Viewing inquiries for 04-265604

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Will Contour Grading plans be made available that have existing contours and existing elevations? Or will CAD files be made available with this information?
Inquiry submitted 12/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/17/2013


Response #2:The proposed contour grading for both roadway and widened creek is shown on the Contour Grading Plan Sheet G-1 page 23/157.

The existing elevation for both roadway and the creek along the A1 Line and R1 Line is on the Profile Plan Sheet P-1, PS-1 and PS-2 page 10,11 and 12 of 157.

Additional information for existing Roadway elevation (Roadway Design Cross Sections) and Creek elevation (Creek Design Cross Sections) can be obtained from the Project Information Handout - see link below:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-265604/supplemental_info/
Response posted 12/17/2013




Inquiry #2: What is the work required under Bid Item #36, "Fish Protection"?
Inquiry submitted 12/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/18/2013


Response #2:See Addendum 1.
Response posted 01/14/2014




Inquiry #3: What work is required under Bid Item #37, "Red-Legged Frog Protection"?
Inquiry submitted 12/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/18/2013


Response #2:Frog protection measures based on all Environmental Permits. In addition, see Addendum # 1.
Response posted 01/14/2014




Inquiry #4: What work is required under Bid Item #124, "Work Area Monitoring"?
Inquiry submitted 12/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/18/2013


Response #2:Addendum 1 deleted Bid item # 124 "Work Area Monitoring".
Response posted 01/14/2014




Inquiry #5: How is Bid Item #131, "Creek-Articulated Block Concrete" going to be measured for payment with different suppliers manufacturing different shapes? On other projects, this item was measured by the square foot.
Inquiry submitted 12/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted foe consideration.
Response posted 12/18/2013


Response #2:Cubic yards is based on the details on C-7 with keying in and assuming a minimum 8" block thickness.
Response posted 12/20/2013


Response #3:Cubic yards is based on the details on C-7 with keying in. See Addendum 1.
Response posted 01/14/2014




Inquiry #6: Are there details for the installation of the 2" supply line and sprinkler control conduit on the San Pedro Avenue bridge?
Inquiry submitted 12/19/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 12/20/2013


Response #2:Please refer to Standard Plans, Sheet No. B14-3 thru B14-5.
Response posted 12/31/2013




Inquiry #7: Reference Bid Item # 27 - is there a Roadway section for this work??
Inquiry submitted 12/31/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/02/2014


Response #2:Please refer to "2010 Standard Plan Sheet T67" -TEMPORARY WATER POLUTION CONTROL DETAILS (TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIO ROADWAY).
Response posted 01/14/2014




Inquiry #8: The following Bid Items have a Unit of Measure that appears incorrect - #94 through #97 are listed as EA should they be LF??
Inquiry submitted 12/31/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/02/2014


Response #2:Items No. 94, 95 96 and 97 on the Engineer's Estimate are in Linear Foot (LF) no in EA. See Addendum 1.
Response posted 01/14/2014




Inquiry #9: RE: Jan 8 Mandatory Pre-Bid - is this an outreach event which contractors will have a table to solicit subcontractors or is this pre-bid simply for attending?
Inquiry submitted 01/08/2014

Response #1:It an outreach which contractors will have a table to solicit subs. It's mandatory for primes.
Response posted 01/08/2014




Inquiry #10: Is there a list of Contractors that were at the manditory pre-bid outreach meeting?
Inquiry submitted 01/09/2014

Response #1:It will be posted here, once available.
Response posted 01/09/2014


Response #2:You can download the list of prime contractors below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-265604/prime_reg_265604_final.pdf
Response posted 01/13/2014




Inquiry #11: Caltrans issued an addendum noticing contractors of a Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting less than twenty-four hours before the meeting was scheduled to occur. This did not give sufficient time for all potential prime contractors to react to this notice. Typically Caltrans provides sufficient notice to contractors (at least two weeks) in the Notice to Bidders of "Mandatory Pre-Bid Meetings". The Notice to Bidders only mentioned a pre-bid meeting that was not mandatory. Would Caltrans schedule another "Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting" and provide two weeks advance notice of the meeting date and time.
Inquiry submitted 01/09/2014

Response #1:The Special Provisions Section 2-1.03 "MANDATORY PREBID MEETING," stated that the prebid meeting is mandatory. Section 2-1.03 was not amended.

The meeting date was set and listed in the Notice to bidders, since 12/2/2013.
In addition, the OE advertisement web site stated the following sentence "This project has a mandatory pre-bid meeting"

Addendum #1 corrected the "Notice to Bidders" to be consistent with the project's Special Provisions Section 2-1.03, that stated the meeting is mandatory.

No other Mandatory prebid meeting is scheduled for this project.

Response posted 01/12/2014




Inquiry #12: On sheet number 18 (C-6), "H" should be provided in the "Earthwork Staging at Settlement Mitigation" detail.
Inquiry submitted 01/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2014


Response #2:On sheet number 18 (C-6), "H" should be provided in the "Earthwork Staging at Settlement Mitigation" detail.
Response posted 01/14/2014


Response #3:"H" can be calculated from the plans. In the referenced section on sheet C-6, 'H' is the difference between the existing OG and the proposed FG, at any given section. This dimension varies throughout the settlement mitigation zone and is calculated from the cross section, profile and superelevation information contained in the plan set.
This dimension can also be found using the design cross sections.

Response posted 01/14/2014




Inquiry #13: The existing San Pedro Creek Bridge has some existing shoring (steel sheet pile) left in place along the abutments. Is the removal of said shoring expected to be included in the "Bridge Removal" line item?
Inquiry submitted 01/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2014


Response #2:There are no visible sheet piles for the San Pedro Creek Bridge (Route 1 Bridge). However, there are sheet piles on the adjacent San Pedro Ave Bridge, not to be removed. These sheet piles are shown to be protected on plan sheet L-3 (sheet 9 of 157).
Response posted 01/15/2014




Inquiry #14: Pg. 3 USFWS consultation, under Dewatering and Creek Bypass, is stated “The coffer dam and the temporary dewatering and bypass system will be installed with the oversight of NMFS-approved permitted biologist and Service-approved biologist. In addition, the creek diversion will be monitored by the approved permitted biologists as part of the construction monitoring.”

Is this a requirement for the biologist to have a Section 10 permit?

Inquiry submitted 01/13/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2014


Response #2:NMFS-approved permitted biologist and Service-approved biologist are the owner’s (Caltrans) Biologist that will perform this work.
Response posted 01/15/2014




Inquiry #15: Bird surveys and monitoring are not included in the bid items. Is this component to be included within the fish and CRLF costs?
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/13/2014


Response #2:Bird surveys and monitoring costs are not part of the bid item. Bird surveys and monitoring are done by Caltrans.
Response posted 01/15/2014




Inquiry #16: Has the fish relocation and exclusion plan already been completed? If so, can we get a copy?

Has the CRLF Relocation Plan been completed? If so, can we get a copy?

Inquiry submitted 01/13/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/14/2014


Response #2:The final fish relocation and CRLF relocation plans are not available.
Response posted 01/15/2014




Inquiry #17: Sheet 37 of 157 (SC-3)depicts 3 Section views A,B and C. Which plan sheets reference these section views? How will the removal of the stage construction work be paid?
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/14/2014


Response #2:Sheet 37 of 157 (SC-3) Section views A, B and C depict the staging represented on sheets 35 & 36 (SC-1 & SC-2). This staging concept constructs the full roadway section depicted on the cross section sheets (sheets 2 & 3 aka x-1 & x-2) but in a staged manner. These sections show a staged construction of the final roadway and therefore there is no removal of the stage construction work.
Response posted 01/15/2014




Inquiry #18: Sheet 37 of 157 (SC-3)depicts 3 Section views A,B and C. Which plan sheets reference these section views? How will the removal of the stage construction work be paid?
Inquiry submitted 01/13/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/14/2014


Response #2:See response to Bidder Inquiry #17 above.
Response posted 01/28/2014




Inquiry #19: Fish and Game Permit states that all Creek work will be completed within the 2014 Season. Is it Caltrans intent to have all work within the Creek be completed in 2014 construction window (June 16 to October 14) including Detour Construction, Fish and Frog Relocation, Creek Diversion, Clearing of Riparian Vegetation, Earthwork, Abutment fill and Settlement period with Wicking, Bridge Abutment and Bent Construction, Creek-Articulated Concrete Block, Irrigation/Planting, and Creek Restoration so that the 2015 season only consists of surface improvements? Due to the 90 day settlement period, this is not probable. Please confirm if this is Caltrans intent.
Inquiry submitted 01/14/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/15/2014


Response #2:Please, see addendum #1, Section 14-6.02C(5).
Response posted 01/16/2014




Inquiry #20: Regarding your Response #2: NMFS-approved permitted biologist and Service-approved biologist are the owner’s (Caltrans) Biologist that will perform this work.

Are you saying that Caltrans will provide the NMFS Approved/Service Approved biologist (at their cost) to monitor the installation of the coffer dam and the temporary dewatering and bypass system that will be installed? Will the Caltrans biologist also monitor the creek diversion?

Is this a requirement for the biologist to have a Section 10 permit?

Inquiry regarding inquiry submitted 01/13/2014


Response #2:NMFS-approved permitted biologist and Service-approved biologist are the owner’s (Caltrans) Biologist that will perform this work.
Response posted 01/15/2014


Inquiry submitted 01/21/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/22/2014


Response #2:
Caltrans NMFS/Service approved Biologist will monitor and perform the fish relocation, during the installation of the coffer dam and dewatering, at Caltrans expense.
Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #21: Please provide CAD files for the project.
Inquiry submitted 01/22/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2014


Response #2:CAD files are not available. See Bidder Inquiry No. 1
Response posted 01/28/2014




Inquiry #22: Will Caltrans allow the existing roadway section to be obliterated and left in place and covered with lightweight import fill where it will be within 100 feet of the creek.
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/23/2014


Response #2:No.
Response posted 01/28/2014




Inquiry #23: There is a concrete wall located along the south bank of the creek west of San Pedro Ave. Will this wall be required to be removed. If so can Caltrans give bidders some dimensions to base our bid on since it is not visible due to overgrowth. How will this be paid for.
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2014

Response #1:We are uncertain on what the Contractor is describing as a "concrete wall," located along the south bank of the creek west of San Pedro Ave. However, in addition to the existing sheet piling, there is an existing storm drain flap gate. Both are designated "protect" on sheet L-3 (there are the concrete slab with sheet piling and steel flap gate below it).
It is not the intent of the project to remove any walls, utilities, or structures west of the San Pedro Ave Bridge on the south bank of the creek. These improvements should be protected in place.
Response posted 01/28/2014




Inquiry #24: In Addendum #1, Section 14-6.04, it indicates that the Contractor is responsible for fish relocation. Since Caltrans is providing the project biologist, is it the intent that the contractor (and their biologist), not Caltrans or the project biologist, be responsible for any fish relocation during dewatering operations?
Inquiry submitted 01/23/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/24/2014


Response #2:The Contractor will not relocate fish.
See addendum #3.

Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #25: The US Department of the Interior permit included in Addendum 2 states that the bridge removal work and installation of the new bent 2 will be completed from the existing channel banks and that no construction equipment will be allowed into the channel. This contradicts other permits which describe building access ramps into the channel so that heavy equipment can access the channel bottom. Will the contractor be allowed into the channel bottom as described in the majority of the permits?
Inquiry submitted 01/24/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/24/2014


Response #2:Yes, work will occur within the creek channel during the first construction season.

The USFWS BO Amendment (dated April 2013), now included in the Contract's Supplemental Information - amends the original USFWS BO (dated October 2011) to include the creek widening aspect of the project.

Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #26: Sheet No. 36 SC-2 "Detour Removal Steps" refers to sheet DE-7 numerous times. Where is this sheet located?
Inquiry submitted 01/24/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2014


Response #2:The reference should be to plan sheet No. 37 (SC-3), titled "Stage Construction Detour Staging Cross sections," not DE-7. See addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #27: In Addendum 1, section 14-6.02C(5), statement 2, what is meant by the phrase "temporary" for describing the pre-cast concrete deck girders?
Inquiry submitted 01/24/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/27/2014


Response #2:Addendum 3 removed that phrase.
Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #28: The response to Bidder Inquiry #5 has further confused the payment method for the Articulated Concrete Block Revetment work. Please clarify how the measurement for payment for this work will be made.
Inquiry submitted 01/27/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2014


Response #2:See response to Bidder Inquiry #29 below.
Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #29: In response to Bid Inquiry #5, we were informed by a supplier that the 8" minimum thickness shown on plan sheet C-7 in Addendum #1 is in conflict with specification section 72-11.04B(1) in that a Class 40 block is 4-3/4" thick. Do the plans or the specification take precedence?

Does the method of payment for the quantity of Bid Item #131 include the keyed in areas at the top and toe of slope?

Inquiry submitted 01/27/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2014


Response #2:Blocks should meet the requirements of SSP 72-11.04 and the maximum thickness is 8 inches. See addendum No. 3.

The Bid item (#131) includes the keyed in areas.

Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #30: Our take-off is showing a significant under run on the quantity for lightweight fill, Bid Item #69. Can Caltrans please check their quantity and revise this if necessary?
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 4.
Response posted 01/31/2014




Inquiry #31: Should the measurement of payment for Bid Item #104 be in square feet instead of square yards?
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/28/2014


Response #2:Yes, it is in SQFT, See addendum No. 3.
Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #32: What is the specification for the geosynthetic reinforcement required in Bid Item #71?
Inquiry submitted 01/28/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/29/2014


Response #2:Refer to SSP 19-6.02B.
Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #33: I just received Addendum #3 which has three attachments. The second attachment 04-265604ad3.pdf is illegible. Can you repost it? Thanks
Inquiry submitted 01/29/2014

Response #1:It's best to download the file and then open it from your computer. If that doesn't work try the link below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-265604/04-265604ad3_v2.pdf
Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #34: In Addendum #3, Caltrans revised plan sheet C-7 to show an 8" max thickness of the block. If a class 40 block is 4.75" thick, how will the contractor be paid if the bid quantity remains at 510 CY, based on an 8" block? The item will immediately go into adjustment. The bid item should be paid for by the square foot based on the area of block installed, including embedment.
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #35: Sheet 26 of 157 Drainage Plan D-3, show the proposed Temporary Creek Diversion. Is it the intent to have the Upstream Coffer Dam reach all the way across the creek (in essence bank to bank). Constructed as currently shown it does not indicate that the Cofferdam is required to so.
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/30/2014


Response #2:Yes. Coffer dam from bank to bank.
Response posted 01/30/2014




Inquiry #36: Sheet 26 of 157 Drainage Plan D-3, show the proposed Temporary Creek Diversion. Is it the intent to have the Upstream Coffer Dam reach all the way across the creek (in essence bank to bank). Constructed as currently shown it does not indicate that the Cofferdam is required to so.
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/30/2014


Response #2:See response to BI#35 above.
Response posted 01/31/2014




Inquiry #37: Section 14-6.02C(5) Protection Measures, Item #1 States, "No Work is allowed between October 15 and April 15". Does this only apply to the Riparian areas and within the creek boundaries or would the contractor be allowed to work during this period outside the creek limits. Can the Bridge items (Precast Girders, Deck and Barrier Rail) be completed during this time.
Inquiry submitted 01/31/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/31/2014




Inquiry #38: Sheet 140 shows Reinforced Concrete Cutoff Elevation of -9.0'. Given the lengths of the soil plug and seal, this appears to be too high. Is this dimension correct?
How is the Drill Test Boring mentioned in Sections 49-1.01D(5) paid?

Inquiry submitted 01/31/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/31/2014




Inquiry #39: The Foundation Report mentions that the piles have been designed to take into account the drawdown caused by constructing the piles before the settlement of the approaches. Driving the piles prior to the settlement period implies that the abutment construction may proceed before/during the settlement period. Can all the bridgework proceed during the settlement period?
Inquiry submitted 02/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 02/03/2014


Response #2:The Contractor's attention is directed to Paragraph 7 of Section 19-6.03D "Settlement Periods and Surcharges" of the standard specifications states:
"Before the end of the settlement period, do NOT drive foundation piles." Therefore NO abutment pile driving or abutment construction can begin until after the completion of the settlement period.

Response posted 02/04/2014




Inquiry #40: Should the measurement of payment for Bid Item #101 (Fiber Rolls) be in linear feet instead of square feet?
Inquiry submitted 02/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 02/04/2014






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.