Viewing inquiries for 11-0223U4

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Please provide the following files, in the spirit of PD-06, to expedite earthwork, paving and pipe takeoff and improve accuracy and reduce risk and uncertanty, ultimatly saving the taxpayer money.

1)A single LandXML file containing the vertical and horizontal roadway alignments.

2)An original or existing ground surface LandXML that includes the TIN, breaklines, and one overall boundary.

3)A design surface LandXML (one file or as many as needed for the project) that represents finished grade/subgrade or both. The design surface should also include the TIN, breaklines and one overall boundary.

Thank you in advance

Inquiry submitted 08/29/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 08/29/2014


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 1, dated September 25, 2014.
Response posted 09/26/2014




Inquiry #2: 1) Section 15, bid item #35: what is the depth and diameter of each of the 7 slope inclinometers to be abandoned?

2)Section 19-11, bid items #94 and #95: what are the diameters of the 6 slope inclinometers to be installed?

Inquiry submitted 09/04/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/05/2014


Response #2:1) All existing inclinometers are 2 1/4" in diameter and depths are as follows:

SI #1 = 58
SI #2 = 92
SI #3 = 88
SI #4 = 42
SI #5 = 58
SI #6 = 90
SI #7 = 90

2) See Section 19-11.04 of the Special Provisions (The the inclinometer casing inside diameter must be 2 5/16" and outside diameter is 2 3/4")

Response posted 09/15/2014




Inquiry #3: Reference Bid Item No. 159 - Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement. Tpyically there is a bid item (item code 404092) to pay for the sealing of the weakend plain joints in the JPCP (see payment clause in the first paragraph of section 40-1.04 of the Standard Specifications). Will an item be added or are we to assume that the sealing of the WPJ is incidental to the JPCP bid item?
Inquiry submitted 09/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/05/2014


Response #2:Sealing of the weakend plain joints is not required on this project.
Response posted 09/15/2014




Inquiry #4: Reference plan sheet 297 and 298. The water quantities table has a column for "Abandon Water Line" with a corresponding bid item no. 248. The table also has a column for "Remove Water Line (N)" - for information only. Will the water line be removed by others? If not, and the contractor is responsible to remove the water line, where will the removal of the water line be paid?
Inquiry submitted 09/09/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/10/2014


Response #2:The quantities listed as "Remove Water Line (N)" are coincident with other work and are included in other pay items. For example, on sheet U-13 the 130 LF of "Remove Water Line (N)" is included in the pay items for constructing the new water lines since removal of the existing reclaimed water line is required to construct the new water lines.
Response posted 09/15/2014




Inquiry #5: Bid Items #249, #250 & #251: 24” & 36” Cement Mortar Lined Pipe: Does the 24”or 36” size mean the clear ID of the pipe after lining ? Please advise since there are available different pipe types with the same nominal size (Cylinder OD based pipe or clear ID based pipe)
Inquiry submitted 09/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/10/2014


Response #2:Per AWWA, Steel O.D. for 36" pipe is 37-7/8", and for 24" pipe is 25-3/4".
These O.D.s are prior to mortar coating.

Response posted 09/15/2014




Inquiry #6: Bid Item #251: We are asking to allow the Polyurethane Coating material as Specified in AWWA C222 as an alternate to the fusion bonded epoxy coating. San Francisco Public Utilities uses exclusively AWWA C222 Polyurethane for both lining and coatings on their high seismic areas. Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 09/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/10/2014


Response #2:Substitution not allowed. Pipe shall be Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coated in accordance with plans and specs.
Response posted 09/15/2014




Inquiry #7: Buy America requirement: It is not clear if for this project the supply of materials must meet Buy America clause. Please clarify
Inquiry submitted 09/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/10/2014


Response #2:See section 6-2.05 Buy America of the Revised Standard Specifications.
Response posted 09/15/2014




Inquiry #8: Reference plan sheet 605 - Facing Detail. This detail makes reference to "Free Draining Material" to be placed within the wire baskets. Please provide gradation and material type that will be required for the "free draining material".
Inquiry submitted 09/12/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/12/2014


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 1, dated September 25, 2014.
Response posted 09/26/2014




Inquiry #9: We are unable to determine the Type 60C barrier offsets for the run to the left of the "SD5" and "G4AR" lines from Sta 1590+53 to Sta 1601+23 because the cross sections are missing for this area. Please provide cross sections or other information so that we can determine these offsets.
Inquiry submitted 09/18/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/19/2014


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 1, dated September 25, 2014.
Response posted 09/29/2014




Inquiry #10: Reference plan sheet 605 - "Facing Detail". There is a call out for an "approved facing connection to gerogrid - Typ". Please provide details / specifications for the approved facing connection.
Inquiry submitted 09/22/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/22/2014


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 1, dated September 25, 2014.
Response posted 09/29/2014




Inquiry #11: The earthwork chart on sheet Q-9 of the summary of quantities shows roadway excavation and embankment for the G4AR line. Please provide the missing cross sections for these volumes.
Inquiry submitted 09/22/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/22/2014


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 1, dated September 25, 2014.
Response posted 09/29/2014




Inquiry #12: Section 19, Bid Item #93 – The proposed Geosynthetic Reinforced Embankment (GRE) contains a vertical to near vertical welded-wire basket wall facing within a larger slope complex. The GRE wall facing is required to be geogrid reinforced and have a facing connection; while the surrounding slope is not reinforced. This geometry appears to be more of a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall within a slope than a GRE. Per FHWA design methodology, the difference between a wall and a slope is defined at a batter of 20 degrees from vertical. Since the proposed GRE wall is vertical, shouldn't the wall facing system consist of wall products that are pre-approved by CALTRANS and are listed on the AERS list?
If not, shouldn't the facing system be battered to more than 20 degrees from vertical so that it qualifies as a slope per most recognized design procedures? Furthermore, backfill material specifications have fines contents exceeding 60% passing the No. 200 sieve which are commonly used in reinforced slope design but not wall design. Shouldn’t the GRE wall facing batter be increased to accommodate this quality of material?

Inquiry submitted 09/23/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/23/2014


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 1 dated September 25, 2014 and Addendum No. 3, dated October 2, 2014.


Response posted 10/02/2014




Inquiry #13: Bid Item #93 - Is there a specification section for the welded-wire basket wall facing?
Inquiry submitted 09/23/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/23/2014


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 1 dated September 25, 2014 and Addendum No. 3, dated October 2, 2014.
Response posted 10/02/2014




Inquiry #14: REFER TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLANS. THE PLANS ARE UNCLEAR IF ALL EQUIPMENT AND POLES CAN BE REUSED IN PREVIOUS STAGES ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE FINAL PERMANENT STAGE WORK. PLEASE CLARIFY.
Inquiry submitted 09/24/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/24/2014


Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/02/2014




Inquiry #15: REFER TO PLAN SHEET 721. PLEASE CONFIRM ONLY 1EA VDS CAMERA IS REQUIRED ON POLE E.
Inquiry submitted 09/25/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/25/2014


Response #2:The plan shows 2 VDS cameras on Pole E as the number of lanes that are being detected cannot be accommodated by only one camera.
Response posted 09/30/2014




Inquiry #16: Please clarify the reinforcement requirement for the CMC pipes. Is is per AWWA C-205 (AWWA C205-Section 4.5.51 allows spiral wire, wire fabric or wire mesh) or is restricted only to welded wire fabric ? (as shown on Detail 8 on Drawing UD-3)
Please be mindful that smaller the pipe size the more difficult is to apply the wire mesh with an impact in production time and cost.

Inquiry submitted 09/25/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/25/2014


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 3, dated October 2, 2014.


Response posted 10/02/2014




Inquiry #17: The previous bid last year had the project as a risk level 2. The current special provisions list the project as a risk level 3. Why did the risk level change to a 3? There is a significant cost increase with a risk level 3 project.
Inquiry submitted 09/26/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/26/2014


Response #2:Per current requirements the project is risk level 3. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 09/30/2014




Inquiry #18: We received Addendum #2 today. The addendum indicates that Bid Item 327 is revised. We do not see any change in Bid Item 327 from the original documents. Please clarify what the revision consists of.
Inquiry submitted 09/26/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/26/2014


Response #2:Bid Item 327 was revised (to what was originally advertised) in the E-Bid system, because it was changed by addendum 1.
Response posted 09/26/2014




Inquiry #19: Reference Bid Item #15 - Temporary Shuttle Van Service - 1 Lump Sum and section 12-4.05J of the Special Provisions. With this being a Lump Sum Item, please provided clarification for the following concerns with this item:
1. What stage are we to begin the Shuttle Van Service? Is it only required in Stage 5 once we shift traffic to the new half of Genesee bridge and begin demo of the existing bridge or will it be required from Day 1 of the project until the new Genesee bridge is completed?
2. What are the hours that the service is required? 8 hrs per day, 24 hours per day???
3. Is the service required on weekends, holidays etc. or just on working days?
4. Is the Van required to be Handicap Accesible? Is it required to have bike racks?
With so many unknowns, it would make sense to have this item be bid as an hourly rate rather than a lump sum.

Inquiry submitted 09/26/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/26/2014


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 3, dated October 2, 2014.
Response posted 10/02/2014




Inquiry #20: In reviewing the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification included in the Information Handout, we notice on page 12 that Bioassessment Monitoring is required. Bioassessment monitoring is a lengthy (5 years) and costly process. Is the Contractor responsible for Bioassessment monitoring? Please advise.
Inquiry submitted 09/26/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/29/2014


Response #2:Contractor is not responsible for bioassessment monitoring for this project. It is being handled by another contract.
Response posted 09/30/2014




Inquiry #21: How many working days is the planting establishment?
Inquiry submitted 09/29/2014

Response #1:Per the Notice To Bidders (p1 of the Special Provisions) the plant establishment period is 250 working days.
Response posted 09/30/2014


Response #2:250 working days per the "Notice for Bidders," of this project Special Provision.
Response posted 09/30/2014




Inquiry #22: Please clarify what kind of posts we are going to use for Midwest Guardrail System, wood or steel? Thanks
Inquiry submitted 10/02/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/02/2014


Response #2:Either wood or steel posts can be used, except where otherwise shown on Construction Details. Attention is directed to Section 83 of the Standard Specifications.
Response posted 10/02/2014




Inquiry #23: Section 5-1.20F - Please clarify that the Contractor is to pay all costs for irrigation water from the time of planting until contract acceptance.
Inquiry submitted 10/02/2014

Response #1:The Contractor is responsible for all irrigation water costs under Section 5-1.20F during the life of the contract.
Response posted 10/02/2014




Inquiry #24: Section 39-2.02B Mix Designs: Is the maximum binder replacement of 25% for surface course based off the JMF OBC or the JMF OBC - 0.3% (low point of acceptance range)?

Calculation: % Binder Replacement = [(Binder Content of Rap * % Rap Used)/OBC] * 100

Example 1: Calculation @ submitted 3511/3512 OBC of 5.4% (-0.3/+0.5) and RAP AC = 5.3%
% Binder Replacement = [(5.3 * 25%) / 5.4] * 100
% Binder Replacement = 24.53%

Example 2: Calculation @ submitted 3511/3512 OBC of 5.4% -0.3% = 5.1% and RAP AC = 5.3%
% Binder Replacement = [(5.3 * 25%) / 5.1] * 100
% Binder Replacement = 25.98%

Inquiry submitted 10/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/03/2014


Response #2:The 25% maximum binder replacement in the surface course is based on the OBC as stated on the Contractors CEM 3512.


Response posted 10/03/2014




Inquiry #25: Section 80-3.02A calls for all exposed galvanized surface to be stain. This section covers items 273 and 275, however Section 59-11.02 doesn't include the price for the said items. Please clarify if this items need to be stain too. If so, how much is the cost for the said items. Thanks
Inquiry submitted 10/07/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/07/2014


Response #2:See section 59-11.01A SUMMARY, (second paragraph) for surfaces requiring stain. Items 273 and 275 do not require stain.
Response posted 10/08/2014




Inquiry #26: Spec Section 39-2.02D(2) Aggregate Gradations.
Aggregate Gradation Requirements per chart it is based on "Pavement Thickness", not "lift" thickness.
Majority of HMA structural sections on this project fall into the last category, 0.30 foot or greater which indicates aggregate gradation of 1". Please clarify if all HMA placed in areas of pavement thickness 0.30 or greater must be 1" aggregate, or can Contractor use 3/4 Inch aggregate in that the second category reads 0.20 foot and greater and does not indicate but less than 0.30,

Inquiry submitted 10/07/2014

Response #1:Per Section 39-2.02D(2) of the Revised Standard Specifications, Type A HMA with pavement thicknesses 0.20' and greater use a 3/4" gradation. Type A HMA with pavement thicknesses 0.30' and greater use 1" gradation. Therefore, Type A HMA with pavement thicknesses 0.30' and greater may use either 3/4" gradation or 1" gradation.
Response posted 10/07/2014




Inquiry #27: Per Pipe Handrailing (Type 3) Details on Sheet No. 868 calls for 1-1/4" X-strong pipe, unfortunately we can't find this in weathering steel. Can we suggest substituting 1-1/4" or 1-1/2" standard pipe instead? Thanks
Inquiry submitted 10/08/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/08/2014


Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/08/2014




Inquiry #28: The question within bidders inquiry #12 was not answered within Addenda 1 or 3. With the specified batter of the GRE Wall at vertical to near vertical, why have products that are not included on the CALTRANS pre-approved AERS list been specified? Will value engineering be considered for the GRE Wall?

Inquiry submitted 10/08/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/08/2014


Response #2:Refer to Section 4-1.07 of the Standard Specifications and bid per contract documents.
Response posted 10/08/2014




Inquiry #29: We believe inquiry #14 response of "Please bid per the current contract documents." did not provide clear information on how the issue may play out on the project or our interpretation of said documents. Please clarify if your position is different.
Inquiry submitted 10/09/2014

Response #1:Refer to the Signal and Lighting Stage Construction sheets. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/09/2014






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.