Viewing inquiries for 11-2T2504

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: The bid date for this Project is 07/03/14. The is only one week after Contract 11-263304 valued at $12.9 million and two weeks after Contract 11-257154 valued at $91 million. The Contractor respectfully requests a minimum two week postponement so we can prepare a complete, accurate, and competitive bid for this Contract.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum No. 1, dated June 13, 2014 for the new bid opening date.
Response posted 06/13/2014




Inquiry #2: SPECIAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 7-1.02K(6)(j)(iii) Earth Material Containing Lead, raises questions: 1) Paragraph 3 states that lead is present in earth material on the job site in low concentrations, is not a hazardous waste, and does not require disposal at a permitted landfill, yet Paragraphs 5,6,7, and 8 state requirements for handling the material under CA department of toxic substances control, among other things, as well as instructions for disposal of the material as though it was a highly toxic substance. If the material is not hazardous, why are all these disposal requirements and regulations part of the specification? 2) Paragraph 4 states that lead has been detected in material to a depth of 3 feet in unpaved areas of the highway. Previous Caltrans projects wherein leaded dirt exists have provided a horizontal distance relative to the existing edge of pavement that would be the limit of lead presence and/or have provided a separate contract bid item quantifying the leaded dirt. PLEASE CLARIFY
Inquiry submitted 06/09/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #2:The purpose of SSP 7-1.02K(6)(j)(iii) is to require the Contractor to have and implement a lead compliance plan prepared by a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH). It must be used whenever disturbance (e.g., excavation) of earth material (e.g., soil) that could result in lead exposure will occur, but the lead concentrations are below hazardous waste thresholds (below 1,000 mg/kg total lead and below 5 mg/l soluble lead) and disposal in a permitted landfill is not required. Activities that disturb earth material and could result in lead exposure include clearing and grubbing, excavating, trenching, grading, drilling, planting, constructing foundations, installing signs, and installing posts. Driving vehicles on unpaved surfaces is not included because it is covered by dust control specifications.

Site-specific lead concentration data is included if soil can be relinquished. This is necessary to ensure that the Contractor can comply with reuse requirements and has enough information if they choose to dispose of the soil at a landfill.


Response posted 06/10/2014




Inquiry #3: Can you please provide centerline alignments in LandXML or CAiCE kcm file formats, and 3D existing TINs, breaklines and contours in LandXML or DGN file format? Thank You in advance
Inquiry submitted 06/11/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/11/2014


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum #2.
Response posted 06/23/2014




Inquiry #4: The planting plans, PP-1 THRU PP-3 have markings and notes indicating that all existing slopes are required to "MAINTAIN EXIST PLANTED AREAS, (GROUND COVER, SHRUBS, AND TREES". The contour grading plans, G-1 THRU G3 (as well as the cross sections) indicate there are sliver cuts to be made as high as 50' high on the existing slopes and the erosion control plans, EC-1 THRU EC-3 indicate application of bonded fiber matrix on the same slopes where the planting plans indicate the existing planting be maintained. PLEASE CLARIFY
Inquiry submitted 06/11/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/12/2014


Response #2:Maintain Exist Planted Areas will not be required in areas that do not have existing plants due to clearing and grubbing operations.
Response posted 06/13/2014




Inquiry #5: The planting plans, PP-1 THRU PP-3 have markings and notes indicating that all existing slopes are required to "MAINTAIN EXIST PLANTED AREAS, (GROUND COVER, SHRUBS, AND TREES". The contour grading plans, G-1 THRU G3 (as well as the cross sections) indicate there are sliver cuts to be made as high as 50' high on the existing slopes and the erosion control plans, EC-1 THRU EC-3 indicate application of bonded fiber matrix on the same slopes where the planting plans indicate the existing planting be maintained. PLEASE CLARIFY
Inquiry submitted 06/11/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/12/2014


Response #2:Repeated question. Please refer to bidders inquiry No 4.
Response posted 06/12/2014




Inquiry #6: REFERENCE IS MADE TO INQUIRY #2 AND THE RESPONSE POSTED 6/10/14. The response does not adequately address the issue. We have contacted a potential local disposal site and have received the following response: "Per our conversation, the general information that Caltrans’s provided is not conclusive. Therefore, the material is not considered non-hazardous and/or cal-haz/non-RCRA. In order for us to determine where the waste stream is suitable (Class I – Haz Waste, Class II – Cal-Haz – Class III – Non-haz) we would need to review the analytical.

Just knowing where the material is coming from, automatically lead would be considered a constituent of concern. And potentially, TPH levels and pesticides and herbicides (as they spray that area for weeds).

In order for you to pre-characterize the waste stream, it would be important if you could get a copy of the analytical testing. Therefore, you would have an idea on volumes for clean soil vs. contaminated soil – and if additional testing would be needed. That would make a big impact on your bid if you needed more sample testing."

We find no such test data in the info provided to bidders and request additional review of this issue.

Inquiry submitted 06/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/19/2014


Response #2:Attention is directed to Addendum #3. Project-specific information available has been provided.
Response posted 07/02/2014




Inquiry #7: I can't open the following documents listed in addendum #2 (01-2T250, 02-2T250, 03-2T250)
Inquiry submitted 06/23/2014

Response #1:Files 01-2T2504_A_Alignment.kcm and 02-2T2504_P3R_Alignment.kcm were created in CAICE and file 03-2T250_Contours.dgn was created in Microstation.
Response posted 06/23/2014




Inquiry #8: I can't open the following documents listed in addendum #2 (01-2T250, 02-2T250, 03-2T250. Can you make them a PDF?
Inquiry submitted 06/23/2014

Response #1:As replied in bidders inquiry #7 these files are computer readable format per bidders request (inquiry #3). Please refer to the plans in PDF format for alignments, profiles etc.
Response posted 06/23/2014




Inquiry #9: We find the staging plans addressing the construction of the southbound on ramp from Plaza (line P3R) to be inadequate regarding staging of construction vs the safety and convenience of the travelling public. The lane closure charts provide for one 56 hour weekend closure. This is not adequate closure time for construction of the portions of the new construction that interfere with the existing travel lanes in use by the public. There are no provisions for isolating existing travelled lanes from new construction by placement of K-rail. Please provide additional guidelines that define the permitted disruptions to the existing travelled ways and provide for safe working conditions for the work crews and the travelling public.
Inquiry submitted 06/23/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/23/2014


Response #2:Please refer to addendum #4.
Response posted 07/14/2014




Inquiry #10: We find the staging plans addressing the construction of the southbound on ramp from Plaza (line P3R) to be inadequate regarding staging of construction vs the safety and convenience of the travelling public. The lane closure charts provide for one 56 hour weekend closure. This is not adequate closure time for construction of the portions of the new construction that interfere with the existing travel lanes in use by the public. There are no provisions for isolating existing travelled lanes from new construction by placement of K-rail. Please provide additional guidelines that define the permitted disruptions to the existing travelled ways and provide for safe working conditions for the work crews and the travelling public.
Inquiry submitted 06/23/2014

Response #1:Repeated question.
Response posted 06/23/2014


Response #2:Please refer to addendum #4.
Response posted 07/14/2014




Inquiry #11: We find that the staging and traffic control plans and specifications are inadequate regarding the staged construction involved on the Plaza Blvd southbound on-ramp to route 805. A very high percentage of the planned work requires demolition of existing paved lanes that are now in use before new construction can occur. There is provision in the lane closure charts for one 56 hour total closure. That is not sufficient time for the amount of planned work, including substantial storm drainage, to be completed safely. There are no provision and guidelines for placement of K-rail to separate construction and traffic flow in Stage 1 at all! Please provide additional information setting forth guidelines for allowable, practical, and safe staging of this work.
Inquiry submitted 06/23/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/23/2014


Response #2:Please refer to addendum #4.
Response posted 07/14/2014




Inquiry #12: There was an addendum issued on another Caltrans project in the bidding stage (11-263304)containing a provision to be added to section 12-3.01A(1) stating: "Repair of traffic-handling equipment and devices damaged by public traffic is change order work". in the spirit of fair play, can this provision be added to contract 11-2T2504?
Inquiry submitted 06/23/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/24/2014


Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/10/2014




Inquiry #13: please confirm placement of concrete pavement with stationary side forms is an acceptable method of construction.

Inquiry submitted 06/27/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/27/2014


Response #2:Please refer to the Revised Standard Specifications dated 04-18-14, as attached to the Special Provisions, specifically Section 40-1.03H, “Placing Concrete.”


Response posted 06/27/2014




Inquiry #14: Under pay item 33 - Remove Concrete (CY). On the plan page 99, under the Remove Concrete quantities, there is an item for remove "Concrete MVP". Can you tell me what the "MVP" stands for?
Inquiry submitted 06/30/2014

Response #1:Attention is directed to Revised Standard Plan A10B as attached to the contract plans.
MVP is Maintenance Vehicle Pullout.

Response posted 06/30/2014




Inquiry #15: Regarding the Aerially Deposited Lead Survey information provided as part of addendum #3, there are 35 "call-out" tabs summarizing test result data; 19 of those have blanks in the spaces provided for data. What is the meaning of the blank spaces? Does that mean that the 19 samples represented by those "call-out" tabs were not tested, or were they tested and found to be totally ADL free?
Inquiry submitted 07/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/03/2014


Response #2:ONLY project-specific information available has been provided. Information outside the project limits will not be provided.
Response posted 07/03/2014




Inquiry #16: REFERENCE PLAN SHEET 17/188, CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, C-9. The sections addressing the "UNSUITABLE MATERIAL" are incorrect and misleading. The northbound section mistakenly depicts the inside lane as being an existing concrete paved lane virtually the entire length of the project. Actually the concrete paved inside lane only exists at the very beginning of the project at station 533+00 and tapers to zero by station 540+00. Accordingly, the concrete paved inside lane in the identified "UNSUITABLE MATERIAL" area only exists for 150 feet and then only tapering from a width of approximately 2.5' to zero. This raises the question of the "UNSUITABLE MATERIAL" call-outs. For the northbound lanes, the question is the classification of the 12' of planned roadway not shown on this detail section that is presently in the dirt beyond the existing shoulder. For the southbound lanes, it appears that the Caltrans quantity for "UNSUITABLE MATERIAL" in this region was derived by multiplying the area of the planned geogrid by the 4.45' depth on one of the call-outs with no regard for the existing structural sections. PLEASE CLARIFY
Inquiry submitted 07/08/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/08/2014


Response #2:Please refer to addendum #4.
Response posted 07/14/2014




Inquiry #17: Cal-trans has project 08-3401U4 and 11-2T2504 bid openings scheduled to take place on the same date of July 24th. Also the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority has a project bid opening date of July 24th as well. Please extend the bid opening date for 11-2T2504 to July 29th to allow for equal opportunity for all prime contractors to bid all open bids.
Inquiry submitted 07/08/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/08/2014


Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/10/2014




Inquiry #18: Addendum 3 states In the Bid Book, page 11, the "SUBCONTRACTOR LIST" is replaced as attached.The SUBCONTRACTOR LIST is in fact on page 10 in the Bid Booklet. Please Clarify
Inquiry submitted 07/09/2014

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


Response #2:The “SUBCONTRACTOR LIST” form included in Addendum 3 is intended to replace page 10 (“SUBCONTRACTOR LIST” form) in the bid book. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
Response posted 07/10/2014




Inquiry #19: The subject question relates to the storm drain portion of work on the project. Item 29 Remove Culvert - Encompasses 510 LF of pipe removal for drainage systems 4,5, & 8. In the drainage quantities sheets there are two columns for culvert removal. The first column totals 504 LF of culvert removal while the second column has no total. If we add the culvert removals for second column we get approximately 894.8 LF with a total of both columns being 1,398.8 LF. Here are the questions relating to this bid item. 1. Why are there two different culvert removal quantities in the drainage quantity sheets? 2. Does the bid item quantity need to be changed to encompass all the removals called out in both columns? 3. Drainage System 4 quantities show the removal of culvert at ar and at for a total of 444LF but there is an additional 1660LF of RCP that needs to be abandoned or removed which lies under the new PCC roadway, Sta 538+63.74 to Sta 559+96.00. Please give direction to the contractor on how the remaining RCP is to be handled.
Inquiry submitted 07/10/2014

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


Response #2:1. The column "REMOVE CULVERT (N)" includes the culvert removal coincident with the construction of the new drainage systems. The payment for this work is included in the construction of the new drainage systems (not a separate pay item). The column "REMOVE CULVERT" includes the culvert removals outside the construction of the new drainage systems. This is a separate pay item.

2. No

3. Callouts AU, AT, AS and AR show the removal of the existing 18" RCP / DIs from approximately STA 552+20 to 556+70. There is no existing RCP from STA 538+63.74 to 552+20 and 556+70 to 559+96.

Response posted 07/10/2014




Inquiry #20: This question pertains to the elliptical pipe run for drainage system 4. Sheet No.51 of the drainage details shows a concrete encasement for drainage system 4. Only runs n, q, s, u, w, and y are called out to have this drawing applied. Here are our questions. 1. It appears that the elevations are basically the same through most of drainage profile number 4, why would this design not apply to all the pipe runs? 2. If the design of the encasement only applies to n,q,s,u,w,and y as shown in the drainage details what type of backfill will be required for the remaining runs of pipe since they will be very shallow, It would seem that a concrete encasement would be required as depicted for drainage No.5 without the rebar. 3. What type of finish will be required for the PCC in this area since it appears this will be part of the roadway? 4. It appears the order of work would be to place the concrete encasement with rebar first and then perform the white paving, is this how the designer looked at this portion of work?
Inquiry submitted 07/11/2014

Response #1:1. Cover varies throughout the system, with n,q,s,u,w,and y being the shallowest (less than 1' of cover). The Conc Encasement Detail (Sht DD-9) only applies to these sections listed. These shallow sections have less than 1' of cover beneath rigid pavement. Therefore, this detail was designed structurally and provided in the plan set.

2. The remaining sections have at least 1' cover, which is permitted under rigid pavement from the HDM Table 865.5. In the case of at least 1' cover, the Contractor can select from standard structure backfill methods for these pipe sections.
DS 5 is different, it is beneath flexible pavement (AC) which requires 2' clear cover per HDM Table 865.5. Conc backfill detail was provided in this case.

3. Refer to Section 51-1.03F(5)(a) of the Revised Standard Specifications (p 270 of 324)

4. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/14/2014




Inquiry #21: SPECIAL PROVISIONS SECTION 14, after sub-sub-section 14-7.03
D, contains a heading "Add to section 14-8.02A" and defines the requirement to provide a sound meter and acoustic calibrator. The referenced STANDARD SPECIFICATION 2010, SUB-SECTION 14-6 NOISE AND VIBRATION, sub-sub-section 14-8.02A, General, second paragraph states: "Do not exceed 86 dBA LMax at 50 feet from the job site activities from 9 pm to 6 am. We are advised by experts in the field that conformance to the "LMax" criterion for sound monitoring is virtually impossible as it is an instantaneous measurement of sound level and any number of likely instantaneous events normal to this type of project would easily exceed this standard. A more commonly and logically used criterion is the "LEQ" scale which allows for averaging of sound levels over a period of time, typically one hour. Please consider changing the requirement from the "LMax" scale to the "LEQ" scale as being more appropriate to this type of project.

Inquiry submitted 07/14/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/14/2014


Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/14/2014




Inquiry #22: We are requesting clarification regarding the definition of the earth material management requirement of “Excavate to total depth. Do not excavate in lifts” as its relates to management of what would be considered impacted (elevated lead concentrations) from non-impacted (does not contain lead levels above what would be considered to be naturally occurring in concentration) soils. The response to Inquiry #2 dated 6/10/14 states that lead concentrations below hazardous waste thresholds (below 1,000 mg/kg total lead and below 5 mg/l soluble lead) would trigger a scenario where disposal in a permitted landfill is not required. We respectfully disagree with this statement as significantly more restrictive off-site reuse thresholds at non-regulated receiving facilities are in place and in our professional opinion would apply to this project. Such thresholds would include Tier 1 and Tier 2 Soil Screening Levels as defined in San Diego Regional Water Quality Board (SD-RWQCB) Order No. R9-2014-0041 Conditional Waiver No. 10 (Discharges/Disposal of Solid Wastes to Land). We believe that a good portion of the material to be disturbed during the course of the project will be suitable for off-site reuse and compliant with the SD-RWQCB order. However, achieving such compliance would require segregating shallower soil from deeper soil within the anticipated construction zones. If soil containing lead concentrations above applicable reuse thresholds cannot be segregated (removed in a shallower lift) from deeper, non-impacted soils per the earth material management requirements, it is possible, even likely that the entire non-hazardous waste stream would then become unsuitable for off-site reuse at a non-regulated receiving facility. Please clarify the earth material management requirements and consider allowing the selected contractor to segregate soil from varying depths during the course of the project.
Inquiry submitted 07/15/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/15/2014


Response #2:There may be export locations where reuse of the earth material would require a notice of intent and or a report of waste discharge to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, however there is no law, regulation, or order which requires this material to be disposed of at a permitted landfill. Soil from varying depths must not be segregated. As stated in the specifications, the earth material must be excavated to total depth and must not be excavated in lifts.
Response posted 07/17/2014




Inquiry #23: Regarding the new sign structure with a 23' foundation, are Logs of Test Bore, or as-builts available?

Thanks,

Inquiry submitted 07/16/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/17/2014


Response #2:The available information for this project is provided in the Information Handout:

"Geotechnical Design Report for the Investigation of Soil Conditions Beneath the Outside Shoulders of Interstate
805 Between Grove Street and Plaza Boulevard, dated December 12, 2013."


Response posted 07/17/2014




Inquiry #24: I submitted the question number 23. Your response was to read the Handout pertaining to the Geotechnical Report. That report only extends 5' below grade. The proposed foundation is 23'. There are several structures in the immediate area. There must be logs of test bores, please.

Inquiry submitted 07/18/2014

Response #1:No additional information is available.
Response posted 07/18/2014




Inquiry #25: Bid Item #40 calls for a Biaxial Geogrid with a Long Term Development Strength (LTDS) of 900 lb/ft. This value does not correspond to the CalTrans Standard Spec (88-1.02P) for Biaxial Geogrid. The product in 88-1.02P has an LTDS of about 400 lb/ft maximum. If a biaxial geogrid with an LTDS of 900 lb/ft is required, more specifications and a product description is needed to ensure the right product is quoted/supplied.
Inquiry submitted 07/21/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/21/2014


Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/21/2014




Inquiry #26: Can you please clarify which type of installation that the compost sock will require to be? Type 1 or Type 2.
Inquiry submitted 07/22/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 07/22/2014


Response #2:Since the contract documents do not specify a specific type, the contractor may choose type 1 or type 2.
Response posted 07/22/2014




Inquiry #27: In regards to item 63 compost socks, what is the diameter size of the rolls? 9", 12", 18"?
Inquiry submitted 07/22/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/22/2014


Response #2:Refer to the Section 21-1.02Q Compost Socks of the Standard Specifications: "Compost sock must be a mesh tube 12 inches in diameter filled with compost and must have a functional longevity of 1 year."
Response posted 07/22/2014






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.