0

  • back to top
  • Reference specification section 5-1.14 "CONTRACTOR DESIGN" The second sentence in the second paragraph under sub-paragraph "Preliminary Design Submittal" states, "Preliminary design submittal shall be submitted by segment of the TBS." The second sentence in the second paragraph under sub-paragraph "Final Design Submittal" states, "Final design submittal shall be submitted by element of each segment of the TBS." The second sentence in the first paragraph under sub-paragraph "Construction Submittal" states, "The Construction submittal shall be submitted by segment of the TBS." If the Final Design Submittal can be made by element then why can't the Construction Submittal be made by element so that construction of critical elements can start?

    See response to Bidder’s Inquiry #198.



    Response pending. Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    206.0

    Reference specification section 5-1.14 "CONTRACTOR DESIGN" Paragraphs 4 & 5 under the sub-paragraph "Design Review Process" are confusing. Paragraph 4 indicates that the Construction Submittal will become Contract Plans authorized for construction. Paragraph 5 says the Contactor shall not begin construction of a structure element prior to making the final design submittal and receiving authorization from the engineer. Will the engineer actually be allowed or will he give authorization for construction prior to having approved contract plans?

    See response to Bidder’s Inquiry #198.

    Response pending. Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    207.0

    Reference specification section 4: We echo question 125. The time to vacate the CPR area should be set by calendar days and not a fixed date.



    Addendum #6 revises the date to vacate Area CPR and FPR to 9/15/2005. The milestone will continue to be expressed as a date rather than a number of working days to simplify coordination with other contracts.

    208.0

    With Reference to section 2-1.07, "Submittal of Proposal Drawings and Submittal Schedule," subsection "Prebid Conceptual Drawing Review," the first paragraph was revised in Addendum 6, and now has the submittal date for the submittal of conceptual drawings on August 11th (no later than 4 p.m.). This paragraph also states that "the Department will return written comments on the conceptual drawings within 10 business days from August 11, 2003."

    If we submit our drawings before August 11th, can we have them returned to us within 10 business days from when we submit them? Or will we get the drawings back to us within 10 business days from August 11th, no matter when we submit them, as long as they are submitted before 4 p.m. on August 11th? We would like to be able to submit our drawings before the August 11th deadline because this would give us more time to prepare for the bid.

    To ensure that all Bidders are treated equally, the Department will not do early review of pre bid submittals. Comments will be returned within 10 business days of the due date, no matter when they are submitted.

    209.0

    This email is to enquire how subcontractors for materials testing and special inspection services will be selected, and what the process will be for submitting proposal packages for providing such services on the 040120R4 & 040120F4 projects. Any information is appreciated.

    Subcontractors should contact Prime contractors, who are responsible for their Quality Control. The Toll Bridge website has lists of attendees to recent contractor outreaches, or a list of plan holders on projects out to bid may be obtained at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_status/afb.html The Department will perform Quality Assurance either with its own forces or with consultants not otherwise affiliated with the contractor. Information on these contracts may be obtained at http://caltrans-opac.ca.gov/contract.htm Use the links for "Contracts Currently Out for Bid" and "Architectural and Engineering Contract Information"

    210.0

  • back to top
  • We are encountering challenges in meeting the disadvantaged business enterprise goal. What work can be counted toward the goal?

    Special Provisions Section 2-1.02B "Submission of DBE Information" requires DBE information to be submitted on the 'CALTRANS BIDDER-DBE INFORMATION form included in the proposal, To meet the DBE goal or to establish that good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal have been made, bidders are reminded that DBEparticipation should be identified for all items of work performed by DBE's. In this regard, bidders are reminded that utilization of DBE's may be reflected in such bid items as "Establish Marine Access", "Mobilization" and "Time -related Overhead, The extent of DBE participation in such items of work may be credited towards the DBE contract goal.

    211.0

    Sheet C5 shows areas and depths of hazardous and Class 2 Contaminated soils. Section 10-1.42 (Earthwork) describes payment for necessary excavations for construction of the Temporary Bypass Structure, and roadway excavation (bridge removal). This item is 800 CM and is the shaded area within Area A.

    A) If we spot blast the existing bridge prior to burning it apart, and have no lead falling to the ground, would we be required to remove and dispose of any of the material in zone A, B, G, H, I?

    B) If due to rigging of pieces, lead paint falls to the ground, would we only have to remove the lead paint flakes that fell to the ground?

    A) Per section 10-1.38 "Existing Highway Facilities," a Debris Containment and Collection Program must be submitted before starting any work that will disturb the existing paint system or existing debris on the bridge. Spot blasting and rigging are work that shall be included in the program. If the containment system fails, the contractor is responsible for removing the material that falls to the ground. The material within the shaded area in Zone "A" shall be removed prior to demolition even if no lead falls to the ground during work on the existing bridge.

    B) If the containment system fails, the contractor is responsible for removing the material that falls to the ground.

    212.0

    Article 8.2.1 on sheet 104 of Addendum #5 states "The target fundamental period for transverse and longitudinal lateral response shall be 0.55 sec +/- 0.05 sec." This requires clarification as follows:

    A. Define "target". As stated, it is unclear if the target fundamental period is mandatory or preferred.

    B. What is the purpose of criteria and why is the tolerance so small - is the intent to achieve a specific displacement, force level, or some other performance objective?

    C. Does it apply to all of the temporary support structures (A, B, C, and D) at all stages of constructions or just the final configuration? As the support structures change with construction stage, clarify how one maintains a constant fundamental period.

    A. The target is mandatory and is actually a range.



    B. The objective is to design a system that is within the target range. For the DEE the structural systems within that range will experience the displacement and forces associated with that range. The objective is for the fundamental period to remain within the target range to meet the DEE, DLS & future access design requirements.



    C. The target applies to those stages in which the temporary support structures would be effective. The first effective stage is shown in figure 4.2(c) - Temporary Supports A & C. This configuration remains constant until the detour switch over, figure 4.2 (g) where Temporary Supports C are altered and Supports at B and a portion of Supports at D become effective. In the final configuration 4.2 (h), Supports A, B, C & D are effective. The objective is not to maintain a constant fundamental period but to remain within the target range to meet the DEE, DLS & future access design requirements.

    213.0

    Ref. Sheet 105 of 193 - Design Criteria No. 10:
    Section 10.3 "skid-out transfer beam" states....."The maximum deflection shall not exceed 10mm." Section 10.4iii states "maximum foundation settlement of 10 mm."

    Question: Does the 10mm deflection limit for the skid-out transfer beam refer only to the deflection of the beam, or is it the total system deflection? IE, Is it the sum of beam deflection, column deflection, and foundation deflection that is to be limited to 10mm?

    The 10mm deflection limit for the skid-out transfer beam refers only to the deflection of the beam (relative to end supports).

    214.0

    Addendum No. 7 calls for a revision to sheet 139. This sheet was deleted in Addendum No. 2. Should this sheet be placed back in the set?

    Sheet 139 is deleted.



    Sheet 139 was deleted in Addendum 2.
    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    215.0

  • back to top
  • A meeting was held on July 2, 2003 between Caltrans and prospective bidders. At this time it was implied that the Contractor would be able to place portions of the TBS footings under the new USCG roadway (either prior to road placement or after road placement at the Contractors expense). Plan revisions in Addendum No. 7, which we received on August 6, 2003, and a Contractor Inquiry Response on August 6, 2003 (#165), now do not allow the following in this area: The Temporary Bypass Structure, temporary supports, falsework and shoring. Addendum No. 7 now also does not allow the above listed work to be performed on the existing USCG Road. Getting this information five weeks after the earlier meeting with Caltrans has crippling affects on our design.

    a. Can footings, and temporary supports be placed on the existing USCG Road after completion of the new USCG road?

    b. The support structure limits along with areas where the Contractor can not place the Temporary Bypass Structure, temporary supports, falsework and shoring is not accurately shown on the plans (bearings, angle points, curve data and offsets). These need to be accurately called out so the Contractor can avoid them.

    c. With regard to work near/under the new USCG Road, security seems to be the USCG's main concern. Can a dollar figure be placed on the security per day so the contractor can place this in his bid?

    It was implied at the July 2, 2003 meeting that any proposed temporary or permanent works on or under the new USCG Road would require approval from the USCG. Since the July 2, 2003 meeting, the USCG has been contacted and the responses to bidder inquiry #165 reflect that input.

    a. Yes. The contractor may use the existing USCG road. The Contractor shall not construct any permanent structures which, in the judgement of the Engineer, will impede the construction of the YBI Transition Structures (Contract 04-0120P1).

    b. The Plan sheets no. 19 (C-3) and 20 (C-4) provide coordinates to establish the necessary boundaries.

    c. A dollar figure for USCG security is not available. The Contractor is required to stay within the work area defined in the contract.



    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    216.0

    Currently for the Roll-In/Roll-Out span there is a penalty of $720,000/hour ($360,000 per hour for each direction) for a road closure greater than 24 hours. There is also an incentive clause to compensate the Contractor up to $750,000 for reopening the roadway a minimum of 4 hours early. Why can't an hourly rate, equal to the penalty, be given to the contractor for opening the roadway early? Isn't it beneficial to the state to open the roadway to traffic as early as possible?

    Both the damage amount for late re-opening & incentive amount for early re-opening are based on potential delay costs or savings, respectively, for traffic conditions under those two situations. The main difference between the two is that traffic volumes during a late re-opening would be higher than an early re-opening. More traffic would be affected by a late re-opening. Therefore, the delay costs of a late re-opening would be higher than cost savings of an early re-opening. The 4-hour minimum period for the early re-opening incentive is also related to the traffic volume. A significant amount of delays savings would not be realized unless the bridge is re-opened at least 4 hours before the specified time. Therefore, an hourly rate for the incentive would not be beneficial from a traffic perspective for early re-opening less than 4 hours.

    217.0

    Inquiries 54, 74, 156, 169 and 184 all relate to the south edge girder, how is it paid for, who is designing it, etc. Now Addendum No. 7 has removed the reference "design by others" from the plans and included the modified south edge girder as Support structure location B.

    For over three months it has been our understanding, that "design by others" was the State's responsibility. Is it now the intention of the State for the Contractor to design this element, as this latest addendum now implies?

    Addendum 9 includes a State-furnished design (plans and specifications) for work at the South Edge Girder. The State-furnished design now covers the details to preserve the existing South Edge Girder instead of replacing it with a permanent Edge Girder.

    218.0

    The responses to Inquiries 54, 74 and 156 are "Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work". The responses to Inquiries 169 and 184 are "Submitted for consideration". With the changes in Addendum No. 7, when will all five inquiries finally be answered?

    Responses to these five inquiries have been posted, as of 9/12/03.

    219.0

    It is now appropriate for the State to augment Table 8.2.1 on sheet 104 with the respective Added Dead Load and Live Load by frame. Please include this in the next addendum.

    No future modifications are anticipated for Table 8.2.1. Table 8.2.1 shows the total dead load for the existing YBI Viaduct frames and was provided to aid in the design of support structures for the YBI Viaduct for the target period required in the Design Criteria. As noted in Sect. 8.2.1, the Superimposed Dead Load (SDL) shall be derived per the Roadway Plans and Structural Design Criteria, and Live Load shall be per Section 2 of the Design Criteria.

    220.0

  • back to top
  • At the meeting held on July 2, 2003 between Caltrans and prospective bidders it was implied that the Contractor would be able to place TBS foundations and temporary foundations on the sloping hill (provided the slope was kept stable). Plan revisions in Addendum No. 7, which we received on August 6, 2003, allow temporary foundations, but not part of the Temporary Bypass Structure. Addendum No. 7 also now shows footings for future construction on this hill. How are they to be constructed? This information is detrimental to our design, especially after we have been led down a different path five weeks earlier.

    a. As long as we show that we keep the hill stable, can we place foundations on the hill?

    b. At a separate location we would like to place part of our foundation in the Restricted Slope Area (depicted on Addendum No. 7 sheet 142 of 193). The area of conflict would be a small portion in the Northwest corner of the restricted area where the ground is level. Can we do this?

    In order to place temporary or permanent foundations on the slope, slope stability must be maintained at each stage of construction, along with other restrictions as outlined in the Section 5-1.14 "Contractor Design" of addendum 10 dated 9/22/03. The restricted slope area limits shown on Sheet 142 were revised slightly to match existing features at the top and toe of the restricted slope in Addendum 9. Also see response to Inquiry #132.

    Response pending. Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    221.0

    Is it the intent of Addendum No. 7 to place the responsibility for the design of the West Tie-In structure's "South Longitudinal Edge Girder" onto the contractor?

    No. Please see response to Bidder Inquiry 217.

    222.0

    Sheet 151 of 193 shows “Limits of East Tie In Span Installed.” The dashed lines seem to represent the edge of deck of the new span. Other sheets indicated that the upper roadway will be directly above the lower roadway at this location. This requires the use of outrigger bents to support the upper roadway. The far face of these outrigger columns would be about 5 ft outside of the new barrier rail. Please respond because the only solution would be a redesign of the roadway plans and profiles shifting the lower roadway 5 ft to the south of the “YB4” location into the revised Coast Guard roadway. The north outrigger column could be placed under the upper level, however, to allow for this placement the lower level would have to be shifted to the south.

    Limits of the East Tie-In superstructure and permanent substructure were defined on sheet C-8 in Addendum 9. Caltrans cannot comment with respect to Bidder’s proposed design. The bidder is advised to bid the plans as they are shown. The alignments and profiles shown are approved. Changes to the plans, including the alignment, are allowed through the CRIP process, however, the Bidder is advised that changes require additional approvals and must meet the criteria and all constraints of the project. Any delay resulting from changes proposed by the Bidder will be at the Bidder’s risk.

    223.0

    The timing of approval of submittals of “Contractor Design” was discussed for some tune at the meeting held on July 2nd. Caltrans stated that they would review this issue and make changes. I think that the changes that were made were for the worst. I have prepared a simple time some of the Addendum 8 requirements, considering only the first item to be reviewed:

    ItemTime Required
    QC/QA Plan Approval2 WEEKS
    Acceptance of Preliminary Design Acceptance1 WEEK
    Review of Preliminary Design Submittal2 WEEKS
    Acceptance of Final Design1 WEEKS
    Review of Final Design4 WEEKS
    Acceptance of the “Construction Submittal1 WEEK
    Review of the Construction Submittal1 WEEK
    Total12 WEEK



    To this 12 week period is to be added re-submittal (4 weeks), plus a 7 calendar day extension to all pending submittals and new submittals if more than one submittal on the critical path is turned in at the same time, or a submittal of higher priority is submitted. Caltrans has a history of using their allowed time for submittal review. If this contract is worth $100,000/day, this amounts to $8,400,000. The taxpayers of the State of California deserve better. Consider the following:

    Require the QC/QA plan prior to award, and review it before execution of the contract.
    Require a 1day meeting to accept or reject any submittal.
    Require pre award meeting and let the contractor and his Designer present their schedule.
    Hire enough people to adequately review submittals in a timely manner and do away with the 7 day penalty for more than one submittal.
    This job will require “many many” submittals being prepared and reviewed concurrently.
    Eliminate the 7 day extension.

    Attention is directed to Addendum #9. The Department has developed its time lines with its existing resources in mind. .

    224.0

    A) The plans require the structure steel to receive one coat of water borne inorganic zinc. Can a non water based inorganic zinc primer be used, if the steel is fabricated off shore?

    B) Will this painting requirement apply to the bolts used on this project?

    A) The contract documents do not provide where the one coat of water borne inorganic zinc primer can be applied as far as it meets AASHTO, M300 requirements and Caltrans approved Special Provisions.

    B) Yes.

    225.0

  • back to top
  • The Caltrans response to Bidder Inquiry No. 151.0 indicates that per Standard Special Provision 51-300a “Mass Concrete,” a thermal control plan submittal will be required. Please indicated where this Standard Special Provision 51-300a is found in the existing Contract Documents.

    As the Contractor’s Design Engineer of Record will be responsible for identifying “mass concrete” elements, if none are specified/identified (there may be elements that one could consider mass concrete under ACI Committee 207 but the Design Engineer of Record does not deem them such), does the Standard Special Provision 51-300a apply.

    As specified in Section 5-1.14 of the special provisions, the Contractor will be required to prepare supplemental technical special provisions to address the work contemplated by the Contractor’s design of the TBS. SSP 51-300a have been changed to 51-331 (51 MASS) which is one of the “Bridge Reference Specifications” that a contractor will be required to use for guidance for Mass Concrete. As specified in Section 5-1.14, refer to the following web address for more information about SSP 51-331 (51MASS): http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/structurespecs/

    226.0

    Plan Sheet Sheets No. 107 and 108 show the existing YBI Substation and Garage to be removed under Contract 04-0120G4. Sheet 133A and 134A in Addendum No. 7 show the outside face of these structures being removed in this contract. Please clarify.

    Sheets 107 and 108 are correct. The YBI Substation and Garage are to be removed in Contract 04-0120G4. Sheets 133A and 134A show the outside face of these structures for reference. They were incorrectly labeled in Addendum 7. These have been correctly identified as "…to be removed by others" in Addendum 9.

    227.0

    On sheet 102, "Design Criteria No. 7", Addendum #7, Figure 4.2(a) states "Expansion joints at all locations between Bent 38 & YB1 ... shall be modified to restrict differential longitudinal movement between frames for the DEE". Clarify what is meant by "restrict". Is a zero movement required in each longitudinal direction (opening and closing of the joint)? If not, specify the permissible movement. Are longitudinal restrainers or some other positive tension connection required across the expansion joints? If longitudinal movements at the existing expansion joints are to be restricted, why are expansion joints mandatory in Support Structure Location B?

    The joints in the existing bridge to Pier YB1 must be temporarily blocked during Stage 1 to prohibit longitudinal movement with respect to closing the existing expansion joints in compression. The goal is to have little to no movement as is practicable. No tensile restraint is required across the expansion joints. Joint Details have been provided in Addendum 9 on sheets 135P, 136A-136D. Expansion joints between Frames 1 and 2 of Support Structure Location B are optional and this was clarified in Addendum 9 on sheets 98 and 101.

    228.0

    On sheet 104, "Design Criteria No. 9", Addendum #7, Figures 8.2.2(c) and (d) show the revised support of the existing edge girder. The vertical dimension from the soffit of the existing edge girder to the soffit of the proposed cradle at the point of minimum vertical clearance cannot be accurately determined from the contract documents. Provide the allowable vertical dimension at the point of minimum vertical clearance or provide sufficient data to independently calculate it.

    The minimum vertical clearance at the West Tie-In between the top of roadway and the bottom of the West Tie-In structure soffit over the traveled way of the TBS eastbound roadway is 4.65m. The vertical clearance envelope at the West Tie-In has been shown at the point of minimum vertical clearance in the Civil Roadway plans, on the P-sheets throughout the project. Furthermore, the "Support Structure Sections" at the West Tie-in illustrate the limits of the West Tie-In Structure given the vertical clearance limits and other spatial constraints. These were updated in Addenda 7 and 9. The West Tie-In South Edge Girder Support system was given in Addendum 9.

    229.0

    Can A572-Grade 50 steel be used in lieu of A-709 Grade-50 for the structural steel (TBS & both tie-in's) on this project? Please note that this substitution has been previously approved on other Caltrans toll bridge projects.

    Alternate specifications for particular grades of steel can be used as long as they are equivalent to those specified in the contract documents. Section 3.3.1 of the Design Criteria was modified in Addendum 10 (sheet 97) to address other grades of steel allowed for plates and rolled shapes.

    230.0

  • back to top
  • Can structural steel of higher grade than A-709 Grade-50 steel be used for the structural steel on the project (viaduct and tie-ins')?.

    The steel grade requirements have been changed to refer to BDS’s as provided in addendum 10 (sheet 97), dated 9/22/03.

    231.0

    Can Cast-in-Drilled-Hole piling and pin piles/micro-piles be used in the new foundations on the Viaduct & the East Tie-In portion of the project?

    CIDH, pin/micro-mini piling can be used within the installation restrictions specified in the contract documents. See addendum 10 dated 9/22/03..

    232.0

    For the East Tie-in, can we retrofit/modify the existing span between Bents E1 & YB4, in-lieu of constructing a new span and perform the slide-in/slide-out, provided that the design criteria set-forth in the contract is met for the modified structure, and the portion of the existing structure outside the limits of the revised alignment is removed after traffic is switched over?

    The specifications allow the option proposed by the Contractor. However, the State does not see how this can be accomplished in the time allowed for the bridge closure. The design for the TBS East Tie-In segment proposed by the Contractor must meet a number of criteria, including but not limited to the TBS Design Criteria, Contractor Area Use constraints shown on the C-sheets, and time allotted for bridge closures in the currently approved Traffic Management Plan (TMP). Bidders are advised that delays caused by additional approvals and other changes are at the Contractor’s risk.

    233.0

    The existing trees and vegetation on the slope between existing Pier YB2 and YB1 will need to be cleared prior to removal of both the hazardous material in Zone A and the removal of the structure from YB2 to Bent 50. Is this clearing and grubbing to be included in Bid Item 43, Clearing and Grubbing?

    Prior to removal of the substructure from Bent 50 to Pier YB1, hazardous material shall be excavated as specified within the hatched area shown on Sheet C-5. Clearing and grubbing required to facilitate the hazardous material excavation shall be included in Bid Item 43 "CLEARING AND GRUBBING". Clearing and grubbing necessary to facilitate bridge removal between Pier YB1 and YB2 should also be included in Bid Item 43 "CLEARING AND GRUBBING".

    234.0

    Is the removal of the existing pedestrian stairway on the slope between Pier YB2 and Pier YB1 to be included in Item 43, Clearing and Grubbing?

    Demolition and Reconstruction of the existing pedestrian stairway on the slope between Pier YB2 and Pier YB1 will be done by the 04-0120P4 Contractor. Thus, it will not be a part of Item 43 which is clearing and Grubbing.

    The stairway removal is not included as part of item # 43 ( clearing and grubbing). The contractor may propose removal of the stairway, if he/she thinks it will facilitate his/her work.

    235.0

  • back to top
  • Section 10-1.29 of the Special Provisions prohibits truck traffic between the hours of 5:00 AM amd 10:00 AM, and again from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM. DBE truckers are resisting quoting a project where they are limited to 5 hours of work during daytime hours, or some are requesting 8 hours pay for 5 hours work. If the Contractor is forced to import or off haul material at night, there are overtime costs for the crews, trucking, and plant openings. We are assuming that this specification was written when there was considerably more traffic crossing the Bay Bridge, and traffic counts now are much lower. In consideration of more DBE participation and lower costs, will Caltrans consider deleting this specification?

    Caltrans is not aware of a drop in traffic volumes at the Bay Bridge either on a daily or peak period basis that would indicate the bridge has spare capacity. Permitting trucks to haul material on the bridge to & from the work site during peak periods would reduce capacity which would consequently result in additional traffic delays. Caltrans will not delete this specification to allow hauling during the peak periods.

    236.0

    As stated in section 5-1.14 Contractor Design (Addendum No. 7) the responsibilities of the "Contractor's Engineer" is to "certify in writing that the TBS is constructed in conformance with the authorized detailed design plans..." which will require some inspection on the part of the "Contractor's Engineer". Will Caltrans also be doing their independent inspection along with their contract administration?

    Yes. see also the response to inquiry #199.

    237.0

    Your response to inquiries #217 and #221 ("In addendum # 7, Sheet 106 , "Elevation" view indicates the "Edge Girder Design by others") necessitates this inquiry. Sheet No. 97 has been revised in Addendums 3, 5, and 7 with the most recent version (Addendum No. 7) removing any reference to "design by others". Was the removal of "design by others" on sheet 97 and many other sheets a mistake or was the fact that it was left on sheet 106 a mistake?

    Leaving the note on the elevation on sheet 106 was the mistake. This note was deleted in Addendum 10.

    238.0

    Bid Item 59 is for REPLACE CONCRETE PAVEMENT (RAPID SET CONCRETE) The original drawing C-6 (Sheet 22 of 193) showed an area of Replace Concrete Pavement (Rapid Set Concrete). However, this sheet was replaced by a new drawing C-6 in addendums 5 & 7, and they no linger depict and area Replace Concrete Pavement (Rapid Set Concrete). Is Item 59 still applicable?

    Bid Item 59 REPLACE CONCRETE PAVEMENT (RAPID STRENGTH CONCRETE) is still needed. Sheet C-6 is a construction detail of the area. The limits of the area are shown on typical section sheet X-1 (2/193) on the ED1 Line section and also in plan view on sheet L-4 (8/193).



    Weld joints using ceramic backing are not pre-qualified. Per special provisions section 8-3 "WELDING", a submittal to the Engineer will be required that indicates the joint details, their intended locations, and proposed welding parameters and essential variables. If the proposal is accepted, the Contractor will be required to qualify by testing both the joint and the welders to be used in production on that joint.

    239.0

    Reference your response to question 207. You state, "The milestone will continue to be expressed as a date, etc." Does "continue" mean that it will be adjusted after award also, if other contracts fall behind and do not need the areas?

    The use of the word "continue" was meant to state that the Department was not going to alter the format of the milestone in the specifications. Although the Department will continuously evaluate the progress of all the projects along the corridor, it does not imply an obligation for the Department to alter the milestone date should a scenario as described by the bidder develop. Any changes to the milestone will be communicated to the Bidder's via addendum prior to bid opening, the bidder should not anticipate adjustments to the milestone dates after contract bid opening."

    240.0

  • back to top
  • Sheets No. 135A thru 135M show a series of south edge girder support frame details. Is this support frame mandatory or can the contractor design their own support structure?

    Contractor needs to bid what is shown on plans for support frame on sheets 135A - 135M. The contract special provisions do provide the successful bidder the opportunity to submit a "Cost Reduction Incentive Proposal" or "Value Engineering" proposal to the Engineer for consideration

    241.0

    We request clarification and confirmation of the design forces for the south edge girder sheet 135B "Connection Design Loads". The plan indicates 500 KN vertical and nearly as much for horizontal load due to thermal. The magnitude of the vertical load is also the same as the combined dead load and ADL. As well, the horizontal load exceeds the shear capacity of the columns. The magnitude of these thermal loads are questionable. Please advise?.

    The load table for connection design was derived based on the boundary conditions, as provided in addendum 11 sheet 135B, for the SSL-B structure. An asterisk is shown in the table to acknowledge the approximate nature of the loads, either due to boundary conditions and/or contractor’s means and methods.

    As shown on the plans the loads are approximate and require verification by the contractor’s designer.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    242.0

    Based on the design of the new south edge girder retrofit provided by the State in Addendum 9, please confirm if the note refers to fuse shown on the south edge girder on Figure 4.7.1 (a) sheet 101 is valid. The new south edge girder design indicates the 38x330x460 electrometric bearing pads, which was designated as a fuse in earlier drawings ( figure 8.2.2.(c).

    The note remains valid. A detail of the fuse is shown in Figure 8.2.2 (c), as indicated on Figure 4.7.1 (a) on sheet 101, which has been modified in addendum 11.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    243.0

    We request clarifications on notes 4.2 - Frame 2 on sheet 98 where it refers to "... support in line with existing floor beam.." Are you requiring the design for the WTI span to be in line with the existing floor beams? That contradicts with the SSL(B) shown on sheet 102. As well, since there will be an expansion joint between SSL (B) and YBI, why do they have to be in line?

    Support must be provided for each floor-beam; as a result the local support point of the floorbeam is "in-line". The geometric orientation of the global support structure (SSL-B) is left to the contractor. Considering this, there is no contradiction on sheet 102.

    244.0

    Can the contractor redesign the retrofit of the south edge beam with the same or greater torsional strength?

    See the response provided for Bidder Inquiry #240.

    245.0

  • back to top
  • Please verify the thermal loads presented on sheet 135B. It doesn't seem feasible that the vertical thermal load at Point 1 should exceed the dead load plus superimposed dead load. Are the thermal loads correct?

    Thermal and other loads presented in the table as noted with an asterisk are contingent on the Contractor's design for the West Tie-In (Support Structure Location B) and the Contractor's means and methods. The Contractor must develop the actual connection design loads during the process of integrating SSL-B and the SEG Support. See also the response provided for Bidder Inquiry #241.

    246.0

    Please verify the dead loads. A quick comparison using values shown on sheet 135B with a tributary frame length approximately equals the total dead load shown in Table 8.2.1 on sheet 104. This implies that the State's south edge girder design and in-turn the Contractor's Support Structure Location B must support the entire YBI dead load. Are the dead loads correct as reported on sheet 135B?

    The dead loads shown on Sheet 135B within the Connection Design Load Table are correct and are intended to be used for the connection design only. The connection design load table is not intended to be used in part or as a whole to represent load demands on the Contractor’s West Tie-In structure design. As a result the estimated dead loads on sheet 104 may not correspond to the loads on 135B. Furthermore, Sheet 135B does not direct the contractor to design SSL-B to carry the entire YBI Viaduct.

    The dead loads shown in the Connection Design Load Table account for the fact that the contractor’s means and methods and the West-Tie-In design is not known. The connection design loads shown in the Table on Sheet 135B represent the reaction corresponding to the boundary conditions for the SEG Support design.

    247.0

    Addendum No. 9 removed the requirement of providing vertical support at Support Structure Location D. However, if the contactor still wishes to use Location D for vertical support will the Engineer approve it?

    No, vertical support at Support Structure Location D will not be allowed, as it adversely affects the load path for the PC/PT floor beams on the existing YBI Viaduct.

    248.0

    Regarding Section D-D on sheet 135H, what is the intent of Note 2? The callout in Section D-D specifies the plate thickness.

    The plate thickness is intended to be a minimum since the unknown irregular Edge Girder Soffit surface is expected to require shimming or plates of variable thickness. Sheet 135H was modified in Addendum 11 to indicate 10-mm min.
    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    249.0

    Please clarify sizes of steel members shown on Structural Plan No 1, No 2, and No 3 (Sheets 135D, 135E, 135F). The vertical post is shown on Structural Plans No 1 and No 3 as W250x101 Post, typ, but as W250x80 Post, typ on Structural Plan No 2. Likewise in the Bottom Chord Framing Plan, Transverse Horizontal member is identified on Structural Plans No 1 and No 3 as W250x101 +10 mm Web Pl typ U.N.O, but on Structural Plan No 2 as W250x80 U.N.O.

    Structural Plan No.2 was updated in Addendum 10 to replace references to the W250x80 with W250x101 thus making these sheets consistent with Structural Plans 1 & 3.

    250.0

  • back to top
  • Addendum #9 has added Section 10-1.155, South Edge Girder Support (new), and Section 10-1.1521, Open Graded Asphalt (new). After the opening paragraph of Section 10-1.155, we have many added paragraphs (Concrete, Elastomeric Bearing Pads, Drill and Bond Dowel, Asphaltic Joint Seal, Reinforcement, Steel Structures, Protective Shield, Clean and Paint Structural Steel, Measurement and Payment). These added paragraphs must only apply to the South Edge Girder (sheets 135A to 135P), and not to the TBS work since that work will be in compliance with TBS design criteria and the Standard Specifications. Please confirm.

    Yes, this work is for the South Edge Girder Support. South Edge Girder Support is paid on the basis of Lump Sum.

    251.0

    Sheet 135B notes 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9: Note 1 states that details provided are intended to support the South Edge Girder. Note 3 states that design loads are given and all members are to be verified by the Contractor's Engineer. Note 4 states that all SEG Support verification design shall be in accordance with the applicable TBS Design Criteria. Note 8 states that the Contractor shall detail and fabricate in accordance with, etc. When the South Edge Girder Support was not shown as designed by Caltrans by Addendum #7, we designed a better system for this work and would like to not include the work shown on drawings 135A through 135P in our bid, but include this work as part of our design of the TBS Design Build Work.

    See response to Inquiry #240.

    252.0

    Section A-A on Sheet 23A creates a monster design problem. Apparently we cannot change the alignment of ED 1 (allowing the lower roadway to be shifted out from under the upper level roadway), or use a 5 x 5 recess into the new structure to solve this problem. The only solution left is to create a moment supporting outrigger for the upper level roadway by developing the moment in the lower bent (if there is sufficient moment capacity above the plane of superstructure shown in Section A-A). This seems unnecessary since there will be a construction joint to the right of the K rail?

    The current alignments and profiles shown in the plans have been approved. On Sheet 23A, the plane of contours and the schematic elevation are given to define and show the area of structural overlap between the permanent supports and superstructure for the TBS and the new SFOBB Transition structure which will be constructed while the TBS is in service. Also see response to Inquiry #222.

    253.0

    Major changes such as the South Edge Beam (sheets 135 thru 135P) have driven up design costs. Can the stipend of $200,000 be increased to cover these costs?

    See the revison to the Special Provisions, Section 2-1.06, "BIDDER COMPENSATION" in Addendum #10.

    254.0

    Layout sheet L-4 (8 of 193), note 4 upper left corner reads "Southgate Road shall remain closed to general public traffic both during and after construction of the 04-0120R4 Contract, as shown on the plans. After completion of the 04-0120R4 Contract, the Contractor shall provide a minimum 6.0m wide construction access road along Southgate Road with a 3.7 minimum vertical clearance under TBS as directed by the Engineer." Please clarify the statement along Southgate Road? Please see sheets 106 and 142 of 193 for conflicts. Sheet 106 shows a 6 meter high temporary shoring that runs across the width of the current Southgate Road. Sheet 142 shows "Abutment & Approach Foundation Limits" which are 6 meters wide at the North side. This is the same width as the construction access required in Note 4 (see above). Verify if note 4 conflicts with abutment placement limits?

    (1) Note 4 on sheet L-4 has been revised and will be issued per Addendum No. 11 to read as: "Southgate Road shall remain closed to general public traffic both during and after construction of the 04-0120R4 Contract, as shown on the plans. The Contractor shall provide a minimum 5.0 m wide paved travel way for Southgate Road with a 3.7 minimum vertical clearance under TBS and EB on-ramp as approved by the Engineer, by the completion of the 04-0120R4 Contract." A new specification was issued in Addendum No. 10 under section “Reconstruct Southgate Road”.

    (2) The 6 meter high temporary shoring does not run across the width of the Current Southgate Road. See sheet 36A which shows the same grading as sheet 106 and the existing limits of Southgate Road.

    (3) The "Abutment & Approach Foundation Limits" shown on sheet 142 are conceptual limits for the foundations of the abutment and approach only. The limits on 142 are not for the actual abutment wall and are not meant to be used for planning South Gate Road access. They were intended only to show the obstacles encountered when constructing foundations. The contractor should be directed to Bridge Removal sheets and the General Plans to gain a clearer picture of the time dependent nature of the obstacles and what is expected to be in the way at the end of the TBS contract which is when the Southgate Road access is to be provided.

    255.0

  • back to top
  • Refererence Item 32 "Portable Changeable Message Sign" 47 Ea., spec sections 10-1.29 & 10-1.33 and Drawings 62 & 63. The drawing tables show 32 PCMS signs and indicate the locations where they are to be placed. We are unable to find the other 15 PCMS signs on the plans. Are they required? If so, where are they to be placed and for how long will they be out there? How many, if any, need to be maintained at the job site for the duration of the project for the use of the engineer in accordance with Construction Program Procedure Bulletin 95-3?

    See Addendum no. 5, page 1 for revisions to drawing CS-8 (plan sheet no. 62). See addendum no. 9, page 1 for revisions to drawing CS-9 (plan sheet no. 63). See addendum no. 11, page 5 for a change in engineer's estimate quantity.

    256.0

    a) What does the term differential deflection mean in Article 8.7.1?

    b) What is the vertical differential deflection measured relative to?

    C) Is the deflection to be measured against the North Edge Beam deflection?

    d) Or is this the absolute deflection for South Edge Girder?

    Table 8.7.1 shows the absolute maximum vertical deflection for the south edge girder.

    257.0

    What is the allowable live load (LL) deflection for the new South Edge Girder? From the stage construction plans, the 1-ft thick overlay, which makes up nearly all of the superimposed dead load (SDL), is applied before construction of SSL "B." Therefore, the second load case of Table 8.7.1 will not physically happen because the SDL will be applied before the TBS is put into service. Based on this revision to the construction staging in Delta 9, can the three load combinations listed in Table 8.7.1 be restated using the following equations?

    1.) DL+SDL+PS Delta < 5mm

    2.) DL+LL+SDL+PS Delta < 20mm

    3.) DL+SDL+EQ(DEE) Delta < 20mm

    For clarification, Table 8.7.1 on Sheet 104 of the Design Criteria has been revised in Addendum 11 to read as follows:

    Load Case ------ Allowable Deflection at –A-*

    DL+SDL -------- 5 mm

    DL+SDL+LL -------- 15 mm

    DL+SDL+EQ(DEE) ----15 mm

    Also see Bidder inquiry # 256.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    258.0

    Section 8.2 refers to providing vertical and lateral support for the North Edge Girder at SSL "A". Are we to assume that there is no lateral strength and stiffness contribution from the existing north columns, and SSL "A" and "B" will be the only supports that can be used in determining structure period? Will the State permit contractor's proposal to retrofit the existing north columns to provide additional stiffness and strength?

    The existing YBI Viaduct does not meet the TBS Design Criteria, therefore it should not be considered in the lateral stiffness or strength contribution. Support structures SSL-A, -C & -B provide vertical and lateral support for the existing YBI Viaduct structure. SSL-D provides additional lateral support when the TBS is in operation. These ductile temporary systems in effect "catch" the existing YBI Viaduct structure.

    No, the retrofit of the existing north columns will not be allowed as the seismic design criteria for permanent YBI structures is different than the design criteria given for the TBS.

    259.0

    We request bid open delay.

    The bid opening has been revised to December 2, 2003; see Addendum 14.

    The Department forsees processing two more addenda before bid opening. Addendum 11 will extend out the bid opening three weeks, add one year to the construction time and remove the disincentive, in addition to resolving other outstanding technical issues. Further, the Department is evaluating the liquidated damages. The Department is further committed to processing the last addendum three weeks prior to bid opening.

    260.0

  • back to top
  • Bid Item # 61 - "Roadside Sign - One Post" has 28 ea on the Engineers Estimate. On the project plans they are showing only 10 ea. Which is the correct quantity?

    Sheet PD-8 is revised. See Page 1 of addendum #12. The quantity has been adjusted from 28 to 9 on the quantity table and engineer's estimate.

    Response pending. Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    261.0

    How are the signs shown on plan sheet 79 that are to be installed SSBM going to be paid?

    Sheet PD-8 is revised. See page 1 of Addendum No. 12. The bid item "Install sign (Saddle Strap and Bracket Method)" has been added to the engineer's estimate with a quantity of 6.

    Response pending. Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    262.0

    The prebid design effort has significantly increased since Addendum No. 5 as a result of changes to the Contract scope of work. Accordingly, the Contract Design effort will increase. We strongly suggest that Caltrans consider increasing the $5,000,000 maximum payment amount for Bid Item 13- Contractor Design by a minimum of 20%.

    Item 13 has been increased from $2mil to $5mil in anticipation of the all the required work provided in the contract documents. Since the contract scope has not been changed, no further increases are warranted.

    263.0

    There are two structures on the South Side of the bridge (between Bents 46 & 48) housing equipment for cellular phone companies (Verizon & Cellular one). We are currently scheduling the TBS with the assumption that these structures will be removed by Others prior to our mobilization for the construction of TBS. If our assumption is wrong, then please provide a date by which the facilities housed in these structures will be relocated and the existing structures will be demolished by Others.

    Your assumption is correct. The celluar companies will evacuate the site before mobilization.

    264.0

    Please provide clarification on Note 3, on Sheet 107 of 193. There are no loads provided and it is unclear as to which direction the column and the footing has to be braced.

    Note 3 on Sheet 107 serves as a reminder to the Contractor to install temporary bracing at the referenced location prior to performing bridge removal in this area. Sheet 110 illustrates the planned bridge removal portions and the column to remain referenced in the note. The Special Provisions Section 10-1.38 pertaining to bridge removal outline the responsibilities of the inquirer, which include deriving the details of the temporary bracing scheme which are a function of contractor's means and methods for the bridge removal portions. Loads and direction of bracing are dependent on the Contractor's means and methods for the portion of bridge removal shown, and therefore are not given.

    265.0

  • back to top
  • Section 5–1.26 SOUND CONTROL REQUIREMENTS establishes the “noise level from the Contractor's operations, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., shall not exceed 78 dbA at a distance of 15 m (50 feet) from the source.” This is a significant reduction from the normal limit of 86 dbA. The Coast Guard permit indicates that the noise limit is 78 dbA when taken at a specific site, not 50 feet from the source. Can the specification be re-written to reflect what the Coast Guard permit requires, that is 78 dbA at the referenced location and 86 dbA at 50 feet from the source?

    The specification can not be changed. The noise level will not exceed 78dbA at a distance 50 feet from the source.

    266.0

    Is it permissible to have a multiple span double deck structure for the East Tie-in provided that the substructure meets the limits shown on plan sheet C-8?

    While Sect. 4.2 of the Design Criteria identifies a simply-supported double-deck span for the East Tie-In segment, a multiple-span, double-deck structure for the East Tie-In segment of the TBS is not precluded. However, the Bidder is advised to note that the design for the TBS East Tie-In segment proposed by the Contractor must meet a number of criteria and constraints, including, but not limited to, the TBS Design Criteria, Contractor Area Use constraints shown on the C-sheets, and time allotted for bridge closures in the currently approved Traffic Management Plan (TMP).

    267.0

    Will Caltrans waive the subcontractor listing requirements for this design-build contract?

    No. Listing of subcontractors is required by the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act.

    268.0

    Why does Caltrans require a 0.5 second period for the roll out structure? The additional stiffness will result in additional cost for this temporary operation.

    Section 10.4 of the Design Criteria on Sheet 105 requires a 0.5 second period for the temporary Move-Out Skidway Support System in the direction normal to Span YB4 (the direction of the move-out). This requirement is to ensure that the skidway is stiff enough to allow control of the move-out operation. Note that the stiffness requirement for the temporary Move-Out Skidway Support System is less onerous (period = 1.0 sec) in the direction parallel to Span YB4. Also note that these stiffness requirements apply to the Skidway Support System, not the TBS East Tie-In supports.

    269.0

    When will Addendum 12 be issued? The milestone for the CPR area has not been revised by addendum, although the overall project completion time has been extended to 1100 days.

    The Area CPR milestone was revised in Addendum 11, SP 4 "BEGINNING OF WORK, TIME OF COMPLETION AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" and SP 5-1.18 "AREAS FOR CONTRACTOR’S USE".

    270.0

  • back to top
  • Addendum 3 specifically added item 5a to section 5-1.13 Project information as follows:

    "5a. USCG License DTCG-Z71111-03RP-002L, Amendment No. 1, Maintenance & Logistics Command Pacific."

    There is already a reference to this item under item 8 as follows:

    "8- USCG License No. DTCG-Z71111-03-RP-002L and License No. DTCG-Z71111-03-RP-010L"

    The License included in the CD-Rom information is signed by the Coast Guard on 20 Dec 2002 and does not appear to include or reference any Amendments. Is the License issued with the Bidder's Information CD-Rom current? If not, please provide a copy of the amended license.

    Please note that the reference to 5a should have been 8a instead, as Amendment No. 1 is an update to the USCG License No. DTCG-Z71111-03-RP-002L. Amendment No. 1 was signed by the Coast Guard on 14 May 2003. It was issued in Addendum 3 as a 3-page material handout. Additional copies can be obtained by contacting the Duty Senior.

    271.0

    We are bidding the project with the understanding that the contractor's obligations for environmental sampling and other testing is specifically listed in the Special Provisions or it arises out of the Contractor's determination of need from his operations. Please confirm that any other monitoring or testing required by any outside agency, entity or permit not contained in the Special Provisions will be preformed by others or under change order to the contractor.

    Your understanding is correct

    272.0

    Several recent Caltrans projects have experienced severe problems/failures with shop applied waterborne inorganic zinc. In at least one case, solvent borne zinc has been approved for new steel. Please be advised that we are bidding this project with intent of using Solvent Based Primers (in accordancw with Caltrans' QPL for such systems) for all coatings on strcutral steel.

    Addendum 12, dated 10/20/03, changed Section 3.3.6 "Cleaning and Painting" on sheet 97/193 "Design Criteria NO. 2", to allow the use of solvent base primer.

    273.0

    Upon review of the bid documents, it is our understanding that neither the Contractor nor the Contractor's Engineer shall be responsible for the maintenance and delivery of "As-Built" plans for the project. If this understanding is not correct, please advise the Bidders accordingly.

    The understanding is not entirely correct. For the contractor designed portions, the "authorized for construction" drawings will become the as-built plans. Attention is directed to the "Working Drawings" and "Design Change Control" sections of the Special Provisions. At the completion of the contract, the final set of drawings shall include all corrections and revisions, which the Engineer will file with the contract plans as as-builts.

    274.0

    Upon review of the bid documents, it is our understanding that the scope of work set forth on Contract Plan Sheets 1 through 92A, and 135A through 135P are designed by Caltrans and Caltrans is the "Engineer of Record" for this Contract scope of work. If this understanding is not correct, please advise the Bidders accordingly.

    The understanding is correct, however, the contractor is required to appropriately incorporate these details into the Contractor’s design.

    275.0

  • back to top
  • Reference to Section 5-1.14, "the Contractor's Engineer shall certify in writing that the TBS is constructed in conformance with the authorized detailed design plans and supplemental technical special provisions." Since Caltrans (Engineer) will perform Quality Assurance during construction, we recommend that the Engineer (Caltrans RE) provide the aforementioned certification.

    The Contractor shall compy with the specification.

    276.0

    As Caltrans is the US Coast Guard permit holder for this project, what are the restrictions on the size of the vessel allowed for the delivery of the materials and equipment to the trestle location allowed in the bid documents?

    The USCG Bridge Permit does not place a restriction on the size of vessel allowed. However, the contractor should contact the Marine Safety Office at 510.437.2770 with any specific questions on the size and type of vessels allowed.

    277.0

    What is schedule of construction for Contract 04-0105U4 (this has been added in Addendum 12 under specification section 10-1.17)?

    Currently, Contract 04-0105U4 is planned to begin construction in late spring/summer of 2004 with an approximate 6 month duration. The Bidders are advised that the schedule for Contract 04-0105U4 is subject to change due to a variety of factors.

    278.0

    Addendum #12 changed the value of "B" from $100,000/day to $16,000/day. Addendum #11 changed the time from 730 days to 1100 days. We never requested these changes, and were planning to bid 730 days for "B". Originally Caltrans had 635 days and $200,000/day. We are protesting this recent change as it probably gives a preference to one bidder. When deciding how to build the TBS it was determined that Structural Steel would have to be used to meet that schedule, and even if the value of time was $100,000/day, and 1100 days, then steel would still be the most economical method of construction. We have proceeded on the basis of $100,000/day throughout the extensive bidding period included in the other 11 addenda, only to have design efforts wasted at this last minute. At $16,000/day and 1100 days concrete is now competitive. If only one bidder bids concrete and because of this last minute change. we will guarantee a lawsuit due to this preferential change in bidding requirements.

    Attention is directed to addedum 14 for changes to the bid opening and bidder compensation. The Contract as written provides the same opportunities to all bidders. The Department determined that changes to the 0120R4 contract were warranted due to changes made for the 0120E4 and 0120F4 contracts. These changes decreased the time pressure and affected the liquidated damage calculations. The changes to the 0120R4 contract were not made to favor any bidder, rather they were made to provide all bidders with more flexibility.

    279.0

    I cannot find anywhere in the specifications that the demolition of the concrete viaduct from Bent 48 to YB 1 (sheet 162 of 193) is to be included in any bid item, and therefore not part of this contract. See specifications sheet 189 (this work is not listed in Location "A" or "B" or "East Bay Bridge"). The last sentence of Section 1, Specifications and Plans (Addendum #3) states, "Upon completion of the TBS, the existing Route 80 steel truss spans, between Pier YB-1 and Pier YB-4 shall be removed."

    The limits of removing portions of the viaduct from Bent 48 to YB1 have been clarified in the Special Provisions, Section 10-1.38, "EXISTING HIGHWAY FACILITIES" as provided in Addendum 13 dated 10/24/03.

    280.0

  • back to top
  • We request an additional 2 months to redesign the structure to meet the current Caltrans changes in the specifications relating to changes in

    a. Contract Time

    b. Revised Liquidated Damages in "B" Portion.

    The bid opening date has been changed to December 2, 2003. See Addendum 14.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    281.0

    We request additional compensation in the amount of $ 300,000 (for the non-successful bidders) for the re-design of the structure in light of Caltrans' complete change of Contract Requirements in terms of delivery and damages for the same. The reason for this request is due to the fact that for the last several months we have been designing the TBS that will allow construction to be completed in the stipulated time. The change in the LD's and the delivery schedule now forces us to redsign the structure keeping material/fabrication/erection economies in perspective vs. time. Additionally we protest Caltrans' unilateral changes that significantly benefits only one contractor who is currently working on a concrete design, and not giving other bidders equal opportunity to compete fairly.

    See revisions to SP 2-1.06 "BIDDER COMPENSATION" in Addendum 14.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    282.0

    Some of Caltrans' answers are still leading us to believe that another addendum is forthcoming. We need to know the following ASAP:

    a. Is this correct?

    b.If it is correct then what is the time frame of this addendum

    c.What are the contents of this addendum

    d.Is the bid date going to be postponed?

    See Addendum 14, dated October 30, 2003.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    283.0

    There are numerous bidders' inquiries that are still not answered by Caltrans. These inquiries relate to design/schedule/contractual matters and lack of timely answers will have a negative impact on our bid pricing, and such we need immediate responses and an extension of bid date.

    All bidder inquiries will be responded to by Caltrans.

    The bid opening has been revised to December 2, 2003. See Addendum 14.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding the bid opening date.

    284.0

    We refer you again to our inquiry 280 & 281. As stated in these inquiries we need additional time and bidders compensation due to the recent changes made by caltrans in the contract.

    See Addendum 14.

    Bidders are advised to anticipate addenda regarding this element of work.

    285.0

  • back to top
  • Drawing 110 of 193, Section K-K, references retrofit work that is dated "1964" that consists of added post tensioned beams. We are unable to locate these as-built drawings at the CALTRANS office. Please identify the Contract Number and / or the File Number that correlates to the "1964" work in order to locate and view these drawings.

    The as-built drawings for the post-tensioned beams are in Contract # 04-4029: Reconstruction Structure - Yerba Buena Island. These as-built drawings are contained in the As-builts CD that is available for inspection. Please refer to Section 5-1.13, "Project Information" for information on reviewing or obtaining a copy of the CD.

    286.0

    The answer to question 234 indicates that the existing pedestrian stairway will be removed and reconstructed under Conract No. 04-0120P4. In order to complete the clearing and grubbing, excavation of the hazardous material shown on Sheet C-5, and excavation and removal of the existing piers, the stairway will need to be removed for the completion of work under this contract. Should we assume that the 04-0120P4 contract will remove the stairway prior to the necessary work to be performed under this contract? It seems that it would be simpler to include the removal of the stairway under Item 43 Clearing and Grubbing of this contract, and include the reconstruction under a future contract. Please clarify as to the timing of the removal.

    The response to Inquiry #234 has been revised. The stairway removal is not included as part of item # 43 ( Clearing and Grubbing). If the Contractor thinks removal of the stairway will facilitate his/her work, he/she may propose removal of the stairway at no additional cost to the State.

    It is not anticipated that Contract 04-0120P4 will complete removal of the existing stairway prior to the start of Bridge Removal work associated with Contract 04-0120R4.

    287.0

    Can Caltrans confirm that the as-built drawings for the Bay Bridge (as provided on the CD-ROM) are based on the MLLW = 0.0 datum, whereas the current project drawings are based on NGVD 1929? The current equation from NOAA indicates the difference between MLLW and NGVD (1929) is 2.84 feet. Can Caltrans confirm this offset or provide the offset between the two?

    The current project is based 1929 NGVD (see plan sheet no. 5). The as-built plans for the Bay bridge are based on 1933 MLLW datum calls for MLLW=0.000.

    The relationship of vertical datums in the vicinity of the SFOBB Project are as follows:

    The difference between NGVD 1929 and the 1933 MLLW datum (used for the original bridge/As-builts) is 3.10 feet.

    The difference between NGVD 1929 and the MLLW Datum at Yerba Buena Island is 2.80 feet.

    288.0

    I have some comments on Section 10-1.40 VIBRATION MONITORING: Vibration Monitoring Personnel. This section states that the Contractor's vibration monitoring personnel shall include a qualified Vibration Instrumentation Engineer who is a Professional Engineer in the State of California, and who has at least 4 years of experience in installation and use of vibration-monitoring instrumentation and in interpreting instrumentation data. I would like to point out that the State of California does not have a specific PE license in the field of "Vibration Instrumentation Engineering" or in the field of acoustical engineering - which deals with assessment, measurement and mitigation of noise and vibration from transportation and construction operations, and building acoustics. The field of acoustical engineering is a highly specialized noise and vibration engineering field and it does not specifically have a State exam that leads to PE license. I request that the requirement for the vibration monitoring personnel to be a Professional Engineer be deleted from the specs.

    The contract requirements will not be changed.

    As per SP 10-1.40, vibration monitoring personnel are subject to the Engineer's review. The Contractor may propose other qualifications to the Engineer for consideration. Bidders are advised that there is no guarantee of having their qualifications accepted, unless a contract change order is approved.