California Department of Transportation

Contract 05-0T3804

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) Why are continous machines specified limiting this project to be bid with only two contractors and the State is excluding qualified Contractors that can perform the work with truck monted machines? We are a qualified contractor that canexceed the specified 5% DVBE goal as we are a Certified DVBE contractor. Please issue an addendum allowing truck mounted machines.?

A1) Please refer to Addendum No. 1 dated March 29, 2011. 14Apr11

Q2) Our most recently purchased, California manufactured, Truck Mounted Mixer-Spreader units do not have "a second device [to] detect belt movement by monitoring revolutions of the belt feeder" as required by the special provisions. Given the Addendum issued allowing these units to be used on this project, will the State consider another Addendum allowing use of TMM-S units without said second device?

A2) Bid according to the plans, specifications and Addendum No.1 dated March 29, 2011. 14Apr11.

Q3) A previous inquiry stated that there are only two contractors in the state with equipment meeting the original specifications. This is incorrect. There are at least four contractors in the state with the originally specified equipment. The equipment is readily available for purchase by all other interested contractors. Given the State may be acting on incorrect and woefully wrong claims, will the State consider rescinding Addendum 1 and requiring the equipment as originally specified?

A3) Bid according to the plans, specifications and Addendum No.1 dated March 29, 2011. 14Apr11.