MAY 21, 1998

CALIF. ENG. CONTRS. & A.G. TADRES$ 63,282,515.00
AMERICAN BRIDGE CO.$ 64,745,414.00

81)Reference contract drawing sheet 324 of 555.... Section C-C calls out to ream the existing 2" drain holes to 5-3/4" diameter and insert the upset rods shown in Section A-A. The upset rods shown in Section A-A are 5-7/8" diameter. Please clarify this discrepancy.

See Addendum No. 10

82)In a number of locations, such as shown on sheet 191 of 555, you have called out "#20 threaded bar anchors." Are these part of the reinforcing steel bid items? Rebar subs say there is no such thing as #20 reinforcing steel. Where in the specifications is this bar called out? What bid item are the #20 bars paid under?

In section 10-1.54 of the Special Provisions entitled Epoxy Coated Threaded Bar Anchors states that these bars shall conform to ASTM A615, Grade 75. The threaded # 20 bars shall be paid for as Bar Reinforcing Steel, Epoxy Coated, Bridge as stated in the payment clause in section 10-1.54 of the Special Provisions. This corresponds to Bid Item #127 of the Engineer's Estimate. Dewidag is one manufacturer of these bars.

83)Is the existing reinforcing steel in the bridge round or square? This is extremely important , since square bars do not have a mechanical splice available, that I am aware of. Sheets 204, 377, 379, and 383 indicate some of the typical splice locations. Obviously, welding of the splices at square bars would be vastly more expensive.

The exist steel reinforcing is round.

84)Reference bid item 126 " Bar Reinforcing Steel (Epoxy Coated) - 7440 lb..... We have gone through the plans and specifications and have been unable to identify where this rebar is located. Please identify the location of this reinforcing steel.

"Revised answer"Bid Item 126, " Bar Reinforcing Steel (Epoxy Coated) - 7440 lb, is covered by Section 10-1.53, "Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement," and it is for the construction of the retaining wall as shown on plan sheet 108 of 555

85)Reference Special provision 10-1.27 "Moveable Concrete Barrier (MCB)..." The MCB system as proposed for use on the bridge is impractical, very expensive and negatively impacts the performance of the work. Can the Contractor utilize alternate methods (cones, drums, etc.) of the lane closure in lieu of the specified MCB system?


Caltrans Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit Construction Program always welcome any comments or suggestions.
Author: Yader A. Bermudez
Email: Bernie_Edrada@dot.ca.gov