Viewing inquiries for 07-293704

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Plans and specs are issued however I am unable to download the Bid Book as it states that this proposal has been withdrawn. Please confirm status of this project.
Inquiry submitted 11/17/2017

Response #1:The bid opening is on 1/23/18. The EBS file is in the BIDX.com, available to download, and please look for the project ID as "07-293704_0123" , thanks.
Response posted 11/17/2017




Inquiry #2: Please provide the complete list of CUCP work category codes that were utilized to establish the goal for the project?
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2017

Response #1:?Please bid in accordance with Section 2-1.12, ?Disadvantaged Business Enterprises,? of the Revised Standard Specifications (RSS). The RSS can be found in the back of the Notice to Bidders and Special Provisions book.?
Response posted 12/12/2017




Inquiry #3: Traffic handling plans, temporary railing (type K) - the plans do not show any of the k-rail staked to the ground. Please provide the quantities per stage of temporary railing that will require staking to the ground.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2017

Response #1:
Temporary Railing (Type K) is shown on Standard Plan T3A & T3B, which shows the staking detail. The staking is also included as part of the specifications 12-3.20C. The staking is included as part of the pay item for temporary railing (Type K).

Response posted 12/12/2017




Inquiry #4: Special Provision 51-1.03G(1) references the concrete surface texture/pattern sample in Sacramento, CA. Is there a location closer to the project site (or another project in district 07) that a sample can be viewed?
Inquiry submitted 12/20/2017

Response #1:Please send a photo of the surface texture/pattern along with the form liner pattern number and the form liner pattern company to Isaac Tasabia, isaac_tasabia@dot.ca.gov or phone (916) 227-8001 for review.
Response posted 12/20/2017




Inquiry #5: A - Does the K-rail require gawk screen and/or reflective markers?

B- The PCMS are referenced in the ramp closure chart remarks sections. Is the ramp closures the only time PCMS will be needed?

C- Will a profilograph of the AC be required? Pre and/or post-pave?

D - Is the JPCP and/or the Asphalt Concrete lime-treated?

E - Spec makes mention of PCC removals needed for the concrete barrier transition. Please further clarify this and which item would pay for this.

F - Is the contractor responsible for compaction/QC testing? If so, is there a pay item for this?

G - Is the existing AC/PCC section removals paid through Roadway Excavation item or Clearing & Grubbing?

H - Is the sawcutting for removals paid through Roadway Excavation item or Clearing & Grubbing?

I - Regarding spec sheet 34 of 363, is the COZEEP costs spent by the contractor or by Caltrans? If by the contractor, is this reimbursable?

J - Are the quantities of test strips for the JPCP-RSC and LCB-RS able to be billed as payable quantity?

Inquiry submitted 12/28/2017

Response #1:E) There should not be any PCC removals for concrete barrier transitions on this project. All concrete barriers should be built prior to the any concrete being placed. ALL OTHER RESPONSES ARE PENDING.
Response posted 12/28/2017




Inquiry #6: The Traffic Handling plans when overlayed on one page appear to indicate an approximate 5,000 SF portion of the JPCP-RSC at the exiting portion of the NB 405 to SB 110 Connector is not captured behind K-Rail by any of the staging because live traffic is kept on this "wedge" portion per the staging plans. Is this intentional and intended to be performed during a temporary ramp closure?
Inquiry submitted 12/29/2017

Response #1:A 55 hour weekend closure of the NB 405 to SB 110 Connector will allow the contractor to construct this portion of the JPCP-RSC.

Response posted 12/29/2017




Inquiry #7: 01 - Are the transverse joints dowels/dowel bar baskets incidental to the JPCP bid items?

02 - Is the Green Sawcutting for Contraction Joints incidental to the JPCP bid items as well?

Inquiry submitted 12/29/2017

Response #1:1) Yes, they are included as part of the JPCP bid item. 2) Yes, they are included as part of the JPCP bid item.
Response posted 12/29/2017




Inquiry #8: Currently there is a bid item for 306 LF of Cable Railing. However, RW 461 has 303 LF of Cable Railing shown. Should this quantity be increased or is the Cable Railing for RWs incidental to the RW bid item(s)?
Inquiry submitted 01/02/2018

Response #1:Please refer to sheet 268 (Retaining Wall 461), which shows on the Quantities Table ?Cable Railing 306 LF?. Item 146 on estimate.

Response posted 01/03/2018




Inquiry #9: Plan sheet 282 shows a Gutter at top of the Retaining Wall 481. Please confirm which bid item would capture this work/scope.
Inquiry submitted 01/02/2018

Response #1:Please refer to sheet 268, which shows on the Quantities Table ?Minor Concrete (Gutter) 567 LF?
Item 114 on Estimate.

Response posted 01/03/2018


Response #2:Please refer to sheet 268, which shows on the Quantities Table ?Minor Concrete (Gutter) 567 LF?
Item 114 on Estimate.

Response posted 01/03/2018




Inquiry #10: The project looks to be substantially leaning into export regarding earthwork. However, in order to build the first lift of the soil nail wall, material will need to be imported to provide a working surface for the soil nail equipment. Is this the intent for use of the Item 36 Imported Borrow?
Inquiry submitted 01/04/2018

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank You for your patience.
Response posted 01/04/2018




Inquiry #11: Inquiry #5 is from two weeks ago. Updated information on these items would be extremely helpful in providing an accurate bid.
Inquiry submitted 01/11/2018

Response #1:Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank You for your patience.
Response posted 01/11/2018




Inquiry #12: Under the guidelines of standard specification 7-1.04 “Public Safety” the contractor can self-perform their own traffic control for “all movements of workmen and construction equipment”. Pursuant to 12-4.02C(7)(D) COZEEP may be requested for the aforementioned operation. Please confirm that COZEEP is not a mandatory requirement for this.
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2018

Response #1:Due to the limited resources, CHP personnel may not be available when requested.
Response posted 01/12/2018


Response #2:Due to the limited resources, CHP personnel may not be available when requested.
Response posted 01/12/2018




Inquiry #13: Section 12-4.02C(7)(d) lists examples of circumstances where traffic breaks “may” be requested. Will Caltrans authorize traffic breaks for activities not on the list. Including but not limited to set setting K-rail, setting cones and striping.
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2018

Response #1:The Engineer should determine which contractor activities might use COZEEP support during construction periods.
Response posted 01/12/2018




Inquiry #14: Section 12-4.02D states that “the hourly rate for each CHP officer providing COZEEP support is $115 per hour, section 12-4.02C(7)(d) also states a minimum of 2 CHP vehicles with 2 officers will be assigned to conduct a traffic break. Does the rate provided include the vehicles? If so, will payment be covered by the state? If a sergeant is required, what is the rate? Will the state cover the cost?
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2018

Response #1:The Department pays the CHP for furnishing officers and cars or vehicles for construction zones.


Response posted 01/12/2018




Inquiry #15: If the Engineer requests COZEEP presence to stay idle within the closure but does not have them perform traffic breaks, who will be responsible for the payment?
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2018

Response #1:The Department pays the CHP for furnishing officers and cars (vehicles) for construction zones.
Response posted 01/12/2018




Inquiry #16: For traffic breaks, the minimum amount of COZEEP hours that the Contractor is responsible for is dependent on whether or not a closure is in place during the requested traffic break. Section 12-4.02D states that if a closure is in place then the minimum number of hours for an officer is 1 hour. This seems to imply that COZEEP support will be on-site during all closures. For bidding purposes, please clarify when COZEEP will be provided by Caltrans.
Inquiry submitted 01/12/2018

Response #1:The intent of COZEEP is for an enhancement for construction zones and is not intended as a replacement for other temporary traffic control measures. The Engineer should determine which contractor activities might use COZEEP support during construction periods.


Response posted 01/12/2018






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.