|
Caltrans > Dist4 Internet > Dist4 Construction > Contract Inquiries > EA 04-4A5204 Inquiries |
CONTRACTOR'S INQUIRY RESPONSES
December 1, 2008
CONTRACT NO. 04-4A5204
WIDENING, ROADWAY REHABILITATION,
County Route: ALA-680-6.5/19.3
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 |
Where can we purchase X-sections for this project? Or can they be made available for download? |
You can download the following documents below:
Ramps Cross Sections (zipped pdf, 4.7mb) Retaining Walls Main Line Cross Sections (zipped pdf, 8.4mb) Site Investigation Report (pdf, 25.3mb) Transportation Management Plan (pdf, 6.2mb) CA Fish and Game Agreement (pdf, 6.0mb) Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit (pdf, 0.4mb) US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opnion (zipped pdf, 3.9mb) |
||||||||||||||||
|
2.0 |
Reference Typical Sections Sheet X-2 (sheet number 3 of 614). Southbound Stations R 43+80.000 to 45+30.000 and R41+50.000 to 42+62.000 show a Structure Section F on the existing mainline, but we are unable to locate a new Structure Section F. Please clarify what Structure Section F consists of. |
Structure Section Type F is the same as Structure Section Type E. | ||||||||||||||||
|
3.0 |
Reference Wildlife Exclusive Fence details on sheet 143 of 614. Detail for Wildlife Exclusive Fence shows both Silt Fence and Temporary Fence (Type ESA). This is a little confusing, since all three items (Silt Fence, Temporary Fence (ESA) and Wildlife Exclusive Fencing) are required at various locations. Which material is to be used as Wildlife Exclusive Fence? Is it Silt Fence or is it Temporary Fence (Type ESA)? |
The Silt Fence depicted in the bottom drawing on sheet 143 is defined as Wildlife Exclusive Fence as described under Section 10-1.11 Wildlife Exclusive Fence on Page 81 of the Special Provisions. | ||||||||||||||||
|
4.0 |
The summary of quantities, sheet 378, shows the grind existing concrete pavement chart. It appears that based on the typical cross sections, section # 19, the first four rows of the chart are AC, not PCC. Also, the construction details, sheet 131, shows a grind PCC or cold plane AC of 12 meters, or about half the area shown on the layouts therefore half the quantity shown in the chart. Is the conform cut pay per the details on sheet 131 or per the layout sheets? Is the construction detail correct or the grind existing concrete pavement chart correct? | The construction detail on sheet 131 is correct. An addendum is requested to correct the Grind Existing Concrete Pavement and Cold Plane AC Pavement table on Page 378. | ||||||||||||||||
|
5.0 |
The conform at the edge of shoulder detail on sheet 132 shows a conform of about 0.5 meters. Does this detail apply only where there is no new widening? Is there a bid item for this work? Does this detail also apply in the conform shoulder areas listed in the grind existing concrete pavement chart on sheet 378? |
The Conform At Edge of Shoulder applies only at L-17 Outside R 93+90 to R 94+30 L-17 Outside R 94+56 to R 94+60 L-19 Outside R 98+80 to R 98+97 L-22 Outside R109+68 to R110+78 The Conform to Concrete Barrier applies only at L-25 Inside R 118+10 to R124+10 An addendum is requested. The earthwork and pavement elevations at other areas already take into account the overlay thickness. |
||||||||||||||||
|
6.0 |
The conform at the edge of shoulder details on sheet 132 show a staggered AC overlay structural section to ES. The typical cross sections show a continuous AC overlay structural section to ES. Which detail takes precedence? | The Conform At Edge of Shoulder details on sheet 132 only applies at the locations described in question 2. All other areas have a continuous overlay structural section to ES. | ||||||||||||||||
|
7.0 |
Reference Typical Sections (sheet 3 of 614), Median Separation Details (both Case 1 and 2). The detail shows the removal of a 150mm width of existing structure section material on the "high side" of Type 60C barrier, and replacement with HMA (Type A). Since the existing barrier is not monolithic with the existing structure section, can this detail be changed to reflect only the existing barrier to be removed? The areas are already planned to be overlaid with AC subsequent to the barrier (either on this contract or the future NB overlay). Moreover, paving of a 150mm wide slot with HMAC will be very costly and will require a substantial amount of time to complete. In the alternative, will the contractor be allowed to fill the 150mm width with pcc placed in conjunction with the barrier, thus eliminating the HMAC replacement? |
Bid as per current contract documents. | ||||||||||||||||
|
8.0 |
SECT 10-1.82 - Permeable Material (Blanket) states that the material shall be Class 3. Standard Spec section 68-1.025 states that Class 3 shall conform to the requirements of the special provisions. Please clarify. |
Class 3 permeable material shall have a Durability Index of not less than 40. At least 90 percent by mass of Class 3 permeable material shall be crushed particles as determined by California Test 205. An addendum is requested to add this specification. |
||||||||||||||||
|
9.0 |
Will there be any inorganic zinc primer applied to the soldier pile required for the project? | Bid per the contract documents. No primer applied to soldier piles. | ||||||||||||||||
|
10.0 |
Upon review of the cross-section plans provided with the plans and specs to the above-mentioned project, we noticed that much of the original grade, design limits, design elevations, and scale didn't match between the retaining wall plans and roadway plans. Will a revised, "synchronized" set of cross-sections be issued at a later date? If so, would it be safe to assume the roadway excavation plans are sufficient enough to provide us with realistic, useable data for our bid in the mean time? |
The cross sections for retaining walls and the mainline/ramp do not match because the they are on different alignments which are not parallel tangent lines in this case. The roadway cross-sections are cut along the mainlines/ramps, while the retaining wall cross-sections are cut along the retaining wall alignments. A cross-section, e.g. R 56+60, along the R-line is therefore not the same cross-section at LOL 56+60 along the retaining wall SB-13 alignment. One cannot superimpose the two cross-sections because they are at different locations. Different drawing scales are used because the roadway cross-sections cover a larger area but the wall cross-sections focus on the area around the wall only. The roadway cross-sections are intended to assist in constructing the road up to the edge of the pavement (or face of the concrete barrier), and the wall cross-sections are to assist in constructing the wall and the finish grade in front of the wall. The retaining walls alignments would appear shorter or longer if the mainlines/ramps and retaining wall alignments are mistakenly treated to be the same when they are not parallel tangent lines. Again, the edge of pavement from the roadway cross-sections is the point where the face of the concrete barrier on the top of the wall is located. There is no gap. The distance from the bottom of the face of the concrete barrier to the retaining wall alignment (front face of the wall) is 0.435 m. The offsets for the wall alignments are shown on the layout plans. Refer to retaining wall plans for details. Please be note that the wall cross-sections are associated with wall alignments. No additional information on this issue will be provided. |
||||||||||||||||
|
11.0 |
Please clarify the limits of the Abutment 2 Temp. bridge embankment surcharge at the Vargas Rd UC Bridge No. 33-0306K. Per the Bridge Embankment Surcharge detail on sheet No. 554, indicates at the face of the abutment, the surcharge extends from the top of the abutment at its centerline to the finish grade toe of slope. Does this temp. embankment surcharge also rap around Abutment No. 2 23 meters towards and into the limits of RW SB-13 as per Section F-F of Standard Plan Sheet A62B? If so, is there enough right of way to fit the temp. bridge embankment surcharge, or is the intent to install some kind of temp. shoring in this area to enclose the surcharge for the 90 day settlement period. Also, can RW SB-13 be built prior to the bridge embankment construction in order to retain the bridge embankment during the settlement period? | Bridge embankment surcharge shall conform to the contract documents. No work shall be allowed outside the right of way. | ||||||||||||||||
|
12.0 |
Would it be possible to get a table showing the adjustment height for the inlets. Item 43 calls for 42 (each) inlets to be adjusted to the field grade elevation. Based on sheet DD-6 it shows the height of the adjustment as "variable" or what height should be assumed? I would be helpful to quantify how much adjustment is required at each location. |
Adjust Inlet to grade are based on final grade elevations. Please see Construction Details for final grade elevations. | ||||||||||||||||
|
13.0 |
Per elevations on sheet 387 there is 1.2 meters between the top of retaining wall and the top of barrier at Station 50+79.692 on wall SB-12. At the same station on sheet 391 the plans show 2 bands of wall texture. Per Section BB on sheet 390 there must be a minimum of 2.57 meters between the top of wall and the top of barrier to have 2 bands of wall texture. Per section BB on sheet 390 there can not be 2 bands of wall texture at stations 50+00 to 50+65.94 as shown on sheet 391 and 392. Please revise or clarify the limits and controling dimensions and stationing of the texture. | An addendum is requested with a revised Architectural Texture sheet. | ||||||||||||||||
|
14.0 |
Wall 9 Sheet 545 and Wall 11 Sheet 608 reference the outer 200 mm of the wall concrete as permanent shotcrete. This outer 200 mm portion of the structural concrete should be placed by forming and casting it in place like at Retaining Wall 14. This will provide the required texture and the required parapet dimensions as desired. Please review to confirm and if correct modify the contract quantities. | Bid per the contract documents. | ||||||||||||||||
|
15.0 |
Sheet 243 Utility Plan U-3 states that the Overhead ATT lines and PGE electrical lines will be relocated by others prior to construction. There remains a portion of overhead wires, a pole, and a guy wire within the work area and in conflict with the bridge. Will these utilities be removed prior to construction. | The overhead wires, the pole, and a guy wire will be relocated prior to construction. | ||||||||||||||||
|
16.0 |
The contract drawings do not have any detail regarding the existing bridge columns or footings that require column casings to be installed. Can the heights of the existing columns, or the heights of the new casings, as well as the depth of the existing footings from OG be provided. | Bid per the contract documents. Refer to Section 5-1.07, PROJECT INFORMATION, page 18 of the special provisions. Paragraph 9 states "Plans of the existing bridges may be requested by fax from the Office of Structure Maintenance and Investigations, 1801 30th Street, Sacramento, CA, Fax (916) 227-8357." No additional information will be provided. | ||||||||||||||||
|
17.0 |
Does the fabrication of the concrete lagging for SB 14 have to be done by a CT certified pre-cast facility? | Submitted for consideration. | ||||||||||||||||
|
18.0 |
Typical cross sections show the removal limits to reach the Exist ETW. The stage drawing do not show any temp striping between sta 37+00 to 72+60. Please clarify if the ETW is truly the removal limits and if the temp striping should extend through the project distance. |
From R 39+67 to R 71+80, the EXIST ETW call out should say CONFORM. Please see Layouts for exact limits of work. No temporary striping, other than what is shown is required. |
||||||||||||||||
|
19.0 |
Item 38 Remove Asphalt Dike appears to have the wrong unit of measure. | Item 38 is typo, Remove Asphalt Concrete Dike should be in meters, not cubic meters. | ||||||||||||||||
|
20.0 |
There is a significant amount of Temporary Pavement (150mm HMA over 345mm AB3) required in Stage 1-1 See Sheet Number257). Stage Construction Quantities shown on Sheet Number 314 do not reflect these quantities.
|
There is 361 tonne of HMA (Type A) and 406 m3 of AB3 in temporary pavement not accounted for in SCQ. This HMA, AB3 and 582 m3 of roadway excavation of this temporary pavement is requested to be added as part of an addendum. | ||||||||||||||||
|
21.0 |
The summary of quantities, sheet no. 375, shows the total AB for both the gore paving and the maintenance vehicle pullouts only at 340.07 m3, which relates to bid item no. 76. The stage construction plans, sheet no. 257, shows AB for the temporary pavement areas. How does the AB in the temporary pavement areas get paid for? Will an addendum be issued to include the temporary detour AB quantity and include bid item no. 76? | Please see answer for BI #20. | ||||||||||||||||
|
22.0 |
The summary of quantities, sheet no. 377, shows a chart of the imported material (shoulder backing) from sheets L-17 through L-27. The typical cross sections, sheet no. 11-16, show those areas as dirt embankment(s). Please clarify which is correct, the chart on sheet 377 or the typical cross sections and will an addendum be issued to correct this matter? | Shoulder backing is required as shown on Page 377 Q-4. Please refer to the deatil on X-3. | ||||||||||||||||
|
23.0 |
There is an existing Retaining Wall that is to be removed at Sta 76+99.22 to 77+19.337. Could the As-Builts or details of this wall be provided to the bidders. For example, The height of the wall, size of the footing, type of wall, any elevations, and steps in the footing that may exist. | The length and volume of concrete to be removed is shown on Q-6. | ||||||||||||||||
|
24.0 |
Layout Sheets L-4 & L-5 show a TCE of 4m and the removal of the existing right of way fence for the construction of RW SB-12. However, Stage 1.1 Sheets No. SC-4 & SC-5 show no temp. k-rail or right of way fence along Pico Rd. Will this be added as part of an addendum? Also, how is the the replacement of the existing curb & gutter and asphalt pavement within the 4m TCE along Pico Rd. that will get removed for the excavation of RW SB-12 get paid for? | The existing curb and asphalt pavement within the 4 m TCE along Pico Rd is not to be removed. (There is no gutter on Pico Road.) However, 410 m of K-rail will be required within the 4 m TCE. This quantity is requested to be added to the addendum. | ||||||||||||||||
|
25.0 |
Referring to sheets (385-388)/614, of the contract drawings, retaining wall SB-12, the footing layout appears to landing inside the right-of-way line. Please clarify | A permanent footing easement is being finalized currently with the City of Fremont concerning the encroachment on to Pico Road. | ||||||||||||||||
|
26.0 |
When is the addendum going to be issued as mentioned in the inquiry answers? | Submitted for consideration. | ||||||||||||||||
|
27.0 |
On Vargas Road OC - sheet 570 of 614 - notes 4 and 7 appear to be the same. Where does the quantity for remove concrete deck surface come from? | See Addendum 3. | ||||||||||||||||
|
28.0 |
For bid item 111- Rapid Set Concrete (Patch) is the unit of measure supposed to be m3? | See Addendum 3. | ||||||||||||||||
|
29.0 |
Various cross sections and layout sheets indicate existing edge drain to be removed. How is the removal and subsequent replacement being paid for? Also, there is not a specific detail for the edge drain shown adjacent to RW SB-15/SB-17 in the project plans. Is there a typical detail in the standard plans that indicate what method should be utilized as this is not a normal application of edge drain? | Removal of Edge Drains are included as part of Roadway Excavation. Replacement of new Edge Drains will be addressed in the addendum. | ||||||||||||||||
|
30.0 |
Referring to sheet 545 of 614, and sheet 551 of 614, the details show a variable width formed surface, from the top of the Type 60 D barrier to the top of the wall. On sheet 543 of 614 there is no quantity for bid item 102 (f). Structure Concrete, retaining wall. Please clarify. | Bid per the contract documents. Refer to sheet 545 of 614, bottom of Typical Section. The bid item is Shotcrete. | ||||||||||||||||
|
31.0 |
Regarding the RSC panel replacements, the drawings do not show any CTB being removed, however the special provisions make it sound like the base is supposed to be removed. Please clarify. |
Bid as Per current Contract Documents. |
||||||||||||||||
|
32.0 |
The bid items do not account for a specific item for the tree removal. Based on our analysis and some of the environmental reports a good amount of trees will have to be removed. Will the addendum address the exact amount of trees to be removed? |
All trees shall remain in place unless designated by the engineer. Please see Section 16 in the Standard Specifications: Clearing and Grubbing. | ||||||||||||||||
|
33.0 |
An existing overhead sign is located at approx. Sta. R 107+50, near Calaveras Road over NB I-680. Layout Sheet L-21 directs the removal of the existing barrier in the area of the OH sign, and reconstruction of 60R barrier. Upon review of the Sign Plans, it doesn't appear any direction is given as to what to do with the existing sign. Please advise where in the contract documents we can determine the action to be taken regarding the sign, or direct same if it has not been addressed. | The sign shall remain in place. | ||||||||||||||||
|
34.0 |
How does the Hot Mix Asphalt "patch work" get paid for after the existing median pipe removal is performed for Bid Item No. 39 'Remove Culvert', also, how is the Hot Mix Asphalt "patch work" paid for after the installation of the slotted corrugated steel pipes for Bid Items 137 & 139? |
The placement of the HMA for culverts and other Misc Areas, will be paid under Bid Items Numbers 87 and 89. |
||||||||||||||||
|
35.0 |
Bid Item No. 12 'Temporary Concrete Washout Bin' includes an estimated quantity of 9 ea with estimated Struc. Conc., LCB, Minor Conc etc. quantities at apprx. 12,719 m3. Caltrans Contract No. 04-253794 (Rte. 680 - N. Mission - Grimmer) a project which bid on 8/19/08 included Bid Item No. 11 'Temporary Concrete Washout Bin' with an estimated quantity of 150 ea with estimated Struc. Conc., LCB, Minor Conc., etc. quantities at apprx. 17,558 m3. Are these Bid Items not subject to adjustment per Section 4-1.03B of the Standard Specifications? Please clarify. | Bid as per current contract plans and specifications. | ||||||||||||||||
|
36.0 |
It is our understanding that the Camera Station equipment is purchased and paid for under Bid Items 190 thru 195, and the installation would be under the various TOS bid items. We find (1) Camera Station under BI #186 (Location #3, Dwg E-22), (1) Camera Station under BI #189 (Location #6, Dwg E-27) and the final one under the Electronic Toll System, BI #182, Dwg E-54. The first two locations are referenced by Sheet Note 24 (Dwg E-1) as being mounted on a CCTV 40 Pole, by the Elecctrical Sub-Contractor. However, the last location is referenced by Sheet Note 6 (which on Dwg E-44 states, "Install CCTV 35 Pole. See Details on RSP ES-16A. CCTV shall be installed by others." This is also confusing as TOS Location #3 (Dwg E-22) Camera Station is a CCTV 40 pole at Sta 95+40 and the Electronic Toll Camera Station (Dwg E-54) is a CCTV 35 pole also at Sta 95+40. Is this the same Camera Station? Is there a third Camera Station location? If they are the same camera station, does this station get a CCTV 35 or a CCTV 40 pole? If for some reason there are two camera stations at this location shouldn't we be pulling the typical cabling (TVC, TVL, TVP & TVCP) from the Controller to the pole? (Dwg E-54 indicates the conduit that is feeding the Camera Stations as "MT") |
CCTV camera pole shown on E-54 will be maintained by ACCMA, not Caltrans. The Contractor shall install the empty conduits and CCTV35 pole at Sta. 95+30 as shown on the plan, and the CCTV camera and camera cables will be installed by other. The cost of empty conduits and CCTV35 pole installation will be a lump sum price paid for ETS, not TOS. | ||||||||||||||||
|
37.0 |
Specification Section 10-3.09 (Page 247), indicates that Pull boxes proposed to be installed in soil, must be buried. Except for communications pull boxes and splice vaults that contain only fiber optics. Most of the Drawings do not indicate any "T-Rated" boxes, so we wanted to confirm that basically all power boxes in soil will be "T-Rated" regardless of whether they are stated as such on the drawings? The pull boxes shown on E-55, 56 & 57 are not noted as "T-Rated" as questioned above. However, the communication boxes noted as "C" could be fiber-optic, but are presently noted as "MT". Are these to be "T-Rated" and buried? The adjacent power pull boxes have (3) #4 wires in them. If we are to abide by the spec these are to be "T-Rated" and buried, correct? |
Pull box installation on ETS plans shall follow Specification Section 10-3.09. | ||||||||||||||||
|
38.0 |
There are a number of instances on the TOS drawings that we are installing a new conduit from the shoulder out to the existing concrete barrier center median and installing a new #9 of #9A pull box and then stubbing out for loops of signage. These (18) locations are shown on Drawings E-8, E-10, E-16, E-19, E-21, E-22, (2) E-23, E-25, E-26, E-46, E-50, E-51, (2) E-54, (2) E-55 and E-57. Looking at the Layout and the Civil Construction Drawings I believe are all in existing concrete barrier. There is a Sheet Note on Dwg E-1, Note 22, that states "Install No. 9A Pull Box in concrete barrier. See Structure Plans for installation details." I do not find any details in the structure, the electrical or the civil drawings that indicate how this is to be accomplished. While we understand that a section of the barrier will need to be removed, conduit / boxes installed and the section formed and re-poured, it would seem that this could be missed by the Contractors since it is not detailed. Is there a detail shown with these bid documents that I may of missed? Please confirm. | Please see C-90 and C-91 for Concrete Barrier Detail. | ||||||||||||||||
|
39.0 |
Where is the Wildlife Exclusionary Fence to be installed. Bid Item #4 carries 9600 m. The plans do not indicate locations. This is a large qty and will require substantial maintenance if it is to be installed at engineer discretion locations. | The Wildlife Exclusionary Fence placement is shown on the addendum sheet 143 next to the ESA fence. Please see C-28 to C-54 in Addendum #1 for placement of the ESA fence. | ||||||||||||||||
|
40.0 |
Can you provide column casing heights? | Bid per the contract documents. No additional information will be provided. Refer to sheet 71 of 106 for permanent casing specified tip elevations and to sheet 79 of 106 for length. | ||||||||||||||||
|
41.0 |
On sheet 142 the Quadguard note #3 refers to a 3.66 m wide by 15.24 long pad. The plan view shows a 3.76 m wide by 6.4 m long pad. Which clarify which one is correct. | The PCC pad length is 6.4 m. The width is 0.95 m at the nose and 3.2 m in the back. (3.66 m by 15.24 m is for different condition, not for this project). | ||||||||||||||||
|
42.0 |
We have found addendum #1 for the above referenced project online. Addendum 1 replaces the majority of all plan sheets and makes extensive revisions to specifications and bid items, yet the bid date has not changed. With the exhaustive nature of the addendum, we request that the bid opening date be postponed a minimum of two weeks so that the contractor might completely re-evaluate the project. |
Addendum 2 changed the Bid Open Date to December 10, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||
|
43.0 |
We are in receipt of addendum #1 to the above referenced project. Plan Sheet 314A is listed as being added, but there was no Sheet 314A included (either online or in the delivered packet). When will Sheet 314A be issued? |
Plans sheet 314A was eliminated. It was to show the quantity of the Temporary Pavement HMA now shown in Q-6, AB(3) shown in Q-2, and Roadway Earthwork (Remove Temporary Pavement) shown in Q-5. | ||||||||||||||||
|
44.0 |
Referring to sheet 15 of 614, detail VL1 54+69.2 to 54+97.248, where borrow is spelled out as fill over the retaining wall footing: Does this mean we don't have to use structure backfill (SE>20) per Section 19-3.06 of the Standard specifications? Also, what about behind the retaining walls, outside of the theoretical limits, can native material be used there? Please Clarify. |
The borrow shown on page 15 is an error . There is no borrow in this project. The both structure backfill and material used elsewhere must meet Standard Specifications. | ||||||||||||||||
|
45.0 |
Reference Specifications Section 3-1.08 (page 304 of specifications). Section 3-1.08 calls for submission of "Caltrans Bidder - DBE Information Form". The DBE Information form was NOT included in the Contract Documents. Please advise. |
The Caltrans Bidder - DBE Information Form will be sent to the winning bidder. | ||||||||||||||||
|
46.0 |
Per addendum #1 Bid Item #140 "200mm Perforated Plastic Pipe Underdrain" was changed from 2530m to 1660m, but the Drainage Quantity Sheet DQ-14 sheet no. 239 was not revised to reflect the items deleted. Please provide. | DQ-14 was mistakenly left off the Addendum #1. Underdrains from R74+67 to R88+72 (part of D-12 and all of D-13 to D-16) have been deleted and Underdrains from R120+35 to R123+63 (D-25 and D-26) have been added. | ||||||||||||||||
|
47.0 |
Per Addendum #1 the addition of drawing C-99 sheet no. 143A indicated additional 200mm PPPUD from sta. R 120+35 to 123+63 along the existing SB median area.
|
a) Confirmed. The quantity is included in Bid item #140. b) Yes, it is the intent. c) Trench plates are not allowed on the mainline. |
||||||||||||||||
|
48.0 |
Per Bid Item #147 Minor Concrete (Miscellaneous Construction) @ 130 M3, is indicated by the DQ Sheets as all inlet depressions. Please confirm that the Special Provisions Section "10-1.84 INLET DEPRESSIONS" as stated in the 7th paragraph below, IS INCORRECT.
|
Submitted for consideration. | ||||||||||||||||
|
49.0 |
There does seem to be a discrepancy between the desired architectural finish and the detailed structural construction method. A bush hammered finish is achieved via a form liner on a CIP wall and cannot be done on a shotcrete face. Please provide clarification. | Submitted for consideration. | ||||||||||||||||
|
50.0 |
Is the Bid to include the NET cost of insurance or the GROSS cost? Should bidders include the total insurance cost as in previous bids, knowing that ROCIP coverage will be deducted from payroll reports. If the it is to be NET and ROCIP cost is to be excluded in the bid itself, will a form be issued to aid in this calculation? | Submitted for consideration. | ||||||||||||||||