Viewing inquiries for 02-368414

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Will Caltrans allow the use of Zoneguard barrier, in minimum deflection configuration, in lieu of the temporary barrier type K listed in the specs.
Inquiry submitted 07/27/2017

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 07/27/2017


Response #2:
Any proposed modifications will only be considered by the Engineer after the contract has been awarded.

Please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 08/01/2017




Inquiry #2: ITEM #114, MGS, 7 ft. Steel Post:
Is the 7 ft. steel post a W6 x 8.5/W6 x 9, or W6 x 15? 7 ft. steel posts are not shown on RSP A77N2.

Inquiry submitted 07/31/2017

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 08/01/2017


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to the "NOTES" and the details on plan sheet 24 of 157, C-7, of the project plans.

Please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 08/01/2017




Inquiry #3: Please reference Plan sheet DQ-1 - Embankment Quantity of 4,550 CY if you continue on to DQ-4 it shows this quantity to be 13,215 CY. But if you continue on to Q-2 summary of quantities it shows it to go back to be 4,550 CY. Which one is it?
Inquiry submitted 08/21/2017

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 08/21/2017


Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 08/22/2017


Response #3:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Friday, September 1, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 09/01/2017




Inquiry #4: Section 39-2.04B(3) on page 32 of the Special Provision states "For RHMA-O and RHMA-O-HB, the grade of asphalt binder must be PG 64-16 M."
To the best of our knowledge PG 64-16 M does not exist. Please Advise.

In regards to Bidder Inquiry No. 3, there is a discrepancy in the contract documents. So, how are we to bid per the contract documents? Specifically with the embankment quantity on two or three different sheets of part of the contract documents (aka the plans). In addition, the State has provided the Contractor electronic data that suggests there is an optional disposal site for the project. Yet the plans or special provision do not indicate that there is an optional disposal site. Only that there is an additional 8600 CY of embankment. So we ask, what contract documents are we to use? The ones that say 4500 CYs or the one that say 13,125 CY's?
We respectfully ask that the State review bidder inquiry No. 3 and answer the question with integrity.

Inquiry submitted 08/29/2017

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed.
Response posted 08/29/2017


Response #2:
An addendum has been issued to address this bidder inquiry. Please refer to Addendum No. 2, issued on Friday, September 1, 2017.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 09/01/2017




Inquiry #5: Please clarify if Topsoil listed under Step 1 of Erosion Control (Type 3) should be imported topsoil. If imported topsoil, please advise which bid line item to include all associated costs.
Inquiry submitted 09/11/2017

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not posted before bid opening addressing your inquiry, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 09/11/2017


Response #2:
Your attention is directed to section 19-2.03D Selected Material of the Standard Specifications.
Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 09/11/2017






The information provided in the responses to bidder inquiries is not a waiver of Section 2-1.07, “JOB SITE AND DOCUMENT EXAMINATION” of the Standard Specifications or any other provision of the contract, nor to excuse the contractor from full compliance with the contract. Bidders are cautioned that subsequent responses or contract addenda may change a previous response.