Viewing inquiries for 05-0G0704

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Due to the number of working days, can Furnish Metal Sign Structures be included for partial payments MOH?
Inquiry submitted 09/20/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/24/2013


Response #2:
Refer to Addendum No. 1, dated October 1, 2013.

Response posted 10/04/2013




Inquiry #2: Reference is made to Section 8-1.09, "Incentive/Disincentive for Early Completion," of the Special Provisions. In the table, "January 10th" is the specified completion date for both the work in Stage 1-Phase 4 and Stage 2-Phase 3. Please clarify the year for each of these dates and how these dates relate to the duration of work relating to the ramp closures.
Inquiry submitted 09/28/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/30/2013


Response #2:All work that needs ramp closures (as is deemed reasonable by the RE) for those stages-phases mentioned needs to be completed by January 10th of the year following the start of the stage and phase referenced (before that to receive incentive payment, after that for disincentive). For example (and assuming all goes as currently planned); if Stage 1-Phase 4 is started in 2014, the January 10th referenced is 2015. Following this same example, and since Stage 2-Phase 3 is by sequence after Stage 1-Phase 4, Stage 2 Phase 3 would start in 2015 so the January 10th date would be in 2016.

Any deviation to contract documents staging, ramp closures charts, and lane closures charts will require a change order and the approval of the Resident Engineer.
Reference complete ramp closure charts in section 12-4.05E for further information regarding ramp closure requirements.

Response posted 10/02/2013




Inquiry #3: On Page 1 of the Notice to Bidders, the number of trainess or apprentices for the Federal training program is listed as 31. This goal seems high given the nature and size of the job. Please verify the trainee/apprentices goal for the project.
Inquiry submitted 09/28/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consdieration.
Response posted 09/30/2013


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 1, dated Oct. 1, 2013.
Response posted 10/02/2013




Inquiry #4: Reference is made to Section 5-1.20C of the Special Provisions which states, "This project does not include work on the railroad property, but a railroad is shown on the general plan sheet withing the project limits. Do not trespass on the railroad property at Post Miles 22.3/23.0 on Route 101 in Santa Barbara County. The owner and operator of the railroad property is Union Pacific Railroad."
Has Union Pacific Railroad reviewed the project plans and determined that railroad insurance will not be required?
May the Contractor utilize the area within the existing slope and maintenance easement shown on Plan Sheet No. 13?
How many passenger trains and how many freight trains pass by the project site per day?

Inquiry submitted 10/01/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/02/2013


Response #2:Reference is made to Revised 2010 Standard Specifications, section 5-1.20C and section 5-1.36C. If the Contract includes an agreement with a railroad company, the Department makes the provisions of the agreement available in the Information Handout in the document titled "Railroad Relations and Insurance Requirements." Comply with the requirements in the document.

Reference is made to 2010 Standard Specifications, section 5-1.32. There is no state-owned area available for the contractors use. Please bid it according to contract documents.

Contact the railroad for further information as necessary.

Response posted 10/08/2013




Inquiry #5: Reference is made to Plan Sheet Nos. 11, 326 amd 340. What is the new road section below the Calle Real Structure Approache Slabs Type EQ(10)at the San Pedro Creek Bridge?
Inquiry submitted 10/01/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/02/2013


Response #2:The roadbed below the approach slab EQ(10) is composed of Cl 2 AB. Using sheet 11, the bottom plane of the 1.65’ of Cl 2 AB shown in the adjoining proposed structural section as shown on the typical section on the bottom of sheet 11 “sta 43+65 to 44+12.02 and 44+79.02 to 45+25” is projected below the proposed approach slab. The bottom plane of the 1.65’ of Cl 2 AB should remain the same. The thickness of said AB will be different below the approach slab because of the different thickness of the Slab when compared to the HMA (TYPE A). According to sheet 340 the approach slab is apparently thicker than the HMA (TYPE A) as shown on sheet 11, so the thickness of Cl 2 AB below the slab should be less than the 1.65’ thickness shown.
Response posted 10/03/2013




Inquiry #6: Section 39-1.20A(1) states: "Treat asphalt binder with liquid antistrip (LAS) treatment...". Is this to be done in addition to the lime treated aggregates or instead of the lime treated aggregates?
Inquiry submitted 10/03/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #2:Reference to Special Provisions Section 39-1.31 Warm Mix Technology Option with particular emphasis on the table Hot Mix Asphalt Antistrip Treatment Options of Special Provisions Section 39-1.31B(3)(b) Mix Design”.
Response posted 10/10/2013




Inquiry #7: Section 39-1.16A states: "Construct rumble strips in the top layer of the HMA surfacing by rolled-in methods". Does Caltrans want rolled-in rumble strips or ground-in rumble strips?
Inquiry submitted 10/03/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated October 10, 2013.
Response posted 10/15/2013




Inquiry #8: Section 39-1.17 calls for data cores on this project. Under what bid item would Caltrans like to pay for the data cores?
Inquiry submitted 10/03/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated October 10, 2013.
Response posted 10/15/2013




Inquiry #9: Plan sheets SC-11 and SC-12 show Stage 3 - Phase 4 of this project including a final asphalt overlay of the 101 lanes. However, this Stage 3 - Phase 4 is not shown in the Summary of Quantities sheets Q-4 and Q-5. What are the quantities for this Stage 3 - Phase 4? Are the tonnages included in other stages/ phases?
Inquiry submitted 10/03/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/03/2013


Response #2:Refer to addendum No. 2, dated October 10, 2013.
Response posted 10/14/2013




Inquiry #10: Reference Information Handout 4, "Aerially Deposited Lead Concentration Data and Sample Location Map." Was an accompanying report developed and is it available?
Inquiry submitted 10/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/07/2013


Response #2:No additional information is available. Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 10/10/2013




Inquiry #11: Reference SP section 14-11.03C(6) which states in part “Analyze surplus material for which the lead content is not known for lead before removing the material from within the project limits.” And also reference section 14-11.03D which states, ”Sampling, analyses, and reporting of results for surplus material not previously sampled is change order work.” Is all sampling and analysis beyond that previously done in the Information Handout change order work?
Inquiry submitted 10/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/07/2013


Response #2:No additional sampling and analysis beyond that previously done outside of the excavation area limits is required. Please follow the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/10/2013




Inquiry #12: A significant quantity of Roadway Excavation will be surplus material for export. How will the testing for lead at the rate of one per 200 CY be accommodated? Will samples be taken from the truck or stockpile? If the excavated material is found to be contaminated, how will it be disposed of and paid for?
Inquiry submitted 10/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/07/2013


Response #2:The plans have identified the ADL soil which is the only suspected contaminated at this location. No other sampling is expected to be required. Soil other than that identified as type Z-2 should be handled as regular roadway excavation. Please bid it according to contract documents. Please bid it according to the information handout and contract documents.
Response posted 10/10/2013




Inquiry #13: Plan sheet 313, Section A-A, calls for #11 vertical bars headed at top, Section B-B also calls for #11 vertical bars headed at top but also on Section B-B there is a note at the #5 crosstie that says to tie this bar around the #10 main steel. Please clarify the bar size of the vertical bars headed at the top as the notes on Section B-B are contratictory.
Inquiry submitted 10/09/2013

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


Response #2:See the revised plan sheet 313 of 343 on Addendum No.2, dated October 10, 2013.
Response posted 10/11/2013




Inquiry #14: Is there a reason the bridge structure construction is phased to complete the up-stream first rather than starting bridge phase work from down-stream up?
Inquiry submitted 10/09/2013

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


Response #2:Yes, there are many reasons that lead to the staging as shown in the contract documents, they include but are not limited to; environmental restrictions, traffic management restrictions and concerns, geographical limitations, construction limitations, coordination and scheduling issues with adjacent projects, municipalities, and property owners, and overall project cost. Contractors are advised to bid the project according to the project documents.
Response posted 10/15/2013




Inquiry #15: Reference is made to Plan Sheet Nos. 86, 310 and 313. It appears that the 36” steel encasement for the 21” clay sanitary sewer line along the west side of the Las Vegas Off-Ramp Bridge encroaches into the final pay limit zone for structure excavation and into the new structure. It seems it will not be possible to place shoring as shown in the payment detail drawing on Plan Sheet No. 313, so how will payment be made for the additional excavation required?
Inquiry submitted 10/10/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/11/2013


Response #2:Shoring is not required to construct the abutment and wingwall. There is an option and room to slope the excavation. The contractor is responsible for developing means and methods of construction.

The structure excavation limits given on the plans are theoretical only.

Response posted 10/15/2013






The information provided in the responses to bidder inquiries is not a waiver of Section 2-1.03, “Examination of Plans, Specifications, Contract, and Site of Work,” of the Standard Specifications or any other provision of the contract, nor to excuse the contractor from full compliance with the contract. Bidders are cautioned that subsequent responses or contract addenda may change a previous response.