California Department of Transportation
 

Contract 05-0161E4

The responses to bidder's inquiries, unless incorporated into a formal addendem to the contract, are not a part of the contract and are provided for the bidder'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 availability or use of information provided in the responses to bidder's 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.


Q1) The table on page 180 of the contract Special Provisions lists the 'acceptable earth retaining systems'. The ARES earth retention system as designed and supplied by Tensar International Corporation is listed on the Caltrans website as an approved precast panel system for this type of application. Our system is not listed on this table. As a precast panel system we can comply with both the structural and aesthetic requirements shown in the contract documents. We request that an addendum be issued adding our system to this table.

A1) Addendum for this system will not be issued at this time. Caltrans Traslab prior approval is required for all new products. The prequalification requirements are available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/NewProducts/index.htm 1Nov10.


Q2) PLEASE POSPONE BID OPENING DATE FOR ONE WEEK. THE BID DATE FALLS IN THE WEEK FOLLOWING THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY.

A2) There will not be a postponement to the scheduled bid opening date. 15Oct10.


Q3) Cross Sections for the job are in excess of 3400 sheets, meaning that an enormous amount of time will be required to calculate earthwork. Since bids are due 30 working days from today, will the State consider issuing CAD Files for the project to expedite calculations?

A3) CAD files will not be issued at this time, however, copies of full size xsections are available at CRS for purchase 805-543-5247. 9Nov10.


Q4)There are several cross sections that show a 50 mm a/c over 150 mm a/b under the 60 Barrier Rail. What is the width of this pavement area. The X-Section only shows the width from ES to CL of Barrier Rail, what is the total pavement width of this section.

A4) See bottom of X-1. Barrier pad width from center of barrier to Rt EP is 0.61m. 9Nov10.


Q5) On page 14 of 1402 X-Section from Station 123 +70 to 125+50 shows a 50 MM grind with a variable overlay 50 to 150 mm. Layout drawing sheet L22 sheet 64 of 1402 does not show this 50 mm grind. As the layout drawing supersedes the X-Section are we to assume this work is to be completed.

A5) The 50 mm cold plane begins at Station 125+50 northbound and Station 126+40 southbound as shown on L-22. 9Nov10.


Q6) Are there any CAD files available for the Contour Grading / Drainage Plans( D-1 - D-51)?

A6) There will not be CAD file for the Contour Grading/Drainage Plans(D1- D51). 9Nov10.


Q7) Sheet Number 857 (THQ-2) does not accurately depict quantities for Temporary Railing required for construction. There are MANY examples, but one of the examples is that quantities are listed for sheets TH-56 through TH-71, which do not exist. Will the State consider revisiting Temporary Railing quantities for accuracy?

A7) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q8) Quantity bust in the K-Rail summary page. Ref. sheet #TH-21 Sta 125+24 to Sta 126+89 NB. The quanityt listed is 110 M, but the actual quantity is 165 meters.

A8) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q9) Bust in the k-rail summary log. The summary page shows k-rail on plan sheet TH-24, but that plan sheet does not have any k-rail. There is approximately 70 meters of k-rail on plan sheet TH-23 that does not show up on the k-rail summary log.

A9) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q10) Bust in k-rail summary log. The log shows 18 M of k-rail on plan sheet TH-27, no k-rail on plan sheet TH-28, and 214 M of k-rail on plan sheet TH-29. I believe there is 2,151 M of k-rail on plan sheets TH-27 & TH-28.

A10) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q11) Temp K-rail Summary Log - plan sheet 857 of 1402: - This plan sheet indicates that there are sheets Numbered TH-1 thru TH-71, but my "TH" plan sheets only go up to TH-54.

A11) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q12) I have noticed that there are no detailed traffic control plans for any of the surface streets surrounding the project such as Russell, Harrison and White Roads. Will Caltrans supply traffic plans for the surface streets that are reconstructed as part of this project?

A12) No, Caltrans will not provide specific traffic control system plans for local street closures. Local roads should remain open unless otherwise stated on the plans. 9Nov10.


Q13) Are the cross-sections available in an output file from the CaiCe program in a .gen format?

A13) The cross-sections are not available in an output file from CaiCe program in a.gen format. 9Nov10.


Q14) The temporary drain system has a number of "GMP DI Type 900R Grate" inlets. The inlets on lines T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4 and T-9 pay for the concrete inlet bases under bid item #171 "Minor Concrete (Minor Structure). The inlets on lines T-6, T-10, T-11, T-12, & T-16 do not pay for the concrete bases. Why?

A14) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q15) These temp risers(Item #22) are topped with a misc. metal cage. It appears that this cage should be paid for under bid item #247 "Misc. Iron & Steel". The summary on plan sheet 672 of 1402 does not include the cage under the misc. metals column.

A15) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q16) Underground plan sheet 310/1402 shows line #48c as a 750 mm jacked pipe. Underground summary sheet 618/1402 lindicates that this line is not jacked pipe. Which is correct?

A16) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q17) Plan sheet 316/1402 shows drain line #82 as a 600 mm RCP. Drain quantity summary page 627/1402 shows this line as a 750 mm RCP. Which is correct?

A17) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q18) On sheet SC-34, sheet 760 of 1402, Stage 2 Phase 1 Construction refers you to Traffic Handling plans TH-45 - TH-47. This is incorrect. Could you please review and restate what sheets to use as appropriate?

A18) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q19) The “Drainage and Contour Grading” plans do not show the original ground contours within the grading area on the job. For example, see page D-5, there are no existing ground contours on the North side of Russell Road at station 15+00. Please provide a plan showing the contours for the area in which they are missing.

A19) The original ground contours are shown on the "Drainage and Contour Grading" plans. Location 1 of the project is extremely flat and thus do not show very many contours. See spot elevations. 9Nov10.


Q20) Caltrans has included X-Sections sheets 9-14 "OL" Line, at location #2, stationing 10+00 to 10+38.300, I am unable to find this stationing on the "OL" Line or an accompanying cross section. Please advise.

A20) Sheets 9-14 "OL" Line shown on the Earthwork Development Cross Sections (EDCS) should have been labled "OC" Line and correspond to the "ORCHARD LANE CUL-DE-SAC" Cross Section on Typical Cross Section X-15 (Sheet 16 of 1402). This is the new cul-de-sac bulb and is part of the "OC" Line. EDCS "OL" Station 10+00 = "OC" Line Station 30+12.58 and EDCS "OL" Station 10+38.300 = "OC" Line Station 30+24.513, as shown on Layout Sheet L-30 (Sheet 72 of 1402). 22Nov10.


Q21) On typical Caltrans project the subgrade for the roadway is required to be compacted to 95% for 30" from finish grade from ETW to ETW and 3' outside of ETW. Will this compaction specification be required on all the surface streets or just the Highway 101 Mainline?

A21) Yes. Please see Standard Specifications Section 19, Earthwork. 9Nov10.


Q22) In regard to postponing the bid opening and in refrence to the week of Thanksgiving, what would it hurt postponing the project one week?

A22) Reference Bidder Inquiry Q2). 9Nov10.


Q23) Please refer to plan sheet 640 of 1402: 1) Lines 145-c, 146-b, 147-b, 149-c, 150-b and 151-b are all listed under the4 description column as "RCP", but are shown in the drainage quantities as "APC". Which is correct?

A23) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q24) Drain line 148-c ia listed in the description column as 1200 mm RCP, but is shown in the drainage quantity area as 450 mm RCP. Which is correct?

A24) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q25) Layout sheet L-27 (69/1402) shows a Type V gutter on both sides of Cross Road. This Type V gutter on both sides of the road is not shown on the typical drawings (Sheet X-16, 17 of 1402). Please clarify what takes precedence, the layout drawings or the typicals

A25) Typical Cross Section in the lower right corner of Sheet X-16 (17/1402) shows Type V gutter on both sides of Cross Road as well as Type A Dike from Sta 27+36.51 to Sta 29+89.84. Stations specific to the Type V gutter on both sides of Cross Road are 28+41.415 to 29+88.007. 9Nov10.


Q26) Please provide staging for the various cross streets that are shown to be constructed under this project. For instance, staged drawings for Russell, Harrison and White Roads are not provided. Please clarify as to how this work is to be staged.

A26) Please see stage construction One Location one, sheets, SC 11 thru 15. 9Nov10.


Q27) According to the Stage Construction Quantities sheet SCQ-1 (sheet 779 of 1402) there is to be three temporary basin built in Location 1, Stage 1, Phase 1 (TBD1, TBD2, and TBD3); however, there are no contours given to accurately quantify this area, and Drainage contour grading only shows grades for the permenant basins (G, C1, K, L, and M). Can you please make contour grading available for TBD1, TBD2, and TBD3 temporary basins?

A27) Contour Grading of TBD1, TBD2, and TBD3 temporary basins are not available. 18Nov10.


Q28) Sheet 2 of 1402 X-Section RTE 101 Sta 144+10 to 147+40 shows a structural section of 215 MM HMA over 150 MM LCB along the RW No. 144 (left side), Sheet 1379 of 1402 Typical Section shows a closure pour of 2,415 MM x 450 MM of PCC. Which structural section is accurate. To clarify question #1, the section is along the Right Side, not the Left Side.

A28) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q29)I noticed that drain lines #191, 193, 196, & 197 are all jacked pipe (highway crossings), but that pipe run #190 is open cut. Should pipe run #190 also be jacked pipe. It also seems that pipe runs #181 & #185 should be jacked pipe since they are both highway crossings.

A29) Drain Pipes 181a, 185b, and 190c are shown correctly on the plan. 18Nov10.


Q30) The Summary of Quantities, page Q-11, shows only two locations for Ditch Excavation. Please clarify the locations of these ditches. I cannot locate the WL or BA line designations on the plans. Also, the larger of these two locations appears to be the 4m wide bottom channel at the Blackie Road Wetlands area. According to the Standard Specifications, "The excavation required to construct a ditch or channel designated with a bottom width of 4m or more will be classed as roadway excavation." There are other ditches and channels with lesser bottom widths on the plans that are not listed on the Summary of Quantities. Please clarify which ditches/channels will be paid as Ditch Excavation and which will be paid as Roadway Excavation.

A30) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q31) Are there any soil boring logs or material information available from the roadway excavation areas of South Prunedale Road and Echo Valley Road available? If not, will it be possible to dig test holes in these areas?

A31) Please see supplemental Project Information Handout for soil boring logs for Echo Valley area that are available in the geotechnical report. Soil boring logs for South Prunedale Road are included in the contract plans as part of structure plans for retaining wall no. 23, Sheet 1367 to 1369 of 1402. 18Nov10. Also, Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q32) Drain lines #196-j and 196-l are described as 600 mm APC, but are listed in the quantity summaries as 600 mm RCP. Which is correct?

A32) Drain lines #196-j and 196-l are correctly called out as 600 mm APC on the Drainage Layouts D-40, Drainage Profile Sheet DP-136, and the Drainage Quantity Sheet DQ-43. 22Nov10.


Q33) You have a Bid Item #76 - Sand Bedding. I cannot find this item on any of the Quantity sheets, Layout Drawings or covered in the Special Provisions. Could you please tell me where this item occurs or is covered.

A33) Sand Bedding is shown on Sheets 601 and 602 of 1402 (DD-47 and 48); and is to be placed inside the RCB Culverts (DS#165 and 166); and is quantified on Sheet 671 of 1402 (DQ-64). 18Nov10.


Q34) Please refer to question number 1 on the bidder inquiries for this project and your response to that question. Our ARES system is on the Caltrans per-approved alternative earth retaining systems list dated May 2009. We are not " a new product'. We have gone thru the Caltrans review process. We just need to be listed as one of the alternatives. Please advise us as to the reason we were not included or we respectfully request to be added to that list.

A34) Please see answer to BI # 1. 15Nov10.


Q35) Retaining Wall 144 - The elevations given for the datum, bottom of leveling pad, and top of wall/barrier slab do not add up. For example on structure plan no. 2, Rte 101 station 145+01.440: the datum elevation is marked as 28.00 the bottom of leveling pad is marked as 31.46 the top of wall/barrier slab is marked as 35.076 Those tags represent a height = 3.616 measured from bottom of leveling pad to top of wall/barrier slab BUT it measures out to approximately 3.9. The datum elevation to the bottom of leveling pad elevation tags represent an elevation of 3.46 BUT it is measures out to approximately to 3.8. (All in meters) When attempting to line up the match-line from structure plan no. 1 to structure plan no. 2 an obvious jump/inconsistency appears. This inconsistency is on all but the first structure plan no. 1. Please review details and structure layout and respond as appropriate.

A35) The elevations shown on the plans are correct. Attention is directed to the Section 5-1.04 of the Standard Specifications in case of a discrepancy between the drawing and figures written on the plans. Bid according to the current contract documents. 23Nov10.


Q36) The first table on plan sheet DQ-64 lists a quantity of 1010 m3 for the 1/2 ton RSP at the Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts. The details for these culverts (DD-51 thru DD-53) all call for 1/4 ton RSP. Which is the correct size at the box culverts - 1/2 Ton or 1/4 ton?

A36) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q37) Plan sheet X-7 shows the new curb and gutter for Giannini Road to be type A2-200. Summary of Quantities sheet Q-8 list this as Type V gutter. Which is correct?

A37) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q38) Plan sheet Q-10 (1011 of 1402) indicates the concrete pavement joint sealant for the transverse and longitudinal joints is at SB on ramp at Sala Road which is hot mix asphalt. The L-drawing plan sheets show the concrete pavement is on M-Line between stations 142+60 to 154+33. Can you please clarify if the joint sealant for the transverse and longitudinal joints is at the concrete pavement sections on M-Line or the Sala Road on ramp hot mix asphalt?

A38) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q39)BI # 283 Concrete Barrier (Type 60SC) has a vertical offset. In reviewing the cross sections and construction detail drawings there are no elevations given at these locations so the height of the vertical offset cannot be calculated. Could Caltrans supply the offset grades so the vertical offset height can be quantified?

A39) The vertical offset between NB and SB finish grades at the Concrete Barrier (Type 60SC) is shown on profile sheets P-20 through P-31 (113 through 123). 18Nov10.


Q40) Specifications clearly detail requirements for the Temporary Creek Diversion Systems, with Contractor submitted design. Since the Contractor is responsible for the design, what are the flow rates that the Contractor must accomodate (for pipe sizing)?

A40) Design flow rates for Blackie Crossing ( System 164) and Cross Reese Circle (System 165 & 166) is 440 cfs .For Pollock/Cross crossing (Systems 167 &168) the design flow rate is 250 cfs. 23Nov10.


Q41) The Caltrans standard specifications section 56-2.02C sates that Laminated wood box beams will be furnished by the state as provided under "Materials" of the specials provisions. Will this material be furnished by the state ?

A41) Laminated wood box posts for roadside signs will be furnished by State. 9Nov10. Also, Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q42) Plan sheet #671 has a table for the five reinforced concrete box culverts on the project. The table does not cover structural excavation and structural backfill of the concrete structures. Is this work paid for under bid item #72 "Structural Exc. Bridge" and bid item #77 "Structural Backfill Bridge"?

A42) No, the structure excavation and backfill for the five reinforced concrete box culverts will not be paid as separate items, per Standard Specification 19-3.08. 19Nov10.


Q43) Typical Cross section as shown on sheet 13 of 1402 shows a structural section of 255 mm hma and 330 mm of Cl2ab. The Stage cross section on sheet 730 of 1402 Hwy 101 Ralph Lane shows a structural section of 205 mm hma and 825 mm Cl2ab. Which structural section are we to use as this is the same station of freeway?

A43) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q44) REFERRING TO BID ITEM 202 (F) (TIMBER LAGGING), SHOULDN’T THE PAYMENT QTY BE IN MBF INSTEAD OF M3, AND REFERRNG TO SPECIAL PROVISION PAGE 296, WHAT DOES THE BID ITEM PAYMENT INCLUDE?

A44) Attention is directed to Section 57-4.01 of the 1999 Standard Specifications regarding measurement and payment for timber. Bid per current contract documents. 23Nov10.


Q45) Spec. page #336 requires the contractor to pay $117,480 for the temp. water mater and $27,695 for the permanent water meter. Does this fee cover the costs for water used on the project?

A45) Reference Standard Specifications, Section 17-1.04 Payment. 18Nov10.


Q46) REFERRING SECTION 10-1.82 (PILING) OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS, PAGE 251, ‘DYNAMIC MONITORING’ HOW MANY PILE WILL RECEIVE DYNAMIC MONITORING , AND HOW MANY FOOTINGS ARE INCLUDED AS ‘CONTROL LOCATIONS’. ONCE THE WAVE EQUATION IS COMPLETED, AND THE PRODUCTION PILE CRITERIA IS ESTABLISHED, AND PRODUCTION PILE ARE DRIVEN, WILL THE RE-STRIKE COSTS THEN BE PAID AS FORCE ACCOUNT, AS WELL AS COSTS FOR THE PILE USED IN THE DYNAMIC MONITORING SET-UP? PLEASE ADVISE.

A46) Please refer to Addendum No. 2 issued on November 19, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q47) In Section 10-1.41, ERS Retaining Walls. Would you issue an addenda allowing the use of KeySystem I a Caltrans approved MSE retaining wall system.

A47) No. Bid per current contract documents. 18Nov10.


Q48) It is understood that payment for the biologist would be in a lump sum. Monitoring is to occur according to the Natural Resources Protection Plan. Measures within this Plan are based on the permit conditions and other env. documentation. In general, we find that the monitoring tasks are dynamic in nature and difficult to estimate at this time. For instance, if CRF is identified and relocation is necessary, the cost for this service cannot be quantified at this time since it is unknown how large the population could be. USFWS discusses this on pg 16, paragraph 2, of the Biological Opinion. Would Caltrans consider providing an estimated quantity of survey days anticipated or allow for a time and materials not to exceed amount?

A48) The Lump Sum estimate for this item was based on (80%) X number of days X hrs per day X hourly rate. 18Nov10.


Q49) Drain line #87 has 5 new manholes that are described as "Type A", but listed in the manhole sumary column as "Type B". Which is correct?

A49) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 issued on November 16, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q50) REFERRING SECTION 10-1.82 (PILING) OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS, PAGE 248, paragraph #4, ‘Contractor’s Hammer Option’, can the contractor use vibratory hammers to advance the pile to within (1) meter of tip, then use the correct impact hammer to reach tip? Please advise.

A50) No. Reference Section 49-1.05, "Driving Equipment" of the 1999 Standard Specifications. 18Nov10.


Q51) The bid date falls the 2nd day after Thanksgiving Weekend. Please postpone the bid one week.

A51) The Bid Opening Date is Nov. 30, 2010. Contractor to bid per the current bid documents. 19Nov10.


Q52) Per the typical sections and the layout sheets the new PCC pavement is never placed against existing PCC pavement on this project. Therefore there are no longitudinal isolation joints. The longitudinal joints between the lanes are either construction joints or sawcut weakened plane/contraction joints. Please revise Item 143 by addendum.

A52) Please refer to Addendum No. 2 dated Nov 19, 2010. 23Nov10.


Q53) Please refer to the Stage 1 - Phase 1 note #2 on plan sheet SC-33. Please provide plans and details for the cross over referred to in this note. Note #2 says to see TH-35 through TH-37 and SCD-5 but those plans do not provide any information.

A53) Please refer to addendum No. 2, dated November 19, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q54) Please refer to plan sheets SC-6 and X-26 to X-31. Sheet SC-6 shows slope correction grinding and paving in the existing lanes and X-26 to X-31 shows 105mm cold plane and 105mm HMA min. Which is correct? Additionally sheet SC-6 shows the HMA as 35mm to 200mm, not 105mm minimum. Please clarify.

A54) Typical x-sections govern. X-26 to X-31 that read "105 mm cold plane AC Pvmt" should read "vary cold plane AC Pvmt" per SC-6. 29Nov10.


Q55) Do you know whether or not Caltrans will be performing the construction staking for this project?

A55) Yes, Caltrans will be performing the construction staking for the project. 18Nov10.


Q56) Landmark is a segmental retaining wall having an architecurally pleasing offset split texture and hence not a system which can employ random architectural surfaces. Please confirm that the Landmark System will not be required to conform to the architectural textured concrete requirements for this wall system.

A56) Please refer to Addendum No. 2 issued on November 19, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q57) What is the pay item for the removal of the existing Bridge Structure at the box culvert associated with drainage system 166. Staged Construction Drawing Sheet SC-30 (756/1402) states to remove existing bridge structure, but it is unclear as to how this work is paid for.

A57) Please refer to Addendum No. 2 dated Nov 19, 2010. 23Nov10.


Q58) The planting areas shown on plan sheets 1048 and 1050 through 1052 do not seem to be watered by any of the irrigation shown on plan sheets 1055 through 1060. This does not seem to be addressed anywhere in the Special Provisions.

A58) Plant Group WC is to maintained according to the provisions of Specification Section 10-1.62. Plant Group WP is to maintained according to the provisions of Specification Section 10-1.63. Plant Group U is to be maintained according to Standard Specifications Section 20-4.08, Plant Establishment Work. 23Nov10.


Q59) Soldier Pile section shows Beam Section W310 x 97 while quantities (sheet 1335 of 1402) and Bid item 147 states W310 x 79. Please confirm which is correct.

A59) Please refer to Addendum No. 2 issued on November 19, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q60) The planting areas shown on plan sheets 1048 and 1052 are planted with a mixture of Plant Group WC (Salix Lucida)and Plant Group U (Populus Trichocarpus). Plant Group WC is to maintained according to the provisions of Specification Section 10-1.63: Willow Cuttings and Plant Group U is to be maintained according to Section 10-2.04 Highway Planting: Plant Establishment Work. What are the establishment requirements for these planting areas?

A60) Plant Group WC and WP is to be maintained according to the provisions of Specification Section 10-1.62. Plant Group U is to be maintained according to the provisions of Specification Section 10-2.04 Highway Planting: Plant Establishment Work. 23Nov10.


Q61) HDPE detail shows 25mm thick x 6" x 12" shims. Please confirm HDPE thickness per detail. Will CALTRANS consider a thinner HDPE shim like a 12.5 mm or 6mm as shown on RW 30 sheet 1337 due to the relatively high cost of 25mm thick HDPE as compared to 12.5 or 6mm thickness?

A61) HDPE thickness shown in plans is correct. Bid per current contract documents. 18Nov10.


Q62)Soldier Pile quantities shows 466 M (item 146 on the bid schedule and sheet 1390 of 1402 of the plans while the drilled hole shows only payment quantity of 265 M. Based on the limits of payment for the 610mm drilled hole shown on the section (sheet 1399), quantities for the 610mm drilled holes should be approximately similar to the steel soldier piling quantities. Please clarify.

A62) Please refer to Addendum No. 2 issued on November 19, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q63) Due to the large number of unanswered bid inquiries, many which need to be answer to price this job, we respectfully request a two week postponement of this bid. To keep things on track, could we reduce the award period from 60 to 30 days?

A63) The BOD will stay the same. 23Nov10.


Q64) The bid opening for this project is after the long Thanksgiving weekend and appears to be creating a problem with subcontractors since most will be taking the entire week off for the holiday and therefore will not be submitting a bid. Since this project is high on UDBE subcontractor participation, it would be advantageous for the bid date to be postponed so that we can meet the UDBE goal.

A64) The BOD will stay the same. 23Nov10.


Q65) The specifications do not indicate whether this project requires the Contractor to provide a trailer for the agency and/or the Contractor. Is an agency and/or Contractor required for this project? If so, please provide the specifics.

A65) At this time, bid it according to contract plans and specifications. 23Nov10.


Q66) Location 1: The "typical x-sections" Sheets X-1 thru X-4 (Sta 142+60 to 163+41.50) show the existing mainline (101 Fwy) pavements section to be 200mm PCC/100mm CTB/305mm AS. Contrary to the layout plans Sheet L-2 which show the existing PCC pavement ONLY from Sta 142+60 to approximate Sta. 144+48. Please review and advise.

A66) Please refer to addendum No.2, dated Nov. 19, 2010. 23Nov10.


Q67) On plan sheet 1045 (Planting and Irrigation Key map) Construction Detail Sheet # 41 (Plan Sheet 222) is referenced at the Russel Road location. On Plan Sheet 1016 (Summary of Quantities Q-15) a 250mm CHDPE conduit is indicated as being shown on Plan Sheet C-41 on the RUSS Line. However, Sheet C-41 does not show Irrigation Crossovers at Russel Road; instead it shows typical Rumble Strip installations. There does not seem to be a Plan Sheet showing the listed Irrigation Crossover on the RUSS line.

A67) Irrigation Crossover construction details for Russell/Espinosa area not included as C-41. Plan sheet added as 222a. Please refer to addendum No. 2, dated November 19, 2010. 22Nov10.


Q68)Today there remained 51 outstanding unanswered Bidder's Inquiries for a project scheduled to bid November 30th. Please answer the remaining Bidder's Inquiries ASAP. Without answers to the questions we've asked, we can't continue to price important components of this project.

A68) All BI's will be answered in a timely manner and before BOD. 23Nov10.


Q69)What pages contain the drawings of the clearing and grubbing?

A69) Sheet no. 295, 296 (EC-52, EC-53) and Layouts (sheets 43-92) and Drainage and Contour Grading (sheets 304-354), that show the limits of grading and improvements. 22Nov10.


Q70) What pages show the tree relocation? item #109.

A70) Sheet no. 295 (EC-52). 22Nov10.


Q71) Regarding the culverts to be lined with cured-in-place pipeliners, there are 3 culverts for which no depth, slope or invert elevation information has been provided. Culverts at STA 127+70.740 on the "O" Line, STA 157+43.914 on the "P" Line, and STA 158+51.047 on the "P" Line are not shown on any of the drainage profile drawings, and the cured-in-place pipe liner detail drawing DD-8 (sheet 562) is shown as having "No Scale". Please provide pipe depths in terms of maximum soil cover over the pipe crown, and either pipe slopes or invert elevations at both ends of each pipe for all 3 of the culverts currently missing this information. The depth information is needed for designing the CIPP thickness, since specifications require groundwater to be calculated at half the pipe depth. The slope &/or invert elevation information is needed for determining appropriate cleaning and installation procedures to be used.

A71) Bid according to plans and specifications. If changes are necessary, they will be handled by proposed Contract Change Order. 29Nov10.


Q72) At the prebid meeting, the representative from the Monterey County Transportation agency stated that "prior to award" they would review the list of proposed subcontractors to evaluate if some of the work was being done by subcontractors from the local area. This statement is contrary to any contract requirements or rules governing state highway contracts. In lieu of the fact that a number of the General Contractors bidding this project are from Monterey County, please confirm that they will not be given an advantage over the bidders from outside the county.

A72) There is no change in our process for reviewing bid documents and awarding the contract to the lowest responsive bidder. If TAMC reviews the bid, it would be for informational purposes only. 22Nov10.


Q73) The pre-bid meeting was held 2-weeks prior to the bid date. The intent of the pre-bid meeting was to provide SBE and UDBE subcontractors information about the work, and access to the bidding General Contractors. We have had nuerous complaints from the SBE's and UDBE's that the window of 2-weeks (prebid to bid date) is not enough time for them to understand and bid various portions of the work. A bid date extension would allow the disadvantaged businesses (who attended the meeting) an appropriate amount of time to bid this project, which was the intent of the meeting.

A73) The bid opening is currently scheduled for November 30 and at this time, there is no change in this date. The subcontractors and bidding prime contractors were expected to use the time between the advertising date of October 11, and the bid opening date of November 30 to prepare their bids. The prebid meeting was intended to foster contacts between the bidding prime contractors and UDBE subcontractors. Information about the various portions of work was provided in the list of bid items and Special Provisions that was available at the time the project advertised (October 11). 22Nov10.


Q74) The nearest boring (B13-06) to Abut. 3 on the Crazy Horse Canyon Rd OC bridge shows groundwater at approx. elevation 112.6. This information is confirmed by the Groundwater Monitoring Well table included in the Additional Information Handout in Addendum 1. Abutment 3 is currently designed with 400MM CIDH piles with tips at 108.6 -- 4M below groundwater. Caltrans requires a minimum shaft diameter of 600MM for wet-hole slurry methods. Please advise.

A74) Bid per the current contract bid documents. 23Nov10.


Q75) Referring to, A] Addendum #2, BRIDGE REMOVAL, “ the existing water supply system” shall remain funutional throughout the bridge widening and B] Plan sheet 1171/1402, Note #16, “Existing Water Supply Line NPS 3, Maintain Service, See Road Plans”. Where on the “Road Plans” does it show this existing line needs work to be maintained”

A75) Reference Standard Specifications, July 1999, Section 20-5.025 for "Maintain Existing Water Supply". Refer to sheet no. 1054, Irrigation Removal Plan IR-2 for existing irrigation facilities and sheet no. 225, Construction Details (Irrigation) C-44 and sheet no. 1056, Irrigation Plan for new irrigation facilities. 29Nov10.


Q76) The Special Provision on page 329, Remove Existing Irrigation Facilities, and plan sheets 1053 to 1054, calls out for removal of an existing irrigation. Please clarify under what item will the irrigation removal be paid?

A76) Reference Standard Specifications, July 1999, Section 20-5.05. 24Nov10.


Q77) Can you identify the trees which are to be transplanted by species and their size by TBH (trunk at breast height). The cost of this Item can vary exponentially depending on the size and type of tree.

A77) Refer to sheet no. 1016, Summary of Quantities Q-15, Transplant Tree. 29 Nov10.


Q78) As of 11/29/2010 we are in reciept of a new bid book that was delivered on Nov. 24, 2010. There are several changes to bid item quantities in the new bid book that do not match the changes made in addendum #2. Please clarify what bid book we should be using and the quantities we should be bidding.

A78) Please refer to revised Bid Item quantities in Addendum No. 1 dated November 16, 2010 and Addendum No. 2 dated November 19, 2010. 29Nov10.


Q79) We have heard from another contractor that a new bid book was sent out on November 24th. Our company has not received any new bid book and we intend to submit our bid on the bid book we now possess, with pages inserted from Addenda One and Two, as instructed in Addendum Two. We haven't received any other instruction from Caltrans beyond Addendum Two. If this is incorrect, please advise.

A79) No additional bid books were printed. All changes are to be made in accordance with the addenda. 30Nov10.