Viewing inquiries for 04-0A7104

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Will Caltrans consider utilizing non-California landfills for the disposal of Type Z-2 soil materials?
Inquiry submitted 09/30/2013

Response #1:No, the Contractor must comply with the contract requirements and bid the disposal item with disposal of hazardous materials within the State of California.
Response posted 10/01/2013




Inquiry #2: Can Caltrans provide existing elevations for Contour Grading sheets? Only design elevations are printed on these pages?
Inquiry submitted 10/15/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/16/2013


Response #2:Existing elevations are currently shown on the cross sections and existing conform elevations are on the construction details.

Cross sections can be downloaded from the link below:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-0A7104/supplemental_info/04-0A7104_XS.pdf
Response posted 10/17/2013




Inquiry #3: How can we get a copy of the mandatory pre-bid meeting sign in sheet and link to the overhead presentation.
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2013

Response #1:Once available, it will be posted at the following web site:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/smallbusiness/outreach_archive.htm
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #4: How can we get a copy of the mandatory pre-bid meeting sign in sheet and link to the overhead presentation.
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2013

Response #1:This is Bidder Inquiry No. 3 in the Bidder Inquiries webpage.

link - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/inquiry/oe_view.php?p=04-0A7104
Response posted 10/23/2013


Response #2:See answer to Bidder Inquiry #3.

You can download the meeting attendees below:

Prime Contractors (www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A7104/prime_attendees.pdf)


Subcontractor Attendees (www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A7104/sub_attendees.pdf)


Slide Presentation (www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A7104/Presentation.pdf)

Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #5: Are there as-builts available for the existing bridges and retaining wall structures?
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/24/2013


Response #2:Please see Section 2-1.03b Supplemental Project Information in the AMENDMENTS TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, DATED MAY 2006 and Section 5-1.14 SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT INFORMATION in the Special Provisions.
Response posted 11/14/2013




Inquiry #6: At the October 15th mandatory prebid meeting, District staff indicated that the project presentation and attendee list would be posted on the Small Business website by Friday October 18th. When is the actual anticipated post date?
Inquiry submitted 10/24/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/24/2013


Response #2:See Bidder Inquiry #4 above.
Response posted 10/25/2013




Inquiry #7: Please provide us the thickness of the concrete pavement to be removed under bid item #47 (Remove concrete pavement (SQYD)) at the various locations. The typical cross sections X1-X7 and the demo plans sheets C-19-C23 are missing this information. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 10/24/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/25/2013


Response #2:Please see Q-4(sheet 318/789) of the contract plans.

The existing concrete section is shown as existing section #1 on sheet X-1, 0.75' Conc Pvmt/ 0.33' CTB/ 1.00' AS.
Response posted 10/25/2013




Inquiry #8: Please refer to bid item 69, structure backfill. Does this item pay for the backfill for item 109 and/or 110? Please clarify what work is included in this item, it is not addressed in the special provisions.
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/25/2013


Response #2:Item 69 covers structure backfill under the roadway where recommended by the geotechnical engineer. See sheets X-3, X-5, X-6, and Q-6 for locations and quantity breakdown.
Response posted 10/25/2013




Inquiry #9: Where can we find details for the concrete mse moment slab, as called out on sheet C-2?
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/08/2013


Response #2:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/08/2013


Response #3:The details are on the retaining wall plans for each mechanically stabilized embankment. For example, see "Concrete Barrier Slab" detail on sheet 662 for retaining wall No. 17.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #10: The falsework openings shown on sheet 233 do not match the openings specified in Section 10-1.16 of the Special Provisions. Please advise if the krail is moved from Stage 4 Phase 4 to some new location in Stage 4 Phase 5 or if we are to build our falsework bents behind the krail shown in Stage 4 Phase 4.
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/28/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current documents.
Response posted 01/16/2014




Inquiry #11: Are Stay-In-Place metal deck forms able to be used for Bridge 33-0751, 29th Ave OC?
Inquiry submitted 10/28/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/08/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current documents.
Response posted 11/19/2013




Inquiry #12: Stage Construction drawings (Sheets 168-194) include multiple references to “See Note 12” and “See Note 6.” Each of those drawings also includes a callout indicating “For Notes and Legend, See Sheet SC-1,” however sheet SC-1 notes are limited to numbers 1 -5.
Please indicate the location of Note 6 and Note 12 referenced on the Stage Construction drawings?

Inquiry submitted 10/29/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/29/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current documents.
Response posted 01/15/2014




Inquiry #13: What is the last day to submit Bidder inquiries?
Inquiry submitted 10/29/2013

Response #1:Last Day to submit Bid Inquiries is the day of the Bid Opening.
Response posted 10/29/2013




Inquiry #14: Bid quantity for Structure Backfill (retaining wall) on 29th Ave OC shows 98 CY; should it be 524cy? Sheet 510/789
Bid quantity for structure backfill (retaining wall) on 29th Ave Off-ramp shows 524 cy; should it be 98 cy? Sheet 568/789.

Inquiry submitted 10/29/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/29/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current documents.
Response posted 11/19/2013




Inquiry #15: Referring to Special Provision Section 10-1.63 (CONCRETE STRUCTURES), and plan sheet 509/789:

A. Can stay in place metal decking be used to support the concrete deck attached to the precast beams?

B. Can steel angles be embedded in the precast beams, and welded to the metal deck supports?

Please clarify and confirm.

Inquiry submitted 10/30/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/31/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current documents.
Response posted 11/19/2013




Inquiry #16: In reference to the inquiry #8, the typical details X3, x5, and X6 show over excavations for the structural backfill roadway bid item #69. What is the bottom elevation or how deep from OG do we over excavate on those locations?
Inquiry submitted 10/31/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/31/2013


Response #2:The bottom elevation of the structural backfill roadway matches the bottom elevation of structural backfill for the adjacent wall.
Response posted 11/13/2013


Response #3:The bottom elevation of the structural backfill roadway matches the original ground.
Response posted 12/31/2013




Inquiry #17: Special Provision section 10-1.63 does not list 23rd Avenue Overcrossing as a structure where the deck forms may remain in place, however no access openings for removal are indicated on the drawings.

Is the contractor required to remove the 23rd Avenue Overcrossing deck forms? If so, where will the access openings be located?

Inquiry submitted 11/01/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/04/2013


Response #2:No.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #3:No, the sixteenth paragraph of Standard Specification 51-1.05, near the top of page 366, allows the lost decking to stay in place under appropriate circumstances.
Response posted 11/19/2013




Inquiry #18: Specification Section 10.39 CITY OF OAKLAND ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS includes several sole source items:
Naztec Controller Software
Iteris Video Detection
Axis CCTV
The "shall be compatible" language included in each specification renders each a sole source specifications since each product includes proporietary hardware and sofwtare. Per California Public Code sections 3400 and 10129, please provide the findings that allow these sole source specifications. In the absence of such documents, these must be considered open specifications to allow for competitive bidding.

Inquiry submitted 11/02/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/04/2013


Response #2:The items listed were mentioned in order for prospective Contractors to know what system Oakland uses. The Special Provisions(SP) does not require Contractors to use the items listed. The SP only requires that it is compatible with the existing system in order for the system to properly function.
Response posted 12/05/2013




Inquiry #19: The drawing callouts for 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue Overcrossings use contrasting verbiage regarding the Engineer’s intent (remove vs. remain) for existing footings. Please clarify the following:
a. A callout on the Foundation Plan (Sheet 513) for 29th Avenue Overcrossing indicates that the existing Bent 6 footings are to remain. Are the other 29th Avenue Overcrossing existing footings, whether in conflict with the new structure or not, to be removed per 2006 Standard Specifications, section 15-4.02 (…to at least one foot below ground line or 3 feet below finished grade, whichever is lower)?
b. The Abutment 1 Layout drawings for 23rd Avenue Overcrossing (Sheets 607-609) indicate footings to be removed via the cross hatched pattern and legend note. Are the existing footings which are not called out for removal intended to remain?

Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/19/2013




Inquiry #20: The Foundation Plan (Sheet 606) for 23rd Avenue Overcrossing and the Abutment 1 Layout (Sheet 607) indicate that a portion of the existing Bent 2 of the southerly overcrossing is in conflict with the new Abutment 1, and that the footing is to be removed. How is the removal of a portion of Bent 2 required for Abutment 1 construction possible in Stage 4, while maintaining traffic on the southerly overcrossing as indicated throughout this Stage?
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current documents.
Response posted 02/04/2014




Inquiry #21: Is there a quantity table in the plans or could Caltrans provide a quantity table identifying what is included for payment as miscellaneous asphalt?
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:Do you have an Bid Item number or code for the misc. asphalt?
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #3:
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #22: Walls No. 18 & 19 call for a 5 foot surcharge. How far back from the face of each wall does the 5 foot surcharge need to extend? How is the construction and removal of the surcharge paid? Additionally, to construct this surcharge at the wall faces a temporary wall will be required. How is the construction and removal of the temporary wall paid?
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #23: Note no. 2 on plan sheet G-1 calls for imported topsoil for top 18" in planted areas. Is the topsoil only in the median on the B Line, refer to typical sections on sheet X-6, or is it in other locations on the project? If it is in other locations, please provide plans showing all locations of imported topsoil.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:See planting plans for limits of planted areas. The topsoil is shown in the median on the B Line in order to clarify that the finished grade of the topsoil is 1” below the median TC. This is the only location with planting in the middle of the road.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #24: Please refer to the table on page 168 of the special provisions regarding the settlement monument devices for walls 17,18,19,26,28,and 29. Is the number under minimum set of settlement monument devices the minimum required for the entire length of the wall or are there multiple sets of devices for each wall? Also, please clarify how "at maximum height" is related to horizontal spacing.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:The maximum height is not tied to the spacing, other than the first pair of settlement monument devices would be installed at tallest portion of the wall, and the next pair (and so on) would continue at the spacing indicated. The minimum pairs indicated are for the entire length of wall.
Response posted 11/14/2013


Response #3:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #25: Bid items #155 & #156 seem light. Please confirm the LBS for these items. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted fro consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current documents.
Response posted 01/16/2014




Inquiry #26: Are there any requirements for the material for bid item 69, structure backfill, to conform to?
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:Item 69, structure backfill must conform to the same requirements as structure backfill for earth retaining structures of the adjacent structure as defined in “Earthwork” within 10-1.35 Earth Retaining Structures.
Response posted 11/14/2013




Inquiry #27: Takeoff for item 124 shows a severe under-run from the quantities shown on sheet 316 and in the engineer's estimate. Will an addendum be issued revising the quantity?
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:The quantity is correct. Bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 11/14/2013




Inquiry #28: The detail for the Type B Pavement Conform on plan sheet C-31 shows a constant grind of 0.30' and 0.10' to 0.30' HMA. Shouldn't the HMA be a constant 0.30' also?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:No. There are areas that are being lowered slightly, where previous overlays have occurred.
Response posted 11/12/2013




Inquiry #29: 23rd Ave Overcrossing shows deck drains within the box girder, as shown on Plan Sheet 641 – Deck Drain Layout. Is it the intent that future maintenance will not be required on the drains since there are no access openings shown?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/08/2013


Response #2:No further information will be provided. Contractor to bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #30: Drainage profile #19 b & f call for a "Pavement Anchor Reinforcement" per construction details on sheet C-37. This detail indicates concrete backfill with steel, but in the drainage quantities there is method of payment for this work. How is the Pavement Anchor Reinforcement paid for??
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/07/2013


Response #2:Pavement Anchor Reinforcement” is being paid for as Load Distribution Slab Item per C-37.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #31: Can wick drainages be installed at the other settlement locations to decrease the settlement time?
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/08/2013


Response #2:Please see Section 4-1.035 "Value Engineering", of the Standard Specifications. Proposals for modifications to the contract documents may be submitted to the Engineer after contract award.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #32: Referring to Special Provision Sect. 10-1.64 (LOAD DISTRIBUTION SLAB), page 233, and plan sheet 62/789,
does the rebar for this item have to be epoxy coated on this project?

Inquiry submitted 11/08/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/08/2013


Response #2:The rebar does not have to be epoxy coated for this item.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #33: Sheet C-16, at Station 28.91' L+ "B" +06.33 calls for a 6' Gate (Type CL-6). There also appears to be a small portion of fencing associated with this gate.

This gate/fence is not accounted for on the Bid Schedule nor on the Schedule of Quanitities.

**Please revise the Bid Schedule to include this gate and the associated fence.

Inquiry submitted 11/08/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/08/2013


Response #2:Bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 11/12/2013




Inquiry #34: Referencing Bidder Inquiry #19, if the existing footings other than existing bent 4 are to be removed, has there been a datum change from the as-builts? As-builts show the bottom of bent footings at elevations 6, 7, 9, and 10. These are, in some cases, 9' lower than the new footings they are adjacent to. How is this excavation, shoring, and backfill paid for if these footings are to be removed?
Inquiry submitted 11/08/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #35: The irrigation plan on sheets 334 to 338, IP-1 to IP-5, referred two controllers as State Controllers and three controllers as City controllers. The Special Provisions on page 287, Irrigation Cost Break-Down, also shows 1 State irrigation controller and 4 City irrigation controllers. The Special Provisions on page 298 to 299, however, do not distinguish between the City and the State irrigation controller.

Please clarify if the City and State irrigation controller are different. Are there two different specifications for the irrigation controllers? How are the irrigation controllers and the base station communicate? Under what item is this communication paid. Who is providing the cell modems? Is the Base Station at the Telegraph Yard functional? What does the contractor do then if it is not working? How many hours of training is required at the Base Station for these new controllers?

Inquiry submitted 11/08/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current documents.
Response posted 01/17/2014




Inquiry #36: Will the Buy America material requirement for steel products apply to the Temporary Fence (Type CL-6) since this is not a permanent structure?

Can 6' high temporary chain link panel fence on stands be acceptable for this project?

Or, will the temporary fence be required to have driven posts?

Inquiry submitted 11/08/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:No. Buy America applies only to iron and steel products required to be permanently incorporated into a Federal-aid construction project. Temporary use means that the contract specifications provide that the iron and steel products used on the project either must be removed at the end of the project or may be removed at the contractor's convenience.

Fence on stands will not be acceptable.

Temporary fence will require driven posts.

Response posted 01/16/2014




Inquiry #37: On plan sheet 205 what is the depth of the temp ac for the temp pedestrian access path?
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:See plan sheet 256 for the section of the temporary AC pedestrian access path.
Response posted 11/14/2013




Inquiry #38: I am having a hardtime locating the handrailing on the layout or construction details sheets.

The stations/limits given on the Summary of Quantities for handrailing is not matching up to the stations/limits on the layout/construction sheets.

Please show/call out the limits of the handrailing on the layout/construction sheets.

Inquiry submitted 11/11/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:Bid per contract documents. The handrailing is for the pedestrian ramps. Per Summary of Quantities, see sheets C-5, C-6, C-10, and C-15. These sheets also refer to sheet C-32 for the handrailing detail.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #39: Section 10-1.35 Earth Retaining Structures. Please add the MSE Plus system to the list of acceptable Earth Retaining wall structures. The system is an approved alternate and is acceptable for this project.
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 11/19/2013




Inquiry #40: For The CMU Sound Wall there is no Aesthetic sheet so What is the Pattern,(If Any) Colors, and Textures of the Block?
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:Section 10-1.66 SOUND WALL on page 237 of the special provisions states that the color of the CMUs must comply with color no. 30227 of FED-STD-595. There is no pattern.
Response posted 11/25/2013




Inquiry #41: There have been 33 bidders inquiries posted for this project. Only 8 of the inquiries have a response posted. In order to provide bidders sufficient time to respond to the responses to the bidders inquiries once they are posted, will Caltrans postpone the bid date a minimum of four weeks (Thanksgiving Holiday considered) from the current bid date of 11/19?
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/19/2013


Response #2:Addendum 2 (issued 12/12/13) moved the bid opening date to Feb. 5, 2014.
Response posted 12/13/2013




Inquiry #42: The table on page 166 of the special provisions indicates that the surcharge for abutment 1 for the 29th avenue off ramp is 1 foot from the low end of the embankment to 8 feet near the abutment and the settlement period is 30 days, The table on page 167 shows that the surcharge for retaining walls 18 and 19 are 5 feet and the settlement is 170 days. There appears to be a conflict as these walls tie into the abutment. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:The table on page 166 is for the 29th Ave Off-Ramp as indicated, but walls 18 and 19 in the table on page 167 are adjacent to 29th Ave. OC, so there is no conflict.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #43: We respectfully request a 2 week postponement for this project to December 3rd. There are several unanswered questions for this project that bids in 5 days. There are also 2 major Caltrans projects bidding the very next day that require undivided attention by all bidders. There is also the Thanksgiving holiday looming and some staff unavailable. We would ask that Caltrans seriously consider our request for a 2 week postponement on this contract.
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:Addendum 2 (issued 12/12/13) moved the bid opening date to Feb. 5, 2014.
Response posted 12/13/2013




Inquiry #44: Will Caltrans be providing the Non-Stormwater Information Package?
Inquiry submitted 11/15/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/18/2013


Response #2:No. Per Special Provisions page 71 “Submittals,” the Contractor must submit the dewatering and discharge work plan.
Response posted 11/18/2013




Inquiry #45: Corresponding to Caltrans' answer to question #43, please see SP 10-1.04, paragraph starting with "Non-Stormwater Information Package...". Please respond again to question #43.
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/19/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/31/2013




Inquiry #46: Corresponding to Caltrans' answer to question #43, please see SP 10-1.04, paragraph starting with "Non-Stormwater Information Package...". Please respond again to question #43.
Inquiry submitted 11/19/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/19/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/31/2013




Inquiry #47: Corresponding to Caltrans' answer to question #43, please see SP 10-1.04, paragraph starting with "Non-Stormwater Information Package...". Please respond again to question #43.
Inquiry submitted 11/19/2013

Response #1:See previous inquiry (BI #46).
Response posted 11/19/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 12/31/2013




Inquiry #48: Regarding response #2 to bidder inquiry #16, please confirm that the excavation for the structural backfill roadway to get to the bottom of the structural backfill for the adjacent wall will be paid as roadway excavation.
Inquiry submitted 11/21/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/22/2013


Response #2:The bottom elevation of the structural backfill roadway matches the original ground. There is no excavation for this backfill.
Response posted 12/31/2013




Inquiry #49: On plan sheet 32 along the A2 Line at Station 34+00 behind retaining/soundwall #232 it shows 3" Island Paving but on plan sheet 4 it shows a new structual section of #4. Which one is correct?
Inquiry submitted 11/22/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/22/2013


Response #2:Plan sheet 32 is correct.
Response posted 01/16/2014




Inquiry #50: The legend on plan sheet C-40 calls out a Survey Hub. Is the survey hub a Type A survey monument at per standard detail A74?
Inquiry submitted 11/25/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/25/2013


Response #2:A Survey Hub is a 2" by 2" stake that is set in the ground used to take survey measurements in relation to the survey monuments.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #51: Special Provisions, reference item 124 - load distribution slab page 231 under 10-1.64 under submittals. If epoxy coated steeel is used in load distribution slab submit a copy of the certifiecation for each plant used.
Page 233 under measurement and payment 4th paragraph full compensation for epoxy coating of steel reinforcement is included in the contract price paid per CY for load distribution slab and no additional compensation will be allowed therefore.
Page 163 of 290 under section 40 concrete pavement 40-2.10 bar reinforcement reads if the project is not shown to be in high desert or any mountain climate region bar reinforcement must comply with section 52.
Is epoxy coated reinforcement required in the load distribution slab?

Inquiry submitted 11/26/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/01/2013


Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #52: Bid item 142 box culverts - RCB-2 engineer estimate 144,033 Lbs our rebar takeoff is 70% higher than engineer estimate. Please verify weight
Inquiry submitted 11/26/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/01/2013


Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 12/12/2013




Inquiry #53: There are approximately twenty (20) Programmed Visibility (PV) Signals proposed on this project. There is currently only one manufacturer of these PV Signals, and they are only available from one distributor. We would like to request that the PV Signals be State Furnished to allow for competitive bidding on the rest of the electrical equipment. As an alternative, would you allow the use of Louvered Signals? Louvered Signals are the standard in the State of Nevada for Ramp Metering Signals. This alternative could save the State more than a thousdand dollars per PV Signal. Thank you for your consideration.

Inquiry submitted 12/02/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/03/2013


Response #2:PV signal heads cannot be replaced with Louvers. Also, PV signal heads cannot be State-furnished.
Response posted 12/23/2013




Inquiry #54: There are approximately twenty (20) Programmed Visibility (PV) Signals proposed on this project. There is currently only one manufacturer of these PV Signals, and they are only available from one distributor. We would like to request that the PV Signals be State Furnished to allow for competitive bidding on the rest of the electrical equipment. As an alternative, would you allow the use of Louvered Signals? Louvered Signals are the standard in the State of Nevada for Ramp Metering Signals. This alternative could save the State more than a thousdand dollars per PV Signal. Thank you for your consideration.

Inquiry submitted 12/02/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/03/2013


Response #2:PV signal heads cannot be replaced with Louvers. Also, PV signal heads cannot be State-furnished.
Response posted 12/23/2013




Inquiry #55: Will there be a second addendum with changes to plans/specs issued for this project?
Inquiry submitted 12/02/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/11/2013


Response #2:Addendum No. 2 was requested and approved on Dec. 12, 2013.
Response posted 01/21/2014




Inquiry #56: Section 10-1.104 Handrailing simply calls for handrailing of 1 1/2" galvanized standar pipe post set in concrete. This section does not specify if the handrailing will have one or more rails, nor is there a detail to be found in the project plans.

Please provide a construction detail of the handrailing for Bid Item #204.


Inquiry submitted 12/02/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/03/2013


Response #2:See detail on construction details sheet C-32.
Response posted 12/03/2013




Inquiry #57: Will there be a second addendum with changes to plans/specs issued for this project?
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/03/2013


Response #2:Addendum No. 2 was requested and approved on Dec. 12, 2013.
Response posted 01/21/2014




Inquiry #58: What is the texture of the CMU for the CMU Sound Wall?
Inquiry submitted 12/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/04/2013


Response #2:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 12/12/2013




Inquiry #59: The subcontractor attendee list posted to Bidder Inquiry #4 is the same list as the prime contractor attendee list. Could Caltrans please post the subcontractor attendee list?
Inquiry submitted 12/04/2013

Response #1:Fixed.
Subcontractor Attendees (www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A7104/sub_attendees.pdf)

Response posted 12/04/2013




Inquiry #60: Bid items 109 and 110 have closure walls. How are the closure walls paid? Are the quantities of the closure walls included in the engineers quantities for each bid item?
Inquiry submitted 12/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/04/2013


Response #2:The closure walls are detailed as Mechanically Stabilized Embankment; therefore, the quantity and payment are included in the bid item referenced. For example on plan sheet no. 702, the quantity listed for mechanically stabilized embankment includes the closure wall also detailed on that same plan sheet.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #61: Addendum 1 states "An addendum will follow advising you of other changes." There has been no other addenda issued.
Inquiry submitted 12/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/06/2013


Response #2:Addendum 2 changed the bid date to Feb. 5, 2014.
Response posted 12/16/2013




Inquiry #62: Note #7 on Sheet 82 states RCBs shall have "watertight joints." There are no details for this type of joint on the drainage detail sheets nor the standard plans. Please provide a detail for this type of joint and any required spacing.

Inquiry submitted 12/10/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/10/2013


Response #2:Per Note 1 on Sheet DD-15: “For additional notes and details not shown, see Standard Plan D81.”
Per Note 7 on Standard Plan D81: “For design and details not shown, see Standard Plan D82.”
Per Construction Notes on Standard Plan D82:
Expansion Joints: “Invert: No expansion joints shall be permitted.”
Roof and Walls:
When cover is less than span length:
“…Place Bridge Detail 3-2, Standard Plan B0-3, at 30’-0”centers under paved roadway lanes.”
Standard Plan B0-3, Bridge Detail 3-2 refers you to the WEAKENED PLANES detail.
This standard detail meets the requirements for watertight joint construction per Standard Specification 61-1.02 “Performance Requirements for Culvert and Drainage Pipe Joints”, Section F-“Watertightness”.

Response posted 12/31/2013




Inquiry #63: The pile section detail on sheet 782 for 24" CIDH on Retaining wall 232 notes that "concrete to be placed in a dry hole".This contradicts the Special Provisions which allow that CIDH concrete piling 24"and larger may be constructed by excavation and depositing concrete under slurry.Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/10/2013


Response #2:The detail on sheet 782 is based on RSP B15-15 and the language is the same on that standard plan. The Special Provisions govern over all other documents per Section 5-1.04, and therefore concrete deposited under slurry would be allowed. Please note that concrete deposited under slurry requires vertical inspection pipes per Section 10-1.61 of the Special Provisions.
Response posted 12/13/2013




Inquiry #64: Regarding Inquiry #18, please provide the salient features of "compatibility" as they relate to the Controller Software, Video Detection, and CCTV. Is there a central software that the equipment must communicate with or through? If so, is the sofwtare compliant with AB 3418 and/or NTCIP? If there is no central software, there is no need for compatibility since the equipment at each intersection is independant of the existing equipment at other intersections.
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/13/2013


Response #2:The Video Detection System requirements are included in Section 10-3.29 (starting on Page 361).

All City traffic signal controllers shall be compatible with Trafficware's ATMS.now Central Management Platform, and all CCTV shall be compatible with Genetec's central video surveillance management system, so they can be integrated into City existing traffic operations system.

The City CCTV Camera sub-section requirements are included in Section 10-3.29 (Page 343). Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 01/02/2014




Inquiry #65: On Nov 12, the state posted addendum 1 that postponed the project to Dec 17th.
Addendum 1 stated that "An addendum will follow advising you of other changes."
Is addendum 2 coming?

Inquiry submitted 12/11/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/11/2013


Response #2:Addendum No. 2 was requested and approved on Dec. 12, 2013.
Response posted 01/21/2014




Inquiry #66: The Special Provisions on page 289, Maintain Existing Planted Areas, requires the maintenance of the existing planted areas through the life of the contract. The Special Provisions on page 7 also have a bid item to maintain the existing irrigation. Additionally, the planting list on sheet 323, PL-1, have a graphic call-out for the existing planted areas. However, the planting plans from sheets 324 to 328, PP-1 to PP-5, do not show any existing planted areas.
Please clarify which areas are existing and the contractor is required to maintain through the life of the contract. Where are the existing planted areas limits to be maintained?

Inquiry submitted 12/11/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/13/2013


Response #2:The Maintain Existing Planted Areas are shown and labeled on IR-1 and 5.
Response posted 12/23/2013




Inquiry #67: There are several critical bidders inquiries that have no response. It would be helpful if Caltrans would issue responses or an addendum in sufficient time for bidders to address the responses prior to bid opening.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/12/2013


Response #2:Addendum No. 2 was requested and approved on Dec. 12, 2013.
Response posted 01/21/2014




Inquiry #68: Under Section 10-1.42 Erosion Control (Compost Blanket), is seed to be applied with Erosion Control (Compost Blanket)? According to the Erosion Control Details (ECD-1), Erosion Control (Compost Blanket) is placed prior to Erosion Control (Hydroseed). If seed is applied as part of Erosion Control (Compost Blanket), does this mean the Biofiltration Strips will be "double-seeded" with the seed being applied as part of Erosion Control (Compost Blanket) and Erosion Control (Hydroseed)? This will amount to approximately 28.68# PLS of additional seed placed in the Biofiltration Strips.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/13/2013


Response #2:Hydroseed and Compost Blanket (including the seed mixture inside of the Compost Blanket) placed per detail and standard special provisions.
Response posted 12/23/2013




Inquiry #69: Regarding bid item 146 - project plans do not specifically call out the type of lightweight sign structure and does not call out the mast arm size that is to be used. Please verify.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/12/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 01/02/2014




Inquiry #70: Regarding Inquiry #54, The Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual specifically states,

"It is the policy of the FHWA not to participate, directly or indirectly, in payment for any premium or royalty on any patented or proprietary material, specification, or process specifically set forth in the plans and specifications for a Federal-aid project unless:
1)The item is purchased or obtained through competitive bidding with equally suitable unpatented items using a minimum of three bids.
2) The local agency certifies either in a Public Interest Finding (PIF) that the proprietary or patented item is essential for synchronization with the existing highway facilities or that no equally suitable alternative exists,
or
3) The item is used for research or for a special type of construction on relatively short sections of road for experimental purposes.
This FHWA policy is applicable to local agency projects both on and off the NHS. The primary purpose of this policy is to have competition in selection of materials and
allow for development of new materials and products."

This is a Federal-aid project (ACNHPI-880-1(070)E)

Inquiry submitted 12/23/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/31/2013


Response #2:Comment noted.
Response posted 01/21/2014




Inquiry #71: Due to this project been postponed three times from the original bid date is the General Contractor still required to have attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting back in October in order to still be eligible to bid?
Inquiry submitted 02/13/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 02/13/2014


Response #2:Yes, the pre-bid meeting was mandatory for prime bidders.
Response posted 03/10/2014




Inquiry #72: In order to construct the Abut 1 approach area of the 23 Overcrossing, shoring will be required to hold up the light weight fill in the area bounded by the closure wall, abutments, and two return walls in order for traffic in Stage 5 to drive on the newly constructed bridge. This is hinted at by note 521 on sheet 195. Will this shoring have to be removed, or can it stay in place and the second round of EPS foam be placed against said shoring?
Inquiry submitted 03/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/03/2014


Response #2:This project will bid open soon and no additional information will be issued. Bid per plans and specs.
Response posted 03/18/2014




Inquiry #73: The Special Provisions on page 298 states the following: The field units shall consist of an irrigation controller, communication equipment and a central interface with the capability of functioning directly with the existing base station, installed in a irrigation controller enclosure cabinet.
Field units shall monitor the main line flows when operating with, or independently of, the base station.
Please clarify the brand of the existing base station.

Inquiry submitted 03/07/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/10/2014


Response #2:Bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 03/11/2014




Inquiry #74: The Special Specifications on page 288 show a total of 4,220 LF of pipe. However, the I came up with over 12,500 LF.
Please clarify if the irrigation cost break-down should reflect the big pipe difference.

Inquiry submitted 03/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/11/2014


Response #2:Page 285 of the SPECIAL PROVISION second paragraph, explains how the ITEM will be paid.
Response posted 03/11/2014




Inquiry #75: Addendum 6, section 10-1.32 WATERING calls for the following: Water for use on this project shall be non-potable water and shall be furnished and applied as provided in Section 17, "Watering," of the Standard Specifications.
Please clarify if the water to be use for irrigation is required to be non-portable. Do the irrigation equipment has to be for recycled water?

Inquiry submitted 03/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/11/2014


Response #2:This project will bid open soon and no additional information will be issued. Bid per plans and specs.
Response posted 03/18/2014




Inquiry #76: Can you post the "Sources of Reclaimed Waste Water" listed in SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT INFORMATION listed in Addendum 6?
Inquiry submitted 03/12/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/12/2014


Response #2:You may download this document below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A7104/SourcesReclaimedWater.pdf
Response posted 03/12/2014






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.