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) There is a project that was just awarded a couple of miles to the south of this job, it used PG 64-28 PM. Should this project utilize the same binder (64-28 PM) or is standard PG 64-28 correct?
A1) The standard PG 64-28 grade asphalt binder is correctly specified in this project.
Q2) When and where will the cross sections be available to pick up?
A2) x-sections are available on compact disc. Contact Kathleen Clarke to have a CD mailed to you:
Caltrans District Office, 500 South Main St, Bishop, CA 93514
Phone: (760) 872-0652
Q3) Typical cross section X-1, stations 19+30 thru 20+40, 103+05 thru 103+50 and 30+20 thru 31+70 (left side) does not show the 21-66 mm cold plane with the .45 mm hma on the 1.5 shoulder. Please clarify if this area doesnt take the cold plane & overlay or if this is a misprint.
A3) Typical cross section X-1 is correct at the subject locations. These are in curves where shoulder cross slope corrections are not necessary.
Q4) The summary of quantities on sheet 130 under the earthwork section shows 66,661 m3 of roadway excavation and 65,994 m3 of embankment. What was the grading factor that was used in determing these quantities or is the roadway excavation qty based on inplace with no factor?
95% grading factor was used for this project.
No grading factor was applied to the quanties listed in this question. The roadway excavation and embankment quantities are actual in-place volumes. A grading factor of 95% was used by the designer for estimating project earthwork balance.
Q5) With the recent change of events in the economy and the threatenings of State jobs not being funded until a buget is passed, how is this going to affect the bid date on this project or will it affect this project?
A5) Currently the project is unaffected.
Q6) What are the subgrade compaction requirements at the detours? Is there a detail for contour grading at detour 2?
A6) Part 1 - Subgrade compaction requirements for detours are same as roadway. Part 2 - There is no detail for contour grading at Detour #2.
Q7) Is the contractor responsible for cleaning out the existing culverts?
A7) The Contract does not include cleaning out the culverts.
Q8) Please clarify if the a.c. dike sits on RHMA-G.
A8) In accordance with Std Plan A87B Note #1 - extend top layer of AC (RHMA-G) under dike.
Q9) This project will utilize both Pg 64-28 and PG 58-22, is it possible that either of these binder grades be allowed for use in the production of Minor Hot Mix Asphalt?
A9) The contract requires that one of 3 grades of Asphalt Binder be used for all 'Minor Hot Mix Asphalt'. This requirement will not be changed prior to bid opening.
Q10) On Sheet C-1, construction details, there is a detail for work that happens on existing turnouts; saw cutting and new AC. Please clarify where the existing turnouts are and when this detail will be used. I am requesting clarification because on sheet X-2, STA 22+00 to 22+70, 25+90 to 26+60, etc (all stations pertaining to that detail) are showing an overlay instead of saw cutting and new ac.
A10) The construction detail on C-1 applies to all existing turnouts. The turnouts are shown on the layouts. The intent of the construction detail is to provide enough width for conventional compaction equipment to perform planned shoulder widening at conforms with existing turnouts. The Section A-A arrows on this detail are backwards, pointing them to the right clarifies the situation.
Q11) On sheet C1, 42 of 152, there is a detail specifying what work happens at existing turnouts; saw cutting and new ac. It appears to me that the existing turnouts are under the proposed turnouts. If so, then on sheet x2, 3 of 152, Sta 22+00 to 22+70, 25+90 to 26+60, etc(all stations in the detail), show an overlay happening instead of saw cutting and new ac. Please clarify where the existing turnout detail on sheet C2 happens and if it contradicts the stationing on sheet X2.
A11) The construction detail on C-1 applies to all existing turnouts. The turnouts are shown on the layouts. The intent of the construction detail is to provide enough width for conventional compaction equipment to perform planned shoulder widening at conforms with existing turnouts. The Section A-A arrows on this detail are backwards, pointing them to the right clarifies the situation.
Q12) The specials call for the placing of "Duff" material and compacting/stabilizing that will retain the material in place. The table on sheet 132 does not show the 1:1.5 cut slopes in stage 1 but it does show 1:1.5 cut slopes in stage 2. Is the contractor expected to compact/stabilize "Duff" material against cut slopes that are 1:1.5? If so, please provide a method in which will be accepted.
A12) Yes. The method is at the contractor's option. The chosen method shall be sufficient to hold the duff material in place on the slope. The duff on these slopes will be covered by erosion control blanket and must be sufficiently stable to allow installation of the erosion control blanket.
Q13) On sheet X1, STA 86+30 to 88+30, It is showing 60mm RHMA, over 105mm HMA, over 167mm AB, while sheet X2, STA 86+10 to 89+05 is showing a 60 mm RHMA overlay. Please clarify the work to be performed between these stations; layout plan L-21.A13) This is the NB on-ramp from the vista point and for the most part it will be an overlay detail (as shown in X-2). However along the outer most edge, a 'high side of superelevation gutter' will be constructed (as shown in the details on X-1). The details for making this modification if needed will be set forth in a CCO after contract approval. For bidding porposes, assume this ramp will be overlayed with a dike placed along the EP, in conformance with the details on X-2.
Q14) Per The answer given for question 8, "In accordance with Std Plan A87B Note #1 - extend top layer of AC (RHMA-G) under dike". Is the Contractor going to be allowed to place the 60mm of RHMA-G in 2 lifts? Please clarify.A14) The Standard Plan for placing the top lift of paving under AC dikes does not change the requirements for minimum or maximum lift thickness based on other portions of the contract. Whatever the thickness of the uppermost layer of AC is, it is to be extended the width of the AC dike to provide a base for the dike to be placed on.
Q15) The Geotechnical Design Report and Seismic Refraction Investigation Report included in the Information Handout concludes that all areas of excavation can be ripped. Why would we need to include a blasting plan in the Roadway Excavation pay item if no blasting is anticipated? If blasting is required how will we be paid?A15) The the report referenced in this question says the material should be rippable, but at a couple of locations blasting may be needed. The requirement for a blasting plan was included in the contract to provide for the possibility of a contractor needing or choosing to blast.