Caltrans Office Engineer

Viewing inquiries for 08-0K2604

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: The 2010 standard specifications state that the DBE commitment form found in the bid book can be submitted with the bid documents but aren't required at time of bid and also can be submitted by the low, second, and third bidders within 4 business days after the bid, along with confirmation from the UDBE's listed. Are we correct on this interpretation? Also are Good Faith Effort documents required to be submitted even if the UDBE goal was made? If so can the good faith documentation be submitted 4 days after the bid as stated in the 2010 specifications?
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2012

Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 10/18/2012


Response #2:1-The 2010 Standards are clear as written.

Submit DBE information on the Caltrans Bidder - DBE - Commitment form (DBE commitment form) included in the Bid book. If the form is not submitted with the bid, remove the form from the Bid book before submitting your bid.

If the DBE commitment form is not submitted with the bid, the apparent low bidder, the 2nd low bidder, and the 3rd low bidder must complete and submit the form to the Office Engineer. The DBE commitment form must be received by the Office Engineer no later than 4:00 p.m. on the 4th business day after bid opening.

Other bidders are not required to submit the DBE commitment form unless the Department requests it. If the Department requests a DBE commitment form from you, submit the completed form within 4 business days of the request.

Submit written confirmation from each DBE shown on the form stating that it will be participating in the Contract. Include confirmation with the DBE commitment form. A copy of a DBE's quote will serve as written confirmation that the DBE will be participating in the Contract.

If you do not submit the DBE commitment form by the specified time, your bid is nonresponsive.

Please refer also to Section 2-1.12B(3)Good Faith Effort Submittal of the 2010 Standard Specification for the 2nd part and 3rd part of the question.

Response posted 10/29/2012




Inquiry #2: We see conflicting specifications and revised specifications concerning Sect 39-1.23. Is the lime slurry and marination required for all of the asphalt aggregates.
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 10/29/2012


Response #2:Lime marination is specified for aggregates to be used only for RHMA-G and HMA Type C mixes in this project.
This is specified in Section 39-1.19

Also see Section 39-1.02E and Section 39-1.23B
Response posted 10/29/2012




Inquiry #3: For rubber plants the Material Plant Quality Program is set to go into effect on July 1, 2013. Does this program apply to projects bid before this date.
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 10/29/2012


Response #2:This new program does not apply to this project.
Response posted 10/29/2012




Inquiry #4: For specification 39-1.12c Profilograph. Will Caltrans accept a profile index utilizing a inertial profilometer in place of the California Type Profilograph?
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 10/29/2012


Response #2:Inertial Profiler will not be allowed on this project.
Response posted 10/29/2012




Inquiry #5: Is the contractor responsible to dispose of all excess millings for the project?

Inquiry submitted 10/25/2012

Response #1:All grindings will become the property of the contractor. Please refer to section 15-1 "GENERAL" of the standard specification.
Response posted 10/29/2012




Inquiry #6: Is the contractor allowed to turn around trucks through the median for this project?
Inquiry submitted 10/25/2012

Response #1:This will be at the discretion of the RE. If allowed, locations and conditions for turning around will be subject to the RE's approval.
Response posted 10/29/2012




Inquiry #7: Ref Item 37- Please provide clarification via an addendum to all plan holders of your requirements. Following are inconsistancies in the current contract documents, for this work:-
1-Ref Plan Sheet 7 (C-3) Please provide details for the individual Type 9, Alternatives required for locations called out as "Type 9" on Quantity Sheets 32 and 33.
2-The individual locations in Quantity Summary sheets 32 to 33 appear to not agree with calculated volumes shown for the anchors on plan sheets 6,7, 9 and 16.Please clear this up before bid date.
3- Clarify the notes on Plan Sheets 9 and 32 noted as " Conc. Barrier". Are locations so noted to be constructed per Sheet 9(C-5) Details? The volume calculation for details on Sheet 9 are inconsistant with quantities shown for minor concrete at your noted" Conc. Barrier" locations

Inquiry submitted 10/30/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 10/30/2012


Response #2:1. Alternatives for type 9 will be determined in the field.
2. On construction detail C-2, it is stated that 3'-6" is the minimum. The concrete calculations used assumed a longer length of 4'-5".
3. Volume estimated in quantity sheet will be paid as a Final.
Response posted 10/31/2012




Inquiry #8: Ref Contract Plan Sheet 9 (C-5) You currently have no method, or Bid Item, to compensate the contractor for " Concrete Removal" shown by plan detail and Note #1. Please provide an addendum clarifying this work, including a special provision and bid item for Portion Bridge Removal, the apparent missing bid item for this type of work.
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 10/30/2012


Response #2:The removal of concrete barrier shall be considered in the unit price of Minor Concrete (Minor Structure).
Response posted 10/31/2012




Inquiry #9: Ref Plan Sheet 16- Please provide an addendum to all plan holders that includes contract details and bid item(s) for temporary crash cushions and temporary railing Type K which are needed to construct the Anchor Blocks/Modified concrete barrier called for at Rte 40 E/B and W/B at Park Moabi Bridge Columns.
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 10/30/2012


Response #2:A 24 hour lane closure is provided therefore crash cushions and k-rail will not be required at this location.
Response posted 10/31/2012




Inquiry #10: Under Section 39-4.04A Testing, the HMA Acceptance-QC/QA Construction Process Table there is not an aggregate grading for a 1” Type C mix. Is it assumed the only weighted pay factors are for Asphalt Binder Content (0.30) and Percent of Maximum Theoretical Density (0.40) for the 1” Type C?
Inquiry submitted 10/31/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 10/31/2012


Response #2:Please bid as per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/08/2012




Inquiry #11: Ref your reply to previous question # 8- This response is a change to the scope of work, ascurrently provided for in your Contract Documents.
You State on the web page..."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.

Please provide an addendum which will make this Bridge Removal part of your contrat requirements, or provide a special provision, by addendum, as replacement to Standard Specification Section 51-7. Note your special provisions including 7/27/12 Revisions do not conform with your current reply to Pre Bid quetion #8.

Inquiry submitted 10/31/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 10/31/2012


Response #2:Please bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/06/2012




Inquiry #12: Ref your Reply to previous Pre Bid Inquiry # 9- By this determination, the Department is accepting full responsibility for public and worker safety. Your responsibility will be in effect during the multiple shifs of work required to remove existing safety elements( guard rail), Excavate for new barrier footings, form pour finish reinforced concrete barrier, and install galvanized steel cover plate(s). Please confirm this direction, and your responsibility, before the bid date.
Inquiry submitted 10/31/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 10/31/2012


Response #2:Please bid as per current contract documents.
Response posted 11/08/2012




Inquiry #13: For HMA Type C per section 39-1.23A (Table) Type C minimum quality control the specification for binder content is +/-0.30% from target value. Typical plant variability is 0.20% to 0.30% during production for oil content, this specification should be raised to 0.45%. The +/-0.30% requirement has been shown to be impossible to meet 100% for the time for all mixes.
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 11/01/2012


Response #2:This is the current oil content range per the current specification for Type C HMA. See SSP 39-1.23 A07-20-12. No changes or modifications will be made.
Response posted 11/06/2012




Inquiry #14: For HMA Type C per section 39-1.23A (Table) Type C minimum quality control the specification for fractured faces is >95 for 2 faces and >90 for 1 face, will this specification apply to the RAP aggregates as well or does it only apply to the virgin aggregates.
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 11/01/2012


Response #2:There are no requirement to perform CTM205 Crushed Particle testing for fractured faces on RAP aggregates used in the mix. Only the virgin aggregates are tested for fractured faces.
Response posted 11/02/2012




Inquiry #15: For RHMA-G per section 39-1.03B 2.10 "OBC must be greater than or equal 7.5% based on Total Weight of mix." The specification also states that the design Air Voids at 5.0% with VMA between 18-23. At 7.5% OBC by total wieght of mix your Dry Weight of aggregate OBC will be upwards of 8.0%, it will be nearly impossible to meet min VMA and production Air Voids with that high binder content. This requirement for 7.5% min binder content (total weight of mix) is only supposed to be used in Superpave pilot projects, as Joe Peterson with HQ recognizes that this requirement may be extremely difficult if not impossible to meet. That is why it is being evaluated in the pilot projects. This requirement should be changed back to the 7.0% (by Dry Weight) for this project until the new specification can be validated.
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2012

Response #1:submitted for consideration
Response posted 11/01/2012


Response #2:The current specification requires that the 7.5% be used for this project. 7.0% is an older specification and will no longer be used.
Response posted 11/02/2012




Inquiry #16: For RHMA-G per section 39-1.02E specification states that aggregate for RHMA-G must me treated by lime slurry method, is dry lime on damp aggregated allowed instead? Caltrans has previosly agreed that the dry lime on wet aggregate should be an option to contractors as long as there is no clay present.
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2012

Response #1:Submitted for Consideration
Response posted 11/01/2012


Response #2:Only Lime Slurry marination will be used on this project, dry lime on damp aggregate will not be approved.
Response posted 11/02/2012




Inquiry #17: Is it possible to get longer ramp closures for the JPCPRSC work? Completing the work on each ramp during multiple consecutive closures does not allow enough time for all of the necessary work to be comleted in the 12 hour closure allowed.
Inquiry submitted 11/02/2012

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 11/02/2012


Response #2:Additional lane closure time will not be granted for the construction of the concrete ramp termini.
Response posted 11/05/2012






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.