Viewing inquiries for 03-1A8424

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Per Caltrans Project Delivery Directive Number PD-06 are any of the following electronic file formats available?

These files expedite pre-bid takeoff and visualization of projects involving earthwork, paving and pipe, which reduces risk and promotes cost savings from use of AMG (Automated Machine Guidance), resulting in more competitive bids.

1. Alignments
XML file (all alignments in same file).

2. Profiles
XML file (combine with alignments XML file).

3. Cross Sections
XML file preferred, or optional GEN (multi-line report) file for CAiCE. Include individual station, offset and elevation files for existing, design and subgrade surfaces.

4. Basemap
2D or 3D DGN or DWG file. Include data from Layouts, Contour Grading, Utility, Stage and Pavement plans.

5. Existing Ground DTM – Digital Terrain Model
XML file preferred, or optional 3D DGN or DWG file for larger projects. Include breaklines, 3D contours without text labels, triangles and DTM boundary.

6. Design DDM – Digital Design Model
XML file preferred, or optional 3D DGN or DWG file for larger projects. Include breaklines, 3D contours without text labels, triangles and DTM boundary.

Inquiry submitted 04/15/2014

Response #1:4/17/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/17/2014


Response #2:4/17/14: The files that are available may be found as supplemental information at the following link:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/03/03-1A8424/supplemental_info/

Response posted 04/17/2014




Inquiry #2: Summary sheet Q-1 indicates a qty of 12,222.6 CY of Roadway Excavation, sheet Q-1 also indicates a quantity of 23,760.9 CY of Embankment(N). Please confirm that this deficiency will be handled according to section 19-2.03 of the 2010 Standard Specifications.
Inquiry submitted 04/17/2014

Response #1:4/18/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/18/2014


Response #2:4/22/14: 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 04/22/2014


Response #3: 7/11/14: Please refer to Addendum Number Four, issued on Thursday, July 10, 2014.
Response posted 07/11/2014




Inquiry #3: Due to the nature of the roadway excavation on this project there will be a fairly substantial ammount of asphaltic material included. Will the use of asphaltic material be allowed to be incorporated in kind with the remaining roadway excavation material as embankment?
Inquiry submitted 04/21/2014

Response #1:4/22/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/22/2014


Response #2:4/29/14: Your inquiry is still under review. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/29/2014


Response #3:5/19/14: Your inquiry is still under review. An addendum is under consideration. Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. In further response to the inquiry, please refer to the following permits included in the Information Handout as described in Section 2-1.06B. The information below is not intended to be all-inclusive:

Page 1 of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Nationwide Permit Summary,33 CFR Part 330; Article 23 B. Nationwide Permit General Conditions, Note:
“…Prospective permittees should also contact the appropriate Corps district office to determine the status of Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification…” (page 5 of 74 of the Information Handout).

Page 2 of the Nationwide U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Nationwide Permit Summary,33 CFR Part 330; Nationwide Permit General Conditions, Article 6, Suitable Material:
"No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.). Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act)…”, (page 6 of 74 of the Information Handout). [underlined emphasis added]

Page 5 of 7 of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Permit, TRPA Project Number 520-201-00, Special Condition 18 states,
"All waste resulting from the saw-cutting of pavement shall be removed using a vacuum (or other TRPA approved method) during the cutting process or immediately thereafter. Discharge of waste material to surface drainage features is prohibited and constitutes a violation of this permit. " Special Condition 22 of the same document states: "All excavated materials that are not to be reused on site shall be hauled to a TRPA approved disposal site or out of the Tahoe Region." (Page 20 of 74 of the Information Handout).

Page 3 of 6 of TRPA’s Attachment Q: Construction/Grading conditions:
Article E:
"All material obtained from any excavation work that is not contained within foundations, retaining walls, or by other methods approved by TRPA shall be removed from the subject parcel and disposed of at a site approved by TRPA."

Page 5 of Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, Board Order No. R6T-2013-0086:Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Authority, (page 33 of 74 of the Information Handout). and

Page 7 of Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, Board Order No. R6T-2013-0086: Additional conditions, Article 1 states
"No debris, cement, concrete (or wash water therefrom), oil or petroleum product must enter into, or be placed where is may be washed from the Project site by rainfall or runoff, into waters of the state...." (page 35 of 74 of the Information Handout).

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Final Streambed Alteration Agreement, Notification No. 1600-2013-0219-R2; Other Legal Obligations,
“This agreement does not relieve Permittee or any person acting on behalf of Permittee, including its officers, employees, representatives, agents, or contractors and subcontractors, from complying with other applicable statutes in the FGC including, but not limited to, FGC sections 2050 et seq.(threatened and endangered species), 3503 (bird nests and eggs), 3503.5 (birds of prey), 5650 (water pollution), 5652 (refuse disposal into water), 5901 (fish passage), 5937 (sufficient water for fish), and 5846 (obstruction of streams)”. (page 48 of 74 of the Information Handout. [underlined emphasis added]
Response posted 05/19/2014


Response #4:7/11/14: For additional information, please refer to Addendum Number Four, issued on Thursday, July 10, 2014.
Response posted 07/11/2014




Inquiry #4: 1. 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 04/22/2014

Response #1:4/22/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/22/2014


Response #2:4/24/14: Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 04/24/2014




Inquiry #5: 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 04/22/2014

Response #1:4/22/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/22/2014


Response #2:4/24/14: Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 04/24/2014




Inquiry #6: TSR dry strength of 120 minimum is higher than the current Section 39 Draft Specification
On page 138 of 287 of the project specifications, the table for “Additional HMA Mix Design Requirements for RAP substitution rate greater than 15 percent” specifies the minimum dry strength of 120 psi for HMA Type A. Based on the recent industry communications with Caltrans (Joe Peterson, Chief, Office of Roadway Materials Testing METS) on Section 39 Superpave specifications, it is our understanding that the minimum dry strength has been reduced to 100 psi for HMA Type A. Will Caltrans issue an addendum to revise the specification in Contract# 03-1A8424 to a minimum dry strength of 100 psi?

Inquiry submitted 04/22/2014

Response #1:4/22/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/22/2014


Response #2:4/28/14: No. Any proposed modifications will only be considered by the Engineer after contract award. Please bid per the contract documents.
Response posted 04/28/2014




Inquiry #7: The project plans do not provide adequate information for the existing condition outside of the Roadway sections. Please provide existing structal sections specifically in the locations where there is HMA Sidewalk and the assoicated embankment.
Inquiry submitted 04/22/2014

Response #1:4/22/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/22/2014


Response #2:4/29/14: Your inquiry is still under review. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/29/2014


Response #3:5/20/14: 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 #4:7/11/14: Please refer to Addendum Number Four, issued on Thursday, July 10, 2014.
Response posted 07/11/2014




Inquiry #8: Special Provisions section 16 Clearing and Grubbing states:
"Clear and grub vegetation only within the excavation and embankment slope lines." Please provide layouts with cut/fill lines so that the contractor can accurately quantify the ammount of clearing and grubbing/tree removal required.

Inquiry submitted 04/22/2014

Response #1:4/23/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/23/2014


Response #2:4/29/14: Your inquiry is still under review. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/29/2014


Response #3:5/20/14: 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 #4:7/11/14: Please refer to Addendum Number Four, issued on Thursday, July 10, 2014.
Response posted 07/11/2014




Inquiry #9: Based on the linework provided in the Layouts(L-20) and Cross Sections(sheets 923&929)it appears that the toe of the embankment extends beyond the existing right of way Rt of CL in the area of Tallac Creek. Will the contractor be allowed any additional construction easements if needed to construct the work in this area?
Inquiry submitted 04/23/2014

Response #1:4/23/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/23/2014


Response #2:4/29/14: Your inquiry is still under review. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 04/29/2014


Response #3:5/20/14: 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 #4:7/11/14: Please refer to Addendum Number Four, issued on Thursday, July 10, 2014.
Response posted 07/11/2014




Inquiry #10: The contract Bid items call out for a Wooden Vehicle barrier. The spec calls out to refer to the plans, but there are no drawing to refer to.
Inquiry submitted 05/02/2014

Response #1:5/2/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 05/02/2014


Response #2:5/5/14: Please refer to the "Wooden Vehicle Barrier" detail on plan sheet ECD-2, sheet 188 of 231.
Response posted 05/05/2014




Inquiry #11: TRPA Permit special conditions states:
"Submit a final tree removal plan including locations and numbers of trees greater than 10 inches diameter at breast height."

Please provide the tree removal plan submitted for approval of the TRPA permit.

Inquiry submitted 07/22/2014

Response #1:7/22/14: Your inquiry has been received and is being reviewed. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 07/22/2014


Response #2:7/24/14: Please refer to Addendum Number Six, issued Thursday, July 24, 2014.
Response posted 07/24/2014




Inquiry #12: Please Clarify the method of measurement for bid item 31 Contractor Supplied Biologist.
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2014

Response #1:7/24/14: Your question is under review. If a response is not issued before bid opening addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 07/24/2014


Response #2:7/24/14: The contractor supplied biologist (day) is paid by the working day as noted in the Bid Item List. In addition, please refer to Section 9-1.03 Payment Scope of the Standard Specifications, page 113 and “Monitoring Schedule”, Section 14-6.02C(6) of the Special Provisions. Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/24/2014




Inquiry #13: Summary of Roadway Qty's sheet 159 shows 479.7 Tns of Shoulder Backing between stations 517+50-522+20. Typical Cross Section X-3 has no call out for Shoulder backing. Please Clarify
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2014

Response #1:7/24/14: Your question is under review. If a response is not issued before bid opening addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 07/24/2014


Response #2:7/24/14: For sheet Q-1 of Addendum 4, Sta “A1” 517+50 to “A1” 522+20 shows no shoulder backing, however, the line above, for Sta “A1” 510+50 to Sta “A1” 517+50, does show 479.7 tons of Shoulder Backing. You are correct that sheet X-3 of Addendum Number 4 shows no shoulder backing and it is correct. Bid it as you see it.
Response posted 07/24/2014




Inquiry #14: Typical cross section sheet X-4 stations 527+89-586+80 shows sawcuts at 11' RT and 11' LT. Revised roadway x-sections for this area show sawcuts at 10'RT and 10' LT.
Please clarify.


Inquiry submitted 07/23/2014

Response #1:7/24/14: Your question is under review. If a response is not issued before bid opening addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents. Thank you for your patience.
Response posted 07/24/2014




Inquiry #15: We have downloads the addendum #6 EBID bid item file or called EBS file which is having an issue or is corrupt.

Bid Items out of sequence:
# 145 Geo Reinforcement
# 146 Imported Topsoil
# 147 Rolled Erosion Control Product (Netting)
# 148 Rock Slope Protection Fabric Class B
# 149 12” Plastic Pipe
# 150 8” Plastic Pipe
# 151 Mobilization - Should be Item # 145

These are also duplications of #145-#150.

Please correct....

Inquiry submitted 07/25/2014

Response #1:7/25/14: Please refer to Addendum Number Seven, issued on Friday, July 25, 2014.
Response posted 07/25/2014






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.