Viewing inquiries for 03-3E1004

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Due to a large volume of bids in the month of October, the extensive engineering required to properly bid the bridge jacking on this project, and the fact that construction will likely not start until Spring of 2014, we request a 6 week postponement to the current bid date.
Inquiry submitted 09/19/2013

Response #1:09/19/13:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 09/19/2013


Response #2:09/19/13: There will be no change to the 10/22/13 bid date. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 09/19/2013


Response #3:10/09/13: Please refer to the new bid opening date on Addendum No. 1 which is Wednesday, November 6, 2013.
Response posted 10/09/2013




Inquiry #2: 1). The Project Information Handout stated that, "It is anticipated that (Hard Rock) will be encountered at shallow depth when performing excavation for the grade lowering at the Newcastle UP, and Weimar Crossroad OC", the Contractor should expect the possibility of significantly low production rates. And the Office of Geotechnical Design-North (OGDN) also recommended Caltrans to included "Rock Excavation" within the project specifications. Please clarify the following questions:

A. Can Caltrans provide us the Rock Excavation Specification and Rock Excavation Bid Item?

B. Due to the Rock Excavation at Location 6&7 "Newcastle Road & UP", and Location 8 "Weimar Cross Road". Can Caltrans reconsider the Completion Calendar Days at those locations?

2). Plan Sheet C-11 shows Ditch Excavation at Horseshoe Bar Road outside of Roadway Excavation prism. How is Caltrans paid for this work?

3). Due to the magnitude of this project and design involvement. Can Caltrans postpone this project for two weeks?

Inquiry submitted 09/19/2013

Response #1:09/19/13:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 09/19/2013


Response #2:10/09/13:
[1],,[2] :Your question is under review. [An addendum is under consideration. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
[3] Please refer to the new bid opening date on Addendum No. 1 which is Wednesday, November 6, 2013.

Response posted 10/09/2013


Response #3:10/25/13: 1A - Please refer to Addendum Number 2 dated October 25, 2013.
1B - The days will remain the same.

Response posted 10/25/2013


Response #4:10/28/13: 2 - Please refer to the Roadway Items chart on plan sheet Q-2 of Addendum Number 2 dated October 25, 2013 for Roadway Excavation for the location on sheet C-11.
Response posted 10/28/2013




Inquiry #3: Due to the number of working days, can Furnish Metal Sign Structures be included for partial payments MOH?
Inquiry submitted 09/20/2013

Response #1:9/20/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 09/20/2013


Response #2:10/3/13: Your question is under review. An addendum is under consideration. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #3: 10/25/13: 1A - Please refer to Addendum Number 2 dated October 25, 2013.
Response posted 10/25/2013




Inquiry #4: Charts on plan sheet #135 and #217 shows different numbers of Portable Changeable Message Sign (PCMS) to be install during stages construction. Please clarify chart on plan sheet #135 is apply for what work?

Thanks,

Inquiry submitted 09/30/2013

Response #1:9/30/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 09/30/2013


Response #2:10/4/13:The Motorist Information Plan (MI-1),sheet #135 is an independent sheet from the Stage Construction and Traffic Handling Quantities plan sheet #217. Please refer to the note on MI-1 stating, “For additional PCMS information, see detour plans, traffic handling plans and traffic handling quantities.”

The quantity of PCMS on sheet #217 are in addition to those shown on sheet #135.

Response posted 10/04/2013


Response #3:10/28/13: Please refer to the updated M-1 sheet in Addendum No. 2 dated October 25, 2013.
Response posted 10/28/2013




Inquiry #5: Are there any issues regarding the use of recycled asphalt for embankment fill?
Inquiry submitted 10/02/2013

Response #1:10/3/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #2:10/3/13: The use of recycled asphalt for embankment fill may be allowed as long as it meets the requirements of the 2010 Standard Specifications, including but not limited to the following sections: Section 19-1.01B, Definitions for what is considered unsuitable material, Section 19-6.02A General, Section 19-6.02B, Geosynthetic Reinforced Embankment and Section 19-9.03, Construction. Please bid per the contract documents.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #3:10/07/13: We recognized the previous response was in error. Please refer to the response:
The use of recycled asphalt for embankment fill may be allowed as long as it meets the requirements of the 2010 Standard Specifications, including but not limited to the following sections: Section 19-1.01B, Definitions for what is considered unsuitable material, Section 19-6.02A General, and 19-6.03, Construction. Please bid per the contract documents.

Response posted 10/07/2013




Inquiry #6: Are there any reasons why Weimar Cross Rd and/or Newcastle Rd locations can not be constructed during season 1?
Inquiry submitted 10/02/2013

Response #1:10/3/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #2:10/3/13: Yes. Furthermore, any proposal not specifically identified in the bid documents will only be considered by the Engineer after contract award. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/03/2013




Inquiry #7: Will the State require Bench and Key at embankment slopes?
Inquiry submitted 10/02/2013

Response #1:10/3/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #2:10/25/13: Please refer to the 2010 Standard Specifications, Section 19-6.03A, 4th paragraph, "When constructing an embankment against an existing slope or when constructing 1/2 the embankment width at a time, prepare the slope by cutting into it at least 6 feet horizontally as you place the new embankment in layers. Compact the cut material along with the new embankment material. If ordered to cut more than 6 feet, the excavated material in excess of 6 feet is paid for as roadway excavation." Please bid per the contract documents.
Response posted 10/25/2013




Inquiry #8: Regarding Newcastle phase 6, stage 4. Does K-rail along DETW2 line remain from stage 3? Stage 4 plans show only K-rail along DETW1 line in stage 4.
Inquiry submitted 10/02/2013

Response #1:10/3/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #2:10/7/13: Yes, Page 202 of 437 (Phase 6 Stage 3) shows the K-Rail placement along the “DETW2” Line. On Page 209 of 437 (Phase 6 Stage 4) the K-Rail is in dropped out .
Response posted 10/07/2013




Inquiry #9: Plan sheet U-5 (Sheet 122) has a notation stating "Replace 24" Water Pipeline (To Be Relocated By Others)" while Plan sheets W-1, WD-1 to WD-4 (Sheets 113 - 117) depict the installation of the new waterline & appurtenances. Please clarify the intent of the note on Sheet U-5.
Inquiry submitted 10/03/2013

Response #1:10/3/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #2:10/3/13: Your question is under review. An addendum is under consideration. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #3: 10/28/13: Please refer to Addendum Number 2 dated October 25, 2013.
Response posted 10/28/2013




Inquiry #10: All of the sites except the Weimar/I-80 location are listed in the Incentive/Disincentive For Early Completion Table in Section 8-1.09. Is it Caltrans intention not to offer any incentive/disincetive for the Weimar location?
Inquiry submitted 10/03/2013

Response #1:10/3/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #2:10/3/13: Correct, there is no incentive/disincentive for the Weimar location.
Response posted 10/03/2013




Inquiry #11: If a rock excavation bid item is not provided by Caltrans, is there a need to excavate in competent rock in order to establish subgrade?
Inquiry submitted 10/07/2013

Response #1:10/7/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/07/2013


Response #2:10/7/13: Your question is under review. An addendum is under consideration. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/07/2013


Response #3: 10/28/13: Please refer to Addendum Number 2 dated October 25, 2013. An item for rock excavation has been added.
Response posted 10/28/2013




Inquiry #12: section 14-11.05 "Naturally Occurring Asbestos" indicates NOA exists within project limits from PM 29.0 to PM 31.0. Caltrans has bid items for Asbestos Compliance Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan. How do other related items of work get paid?:
1) Daily Ambient Air Monitoring Report
2) Dust Control Plan
3) QCQA & Training
4) testing to determine concentrations of NOA
5) Survey as it relates to NOA burial (less than .25%)
6) Costs for transport & disposal to appropriately permitted landfill if NOA is greater or equal to 1%, or transport & disposal per section5-1.20B(4)for NOA between 0.25% and 1%

Does Caltrans have a list of "appropriately permitted landfills in the area for NOA greater than equal to 1%?

Inquiry submitted 10/08/2013

Response #1:10/8/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/08/2013


Response #2:10/10/13: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] :Your question is under review. An addendum is under consideration. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.

Please refer to the list for permitted landfills http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_land/lfwastes.pdf

Response posted 10/10/2013


Response #3: 10/28/13: Please refer to Addendum No. 2 dated October 25, 2013. Item # 33, Asbestos Compliance Plan and Item # 38, Sampling and Analysis Plan (Naturally Occurring Asbestos) have been deleted. Those deleted items and elements referenced as 1 through 6, are included in the lump sum cost for item #198, Naturally Occurring Asbestos.
Response posted 10/28/2013




Inquiry #13: 1) The special provision Section 90 Concrete require the use of concrete for a corrosive environment at Magra and Weimar Cross Road locations. The mix design for this concrete requires the use of SCM's that retard the set time of the concrete. Recognizing that the time to complete the work is very restricted, the delayed strength gain may prohibit the completion of the work beyond the time permitted. Can the concrete work of the time critical elements be exempt from the use of concrete for a corrosive environment?
2) Can Caltrans furnish a list of approved aggregate sources that meet the mortar strength sand requirement (California Test 515)?

Inquiry submitted 10/08/2013

Response #1:10/8/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/08/2013


Response #2:10/10/13: 1) The concrete at Marga Overcrossing and Weimar Cross Road are in a corrosive environment and must comply with the requirements of the contract documents. Bid per the current contract documents.

2) There is not a list of approved aggregate sources that meet the mortar strength sand requirements. Bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 10/10/2013




Inquiry #14: Is epoxy coated rebar required for any of the drain inlets under the Minor Concrete (Minor Structure) item.
Inquiry submitted 10/09/2013

Response #1:10/9/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/09/2013


Response #2:10/10/13: There is no epoxy coated rebar requied. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/11/2013


Response #3:
Response posted 10/11/2013




Inquiry #15: There seems to be a lack of information with regards to the Motorist Information Plan on Sheet 135. Please clarify which stages this sheet is to be used for and any advance notice necessary.
Inquiry submitted 10/09/2013

Response #1:10/10/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/10/2013


Response #2: 10/28/13: Please refer to Addendum Number 2 dated October 25, 2013.
Response posted 10/28/2013




Inquiry #16: Section 48-6.01C(2) Shop Drawings; please define "stress sheets" as indicated by item #4 in this section
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:10/16/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/16/2013


Response #2:10/18/13: Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/18/2013


Response #3: 10/29/13: Refer to Addendum No. 2 dated October 25, 2013. Stress sheets have been defined.
Response posted 10/29/2013




Inquiry #17: section 14-11.05 of the special provisions indicate there are levels of NOA within the project limits from PM 29.0 to PM 31.0. Specs indicate 3 levels/categories of NOA:
1) less than 0.25%
2) 0.25% to 1.0%
3) 1.0% or greater
These 3 different categories have different guidelines as to disposal requirements. Does Caltrans have a calculated quantity for each of these categories of NOA material?

Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:10/17/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. If a response is not issued before bid opening addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:10/17/13: : Caltrans does not have a calculated quantity for each of the categories of NOA material referenced. Please refer to Section 14-11.05A(2)(d) Sampling and Analysis Plan of the Special Provisions.
Response posted 10/17/2013




Inquiry #18: The information Handout has limited information regarding rock excavation in the areas of Magra Rd (Slope Excavation), Weimar Cross OC and Newcastle OC & UP locations. Does Caltrans have any other boring information which show depth and material type in these areas of excavation?
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:10/17/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:10/28/13: Please refer to the Log of Test Borings in the Informational Handout of Addendum No. 2 dated October 25, 2013.
Response posted 10/28/2013




Inquiry #19: Does the final lift of RHMA and permanent striping have to be completed at the Weimar Cross and Newcastle locations within the staging/incentive/disincentive requirements? If so, there is not enough time for curing of pavement before permanent striping is placed.
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2013

Response #1:10/23/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/23/2013


Response #2:10/28/13: Please bid in accordance with the contract documents.
Response posted 10/28/2013




Inquiry #20: Is the existing AB section, as shown on the typical cross sections, at the Rte 80 Weimar Cross location Class 2?
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2013

Response #1:10/23/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/23/2013


Response #2:10/24/13: The Department will not be providing any additional information on the existing AB. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #21: Regarding NOA Excavation; if the NOA generated is greater than or equal to 1%, the rules for handling this material change significantly as it pertains to cost for labor, trucking, dump fees etc. Can the State provide bid items for CY of NOA Excavation,for the 3 different categories of NOA, so that we may allocate costs appropriately? This would help to even the playing field and eliminate the guess work currently required of the contractor to establish NOA excavation quantities.
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2013

Response #1:10/23/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/23/2013


Response #2:10/25/13: Please refer to the response to Inquiry #17. Furthermore, please refer to the Geotechnical Design Report of the Information Handout, page 12 (90 of 666 of the pdf document) states, "…the Weimar Crossroad OC site to be in an area “most likely” to contain naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). Although ultramafic rock (um) was not identified to be present at [t]his site on published geologic mapping, um is noted to be common to the Weimar Fault Zone that the site is located in. Serpentinite and serpentinized ultramafic rocks were noted at the site in our field visits.”

On page 14 of the same report, under the heading "Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA)", the report states, “…only the Weimar Crossroad OC site was identified as a site that had a general likelihood of containing NOA. The map on Plate No. 2 can be utilized as a guide for the potential presence of NOA in the project limits.”

Plate No. 2, shows Weimar Crossroad OC as green, defined by the legend as Areas Most Likely to Contain NOA: These areas include ultramafic rock and serpentinite (serpentine rock), and associated soils, which are most likely to contain NOA.

Underlined emphasis added by the Bidder Inquiry Desk. Please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 10/25/2013




Inquiry #22: Is the NOA excavation on this project (Weimar Cross location) considered to be friable or non-friable material?
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2013

Response #1:Is the NOA excavation on this project (Weimar Cross location) considered to be friable or non-friable material?
Response posted 10/23/2013


Response #2:10/24/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/24/2013


Response #3:10/25/13: Naturally occurring asbestos, (NOA).
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally-occurring fibrous minerals found in many parts of California.
The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types are also found in California.
When rock containing asbestos is broken or crushed, asbestos fibers may be released and become airborne, then it is friable. Detailed asbestos information can be found at the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

Response posted 10/25/2013




Inquiry #23: what is the spec for the Erosion Control blanket?
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2013

Response #1:10/24/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/24/2013


Response #2:10/24/13: Please refer to the 2010 Standard Specifications, Section 13-5.03B Temporary Erosion Control Blankets, which states "Apply temporary erosion control blanket under section 21-1.03O." And as indicated, please refer to Section 21-1.03O Rolled Erosion Control Products.
Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #24: Thank you for the quick response to the Erosion Control Blanket question, however Section 21-1.03O tells how to apply the blanket. What we need is from Section 21-1.02O with either option A, B or C. Thank you
Inquiry submitted 10/24/2013

Response #1:10/25/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/25/2013


Response #2:10/28/13: For bid item #20, Temporary Erosion Control Blanket, the jute mesh, netting A, netting B, netting C, blanket A, Blanket B, and Blanket C as called out in Section 21-1.02O of the Standard Specifications, will be determined by the Contractor as part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan development as identified under Section 13-3 of the 2010 Standard Specifications. If this is not the " Erosion Control Blanket being referenced in the inquiry, please submit an additional inquiry with further clarification.
Response posted 10/28/2013




Inquiry #25: On many pages of the structure plans, the bridge removal portion states "low impact hammer", on sheets 363, 379 and more. What is a low impact hammer?
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2013

Response #1:10/25/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/25/2013


Response #2:10/28/13: In the Special Provisions, the 1st listed item in the 8th paragraph of section 15-4.01C(3)(a) has been replaced with the maximum allowed manufacturer’s rated strike energy for breaking or removing concrete. Bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/28/2013




Inquiry #26: As a follow up to bidder inquiry #17, #21 and Addendum #2 regarding Naturally Occurring Asbestos: It is still not clear how the contractor is to be paid for excavation of Naturally Occurring Asbestos. As inquired previously, there are different costs associated with the removal and offhaul of 3 different categories of NOA excavation. Addendum #2 deleted bid items #33 "Asbestos Compliance Plan" and item #38 "Sampling and Analysis Plan (NOA)". Addendum #2 added bid item #198 "Naturally Occurring Asbestos" - a lump sum item. Without the state providing an estimated volume for the 3 different categories of NOA material, how is the contractor to provide accurate costs for the excavation, stockpiling, testing, removal and disposal fees for NOA?
Inquiry submitted 10/28/2013

Response #1:10/29/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/29/2013


Response #2:10/31/13: The information provided in inquiries 17 and 21 and in Addendum 2 is the only information available. Please bid per the contract documents.
Response posted 10/31/2013




Inquiry #27: What is the measurement/ performance criteria for Rock Excavation in bid item #197?
Inquiry submitted 10/28/2013

Response #1:10/29/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/29/2013


Response #2:10/29/13: Please refer to page 7 of Addendum No. 2 dated October 25, 2013. The performance is specified under Section 19-4.01A, Summary of the Special Provisions. The payment is specified in Section 19-4.04 of the Special Provisions in the same addendum.
Response posted 10/29/2013




Inquiry #28: ITEM # 123, 54inch CIDH, SIGN FOUNDATION:
Please provide the Geotechnical Design Reports and Drill Logs specific to the four (4) Sign Structure CIDH foundations.

Inquiry submitted 10/28/2013

Response #1:10/29/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/29/2013


Response #2:10/29/13: There are no Geotechnical Design Reports and Drill Logs for the four Sign Structure CIDH Foundations.
Response posted 10/29/2013




Inquiry #29: How does the incentive/disincentive work regarding utility relocation? Section 5-1.36D shows locations for utility work. How many days does PG&E, AT&T and PCWA have to do their work at Gilardi Road? Does the utility work at Gilardi and the AT&T work at Brace, Horseshoe, King and Magra count as part of days allowed to complete the work as shown on chart in section 8-1.09? Specs say "coordinate with utility company (AT&T) during jacking operations..." The contractor arranged time is in some cases longer than the incentive/disincentive allows. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 10/29/2013

Response #1:10/30/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/30/2013


Response #2:10/31/13: Please refer to the Special Provisions, Section 5-1.36D of Addendum No. 2 dated October 25, 2013. The utility owner will relocate a utility shown in the table identified as “Utility Relocation and Date of Relocation” before the corresponding date shown. (Underlined emphasis added).

For PCWA timing, please refer to the Special Provisions, Section 5-1.36D of Addendum No. 2, paragraph 4, SSP 8-1.09 Incentive/Disincentive for Early Completion, paragraph 6 of Addendum No. 2 and to SSP, Section 77-Local Infrastructure.

In addition, for information on how the incentive/disincentives are impacted by utility work, please refer to paragraphs 10 and 11 of SSP 8-1.09 Incentive/Disincentive for Early Completion of Addendum No. 2. Please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 10/31/2013




Inquiry #30: Where does the work for Section 12-9 "End of Queue Warning" get paid?
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2013

Response #1:10/30/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/30/2013


Response #2:10/31/13: Your question is under review. An addendum is under consideration. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/31/2013


Response #3:11/1/13: Please refer to Addendum No. 3 dated November 1, 2013, Special Provision Section 12-9.04 Payment.
Response posted 11/01/2013




Inquiry #31: Lane Closure Chart #4 indicates the work on I-80 near Weimar Cross Road must be completed within 9 consecutive days. What happens if the Contractor does not meet the 9 day requirement?
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2013

Response #1:10/30/13: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/30/2013


Response #2:11/1/13: Please refer to Addendum No. 3 dated November 1, 2013, Special Provision Section 12-4.03,
Response posted 11/01/2013




Inquiry #32: Will the excavation into rock that is necessary for drainage installation be paid under item 197 Rock Excavation?
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2013

Response #1:10/31/13: Your question is under review. If a response is not issued before bid opening addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 10/31/2013


Response #2:11/4/13: No. Compensation of Bid Item 197 “Rock Excavation” is to be used when rock is encountered during the lowering the structural section of Interstate 80. Please bid per the contract documents.
Response posted 11/04/2013




Inquiry #33: Are there damages and/or penalties associated with the work detailed in the extended closures for the Weimar & Newcastle locations as a result of extending beyond the allowable long term closures?
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2013

Response #1:11/4/13: Your inquiry is under review. Please note that due to the current time frame between the inquiry submittal and the bid opening date, a response may not be provided before the bid opening. If a response is not provided before the bid opening addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 11/04/2013


Response #2:11/5/13:Weimar has late reopening penalties as per the table in Section 12-4.03 of the Special Provisions in Addendum No. 3. Newcastle UP/OC has late reopening damages as per Section 12-4.03 of Addendum No. 3 and Section 8-1.09 of the Special Provisions of Addendum No. 2.
Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #34: In the erosion control, there are hydroseed applications with an organic fertilizer. What type of fertilizer is it? We didn't see it's Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium ratio. Are we to assume it is a 7-2-1?
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:11/5/13: Your inquiry is under review. Please note that due to the current time frame between the inquiry submittal and the bid opening date, a response may not be provided before the bid opening. If a response is not provided before the bid opening addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:11/5/13: Please refer to section 20-7.02D(1)(d) of the Special Provisions for the requirements of the organic fertilizer.
Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #35: In reference to the chart in Section 12-4.03 of Addendum 3, will the contractor be assessed the damages as outlined in the chart for work beyond the calendar days detailed in the chart in Section 8-1.09 "Incentive/Disincentive for Early Completion" if the extended closures are not removed? **URGENT**
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:11/5/13: Your inquiry is under review. Please note that due to the current time frame between the inquiry submittal and the bid opening date, a response may not be provided before the bid opening. If a response is not provided before the bid opening addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:11/5/13: Should the contractor not open the mainline as described in Section 12-4.03 of Addendum No. 3 and Section 8-1.09 of Addendum No. 2, both the disincentive and the damages would apply to Locations 6 and 7, Newcastle Overcrossing and Newcastle Underpass as the work is mainline work.
Response posted 11/05/2013






The information provided in the responses to bidder inquiries is not a waiver of Section 2-1.03, “Examination of Plans, Specifications, Contract, and Site of Work,” 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.