Viewing inquiries for 04-4G0564

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: The cross sections for the A,B, & AR lines are missing the structural sections. They only show the OG & FG lines. Please provide us the revised cross sections with the structural sections (Subgrade)shown. Thanks
Inquiry submitted 08/15/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/21/2017


Response #2:No additional cross sections will be provided.
Response posted 08/22/2017




Inquiry #2: Will Caltrans allow the use of Zoneguard barrier, in minimum deflection configuration, in lou of the temporary barrier type K listed in the specs.
Inquiry submitted 08/17/2017

Response #1:No, bid as stated in the Plans and Specs.

Winning bidder may ask the Resident Engineer for the alternative but it will be up to the discretion of the Resident Engineer.

Response posted 08/21/2017


Response #2:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/21/2017


Response #3:Caltrans does not allow the use of Zoneguard barrier, in lieu of the temporary barrier type K.
Response posted 08/22/2017




Inquiry #3: Special Provision Section 10-1.03.1 says that we are not to occupy I-680 between Sta. "A" 1430+00 and 1490+00 until November 1, 2018. Section 8-1.09 says that we are to complete work in Segment A, Sta. "A" 1438+00 to "B" 1606+00, by November 1, 2018. Are these specification sections in conflict with one another?
Inquiry submitted 08/23/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/21/2017


Response #2:See Addendum 1.
Response posted 09/21/2017




Inquiry #4: Is there a sign-in sheet available from the pre-bid meeting?
Inquiry submitted 08/25/2017

Response #1:Yes. A link will be provided once it is posted.
Response posted 08/25/2017


Response #2:The Small Business website has the list and slide presentation of 8/24/17 on-line for download. See link below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/smallbusiness/outreach_archive.htm
Response posted 09/06/2017




Inquiry #5: Can you please make CADD files available?
Inquiry submitted 08/25/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/25/2017


Response #2:No.
Response posted 08/28/2017




Inquiry #6: It appears that two sheets are missing from the “Temporary Water Pollution Control Plan” section. Sheets WPC-19 and WPC-22 are duplicates of WPC-38 and WPC-36 respectively. Likewise stations 1647.5-1658.5 and 1684.5-1697.5 are not depicted within the “Temporary Water Pollution Control Plan” section but they are depicted within the “Stage Construction and Traffic Handling” section.
Inquiry submitted 08/25/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/25/2017


Response #2:See Addendum #1. Addendum replaced the sheets.
Response posted 09/14/2017




Inquiry #7: Does Caltrans prefer to have the Department Biologist or the Designated Biologist provide the worker environmental awareness training? The Caltrans Specials for the project state "3. Before performing any work at the job site, all construction personnel must complete a training
provided by the Department Biologist that communicates details of species protection measures and
environmentally sensitive areas." However measure 5.4 of the Department ITP for the project states "The program shall
consist of a presentation from the Designated Biologist."

Inquiry submitted 08/30/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/21/2017


Response #2:Per revised Contract Specifications in addendum No. 1, before performing any work at the job site, all construction personnel must complete a biological resource information training provided by the contractor's supplied Biologist
Response posted 09/21/2017




Inquiry #8: According to plan sheet X-1 (page 3 of 1348)New structural sections 2,4,10,11,and 19 all show variable HMA that needs to be placed. However, in order to accurately quantify both Roadway Excavation and Variable HMA quantities we need cross-sections to show depths of structural sections down to subgrade. There is no way to accurately quantify Roadway Excavation and Variable HMA since the structural Sections vary in total thickness due to the varying HMA. Bidder Inquiry #1 response states no revisions will be made to the cross-section; however, in order to provide an accurate takeoff we need cross-sections that provide structural section thickness.
Inquiry submitted 08/30/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/31/2017




Inquiry #9: Can you make available crossections for the SHE1, SH3, and SH4 lines?
Inquiry submitted 09/05/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/05/2017


Response #2:You can download the cross sections below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-4G0564/04-4G0564XS_SHE1-SH3-SH4.pdf
Response posted 09/06/2017




Inquiry #10: Special Provision Section 10-1.03.1 says that we cannot occupy the project limits on I-680 between Sta. A 1430+00 to 1490+00 before November 1, 2018. Special Provision Section 8-1.09 says that we must complete certain median work between Sta. A 1438+00 to B 1606+00 by November 1, 2018. Is there a conflict in the specs that says we are to complete work in an area before we can occupy it?
Inquiry submitted 09/05/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/05/2017


Response #2:See Addendum #1.
Response posted 09/14/2017




Inquiry #11: Please clarify the K-Rail configuration and lane closure requirements for the substructure and column casing work at Calaveras Road Separation.
Inquiry submitted 09/05/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/06/2017


Response #2:K-rail placement on Calaveras road must be as shown on the plans . All the lanes on Calaveras road must be kept open at all times as shown on the plans.
Response posted 09/11/2017


Response #3:For bridge widening work, K-rail on Calaveras Road must be placed as shown on the plan sheet SC-41. All the lanes on Calaveras road must be kept open at all times as shown on the plans.
Response posted 09/19/2017




Inquiry #12: Zoneguard is listed on the Caltrans approved products list as a Caltrans approved temporary barrier. Is there a project specific reason that Zoneguard will not be allowed on this project?
Inquiry submitted 09/06/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/06/2017


Response #2:Bidders should bid per plans and specs.
Response posted 09/08/2017




Inquiry #13: 1. The cross sections for the 'HR2' line show a significant fill being placed from Calaveras Road to Sta. 888+00, then there is no fill until Sta 891+74.30, where then the fill picks up again. The fill also extends outside of the R/W line. Is it Caltrans' intent to place the fill as shown on the cross sections?

2. If it is, shouldn't more trees be shown to be removed on the plant removal plans for this area?

3. Why is there a gap in the fill if we are placing the fill as shown?

Inquiry submitted 09/08/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/11/2017


Response #2:Refer to the Revised Cross Sections for HR2 Ramp, link below. The earthwork quantity was adjusted in Addendum No. 2 to reflect the changes to the Cross Sections.

HR2_885+51-TO-893+50_SSL.PDF
Response posted 09/26/2017




Inquiry #14: The Earthwork Table on Sheet Q-17 shows 46,428 CY of embankment being placed in Segment B, primarily at the Sheridan Road bridge. Our preliminary take-off for this area shows that we will be significantly less than half of the embankment quantity shown, resulting in more offhaul of dirt. Can Caltrans take another look at the cross sections for this area (Segment B) and revise the table to reflect a lower embankment quantity, if necessary?
Inquiry submitted 09/08/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/11/2017


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2 for the revised earthwork quantity.
Response posted 09/26/2017




Inquiry #15: Starting at Sta 'B' 1661+64 to 1741+34, the layout drawings show Structural Section 21 being installed in the median. The typical sections through this area shows Structural Section 2 being installed. Which section is being installed?
Inquiry submitted 09/12/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/13/2017


Response #2:For narrow median widenings less than 8' wide, section No. 21 shall be installed instead of section No.2 to ease the construction. Therefore, the section No. 21 as shown in layouts is being installed.
Response posted 09/14/2017




Inquiry #16: Due to a major changes in addendum 1, please extend the bid date by 4 weeks.
Inquiry submitted 09/13/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/21/2017


Response #2:Bid opening will remain as scheduled.
Response posted 09/28/2017




Inquiry #17: Bid item 149(F) 560218 Furnish Sign Structure (Truss) in the recent Addendum 1 - 3 structures were changed (increased in size) but pay weight was not adjusted. Sign OS37-1 the span increased by 6' but the pay weight was not increased. Sign OS38-1 increased in span by 8' and the pay weight was not increased and sign OS27-1 is an existing sign structure relocated to a new foundation but there's no pay weight for a new Anchor Bolt Assembly which will be required. Please review pay weights for added weight.
Inquiry submitted 09/15/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/15/2017


Response #2:No change in quantity of bid item No. 149. The additional weight for increasing the size of Signs OS37-1 and OS38-1 are within the contingency of the original sign quantity.

The payment for anchor bolt for the relocated sign is included in the price paid for sign foundation.


Response posted 09/19/2017


Response #3:Please bid per the contract documents.
Response posted 09/21/2017




Inquiry #18: The crossections for the 'A' line show us installing a wall or tall barrier, with a fill, on the outside shoulder from Sta. 1489+00 to 1508+00. The layout drawings show no construction on the shoulder in this area. What work on the outside shoulder is being done within those stations?
Inquiry submitted 09/15/2017

Response #1:No concrete barrier will be installed along outside shoulder within the specified limits. Follow layout and typical cross section of the contract plans to bid.
Response posted 09/19/2017




Inquiry #19: Can you please post the work codes used to establish the 12% DBE goal?
Inquiry submitted 09/15/2017

Response #1:Please bid in accordance with Section 2-1.12 of the Standard Specifications.
Response posted 09/18/2017




Inquiry #20: Please reference "Foundation Report For Retaining Wall Number 755", dated March 24, 2017. In Section 14, it talks about the special considerations that must be taken for installation of the 60" pipe, 15' deep, at the base of the wall. It says that open cut/excavation in front of the wall is not allowed. It also says that the wall design does not include the impact of the excavation, so temporary shoring will be required for the required excavation. It then provides shoring design parameters for the temporary shoring. We have the following concerns regarding the construction in this area:

A. The design parameters are to not only shore the pipe, but also to keep the constructed wall from moving while we are installing the pipe.

B. In order to install the pipe per Caltrans standards, for whatever shoring method we choose, we will not have the room for the shoring to be able to be installed between the wall and the pipe and the drainage inlets.

C. During and after shoring removal, we will be disturbing the soil in front of the wall, introducing the possibility that the wall may move as shoring is being removed.

In our opinion, the wall was inadequately designed for the construction being proposed in this area. We feel that the wall should have been designed with adequate pile size and embedment, such that it could support by cantilever, not only the retained earth height, but also the depth of excavation necessary to install the 60" pipe.

Can Caltrans provide an addendum to clarify this constructability issue?


Inquiry submitted 09/15/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/18/2017


Response #2:Please bid per the contract documents.
Response posted 09/21/2017




Inquiry #21: Where are the details for the EMS Sign Structure?
Inquiry submitted 09/17/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/18/2017


Response #2:As shown in Addendum 1, the EMS sign structure is an existing sign and is being relocated. Refer to the latest sheet 613 of 1348 (sheet SD-13) for the dimensions of the existing sign structure.
Response posted 09/19/2017




Inquiry #22: Where are the details for the Bridge Mounted Sign Structures?
Inquiry submitted 09/17/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/18/2017


Response #2:Refer to sheet 1307 of 1348 for the bridge mounted sign details.
Response posted 09/18/2017




Inquiry #23: Item 312 - Install Temp Sign Overlay. What bid item are the 1,542.67 sf of sign overlay material paid in? What bid item are the removal of the sign overlays paid in?
Inquiry submitted 09/18/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/18/2017


Response #2:Installing temporary sign overlay is paid for by unit of measurement, as shown on the plans and revised bid list. Payment for furnishing temporary sign panel overlay and removing the temporary panel is included in the unit price paid for installing temporary sign overlay.
Response posted 09/18/2017




Inquiry #24: Caltrans has issued Addendum 1 for this project. Included in the Addendum were 286 revised plan sheets, numerous spec changes and over 2,000 pages on Information Handout documents to review. In light of this new project information, we respectfully request a minimum postponement of 2 weeks to the current bid date. We need more time to review the information provided in Addendum 1. There are also several key bidders inquiries that have not been answered. We would ask that Caltrans seriously consider a bid date change for this project.


Inquiry submitted 09/18/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/18/2017


Response #2:See response to Bidder Inquiry #16.
Response posted 09/28/2017




Inquiry #25: Top of wall elevation busts have been found on wall 608. Station 611+00 exists on both sheets 1100 and 1101. The elevation given on the profile table is different from one sheet to the next. The same situation exists at station 617+00 and plan sheets 1103 and 1104. Please issue addendum with revised plans correcting the elevation bust.
Inquiry submitted 09/18/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/19/2017


Response #2:Please bid per the contract documents. The mentioned minor discrepancy doesn’t effect the bid quantities.
Response posted 09/28/2017




Inquiry #26: One the soldier pile wall detail sheet no. 1 (Plan sheet 1246) Note 3 indicates that the shear studs are to be field welded after the lean concrete is removed, however detail sheet no.2 (plan sheet 1247) shows shear studs in the structural concrete section. Please indicate if the shear studs are on the entire length of the pile or just in the lean concrete section.


Inquiry submitted 09/18/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/19/2017


Response #2:Please bid per the contract documents.
Response posted 09/21/2017




Inquiry #27: Are there any linings and or coatings for the welded steel pipe on bid items 184, 185, 186 and 187?
Inquiry submitted 09/20/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/21/2017


Response #2:WSP for bridge casings requires coating per Standard Specifications Section 70-7.02B and WSP for drainage facilities does not require coating. Lining is not required.
Response posted 09/22/2017




Inquiry #28: Detail on ED-39. Directional Bore Detail on E-39 shows Conduit in Casing Assembly with bore casing diameter sized by supplier for Type B2 or B3 situation with spacers and steel bands.This appears to be a detail for jack and bore as bulkheads are referenced at the ends. This detail does not appear to be for directional boring method. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 09/21/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/21/2017


Response #2:Bid according to the plans. The design intention is to install a large size casing by directional boring and then insert the specified small PVC size inner conduits inside of the casing to protect the inner conduits from damaging. Use of spacers and steel bands is to keep the inner conduits straight and centered inside of the casing.
Response posted 09/22/2017




Inquiry #29: Detail on ED-39. Directional Bore Detail on E-39 shows Conduit in Casing Assembly with bore casing diameter sized by supplier for Type B2 or B3 situation with spacers and steel bands.This appears to be a detail for jack and bore as bulkheads are referenced at the ends. This detail does not appear to be for directional boring method. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 09/21/2017

Response #1:Same question as above.
Response posted 09/21/2017




Inquiry #30: Bid item 79 is for 20 days of pre-pave-grinding. Please provide the ProVAL files of the existing surface so it can be determined if final specified smoothness results can be achieved and this job can be bid appropriately.
Inquiry submitted 09/22/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/22/2017


Response #2:Download the files below:

NB LANE 1
NB LANE 2
NB LANE 3

Response posted 09/25/2017




Inquiry #31: Regarding the F.O. - two parts to this inquiry:
1. Please advise if the Fiber Optic Patch Panels (shown at ETS sites 1-31) is to be supplied/spliced by the TSI contractor? or as part of the Bid Item 215?

2. Please advise how the F.O. testing requirements per the Special Provisions would be performed if the patch panels are not in place. How would the 12 or 24 smfo be tested since they would be open ended (i.e. not landed anywhere)?

Inquiry submitted 09/22/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/22/2017


Response #2:a) As shown on the plans (ED-63 thru 73), the controller cabinet including the fiber patch panel will be furnished and installed by the TSI. You are responsible for fiber optic cable splicing and terminating the cable at the patch panel as shown on ED-76 thru 81.

b)Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/25/2017




Inquiry #32: We understand that the trees shown to be removed for this project are currently being removed under another contract.

Please confirm.

Inquiry submitted 09/25/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/25/2017


Response #2:Trees are expected to be removed to approximately 3' above grade under a separate contract prior to start of work on this contract.
Response posted 09/28/2017




Inquiry #33: Due to complexity of addendum #1, issuance of addendum #2 and a large number of important unanswered bidder's inquiries, we respectfully request postponement of the bid date by at least 2 weeks.
Inquiry submitted 09/25/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/25/2017


Response #2:See response to Bidder Inquiry #16.
Response posted 09/28/2017




Inquiry #34: We are bidding this project and have just tested our Expedite Bid Submission and each time we are receiving an error message that says "CALTRANS does not allow electronic bid submission" We've had another contractor check for a project they are bidding tomorrow and am getting the same message.
Inquiry submitted 09/25/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/26/2017


Response #2:It's been resolved. Please try again.
Response posted 09/26/2017




Inquiry #35: Current events in the country (Texas/ Florida Hurricanes) have adversely affected pvc conduit pricing and accurate quote availability. In order to provide a responsible competitive bid, we respectfully request a 2 week postponement of the bid in order to obtain better pricing.
Inquiry submitted 09/26/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/26/2017


Response #2:See response to Bidder Inquiry #16.
Response posted 09/28/2017




Inquiry #36: We are trying to find the height of the wires adjacent to wall 857. Is this information included within the plans and specifications? If so, can you indicate where this information can be found? If it is not currently part of the bid documents, can this information be provided?
Inquiry submitted 09/26/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/29/2017


Response #2:The requested information are not shown on the contract documents and do not expect for the information to be provided before the bid opening date.
Response posted 09/29/2017




Inquiry #37: Bid Item 107- 84" Permanent Steel Casing is for piling at the Sheridan Road OC. Note 4, on plan sheet 1301 - Bent Details No.2, states that if the optional construction joint is not placed in the pile, then the permanent steel casing is not required. If the bidder decides not to use the optional joint, how does Item 107 get bid? Would a $0 bid be considered non-responsive due to incomplete bid?
Inquiry submitted 09/27/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/27/2017


Response #2:Bidder must enter a non-zero amount in order for the item price to be completed.
Response posted 09/28/2017




Inquiry #38: Bid Item 97 Precast Jointed Concrete Pavement and summary of Quantities (Sheet Q-7) show PJCP as 5090 CY of Concrete. But based on the Layout sheets the calculated amount of concrete CY is substantially higher. Can you please verify?
(Length of Freeway segment and Widths shown on layout sheets)

Inquiry submitted 09/28/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/28/2017


Response #2:The quantity of PJCP is checked and confirmed, please bid per quantity shown on plans and bid list.
Response posted 09/28/2017




Inquiry #39: Per Spec Section 19-3 " Structure Backfill of the 2015 Standard Specs, volume of pervious backfill material is not included within the limits of the structure backfill. How is the pervious backfill material being paid for behind the retaining walls?
Inquiry submitted 09/28/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/29/2017


Response #2:The pervious backfill is included in the structural backfill.
Response posted 09/29/2017




Inquiry #40: Per Bid item:
# 246(F) Chain link Railing
# 147(F) chain link railing (vinyl-clad, modified)
# 248(F) Chain link railing (TYPE 7 Modified)

Are all three of these different types of railing to be Black Vinyl Coated? please confirm.

Inquiry submitted 09/28/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/29/2017


Response #2:Only item 147 247 is specified with black color vinyl clad.
Response posted 09/29/2017




Inquiry #41: What traffic control is allowed on the city streets (Calaveras Avenue/Mission Road/Sheridan Road)?
Inquiry submitted 09/28/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/29/2017




Inquiry #42: Bid item 215 sheet ED-41. We have not been able to locate the call out for this type of pole within the tolling plans. Sheet E-105 symbol describes barrier mounted lighting pole with LED luminaire and ETS CCTV (see detail on sheet ED-41). Can you please clarify if the pole/arms are existing and we (contractor )do not have to worry about them, or whoever is doing the tolling will be supplying the poles/arms? It is under the impression the contractor is just to furnish the LED luminaire for the poles. Please confirm. Thank you
Inquiry submitted 09/28/2017

Response #1:As shown on E-105 and ED-41, you must furnish and install the pole, luminaire arms and lights. The CCTV camera will be furnish and install by others.
Response posted 09/29/2017




Inquiry #43: In response to inquiry #37:
I still find a significant difference between the CY of PJCP shown on Q-7 and what I calculate from the stations and the layout drawings.
For example:
L-23 has PJCP from 1706+09.00 to 1708+45.00 (236 ft) and the total width is 56 ft. PJCP panel thickness shown on X-1 is 0.90 ft.
Calculated CY of concrete: 236x56x0.9/27 = 440.5 CY
CY shown on Q-7 = 334.0 CY, a difference of 106.5 CY (31.9% higher than what is shown on Q-7)
Other lines have similar discrepancies and the overall total CY is off by around 10%.
Please confirm the CY shown on Q-7.

Inquiry submitted 09/28/2017

Response #1:The quantity is checked and verified. Please bid per quantity of PJCP as shown in the contract documents.
As shown on L-23, the limits of PJCP is from 1706+09.00 to 1707+89 (180 ft)

Response posted 09/29/2017




Inquiry #44: When acknowledging Add #2 in Expedite, the Addendum Notes state 'The following Proposal Data has changed: Changed Bid Bond Information' Can you clarify what information changed with regards to the bid bond?
Inquiry submitted 09/29/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/29/2017




Inquiry #45: In response to inquiry #38:
I still find a significant difference between the CY of PJCP shown on Q-7 and what I calculate from the stations and the layout drawings.
For example:
L-23 has PJCP from 1706+09.00 to 1708+45.00 (236 ft) and the total width is 56 ft. PJCP panel thickness shown on X-1 is 0.90 ft.
Calculated CY of concrete: 236x56x0.9/27 = 440.5 CY CY shown on Q-7 = 334.0 CY, a difference of 106.5 CY (31.9% higher than what is shown on Q-7) Other lines have similar discrepancies and the overall total CY is off by around 10%.
Please confirm the CY shown on Q-7.

Inquiry submitted 09/29/2017

Response #1:See response to Bidder Inquiry #43 above.
Response posted 09/29/2017




Inquiry #46: The response to Inquiry #40 states that only Bid Item #147 Chain Link Railing will have a black vinyl finish.

All chain link railing details included in the plans that are specific to each wall/oc states that the chain link fabric must be black vinyl coated.

Please clarify if ALL railings will have a black finish or just the railing included in #147.

Please confirm that ALL railings (excluding #147) will have a galvanized finish.

Inquiry submitted 10/02/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/02/2017


Response #2:Correcting the previous reply, chain link railing on the specified retaining walls must have black color vinyl-clad as specified on the contract plans (i.e. Item 246 should also have vinyl-clad).

Response posted 10/03/2017




Inquiry #47: Per Bid Inquiry #40 that was submitted on 9/28/2017. BID ITEM 147(F) SHOULD HAVE BEEN 247(F) AS FOLLOW:

# 246(F) Chain link Railing
# 247(F) chain link railing (vinyl-clad, modified)
# 248(F) Chain link railing (TYPE 7 Modified)

PLEASE CONFIRM THAT ONLY BID ITEM #247(f) SHOULD BE BLACK VINYL COATED AND NOT 246(F) OR 248(F).














Inquiry submitted 10/02/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/03/2017


Response #2:Item 248 is a regular chain link railing, without vinyl-clad. Also, see Bidder Inquiry #46.
Response posted 10/03/2017






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