Viewing inquiries for 07-293704

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: In order to generate an accurate earthwork take off, please provide one of the following:

- Contour grading plan view showing the existing and proposed contour lines *.PDF

- Design topo plan view for existing and proposed grades *.DGN file

Inquiry submitted 08/28/2017

Response #1:Contour plans were provided by addenda.
Response posted 08/28/2017




Inquiry #2: Spec section 26-1 of the special provisions requires to submit at QC plan and quality control testing.
1 - Is the contractor required to perform this work?
2 - If yes, under what bid item?

Inquiry submitted 09/06/2017

Response #1:The Contractor is responsible for the quality control activities during construction for specific items of work. This includes submittals, quality control (QC) plans, QC records, and certificates of compliance. The Contractor is also responsible for quality control sampling and testing during construction. The actual cost for the QC plan for a particular material is included in the cost of the material.
Response posted 09/07/2017




Inquiry #3: 1 - Does the K-Rail requires to be pined per standard plan detail T3B.
2 - Does the K-Rail requires Gawk Screen?

Inquiry submitted 09/06/2017

Response #1:1. The K-Rail will be required to be pinned if those conditions under Standard Plan T3B are met.
2. Please refer to the last paragraph of page 21, which relates to the use of Gawk Screen.

Response posted 09/07/2017




Inquiry #4: Sheet R-1 (122/167) shows Fractured Granite & Band Texture. Where is this texture to be applied? How is the contractor to be compensated for it?
Inquiry submitted 09/12/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/12/2017




Inquiry #5: REFER TO PLAN SHEET 152. PLEASE CONFIRM THE POLE TYPE BEING RELOCATED FOR FOUNDATION DETAILS.
Inquiry submitted 09/14/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/14/2017




Inquiry #6: There appears to be a plan sheet missing the the traffic handling plans between TH-10 & TH-11. The station on TH-10 ends at 426+00. The station on TH-11 starts at 437+00
Inquiry submitted 09/14/2017

Response #1:The actual construction during stage 3 will only consist of work in the area between the SB 110/ Torrance Blvd on and off ramps and on the SB 405 to SB 110 connector/gore area. The actual widening of the SB 110 mainline will be completed in Stage 2 and the striping of the mainline in Stage 3 will match that of the previously placed striping in Stage 2.
Response posted 09/15/2017




Inquiry #7: Since this project was not advertised on the Greensheet until September 8 and the availability of CAD files has not been determined, we respectfully request a bid postponement of two weeks.
Inquiry submitted 09/18/2017

Response #1:Bid opens on the original date.
Response posted 09/18/2017




Inquiry #8: Please verify/confirm that under proposed section 1 (plan page X-1, that you want Lean Concrete Base, not Lean Concrete Base Rapid Setting. Seems to me that it would need to be LCB-RSC jut like section 3?


Inquiry submitted 09/18/2017

Response #1:Please bid per contract plans and specifications.
Response posted 09/19/2017




Inquiry #9: Item 66 - Base Bond Breaker quantity seems to be significantly low. Please confirm that the quantity is indeed only 10,700 SQYD.
Inquiry submitted 09/18/2017

Response #1:Quantity is revised per addenda.
Response posted 09/19/2017




Inquiry #10: Upon uploading the amendment 1 file on Expedite Bid only bid item 7 was revised, even though addendum 1 changed several bid items. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 09/19/2017

Response #1:Refer to the revised bid items in the addenda.
Response posted 09/19/2017




Inquiry #11: There is not enough information provided regarding the data logger (Special Provisions Section 46-2.02F(3)) and the Multiple Depth Extensometer (Special Provisions Section 46-2.02F(3).

Typically a make, model, supplier and at the very least a detail is provided for how this will look. Please provide more information regarding the desired equipment.


Inquiry submitted 09/20/2017

Response #1:No further information will be provided. Please bid per current contract documents. Refer to section 46-2.01C, 46-2.02F(3), and 46-2.02F(4) of the Special Provisions.
Response posted 09/20/2017




Inquiry #12: Special Provisions adds the statement to Section 46-2.01A

"The engineer monitors, records, displays, and stores all testing data using data loggers."

Assuming this is the project Resident Engineer? If so is it assumed CalTrans does all the monitoring and recording of data for the Multiple Depth Extensometers?

Inquiry submitted 09/20/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/20/2017




Inquiry #13: It is unclear the chain of ownership of the data logger for the research ground anchors. Is the contractor purchasing a data logger to be given to CalTrans? Or is the data logger only to be used by the Resident Engineer during the testing of the anchors and then returned to the contractor?
Inquiry submitted 09/20/2017

Response #1:Reference sections 5-1.01 ?Control of Work? and 9-1.03 ?Payment Scope? of the Standard Specifications. The Department pays Contractor for furnishing the resources and activities required to complete the work as described. The Department does not keep the resources including equipment unless specified. No, the Department does not keep the data loggers.

Data logger is paid under Bid Item 79 RESEARCH GROUND ANCHOR. Please refer to Section 46-2.01A of the Special Provisions.

Response posted 09/20/2017




Inquiry #14: Bid Inquire #10. Further;

The Electronic Bid file's bid schedule differs from the bid schedule in Addendum 1. At this time we can not bid this project per the Special Provisions. This will cause huge conflicts in re-organizing our proposals and bid documents.

We ask the State to fix this mistake and extend the bid date, at a minimum, one week.

Inquiry submitted 09/20/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/20/2017




Inquiry #15: Spec section 40.5 Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement with Rapid Strength Concrete discusses modulus of rupture strengths for opening ages of equal to or less than 3 days and 3 to 9 days. If the contractor doesn't need to open newly paved areas to traffic in the above time frames does RSC need to be used?
Inquiry submitted 09/20/2017

Response #1:Yes, rapid strength concrete needs to be used.
Response posted 09/20/2017




Inquiry #16: Special Provisions Section 46-2.02F($) indicated "MDE must fit into a 1.5-inch diameter encapsulated extensometer conduit". We have spoken with all the main suppliers Geokon, Durham GeoSlope Inc. etc. They have indicated there is not a device that can do 4 and 6 gauges that will fit in a single 1.5-inch diameter conduit. Each gauge needs its own conduit. However, this may result in a very large drill hole diameter for the tieback that cannot be cased if needed.

Please clarify what exact MDE model the contractor is to use to fit all gauges in a 1.5" diameter conduit. Otherwise please clarify or provide a detail of what the exact layout of these research holes are to be if multiple conduits are to be used.


Inquiry submitted 09/21/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/21/2017




Inquiry #17: Special Provisions Specification 46-2.02F(4)indicates

"MDE must have 6" displacement range and be accurate to .001"

Per Geokon, RST, and Durham Geo Slope (most common suppliers of this type of instrumentation) there is not a device that can meet this stringent of a spec. Is there another suppliers system CalTrans has in mind?

Inquiry submitted 09/21/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/21/2017




Inquiry #18: Per addendum No. 2 - "The following X-Sections and surface electronic files are added as supplemental information:
07-293704_XSections.dgn
07-293704_DesignSurface.dgn
07-293704_ExistingSurface.dgn
07-293704_Surfaces.xml"

None of these files were available for download. Please advise.

Inquiry submitted 09/21/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/21/2017




Inquiry #19: The X-Section and Surface electronic files were not included in Addendum No. 2 as stated. Please provide these supplemental files in order for the Contractor to verify the earthwork quantities.

Since these documents have not been provided, it is requested that the bid opening is delayed to allow adequate time for the Contractor to review the files once they are provided.

Inquiry submitted 09/22/2017

Response #1:Supplemental files are provided. Bid opening date remains the same.
Response posted 09/22/2017




Inquiry #20: Due to the amount and scope of open inquiries at this time, and because DGN files for this project only became available 9/22/2017, please consider postponing the Bid Opening for this Project a minimum of 1 Week.
Inquiry submitted 09/22/2017

Response #1:The project will Bid as scheduled.
Response posted 09/22/2017




Inquiry #21: Is it correct to assume the quantity of Item 28 RDWY X(ADL) is part of the total Item 27 RDWY x quantity? Is the intent to bury the entire ADL quantity on-site?
Inquiry submitted 09/24/2017

Response #1:Yes, the quantity of the item 28 RDWY X(ADL Y-1) is part of the total item 27 RDWY x quantity. And the intent is to bury the entire ADL quantity on site per specifications.
Response posted 09/25/2017




Inquiry #22: Bid Item 36, "Imported Borrow" 6060 CY. What is the use for this item since the roadway excavation appears to be a net export ?
Inquiry submitted 09/25/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/25/2017




Inquiry #23: Is the removal and Re-installation of Valves D-5/D-6/D-7 & D-25A along with the shown existing gate valve on page IP-1
and valve D-20 on page IP-2 onto NEW MAINLINE to be paid under what item??

Inquiry submitted 09/25/2017

Response #1:Should be 2 inch.
Response posted 09/25/2017




Inquiry #24: “The project plans provide the load for the ground anchors in terms of Factored Design Load (FDL). In the testing schedules of the project special provisions and the 2015 standard specifications, the ground anchor load is referenced to in terms of Factored Test Load (FTL). For purposes of determining the maximum test load for the anchors on this project, please provide the relationship between FDL and FTL.”
Inquiry submitted 09/25/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/25/2017




Inquiry #25: Layout sheet L-1 shows the complete SB Off ramp to Torrance Blvd/Del Amo Blvd to be reconstructed but the stage drawings only show to construct from the existing EP out to catch point. The stage drawings don't account for building half of the ramp. When is this work taking place?
Inquiry submitted 09/25/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/25/2017




Inquiry #26: The EBS addendum file that came with addendum #3 is incorrrect. The file repeats items 174 through 178. The Bid Express program will not allow us access. When logging in it states "File Contains Duplicate Line Numbers".
Inquiry submitted 09/25/2017

Response #1:The issue regarding the EBID Form has been resolved.
Response posted 09/25/2017




Inquiry #27: there are numerous call outs on the plans to "Extend existing crossing"
Sheet IP-1 (2) locations, IP-4 (1) location, IP-5 (1) location, IP-6 (1) location. these (5) locations are not shown on any takeoff qty sheets, nor is there a bid item for them. where are they to be paid and "What type of material and size for the extension of crossing are we bidding??

Inquiry submitted 09/26/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/26/2017




Inquiry #28: Please include the length of each location for the extension necessary.
Inquiry submitted 09/26/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/26/2017




Inquiry #29: Low voltage irrigation conductors, We are asking for clarification regarding the pull box's for low voltage irrigation control wires. For years we have used a # 5 Pull box, lid marked irrigation control. Now the specifications take us to section # 86 calling to use a Tier 22 Pull box which is for High Voltage, Fiber Optics. Are we now being forced to use this same box for low voltage direct burial wires??
Inquiry submitted 09/26/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/26/2017




Inquiry #30: Bid item # 38 Rock Blanket. 405 NB to the 11 SB on Ramp Loop:

there is existing rock blanket and asphalt in the "New Rock blanket areas to be installed" Is the removal of this material covered under roadway excavation or what bid item?

Also The size/color of the Rock to be installed and any min. depth of excavation is NOT SHOWN on plans or addressed in the special provisions, revised ssp or standards. Please clarify Size of Rock, Color and depth of excavation of Rock Blanket Areas.

Inquiry submitted 09/26/2017

Response #1:Please Bid Per Contract Plans and Specifications.
Response posted 09/26/2017




Inquiry #31: The electronic bid form has bid items 174-178 duplicated. Please confirm that the these duplicated bid items can be ignored.
Inquiry submitted 09/27/2017

Response #1:The issue regarding the EBID Form has been resolved.
Response posted 09/27/2017






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.