California Department of Transportation

Contract 05-0P9104

The responses to bidder's inquiries, unless incorporated into a formal addendem to the contract, are not a part of the contract and are provided for the bidder's convenience only. In some instances, the question and answer may represent a summary of the matters discussed rather than a word-for-word recitation. The availability or use of information provided in the responses to bidder's inquiries is not to be construed in any way as a waiver of the provisions of Section 2-1.03 of the Standard Specifications or any other provision of the contract, the plans, Standard Specifications or Special Provisions, nor to excuse the contractor from full compliance with those contract requirements. Bidders are cautioned that subsequent responses or contract addenda may affect or vary a response previously given.

Q1) The Project Plans indicate that the posts are perpendicular to the top of the existing barrier railing. The bridge is not level; therefore the posts cannot be installed vertically per the seventh paragraph of Section 83-1.02D of the Standard Specifications. Are the posts to be installed vertically or perpendicular to the existing bridge railing?

A1) Bid per current contract documents. See Plan Sheet 9 of 13 "Typical PANEL DETAILS".24Feb10

Q2) Judging from the reinforcement details shown in the Standard Plan for Concrete Barrier Types 732, 742 etc., it's pretty clear that numerous encounters with reinforcing steel should be anticipated. The slots for the anchors in the face of the barrier measure 1 7/8" vertically. The threaded rod is 3/4" diameter. The reinforcing bars are typically #5. There is no way to drill another 3/4" hole within the confines of the slot, without blowout at the rejected hole. This will require additional labor, drill bits and chemical adhesive, assuming engineering will allow such a correction, and assuming the #5 bar placements will even allow a 2nd hole within the confines of the slot. The other alternative would be using a template to attempt the holes. Upon rejection, move the hole far enough from the rejected hole to prevent blowout. Measure the variance, and have the fabricator custom cut the necessary slots for each mounting plate. The holes for the End Posts are even more confining. 7/8" hole for the 3/4" rod. How does Design suggest we address this problem? And, as the number of rejections can't be determined, will a CCO be issued for whichever method of correction/prevention is required?

A2) Bid per current contract documents. 23Feb10

Q3) I submitted QUESTION 2 earlier, regarding conflict with existing reinforcing steel. Your response was "BID PER CONTRACT DOCUMENTS". That doesn't answer the question. The steel IS there. The number of hits cannot be determined. The quotes received for drilling CLEAN holes with NO conflict is in excess of $80,000. The Spec states the Engineer MAY reject the holes. Is he going to reject, or not? How can anyone bid this job responsibly if you don't address this definite conflict? The implications will be costly and the extent is unknown prior to bid. If you and Design can't, or won't answer the question, how do you expect the Contractor to? There are too many directions this thing could go. Please provide a direction of resolve, or an Addendum to postpone until you can answer this problem.

A3) Bid per current contract documents. No further information is available at this time. 24Feb10