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.
| 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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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 |
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 |
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.
|
|
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. 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
|
|
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 |
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.
|
|
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 |
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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 |
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.
|
|
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. |
|
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 |
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.
|
|
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 |
|
55.0 |
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 |
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 |
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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 |
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.
|
|
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
|
|
75.0 |
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 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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. |
|
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.
|
|
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 |
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 |
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. |
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
100.0 |
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.
|
|
102.0 |
Sheets 103 and 139, clarify the stations at the proposed expansion joints. |
See the responses to Bidder Inquiries #31 & 32.
|
|
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.
|
|
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 |
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 |
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.
|
|
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 |
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 |
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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 |
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 |
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
135.0 |
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
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. |
|
140.0 |
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.
|
|
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 |
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? |
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.
|
|
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 |
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 |
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.
|
|
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. |