Viewing inquiries for 02-3C0714

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: File AADD-02-3C0714OE.dgn contains only 2D (no elevations) for existing survey data. Please provide file in 3D (with elevations)to assist in accurate takeoff of earthwork and paving. Please consider also providing alignment file AADD-02-3C0714.kcm in an xml format?
Inquiry submitted 04/21/2014

Response #1:4/21/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/21/2014


Response #2:4/24/14: Your question regarding the availability of a 3D file is under review. An addendum is under consideration. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. With regards to the request for an xml format, this is not anticipated to be provided.
Response posted 04/24/2014


Response #3: 4/25/14: Please refer to Addendum Number One, dated April 25, 2014.
Response posted 04/25/2014




Inquiry #2: Plant binder set point cannot be adjusted off of the design OBC for Mix verification:
Section 39-1.03E states:
“Use the OBC specified on your Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form. No adjustments to asphalt binder content are allowed.”
These requirements are new to Section 39 which historically has allowed the contractor to adjust the laboratory design OBC (target value) to accommodate changes in the aggregate properties during plant production. The contractor has also been allowed to adjust the plant binder set point to account for plant variability. Not being allowed to adjust the mix design OBC and binder set point will likely result in failed mix verifications. When this occurs as a result of these new provisions will Caltrans compensate the contractor for lost time and cost of testing associated with the failed mix verification(s)?

Inquiry submitted 05/01/2014

Response #1:5/1/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 05/01/2014


Response #2:5/6/14: Your inquiry is still under review. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 05/06/2014


Response #3: 5/8/14: Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 05/08/2014




Inquiry #3: Binder target value cannot be adjusted from CEM 3512 during production
Section 39-1.08A states:

“During production, asphalt binder set point for HMA Type A, HMA Type B, HMA Type C, and RHMA-G must be the OBC shown in Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form. For OGFC, asphalt binder set point must be the OBC shown on Caltrans Hot Mix Asphalt Verification form.”

These requirements are new to Section 39 specifications which have historically allowed the contractor to adjust the plant binder set point to account for plant variability. Not being allowed to adjust the binder set point to target the CEM 3512 OBC during production will increase the probability of negative pay factors and/or high performing HMA pavements being rejected.

Will Caltrans issue a change order removing the above noted language, i.e., “during production, asphalt binder set point for HMA Type A, HMA Type B, HMA Type C, and RHMA-G must be the OBC shown in Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form and, “For OGFC, asphalt binder set point must be the OBC shown on Caltrans Hot Mix Asphalt Verification form.” from the contract specifications?

Inquiry submitted 05/01/2014

Response #1:5/1/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 05/01/2014


Response #2:5/6/14: Your inquiry is still under review. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 05/06/2014


Response #3: 5/8/14: Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 05/08/2014




Inquiry #4: Hamburg Wheel-Track test temperatures:
Section 39-1.02F(1) General of the RSS’s associated with this project requires the Hamburg Wheel Test (HWT) to be performed at 131°F for a PG 64, whereas Section 39-1.31A General of the special provisions specifies a temperature of 122°F for the HWT testing on the warm mix option. Which temperature is the overall mix required to be ran at during the HWT test? Project HWT test results to date indicate that performing the HWT at an elevated temperature will result in failing test for the same mix that meets the specification when performed at the industry standard test temperature of 122°F. Recognizing that HWT test temperatures are overly restrictive Caltrans has revised the HWT test temperatures to 113°F for a PG 58, 122°F for a PG 64 and 131°F for a PG 70 or above in the 2015 Standard Specifications (effective 10-10-2013). Will Caltrans issue an addendum clarifying the HWT temperatures or issue a contract change order to compensate the contractor for the additional HWT testing associated with the overly restrictive test temperatures?

Inquiry submitted 05/01/2014

Response #1:5/1/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 05/01/2014


Response #2:5/6/14: Your inquiry is still under review. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 05/06/2014


Response #3: 5/8/14: Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 05/08/2014




Inquiry #5: Is there a geotechnical report and or boring logs available for the project?
Inquiry submitted 05/14/2014

Response #1:5/14/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 05/14/2014


Response #2:5/20/14: Your question is under review. An addendum is under consideration. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 05/20/2014


Response #3: 5/23/14: Yes. Please refer to Addendum Number Two, dated May 23, 2014.
Response posted 05/23/2014




Inquiry #6: On Sheet 133 of the plan set in the summary of quantities Roadway Excavation shows 18,359 CY occurring between stations 3854+50 and 4040+50. This area is the also the area where the existing asphalt and aggregate base gets pulverized, mixed, compacted, and finished under Bid Item # 47 Pulverize Roadbed. Section 30-3 of the Special Provision goes into detail on how the pulverizing is handled and never mentions the Roadway Excavation item as method of payment for any of this work. None of the cross sections provided in the informational handout show any substantial excavation occurring in this area. It is our assumption this may be an oversight since the pulverization area has the following rough dimensions 18,610 lf x 32 feet wide x 0.85 feet deep which equals 18,747 CY .

Please advise if the bid quantity for Road Excavation will be changed since it appears to cause a 22% under run on contract quantity or if this item is being used to pay for some component of the Pulverize Roadbed item.

Inquiry submitted 05/21/2014

Response #1:5/21/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 05/21/2014


Response #2:5/29/14: Please refer to Addendum Number Two, dated Friday, May 23, 2014.
Response posted 05/29/2014




Inquiry #7: Are there any areas within the project limits or within reasonable proximity that a portable asphalt plant may be erected on state right of way?
Inquiry submitted 05/21/2014

Response #1:5/21/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 05/21/2014


Response #2:5/29/14: : The Department has not identified designated areas for the use of a portable asphalt plant. If a portable asphalt plant is desired, it is the responsibility of the contractor to establish the location, obtain permits and comply with applicable regulations. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 05/29/2014




Inquiry #8: Bid Items for Temp. Hydraulic Mulch (Bonded Fiber Matrix) is for 87,000 SY and Temp. Soil Binder is for 87,000 SY. Both Items are the same quantity and close to the Hydroseed bid item of 792,000 SQFT. All items are 18 acres worth.

Questions-

Are all three items to cover the same areas?

The BFM does not have rate so per Standards you would apply 3,500 PPA, which is considered a permanent application. You would not want to have the 2-step hydroseed application go over the 3,500 PPA.

Do you anticipate the Temp. BFM being removed prior to the seeding application?

Do you intend to use one of the temp. applications over the other temp. application prior to seeding over the same areas?

Is the Temp. Soil Binder to be used on slopes only? Applied at the mfg. suggested rate of application?

Inquiry submitted 05/28/2014

Response #1:5/28/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 05/28/2014


Response #2:5/30/14:
Yes, all three items cover the same area. Please bid per the contract documents.

Apply BFM per the Standards Specifications: Section 13-5.03E.

Regarding temporary BFM removal prior to the seeding application,
please refer to the Standard Specifications, Section 5-1.36A, General,
"Maintain temporary facilities until they are no longer needed.
Dispose of temporary facilities when they are no longer needed.”

Regarding temporary applications over other temporary applications prior to seeding over the same areas, please bid per the current contract documents.

Please refer to Section 13-5.02E Soil Binder of the Standard Specifications. Bid per the current contract documents.


Response posted 05/30/2014




Inquiry #9: Roadside sign one post (item 65) are to be installed on metal posts. Can you tell me if the signs that need to be reset (item 31) are mounted on metal posts or are they mounted on the traditional wood posts. If mounted on metal posts do they have a concrete foundation?
Inquiry submitted 06/03/2014

Response #1:6/3/14: Your inquiry is under review. Please note that due to the current time frame between the inquiry submittal and the bid opening date, a response may not be provided before the bid opening. If a response is not provided before the bid opening addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 06/03/2014




Inquiry #10: I need to point out that there seems to be a problem with the cement quantity for cement treated base, CT calls for 340 Tons in bid item 49 but in sec 30-3.03D page 30 of the spec they state the spread rate for cement must be 0.015 lb./sy ? 67,800 SY X 0.15 lb./sy = 10,170 lb. = 5.085 tons for the whole project? Please clarify what the intended application rate should be.
Inquiry submitted 06/03/2014

Response #1:6/3/14: Your inquiry is under review. Please note that due to the current time frame between the inquiry submittal and the bid opening date, a response may not be provided before the bid opening. If a response is not provided before the bid opening addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 06/03/2014


Response #2:6/4/14: Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 06/04/2014






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.