Viewing inquiries for 04-0A5344

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Could you please provide cross sections for this project.
Inquiry submitted 09/12/2013

Response #1:You can download the Cross Sections at the following web address -

< href="http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A5344/XSections_0A5344.zip" STYLE="color:red;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none">www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A5344/XSections_0A5344.zip (zipped pdf, 32MB).


Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/13/2013


Response #2:You can download the slope stake listing.

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A5344/SlopeStakes.zip (zipped pdf, 66MB)
Response posted 09/23/2013


Response #3:You can download the Cross Sections at the following web address -
www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A5344/XSections.zip (zipped pdf, 59.7MB).

Response posted 10/07/2013




Inquiry #2: Could you please provide cross sections for this project.
Inquiry submitted 09/12/2013

Response #1:See revised response to bidder inquiry #1.
Response posted 10/07/2013




Inquiry #3: Please provide the cross sections for earthwork takeoff purposes.

Thank you

Inquiry submitted 09/12/2013

Response #1:It's posted. See - http://dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/inquiry/oe_view.php?p=04-0A5344
Response posted 09/13/2013


Response #2:See response for Bidder Inquiry #1.
Response posted 11/07/2013




Inquiry #4: Could you please provide the correct cross sections for this project? The response to the previous inquiry linked to a download of cross sections for the wrong project (OA5351 instead of OA5344). Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 09/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/16/2013


Response #2:See revised response to bidder inquiry #1.
Response posted 10/07/2013




Inquiry #5: We respectfully request a two-week postponement to the bid date, currently set for October 29, 2013.

We would like to bring to the attention of Caltrans the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) Yerba Buena Island Ramps($53.8 Million) Project at SFOBB that is currently set to bid on the same day, at the same time.

We are already committed to bidding the YBI Project. We would also like to be able to bid the Hwy 680/80/12 Interchange Project but can only do so if the bid date is postponed. We ask that Caltrans seriously consider this postponement request.

Inquiry submitted 09/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/17/2013


Response #2:Addendum 1 changed the bid date to November 13, 2013.
Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #6: Sheets THD1 and THD7 show pavement (in Stages 1A and 4) which refers to typical pavemnet structure section 24. Sheet X-1, however, shows structure section 24 as "not used". Please provide the pavement section that should be used.
Inquiry submitted 09/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/18/2013


Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #7: Details on page THD-1 and THD-7 both refer to structural section 24 as section to be built; however, when referencing legend of structural sections on sheet X-1, legend shows 24 as "Not Used". Please provide contractors with structural section for these areas.
Inquiry submitted 09/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/18/2013


Response #2:The pavement sections on the THD sheets were updated as part of Addendum #2. Contractor's attention is directed to the revised plan sheets.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #8: Can PDF cross-sections please be provided that show vertical and horizontal gridlines with elevations. Provided Slope Stake Cross-sections are incomplete and many x-sections have huge breaks in between Hinge Point (HP) and Catch Point (CP). In order to accurately quantify CUT/FILL on this project please issue complete cross-sections.
Inquiry submitted 09/23/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/24/2013


Response #2:See revised response to bidder inquiry #1.
Response posted 10/07/2013




Inquiry #9: Page 37 & 38 of the Special Provisions specify falsework openings at Bridge No. 23-0246 of 61 feet (EB I-80) and 55 feet (WB I-80). The project plans do not provide details for these traffic openings. Additionally there is a 25' opening designated at Bridge No. 23-0247 but this structure will not require falsework. Please provide traffic configuration details and clarify the opening at 23-0247.

Inquiry submitted 09/23/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/24/2013


Response #2:23-0246 (EB I-80) - The traffic opening should be 73.7' (See sheet TH-9; page 264)

23-0246 (WB I-80) - The traffic opening should be 57' (See sheet TH-9; page 264)

23-0247 - The contractors assessment is correct that falsework is not required for this bridge. However, the opening listed in the specifications should be observed for any other equipment that may be placed for the bridge construction such as cranes, scaffoldings, etc. (See sheet TH-16; page 271)

Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #10: Retaining Wall No. 1 refers to Revised Standard Plan B3-3B (Type 1A) for dimensions. The Revised Standard Plan does not show a dimension for an h=14 wall. What dimensions are to be used?
Plan sheet 502 has a label for "Sand Finish and Sky Motif" but the detail appears to be incomplete. Please provide complete detail.

Inquiry submitted 09/24/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/24/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 10/18/2013




Inquiry #11: RSP A85, referred to on sheet 462, cannot be located in the plans or on Caltrans' website. Please comment.
Sheets 462 and 491 do not appear to correspond. Please clarify.

Inquiry submitted 09/24/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/24/2013


Response #2:a) The reference to RSP A85 was a typo, and should have been SP A85. It should be noted that A85B is a Revised Standard Plan (RSP).

b) A request for an addendum will be made to update Sheet 491. Sheet 462 shows the correct elevation view.

Response posted 09/25/2013


Response #3:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 10/18/2013




Inquiry #12: Can you please provide cross sections of this project with the grids attached along with the horizontal and vertical elevations. The survey list does not include this data which is necessary for adequate take-off of the earthwork.
Thank you

Inquiry submitted 09/24/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/24/2013


Response #2:See revised response to bidder inquiry #1.
Response posted 10/07/2013




Inquiry #13: What is the existing structural section for the park and ride lot on WB 80 @ Green Valley Rd?
Inquiry submitted 09/24/2013

Response #1:As built information is unavailable. Data gathered during utility potholing showed an AC pavement depth of 3-inches.
Response posted 09/25/2013




Inquiry #14: The Type 1 retaining typical cross-section requires the footing to be over-excavated buy 2 or 3 feet and replaced with either AB or LCB. How does the excavation and the placement of the AB/LCB get paid?
Inquiry submitted 09/25/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/26/2013


Response #2:The over-excavation for the placement of the AB is included in and paid as Structure Excavation (Retaining Wall), and the placement of the AB is paid as Class 2 Aggregate Base.
Response posted 10/18/2013




Inquiry #15: BI 30" Geomembrane Liner - 3080 SQYD

Please indicate where I can find the the geomembrane specifications in the project specs.


BI 179: 36" Precast Concrete Pipe Inlet - 12 LF

I believe the Unit is incorrectly indicated as 'LF'. It should be 'EA'?

Inquiry submitted 09/26/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 09/27/2013


Response #2:Specifications for Geomembrane Liner can be found under Section 13-13. Page 59 of the NTB and Special Provisions.

The Bid Item 179 "36-inch Precast Concrete Pipe Inlet" is already quantified as "EA."

Response posted 09/27/2013




Inquiry #16: There is Rock Excavation on "JW" line, but there's no plans showing limits and depths of excavation required for Rock Excavation. Please provide plans showing the areas/depths of excavation required, and whether the rock excavation is located in one area or multiple areas along the "JW" line.
Inquiry submitted 09/30/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/01/2013


Response #2:The limits of rock excavation are limited to the "JW" line from 68+75 to 75+00. The GDMR (included in the supplemental information) contains cross-sections showing the locations of potential rock formations. See the discussion in section 8.2.2 of the GDMR.
Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #17: Please postpone project at least two weeks due to the magnitude of this project, and not being provided correct cross-sections until last week.
Inquiry submitted 09/30/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/01/2013


Response #2:Addendum 1 changed the bid open date to 11/13/2013.
Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #18: Reference Section 9 Payment 9-1.16C: Please consider adding: Pavement Reinforcement, tie bars, tie bar baskets, dowel bars, dowel bar baskets, to the listing of items eligible for progress payment even if they are not incorporated into the work. This will reduce risk on the contractor and allow for more competitive bidding.
Inquiry submitted 10/02/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/02/2013


Response #2:An addendum has been requested to add the following items to Section 9-1.16.

1. Miscellaneous Metal
2. Pavement Dowels
3. Reinforcement

Response posted 10/07/2013




Inquiry #19: Please verify that the top of footing elevation given on Sheet 462 for RW 1 Sta 1+00 to 1+10 is correct. What is the correct elevation if the given information is incorrect?
Inquiry submitted 10/03/2013

Response #1:An addendum has been requested to address this question.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/18/2013




Inquiry #20: 1) BI 179: 36" Precast Concrete Pipe Inlet - 12 EA

There are only 3 each inlets equal to 11.6 LF shown on the DQ. Should the Unit be 'LF'?

Inquiry submitted 10/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/07/2013


Response #2:The unit should be LF, not EA.
Response posted 10/07/2013




Inquiry #21: Bid items 81, 82, 198, 210, 211 are creating great confusion. I have attempted to detail my questions to the best of my ability.

1) Green Valley Road Overcrossing Water Line Details (sheet 532):
a) The detail shows a 24" WSP Casing at the abutments.
1. Is this the correct size for both the 16" DIP
Water (COF) and the 8" DIP Water (COV)?
2. What is the total LF of 24" WSP?
3. Where is the 24" WSP paid? Note: Bid Item 201 - 24" Steel Casing (COV) is the casing for bid
item 199 - 12" DIP Water (COV).


2) Green Valley Road Overcrossing (over SB 680 on-ramp)
Water Line Details (sheet 560):
a) The detail shows a 24" WSP Casing at the abutments as
well as throughout the entire bridge length.
1. Is this the correct size for both the 16" DIP
Water (COF) and the 8" DIP Water (COV)?
2. What is the total LF of 24" WSP?
3. Where is the 24" WSP paid? Note: Bid Item 201 -
24" Steel Casing (COV) is the casing for bid item
199 - 12" DIP Water (COV).


3) BI 81: 8" Supply Line (Bridge) - 585 LF

Please clarify.

a) Is the 585 LF for the 24” WSP Casings as shown on sheets 532 and 560 paid in this item?
b) By scaling the drawings, bid item 198 - 8” DIP (COV)
is +/- 1665 LF. However, the bid quantity for bid
item 198 is only 1080 LF. That is a difference of
585 LF. Is this 585 LF of 8” DIP (COV) to be
included with bid item 81 or do the quantities of
bid item 198 need to be revised?


4) BI 82: 16” Supply Line (Bridge) – 585 LF
a) Is the 585 LF for the 24” WSP Casings as shown on
sheets 532 and 560 paid in this item?
c) See question 5. Is 585 LF of 16” DIP (COF) to be
included in this item?


5) Sheets U-18 and U-19 show to install 2 each seismic expansion assemblies on the 16” Water (COF); one each at two of the four abutments. Should we not install 4 each seismic expansion assemblies; one each at four abutments? The same question applies to the 8” DIP Water (COV).


6) BI 210: 16” DIP (COF) – 390 LF
Please clarify. By scaling the drawings, bid item 210 is +/- 810 LF. Of that total quantity, +/- 165 LF is buried or installed open-cut, 585 LF is installed in the bridge (2 each) casings, and +/- 60 LF is installed open cut or buried between the two bridges.
a) Should the 585 LF installed in the bridge casings be included with bid item 82? If yes, this would match bid item 198 and 81. If yes, this item should be 165 LF?


6) BI 211: 16” PVC Water (COF) – 1120 LF

By scaling the drawings, I get 1215 LF. Please verify bid quantity.


7) Sheets U-10, 11, 20, and 21 shows to replace the existing 8” Water & its 12” Sleeve. This replacement is paid in bid item 198 - 8” DIP Water (COV) and bid item 200 - 12” Steel Casing (COV). This pipe and sleeve crosses beneath Highway 680. Please clarify the intentions of this work.

Inquiry submitted 10/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/07/2013


Response #2:
1-a-1) A 16” casing would be sufficient for the 8” water. However, an addendum has been requested to remove the 8” water line.

1-a-2) The limits are shown on Sheet 532 as 31.25’ (26’+4.25’+1’) at each abutment for the Br No. 23-0246. The limits of the WSP for the Br No. 23-0247 are within the limit of the bridge plus 5’ beyond the end of approach slab as shown on Sheet 560.

1-a-3) The 24” WSP is paid for with the “Supply Line, Bridge” items. The 24” Steel Casing (COV) is indeed the casing for the 12” DIP Water (COV).

2-a) Not True. The notes E and F show a 16” casing for the 8” Supply Line, and a 24” casing for the 16” supply Line.

2-a-1) See answer above.

2-a-2) The limits are within the limits of the bridge and 5’ beyond the end of approach slab. This is not a pay item.

2-a-3) The WSP’s are paid for with their respective “Supply Line, Bridge” items. They are not pay items.

3-a) Yes.

3-b) The contractor’s assessment is correct. The quantities for Bid Item 198 do not need to change. The 8” DIP (COV) only covers the limits outside of the bridge.

4-a) Yes.

4-b) The 16” DIP (COV) only covers the limits outside of the bridge.

5) Seismic expansion assemblies should be provided for each Supply Line at each abutment. Notes on U-18 and U-19 were placed for the contractors reference to the structures plans, and therefore does not supersede the structures plans.

6-a) The quantity was verified and an addendum has been requested to correct the quantity to 305 LF.

6-b) The quantity was verified and an addendum has been requested to correct the quantity to 1261 LF.

7) The contractors assessment is correct. The intent is to replace the 8” water and 12” sleeve under I-680. However, an addendum has been requested to remove this work.

Response posted 10/15/2013




Inquiry #22: Please provide the as built drawings for the existing Green Valley OC @ I-80.
Inquiry submitted 10/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/07/2013


Response #2:You can download the asbuilts below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A5344/GreenValleyRd_OC_AsBuilts.pdf (2.5MB)
Response posted 10/07/2013




Inquiry #23: On plan sheet Q-1 under Roadway Quantities it indicates Rapid Strength Concrete Base is being used but none of the typical pavement structure sections shown on plan sheet X-1 include the RSCB.
Inquiry submitted 10/08/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/08/2013


Response #2:The Rapid Strength Concrete Base shall be placed with pavement sections 7 and 8.
Response posted 10/09/2013




Inquiry #24: Please clarify the intent of the "heavy sand finish" and "light sand finish" as the details given on various aesthetic treatment pages are not clear. Is the "heavy sand finish" an exposed aggregate finish and the "light sand finish" a removal of the typical shine that typical walls have? Or are these finishes some sort of formliner that needs to be made?
Inquiry submitted 10/09/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/09/2013


Response #2:The Heavy and Light Sand finishes are form liner textures, not a post-production sandblast. Depth of relief for each is specified on the drawings.
Response posted 10/15/2013




Inquiry #25: Retaining Wall #6 on sheet 473, has coping indicated on the top of the wall. How is the coping paid for??
Inquiry submitted 10/09/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/09/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/18/2013




Inquiry #26: The specifications for the Temporary MSE are the same for the permanent MSE. This work is normally called temporary shoring, with the method determined by the contractor. Why is it an MSE specification, and can a different method be determined by the contractor?
Inquiry submitted 10/09/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/09/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 10/18/2013




Inquiry #27: The settlement tables on sheet 87 of the special provisions is for the bridge approaches, but indicates some retaining walls that are not within the zone of influence (150 ft) for the bridge approaches. Does only the a portion of the walls have to be in settlement?? Only one retaining wall is indicated as needing settlement on page 88.


Inquiry submitted 10/09/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/10/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/18/2013




Inquiry #28: According to Sheet THQ-4 (Sheet 326 of 597), there is 65 CY of Shoulder Backing to be placed; however, there are no details showing the limits of Shoulder Backing. Please provide details for Shoulder Backing.
Inquiry submitted 10/10/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/10/2013


Response #2:A detail showing the shoulder backing is on sheet SC-3 (sheet 241).
Response posted 10/14/2013




Inquiry #29: Special Provisions Section 15-2.07B, Modify Sign Structure:
OH Sign quantities sheet SQ-5, Sign Plan Sheet S-5,SS #D:
There are no details for the work to be performed on this SS or Sign Panel. There is no Bid Item for payment for this work.

Inquiry submitted 10/11/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/14/2013


Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #30: Sign Plan Sheet S-4,SS #D:
There is another SS labeled #D on this page. It is a Bridge-Mount SS on WB I-80. Plan notes indicate this SS #D is to be removed. There is no Bid Item for payment for this work.

Inquiry submitted 10/11/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/14/2013


Response #2:This existing bridge mounted sign to be removed is shown for information only. It is part of the bridge removal work (existing Green Valley Road OC). There is no separate bid item to remove this sign.
Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #31: Please supply details/plan sheets for the Slope Paving in Bid Item 183.
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/14/2013


Response #2:Details / plans for the slope paving are not available. The proposed slope paving is intended to be a basic concrete placement with no special colors or patterns.
Response posted 11/04/2013




Inquiry #32: Bid Item 48 “Remove Inlet” has a unit of measure of LF, the drainage quantity table DQ-19 or plan sheet 187 has a unit of measure of EA. Which unit of measure is correct?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:An addendum has been requested to change the unit to "EACH."
Response posted 11/04/2013




Inquiry #33: In the special provisions page 43, section 12-4.05C, chart #2, item #4 under “Remarks” states “This chart may be used in conjunction with chart No. 6 and chart No. 11.” I find no chart 6 or 11 in the special provisions. Please add charts No. 6 & 11 or correct the call out to the correct charts.
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:An addendum has been requested to address this inquiry.
Response posted 11/04/2013




Inquiry #34: In the special provisions page 43, section 12-4.05C, chart #2, item #4 under “Remarks” states “This chart may be used in conjunction with chart No. 7.” I find no chart 7 in the special provisions. Please add a chart No. 7 or correct the call out to the correct chart No.
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:An addendum has been requested to correct the Remarks.
Response posted 11/04/2013




Inquiry #35: Please provide the approved list of MSE wall suppliers for this project.
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 10/18/2013




Inquiry #36: Retaining wall #1, Sheet 462, Typical Section Wall Type 1A references standard plan B3-3B, provided on sheet 454, however this retaining wall design is for wall with an H=12’, retaining wall #1 has a design H=14’. Please revise the detail for this retaining wall.
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.

Response posted 10/18/2013




Inquiry #37: Sheet 462, Typical Section Wall Type 1A references “Architectural Treatment”, sheet 491 details architectural treatment for retaining wall #1. The two sheets do not match, retaining wall #1 on sheet 462 is 157 LF long with one foundation step. The wall depicted on sheet 491 shows five foundation steps and scales +/-171 LF. Please review and correct.
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:The bid opening date is 11/20/13 and an addendum will not be issued. Contractor to bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/20/2013




Inquiry #38: The detail “Limits of Grading Required For Settlement Period – MSE Walls In Fill” shown on sheet 271 of the Traffic Handling Plans lists FG as the “Fill Line For Settlement Period”. Should this notation be pointing to 2:1 (Max) slope lines within the FG line?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:The contractor is correct. The leader arrows should be pointing to the 2:1 (Max) lines shown within the FG. The intent to show the minimum amount of embankment needed to provide adequate settlement. This detail should not preclude the contractor from placing the entire embankment and then allowing for the settlement period to occur.

Response posted 11/04/2013




Inquiry #39: What is the propose of the temporary MSE wall at retaining wall No. 10, “G” Line 76+42.50 to 79+58.50. Is it to facilitate the 60 day settlement period for the fill required at retaining wall #10 prior to the retaining wall construction?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #40: Page 87 of the special provisions, section 19-603D, settlement period and surcharge table. This table lists settlement periods for abutments and retaining walls. Of the eight retaining walls listed three are MSE walls. Is your intent to build a temporary settlement fill, prior to MSE wall construction, remove the temporary fill and build the MSE wall after the specified settlement periods? Or are we to construct the MSE walls together with the import fill, as shown on sheet 271, and construct the barrier slab after the specified settlement periods? Or will we be required to anticipate two separate settlement period for the MSE Wall and barrier slab construction?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #41: Where are the Special Provisions for Barrier Slab since the 2010 Standards are silent (or reserved)? Where is the payment clause for Barrier Slab?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:Barrier Slab complies with Section 51 "Concrete Structures" of the standard specifications. It is paid under "Structural Concrete, Barrier Slab" shown in the Bid Item List. See Section 51-1.04 "Payment" of the standard specifications for payment clause.
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #42: Section 14-6.07A(3) on page 63 of the contract specifications states that “The natural resource protection plan must be prepared and signed by biologist knowledgeable of the species or habitats discussed and address species protection measures.” Which item will this be paid for under?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:Attention is directed to 9-1.03 of the Standard Specifications. Full compensation for work specified in Divisions I, II (Section 14 is under Division II), and X is included in the bid items unless:

Bid item for the work is shown on the Bid Item List Work is specified as change order work

Therefore, this work is included in the various items of work.
Response posted 11/04/2013




Inquiry #43: Section 14-11.03C(4) on page 67 of the contract specifications states that the Type Y-1 ADL burial locations must be surveyed. Will Caltrans perform this surveying or which item will this be paid for under?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:Attention is directed to 9-1.03 of the Standard Specifications. Full compensation for work specified in Divisions I, II (Section 14 is under Division II), and X is included in the bid items unless:

Bid item for the work is shown on the Bid Item List Work is specified as change order work

Therefore, this work is included in the various items of work.

Response posted 11/04/2013




Inquiry #44: Are there any adjacent properties available for import borrow? Does the Red-legged frog habitat areas adjacent to the project prevent us from procuring an adjacent site for import borrow?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:The contractors are responsible for finding their own borrow sites and clearing them environmentally.
Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #45: The last page of the information handout refers to a “Site Investigation Report”. None of the reports in the information handout have this title. Will this report be provided?
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:You can download the Site Investigation Report below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A5344/SIR_0A5344.pdf (pdf, 68.9MB)
Response posted 10/16/2013




Inquiry #46: Sheet 186, Drainage Quantities DQ-18, Drainage System 56a call out a Modified Type GDO drain inlet. The table is missing the frame & grate information for this drain inlet, as well as the reference for this drain inlet on the detail call out on sheet 165 for “MODIFIED GDO INLET”. Please adjust the bid quantity and plans accordingly.
Inquiry submitted 10/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #47: Section 19-6.03D on page 87 of the specs requires a settlement period of 60 days for retaining wall no. 5. Section 8-1.09 on page 30 of the specs requires the work within Stage 5 at “GL2” Sta 114+00 to 120+00 to be completed within 60 working days which includes retaining wall no. 5. This is not possible given the period required for the settlement period.
Inquiry submitted 10/15/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:The table under Section 8-1.09 has been updated to allow 100 working days. See Addendum 2.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #48: The traffic openings for Green Valley OC given in Section 12-4.02A of the Special Provisions do not match what is shown on sheet 264 of the plans. Which openings are to be used? Where are these openings located?
Inquiry submitted 10/15/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/15/2013


Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #49: Specifications Section 51-1.01A requires mass concrete construction processes be used to construct the bent caps at Green Valley OC and WB 80 to WB 12 bridges. What is the least dimension of the placement that requires cooling? What is the maximum internal/ambient temperature differential allowed?
Inquiry submitted 10/15/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/16/2013


Response #2:The bid opening date is 11/20/13 and an addendum will not be issued. Contractor to bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/20/2013




Inquiry #50: ITEM #123, 60 INCH CIDH, SIGN FOUNDATION:
OH Sign Quantity Chart SQ-5, sheet 380, indicates that the four (4) 60 inch Type VI Tubular Sign CIDHs are 33 LF each, per standard Plan S-37. Sign Details SD-2 & 3, sheets 372 & 373, indicate very different lengths for the two Sign Structures.
Please clarify the lengths of the CIDH foundations to be installed.

Inquiry submitted 10/15/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/16/2013


Response #2:The pile length should be 33' deep at each location, as indicated on the SQ-5 quantity sheet.
Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #51: Specials pg 25 - 5-1.36E(1) - Where does the Contractor get paid for the licensed arborist?
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/16/2013


Response #2:Under Section 9-1.03 of the Standard Specifications, Full Compensation for work specified in Division II (Section 5 is under Division II) is included in the payment for the bid items unless the item is shown on the bid item list (BIL). A licensed arborist has not been included on the BIL, therefore it will be paid as various items of work as specified under Section 9.
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #52: This question is in regards to the Biofiltration Basin (DD-7 & DD-8). Please advise which type of PVC pipe should be used for this system. Spec refers to AASHTO M 278 which is perforation detail and not a type of PVC. Also please advise if perforations should be slotted or holes?

Thank you.

Inquiry submitted 10/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/16/2013


Response #2:It is at the option of the contractor if the perforations are slotted or holes. Schedule 40 PVC is adequate for this application.
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #53: Specials pg 32 & 33 (Construction Project Funding Signs) - Can the State please add a bid item for this item of work? Placing the payment as 'Not Used" is misleading? Please clarify by adding a bid item?
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:Under Section 9-1.03 of the Standard Specifications, Full Compensation for work specified in Division II (Section 12 is under Division II) is included in the payment for the bid items unless the item is shown on the bid item list (BIL). Inclusion of project funding signs on the BIL would be non-standard and will not be done at this time. Project funding signs will be paid as various items of work as specified under Section 9.
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #54: Referencing Section 19-6.03D of the Special Provisions and sheets 271 and 272: Is the contractor to fill in front of the temporary MSE walls to the center of abutment for the settlement period specified, or is the intent of Caltrans to fill to the temporary MSE locations shown only? If the contractor is fill in front of the temporary MSE walls to the center of abutment, how is this fill and additional temporary MSE walls and subsequent excavation and removal paid for?
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:The contractor will fill in front of the temporary MSE walls after the settlement period is complete. The embankment material placed in front of the Temporary MSE walls shall be paid for as imported borrow. The removal of the Temporary MSE walls are included in the price of installation, however, portions of the wall can remain in-place per the plans. Excavation is paid for under the standard "Structure Excavation" items.
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #55: Can you please confirm that for Bid Item No. 218, 39" NBA Waterline (COV) and No. 219, 30" NBA Waterline (COB) the specified pipe materials are per AWWA C303 as stated in the Specifications, Section 77-3 for the 39" COV and Section 77-5 for the COB. The Plan Drawing UD-13 suggests that the 39" COV & 30" COB are mortar lined & coated steel pipe per AWWA C200 & C205.
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:Bid Item No 218, 39" NBA Waterline (COV) and No. 219, 30" NBA Waterline (COB) are per AWWA standard. The plan sheet UD-13 show the details of mortar lining of steel cylinders to be used under pipes per AWWA C303.
Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #56: In the Specifications, Section 77-3.01F(1)(a) General it states in the last sentence, page 151, that the maximum working pressure must be 400 psi. Do you want the pipe to be designed for 400 psi working pressure which will require valves, couplings and flanges to also be rated to this value. Section 77-5.01E(1), page 167, also refers to this section for the pipe design criteria.
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:The maximum working pressure must be 400 psi as specified in Section 77-3.01F(1)(a). Valves, couplings and fittings must be rated to 400 psi also.
Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #57: In the Specifications, Section 77-3.01F(1)(b) it states that the design stress shall be not greater than 18,000 psi for design working pressure (or 36,000 psi yield strength material) but in Section 77-3.02C,Steel for Cylinders, Rod, and Fittings, item 1. it states that the minimum yield strength shall be 42,000 psi. If the NBA pipe is to be manufactured per the AWWA C303 Standard then the steel material for the cylinder should be specified as 36,000 psi.
Inquiry submitted 10/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:Section 77-3.01F(1)(b) is correct. Pipe shall be manufactured per AWWA C303 standard. Steel for cylinders, rods, and fittings as specified in Section 77-3.02C shall have a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi instead of 42,000 psi. Steel material for the cylinder shall follow the AWWA C303 standard.
Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #58: BI 218: 39" NBA Waterline (COV)
BI 219: 30" NBA Waterline (COB)

Are these waterlines to be installed prior to or after teh 60 day settlement period for RW 5 and RW6?

Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:The timing for the NBA waterline installations are not directly tied to the settlement periods for retaining walls 5 and 6. It was envisioned that the water lines and their respective casings would be placed prior to the embankment.
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #59: BI 47: Remove Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert

What is the purpose of removing the existing box culvert (14-g) beneath the eastbound Rte 12 traffic lanes? Can it be abandoned in place; i.e. filled with sand or CLSM?

Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:The headwall is within the grading plane (excavation) and must be removed.
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #60: I the bid date going to be pushed?? If so please issue the addendum so that contractors can schedule accordingly, thanks.
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:Addendum 1 changed the bid date to November 13, 2013.
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #61: What method is being used to determine weather the excavation should be paid for in the Rock Excavation item and not Roadway Excavation?
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:Subsurface investigations indicate that rocky materials exist within the "Cut" section along the "JW" line. The bid item for Rock Excavation would be used when standard excavation methods are not adequate for the material encountered. It is anticipated that the contractor will need to evaluate the subsurface conditions and work with the Engineer to determine the final limits for which this item applies.
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #62: Spec. Section 77-2.03G and 77-2.03J

Who is responsible for the waterline pipe weld inspection and testing; the Contractor or the Agency? If the Contractor is responsible, does this require an outside inspection service?

Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideation.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:The contractor is responsible for welding quality control, including testing. An outside testing service would be needed if the contractor does not possess the necessary testing certifications. The Agency is responsible for quality assurance. The bidder's attention is direction to Section 11-3 "Welding" of the 2010 Standard Specifications for further details.


Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #63: Spec. Section 77-2.01(D) - Cathodic Protection Testing

Please provide drawings indicating where any and all cathodic protection installation is required.

Please provide details of any and all required cathodic protection.

Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:The intent of the specifications is for the contractor design and prepare plans for cathodic protection under Section 77-2.01C(2). Locations and details for cathodic protection are not available.
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #64: Referencing Section 51-1.03G(1) of the Standard Specifications, how many different "types" of concrete surface texture is Caltrans considering this project has? Is each panel a different type therefore requiring at least 31 different test panels?
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:nder 47-2.01A, concrete panels for MSE walls must comply with Section 51. Section 51 requires tests panels for all concrete surface textures shown. This would include all MSE wall panels.
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #65: Per page 32, second paragraph - "construct pavement structural sections only from April 15 to October 15 of any year. Complete pavement structural sections during the same year you start to construct them, except for the final layer of HMA-O or RHMA, ...". This is six months worth of schedule time of not grading and paving. What is driving this? / Why the restriction?
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:The intent of this restriction to prevent base materials to be left behind during rainy season, which may be subject to degradation during storm events. While grading operations are allowed during this period, new pavement structural section work will not be allowed, with the exception of the final lift of HMA as noted in the specification.
Response posted 10/22/2013




Inquiry #66: The Special Provisions contain a Spec Section 28-5.01 "Concrete Base". Where is this specification being used on this project? Where is Bid Item #98 which is the curing oil for the concrete base being used on this project?
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:28-5.01 covers BI 96 - Lean Concrete Base. Curing oils (Asphaltic Emulsion (Concrete Base)) will be used with the Lean Concrete Base material.
Response posted 10/22/2013




Inquiry #67: The Special Provisions contain a Spec Section 28-4 "Lean Concrete Base Rapid Setting". Where is this material being used on this project and how would we be paid for it since there is no bid item for this work?
Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:See Response to BI #69.
Response posted 10/22/2013




Inquiry #68: BI 160: 24" Temporary Culvert - 410 LF

Could you please direct me to the plan sheets where this pipe is located? Is there a quantity sheet for this pipe?

Inquiry submitted 10/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/17/2013


Response #2:The 24" Temporary Culvert - 410 LF is shown on sheet SC-4 (page 242 of 597).
Response posted 10/22/2013




Inquiry #69: Inquiry #22 was not answered fully. Please clarify in an addendum sheet X-1 with the following.
1) What is the depth of the RSCB in section 7 and 8?
2) Is it replacing any of the other materials?

Inquiry submitted 10/18/2013

Response #1:In general, pavement sections 7 and 8 call for 0.85' Lean Concrete Base and 0.60' of LCB respectively. The bidder's attention is directed to sheets TH-35 and TH-36 (pages 290 and 291), and to "M" line stations 111+00 to 113+50. At this location, there is a specific polygonal area that coincides with the existing WB on-ramp to I-80 from Green Valley Road. To facilitate the reopening of public traffic along the ramp, the intended design was to place Lean Concrete Base (Rapid Setting) at this location only. The quantities for this item are reflected in the quantity sheets as "Rapid Strength Concrete Base" in the "L-3" and "L-4" rows (63 and 127 CY respectively). The bid item covering this material is #97 "Rapid Strength Concrete Base."

In summary, RSCB shall be used as a replacement material for standard LCB in pavement sections 7 and 8 in stage 4 to facilitate the reopening of the WB on-ramp to I-80 from Green Valley Road.

Response posted 10/22/2013




Inquiry #70: In reference to Bid Item #181, "Rock Slope Protection (Facing, Method B)(CY), it seems that the Caltrans quantities for the Type D rock lined ditch, DS 41 and DS 42 are significantly lower than our actual calculations. Since this is a final pay bid item, could Caltrans please verify that the planned quantities are correct?
Inquiry submitted 10/21/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/22/2013


Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #71: Is it the intent of Caltrans to do prepaving profilographs and "must grinds" prior to placement of the rubberized HMA? If not, where are these items of work being performed?
Inquiry submitted 10/21/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/22/2013


Response #2:The intent here is to perform prepaving grinds prior to placing new HMA overlays over existing asphalt surfaces. The actual locations required will be determined by the engineer.
Response posted 10/23/2013




Inquiry #72: Please confirm that Section 51-1.03F(5)(b)(I) of the Special Provisions has eliminated the contractor's option to longitudinally tine the bridge decks as allowed in the RSS of the same section.
Inquiry submitted 10/21/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/22/2013


Response #2:The SSP overrides the RSS.
Response posted 11/04/2013




Inquiry #73: BI 216: 8" DIP Water COF) - 260 LF

The Utility Quantities indicate 256 lf of 8" DIP (COF) at "G" 80+41.12 to 81+23.83. Sheet U-12 shows a "dark line" that is not labeled coming off the 16" Water (COF) north of and running parallel to the FH run and "connecting" to an existing line. Sheet U-19 labels an 8" DIP Water Connection at 29+11.62. Is this the water line in question? Please clarify and please provide Profile drawings for this work.

Inquiry submitted 10/22/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/23/2013


Response #2:This is the waterline in question. Profile drawings for this work are not available.
Response posted 10/24/2013




Inquiry #74: Under spec section 77-2.02S (Welded Steel Pipe), the fifth line states "All steel pipe may be bare inside and out, with the minimum nominal wall thickness shown". The very next sentence conflicts by stating that "Both the interior and exterior surfaces must be coated with a factory applied fusion-bonded epoxy coating under AWWA C 213". Can the WSP be bare inside and out for all casing on the project? If not, please indicate which casing pipe(s) (there are many different sizes & types including split) will be required to be epoxy coated.
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/23/2013


Response #2:Follow the Layout plans (Sheets L-2 and L-3) for the construction of the concrete barrier. The bidder should assume there is 2484 LF of Type 60 barrier and 4314 LF of Type 60C barrier as the layout sheets reflect.

The bid date for this project is near. No additional information will be made available.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #75: On Sheet #371~Please identify if this is a Type 50 or Type 60 Barrier Mount and what size is the pipe. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 10/23/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/23/2013


Response #2:The sign is mounted on a Type 60. Use 4" diameter pipe.
Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #76: RE: Cathodic Protection - Bid Inquiry #61

1) Bid Inquiry #61, Bid Inquiry #61 Response #2, and the project specifications only indicate cathodic protection for the City of Vallejo (COV) Water System. Please confirm the City of Fairfield (COF) and the City of Benicia (COB) water systems DO NOT require cathodic protection. If it is required, please indicate the respective bid items that should include cathodic protection. The contractor will need this information to satisfy Response #2.

2) In regards to cathodic protection for the COV water systems, please clarify if cathodic protection is required on all diameters and runs of pipe and associated appurtenances; bid items 197-208 and 218. The contractor will need this information to satisfy Response #2.

Inquiry submitted 10/24/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/24/2013


Response #2:1) The 30" Benicia water line will require cathodic protection as well. Cathodic protection is included in the price per LF for the waterline.

2) Cathodic protection is only required for the 39" Vallejo line. (The 8" Line has been removed from the contract).

Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #77: On Caltrans previous project 04-A5354 there were similar MSE walls. The gradation for the structure backfill (soil reinforcement)3" material was 78-100 percent passing. The gradation specified for this project for the same material is 78-80 percent passing, see page 528 of the 2010 Std Spec. Is this just an oversite and should read 78-100 percent or are we to meet the 78-80 percent gradation.
Inquiry submitted 10/29/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 10/29/2013


Response #2:The gradation shall meet the standard specification requirements.
Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #78: What are the hours of traffic control, or are there any restrictions for work West of Red Top Road on Hwy 12?
Inquiry submitted 10/30/2013

Response #1:Traffic control hours would be consistent with chart 2 under section 12-4.05D.
Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #79: Typical Cross Section X-13 at JW 77+18.33 to 79+11.99 & JW 75+56.00 to 77+18.33 states "Cable Railing See Layout For Limits."

Typical Cross Section X-21 at S 81+20.68 to 85+81.12 & S 79+12.58 to 81+20.68 states "Cable Railing See Layout For Limits."

The Layout sheets do not show the locations of the Cable Railing as stated on the Typical Cross Section Sheets.

Also, the Bid Schedule does not list a bid item number for Cable Railing.

Please clarify if Cable railing is required.

If Cable Railing is required, please provide layout and detail information as well as the footage of Cable Railing required for bidding purposes.

Inquiry submitted 10/31/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/01/2013


Response #2:The call out for cable railing is incorrect. It should be Fence (Type CL-6), which is shown in the Layouts.
Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #80: I'm looking at the Summary of Quantities and it appears that two different types of fences are being installed in the same location.

The Summary of Quanties Sheet Q-3 lists 2,683 LF of Chain Link Fence (Type CL-6) & 1,020 LF of Chain Link Fence (Type CL-6, Vinyl Clad)as being installed at Station "JW" 60+87.78 to "BP" 97+30.82.

Layout Sheet L-7 shows CL-6 starting at "JW" +87.78 and ending on L-2 at "BP" 37.23

Layout Sheet L-2 shows CL-6, Vinyl Clad stating at "BP" +37.23 and ending on L-9 at "BP" 97+30.82 (also shown on C-20). Within this section CL-6 is also called out at this fence line.

The start/end stations listed on the Summary of Quantities does not match the start/end stations shown on the Layout Sheets.

Please clarify the start/end stations for both CL-6 & CL-6, Vinyl Clad within stations "JW" 60+87.78 to "BP" 97+30.82.

Inquiry submitted 10/31/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/01/2013


Response #2:The station range shown in the quantity sheet is the entire range of fence from beginning to end. There's a change in type in the middle, hence the two different fence types, but the quantity sheets do not break it down.
Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #81: In the Earthwork Summary, there is an entry of 13,814 CY of embankment for the 'B' line. Where is this dirt going since this line doesn't show up on the typical crossections nor on the crossections provided for take-off?
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/01/2013


Response #2:The quantities for "B" line should have been shown within the "JW" quantity. The 13,814 CY is represented in the "JW" line cross-sections that were submitted for take-offs. BACKGROUND: There was a portion of the "JW" profile that controlled by the "B" Line (Future SB 680 Connector). The import number shown on the plans for "B" line is required for the "JW" line where the "B" line controls.

THERE IS NO CHANGE IN EARTHWORK QUANTITIES AS A RESULT OF THIS INQUIRY

Response posted 11/05/2013




Inquiry #82: On Dwg. UD-16 on right side is showed the connection to existing COB & COV NBA pipelines. The 39" COV has two mechanical restrained couplings at this location. Can you please state where these couplings are specified in the contract documents. Are these couplings restrained with an external harnessed tie-bolt assembly or a built-in restraining coupling system?
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/04/2013


Response #2:It shall be a built-in restraining coupling system.
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #83: It is less than 2 weeks from a bid opening and my previous questions have not been answered. Do you expect an addendum will be issued by the 4th or will the bid date be postponed again?
Inquiry submitted 11/01/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/04/2013


Response #2:Addendum was issued on Nov. 8, 2013.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #84: Given the staging which requires construction of the permanent MSE walls in order to get the bridge approaches in settlement, there exists a significant conflict between the permanent MSE wall backfill/soil reinforcing and the battered abutment piles/pile leads during driving at Green Valley Road OC, Green Valley Road OC (Over SB 680 On-Ramp), and to a lesser extent the WB 80 To WB 12 Separation. Please clarify resolution of this conflict.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:The bid opening date is 11/20/13 and an addendum will not be issued. Contractor to bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/19/2013




Inquiry #85: On Page 18 Bid Items and Applicable Sections Item #044344 16" Supply Line (Bridge)refers to Section 20 for information pertaining to this item. There is no Section 20. Could you provide this information.
Inquiry submitted 11/04/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:The contractor's attention is directed to Section 20, "Landscape" of the standard specifications. Specifically, 20-4.03 "Supply Line on Structures, 4 inches and Larger."
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #86: Plan sheets L-2 & L-3 from station 86+50 to 98+08 of the S/GL1 Lines lists the barrier rail to be a type 60 and from station 98+08 to 100+98 of the GL1/GL2 lines the barrier rail to be a type 60C. Sheet Q-2 of the quantity sheets is showing this entire run as being a type 60C barrier rail. Please clarify which type of 60 barrier this run of barrier rail is to be built as.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #87: Plan sheets 160 & 161 or DD-7 & DD-8 Bio-filtration system at retention basin shows cleanout at the ends of each of the pipe runs. Please provide a detail for the construction of these cleanouts.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:Install cleanout as shown on the plans. Cleanouts shall comply with Section 68 "Subsurface Drains" of the Standard Specifications with traffic boxes and lids. No additional details will be provided.
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #88: Sheet 181 or DQ-20 doesn’t list cleanouts in the summary of quantities. How are we paid for cleanout on this project?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:Payment for cleanout is included in payment for various types and sizes of underdrain.
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #89: Drainage system 29a on the drainage quantity page, sheet 181, list the inlet type under description as “ Type G1 DI w/PCC Apron” however you also list a quantity of 3.3 under the “36” Precast Conc. Pipe Inlet” column. Please confirm which DI type is correct for drainage system 29a and adjust bid items accordingly.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:The description "Type G1 DI w/PCC Apron" is correct.

The bid date for this project is near. No additional information will be provided.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #90: Please review and verify the bid item quantity on item 181 Rock Slope Protection (Facing, Method B). This bid item is final pay and is under stated by a significant amount. The quantity difference is in the “Type D Rock Ditch” shown on sheet D-7 page 129 drainage systems #41a and 42a, along with the detail shown on DD-1 page 154. Please adjust the bid quantity or remove the final pay designation from this item.
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #91: The Special Provisions adds Sections 5-1.36E - 5-1.36E(8). Within these sections, it states to install 6' high temporary chain link fence before removing fence.

It is hard to determine if this is the temporary fencing shown on SC-1 to SC-2 (2,650 LF), or if this additional temporary fencing.

**Please clarify if the temporary fencing called for in Sections 5-1.36E-5-1.36E(8)is included in the 2,650 LF (Bid Item #230).
Or, is this additional temporary fence?
If this is additinal temporary fence, where does the cost for this temporary fencing go?

Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:The temporary fencing called out in Special Provisions Section 5-1.36E is included in the Bid Item No. 230 "Temporary Fence (Type CL-6)."
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #92: Does the Buy America requirement for steel products apply to the (Bid Item #230) Temporary Fence (Type CL-6) since this is not a permanent structure?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:Yes. The Buy America requirement applies to Bid Item No. 230 "Temporary Fence (Type CL-6)." See Section 6-2.05 "Buy America" of the Standard Specifications.
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #93: Plan sheet C-12 shows an apron leading into the ARCO gas station having the same structural section as the driveway sections on the project. Under which of the concrete items is this apron paid?
Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:The apron is paid for under minor concrete (driveway).
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #94: Section 83-1.02I Chain Link Railing calls for medium green or dark green vinyl-coated chain link wire and states that the railings pertaining to a structure must all be the same color.

The type of finish for the posts/railings is not clear.

**Please clarify if the posts/railings will have a powder coated or PVC coated finish.

Inquiry submitted 11/05/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/05/2013


Response #2:The posts must be painted. Coatings of the posts and railings must comply with Section 59-3.
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #95: on sheet ud-12, shoring note #2, requirers only one side of the temporary shoring to remain, it is not temporary if it remains,is this a correct statement? is there a project requirement for the type of remaining shoring?
Inquiry submitted 11/06/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/07/2013


Response #2:Note 2 on UD-12 only applies to when the trench section crosses Green Valley Road and the water mains are installed in "individual" trenches. The water lines need to be installed one at time as they cross Green Valley Road. The interior shoring within the first trench would remain for protection while the second trench is installed. All other shoring can be removed.
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #96: Reference is made to the the note on Aesthetic Treatment Plan Sheets 491 which states "The gap that exists between MSE wall panels shall be infilled on CIP walls by extending the grass motif smoothly and continuously to meet its neighbor above and below." Reference is also made to Plan Sheet 502 which details the 5' x 5' architectural treatment panels with chamfered edges around the 5' x 5' perimeter. Is the finished product on the CIP walls supposed to have chamfered edges on a 5 foot square pattern?

Inquiry submitted 11/07/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/07/2013


Response #2:The bid opening date is 11/20/13 and an addendum will not be issued. Contractor to bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/19/2013




Inquiry #97: Can Caltrans increase the amount of time for freeway closures. 3-4 hour closure time is not productive for setup of lane closure, actual work and pick up of lane closure.
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/07/2013


Response #2:Please bid per current plans and specs..
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #98: Sheet L-10 calls for a 12' Chain Link Gate (Type CL-6, Vinyl) but this gate is located within the Fence (Type CL-6) line.

**Should this gate be Type CL-6, Vinyl or CL-6 to match the fence line it will be installed within.

Inquiry submitted 11/07/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/07/2013


Response #2:The gate shall be as shown on the plan. The gate shall be Type CL-6, Vinyl.
Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #99: Sheet L-12 calls for a 12' Chain Link Gate (Type CL-6). Should this gate type be (Type CL-6, Vinyl) as listed in the Bid Schedule?
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/07/2013


Response #2:Yes. This gate is (Type 6, Vinyl).
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #100: Standard Plan A85 shows a single swing gate and A85A shows details for a double swing gate.

Please clarify the following:

Will the 16' CL gate be a single swing or double swing gate?

Will the 20' CL gate be a single swing or double swing gate?

Will the 24' CL Gate be a single swing or double swing gate?

Inquiry submitted 11/07/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/07/2013


Response #2:16' CL gate is a single swing gate.
20' CL gate is a single swing gate.
24' CL gate is a single swing gate.

Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #101: Addendum #1 stated an addendum will follow. When is Addendum #2 going to be issued?
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/08/2013


Response #2:Addendum 2 was issued Nov. 8, 2013.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #102: Today, 11/8/2013 at the job site I noticed that some of the trees are being removed? Are all the trees that would be Clearing and Grubbing work to be removed by others before the bid? Are you leaving the stumps? Is the state only removing the trees that impact 2014 work? As a Clearing and Grubbing contractor, how do I bid the unknown?
Inquiry submitted 11/08/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:Some trees along north side of Westbound SR 12 are being removed by separate Contract. The tree removal activities has recently been completed by others and there will be stumps remaining. The removal of the remaining trees and stumps within the clearing and grubbing limits is included in the clearing and grubbing work as specified in the Section 16 of the Standard Specifications.
Response posted 11/12/2013




Inquiry #103: Please post the pre-bid meeting attendee sign-in sheets.
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2013

Response #1:You can view this list from the website below (see Outreach dated 09-26-13):

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/smallbusiness/outreach_archive.htm
Response posted 11/12/2013




Inquiry #104: Addendum #2 eliminated all of the 8" water line and associated items with the exception of Item 81, "8" Supply Line (Bridge)". However all references to the 8" water line in the Green Valley over 80 bridge have been removed in the same addendum from the bridge plans. Please note that all the work for the 8" water line in Green Valley bridge over 680 were not eliminated from the plans. Please clarify the quantity and work location(s) of bid item 81 8" Supply Line (Bridge).
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:Please bid per current plans and specs. See BI#105 below. This project bid opens in a few days and no additional information will be provided.
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #105: Add. #2 deletes all the City of Vallejo 8" water with the exception of Bid Item #81 8" supply line. The Bridge drawing Sheets 513,517,521 &,524 have the 8 " line crossed out. Is the 8" supply line included as part of the contract or not?
Inquiry submitted 11/11/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:The Bridge drawing Sheets 513,517,521 &,524 having the 8" line crossed out are correct. This project bid opens in a few days and no additional information will be provided.
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #106: With reference to Bid Item 183, Slope Paving (Concrete), the locations of the slope paving are shown in plan view but no sections of the slope paving appear to be provided. Please provide the necessary details.
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:Slope paving is shown in the typical sections as pavement section No. 22. No additional details will be provided.
Response posted 11/12/2013




Inquiry #107: Please consider moving the bid date for this project 1 day to November 21st. Currently it bids the same day as a very large District 10 bid and it would be better for all concerned not to try and close two large Caltrans bids on the same day at the same time. This could lead to potential bid mistakes and errors that could be avoided by not having a $50 million bid and a $64 Million dollar bid on the same day at the same time by some of the same contracting prime bidders. Please consider this request for all parties involved in the bids. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/12/2013


Response #2:There no plans to move the bid date.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #108: Addendum #2 drawings C34 a-d,h,j show ditches being graded under the roadway excavation item, but they do not have any depths associated with the +/- 7700 lf of ditch for quantity take-off. Please provide depths or quantities for sections A-A and B-B.
Inquiry submitted 11/12/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/13/2013


Response #2:For the Seasonal Drainage Mitigation Ditch details including depth "D" dimensions, see drainage plans and Type E Ditch and Type F Ditch in drainage details sheet DD-1.
Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #109: Addendum 2, Section 5.02E says that welded steel pipe shall comply with section 77-2.02S. However there is no Section 77-2.02S. Same for section 70-3.
Please provide the missing sections: 77-2.02S and section 70-3.

Inquiry submitted 11/13/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/13/2013


Response #2:Section 77-2.02S for the Welded Steel Pipe has been moved to Section 77-2.02N.
Section 70-3 refers to Section 70-3, "Welded Steel Pipe Drainage Facilities" of the Standard Specifications.

Response posted 11/13/2013




Inquiry #110: Drawing U-7: there are two 17-foot section of Welded Steel Pipe (for a total of 34-LF) No information about the pipe wall thickness or details for the tie in connections.

Please provide the wall thickens for the Steel pipe and details of the tie inn.

Inquiry submitted 11/13/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/13/2013


Response #2:The thickness of 36" Welded Steel Pipe (COV/COB Water System) is 0.375". Tie-in connection must comply with Section 70-3 of the Standard Specifications and Section 77-2 of the Special Provisions.
Response posted 11/14/2013




Inquiry #111: Item #'s 4 & 5 of 14-6.02C(5) of Addendum # 2 state that must refrain from ground disturbing activities from 11/1 to 3/31 in the CRLF habitat and 4/1 to 8/1 in the CSB habitat. These habitats overlap west of JW Station ~86+73. Is it really the intent that we cannot start earthwork in these areas until 8/1?
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/13/2013


Response #2:Yes. As specified in Section 14-6.02C(5), within the CSB habitat, do not start ground disturbing activities after April 1 and before August 1 until you receive approval.
Response posted 11/14/2013




Inquiry #112: On Dwg. UQ-2, Table for the COV & COB Raw Water - Pipe Appurtenance Summary there is a column for 45 degree elbow and a total of 12. Can you please confirm if this is correct since the plan & profile and details do not show 12.
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/14/2013


Response #2:The number of elbows in the plan & profile and details are correct.
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #113: What item is the active treatment system paid for in? Is it item #17, the dewatering/discharge item?

What size capacity is required for the active treatment system?

What are the historical groundwater seepage rates?

Inquiry submitted 11/13/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/14/2013


Response #2:Payment for Active Treatment System (ATS) is included in payment for the various items of work. For the capacity required, follow the Section 13-8, "Temporary Active Treatment System", of the Standard Specs.
Response posted 11/15/2013


Response #3:You can download a memo with the estimated seepage rate below -

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-0A5344/Seepage.pdf
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #114: On Dwg. UD-16 the detail for the connection at Green Valley Road there is a vertical 45 degree elbow on both pipelines at STA 19+84.31 but on Dwg. U-23 there is no plan or profile description of a vertical 45 degree elbow at the specified STA or elsewhere. Please confirm if 2 vertical elbows (1-30" & 1-39") are required for this location.
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/14/2013


Response #2:The vertical elbows are required.
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #115: Please note that on Dwg. U-23 it states in the profile that there is a new 39" butterfly valve but on Dwg. UQ-2 in the Table for the COV & COB Raw Water - Pipe Appurtenance Summary there is a column for two 39x36" reducers. If a 39" BV is not available and the two 39x36" reducers are required then can you please confirm if the reducers are eccentric or concentric shaped.
Inquiry submitted 11/13/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/14/2013


Response #2:Use 36" valve on the 39" COV main (see note no. 4 for the buried butterfly valve details in sheet UD-12). Use concentric shaped 39-inch to 36-inch reducers.
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #116: The landscape detail sheets added in Addendum 2 have details showing Operation Indicators in relation to the inline drip irrigation, but there is no bid item for them, there are no specifications nor are they shown on the irrigation legend or on Plan Sheets IP-1 or IP-2.

Do the Operation Indicator details not apply? If they do, what is the bid item, how many are needed and what are the specifications?

Inquiry submitted 11/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/14/2013


Response #2:Pop-up indicators are used 1 per sub surface drip circuit. Bid cost of popup indicators is to be included in the subsurface drip bid cost. Specification for pop-up indicators is included in detail 'Pop-up operation indicator' on LD-7. The placement of the Pop-up operation indicators is shown on details 'Center feed layout for subsurface drip' and on 'Odd curves layout for subsurface drip' on LD-7.


The correct Pop-up operation indicator is called out on LD-7 and is DL-MP9.
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #117: Does the "Buy America Act" apply to the steel pipe piles in bid items numbers 119 & 121?
Inquiry submitted 11/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideation.
Response posted 11/14/2013


Response #2:Yes. These items need to comply with Buy America requirements. The contractors attention is directed to Section 6-2.05 "Buy America" of the Standard Specifications.
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #118: Addendum #2 revised the Temporary Fence quantities on Q-2. There are now two columns listed for Temp Fence (Type CL-6) - one column shows 2,642 LF and the other column shows 5,817 LF.

C-34a shows 5,817 LF of Temporary Fence (Type Frog).

Please confirm that the Temporary Fence (Type CL-6) with a quantity of 5,817 LF shown on Q-2 should be Temporary Fence (Type Frog) and NOT (Type CL-6).

Inquiry submitted 11/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/15/2013


Response #2:Yes. The 5,817 LF of temporary fence shown in the table is temporary fence (type frog).
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #119: Will there be a lane closure chart for east bound I-80 as one was provided for west bound before bid time?
Inquiry submitted 11/14/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/15/2013


Response #2:No. This chart will not be provided.
Response posted 11/15/2013




Inquiry #120: Follow-up to inquiry 113 - Is the State requiring an ATS?
Inquiry submitted 11/15/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/18/2013


Response #2:Yes. An ATS is required.
Response posted 11/18/2013




Inquiry #121: Addendum 2 calls for a Type 60GC barrier Left of the GL2 Line from Sta 110+63 to Sta 114+43. The plans call for a Type CL-4 Vinyl-Clad Fence to placed on top of this barrier. The top of the Type 60GC barrier is only 6" wide
which will not work with the "Post Pocket Detail (Type CL-4)" on sheet 84 of the contract plans. Please provide an alternative detail.

Inquiry submitted 11/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/18/2013


Response #2:A detail is not available at this time.
Response posted 11/20/2013




Inquiry #122: On the original EC-1 plan, there was a legend for the 3 types of erosion control methods. This was removed per addendum #2. Does the new legend on ECL-1 from addendum #2 apply to all erosion control types?
Inquiry submitted 11/18/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/19/2013


Response #2:New legend on ECL-1 sheet applies to all erosion control types shown in the erosion control plan sheets. See landscape plans and landscape details (City of Fairfield) for additional hydroseed (No Mow) areas.
Response posted 11/19/2013




Inquiry #123: BID ITEM 81, WORK HAS BEEN REMOVED BY ADDENDUM NO. 2 THEREFORE THE WORK WILL NOT BE DONE AND HAS A VALUE OF ZERO.
MY QUESTION IS CAN WE PLACE ZERO VALUE FOR A BID ITEM THAT IS NOT TO BE INSTALLED?

Inquiry submitted 11/18/2013

Response #1:Bid the item as you see it.
Response posted 11/20/2013




Inquiry #124: Re: Question #82 (where these couplings are specified in the contract documents ?)
This question was not fully answered (besides that they shall be a built-in restraining coupling system) and such there is not enough information to determine what exactly do you want.

Please provide specifications for these couplings or clarify what exactly do you want.

Inquiry submitted 11/19/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/19/2013


Response #2:The bid opening date is 11/20/13 and an addendum will not be issued. Contractor to bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 11/20/2013




Inquiry #125: The surface finish for the tubular sign structures is galvanizing and painting. Is this the intent? Section 56-3.02M(1) states to galvanize tubular sign structures in note 4 in the special provisions removing the "clean and paint all ferrous metal parts after galvanizing" clause in the standard specifications. Then section 56-3.02M(3)(a) of the standard specifications states to clean and paint all exterior surfaces of tubular sign structures.
Inquiry submitted 11/19/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 11/19/2013


Response #2:The tubular sign structures must be galvanized but not painted. Then entire section of 56-3.02M(3) including the heading, "Cleaning and Painting," of the standard specifications has been replaced with the paragraph: "Where specified, clean and paint sign structures under section 59-5," as specified in the Revised Standard Specs included in the special Provisions.

Response posted 11/20/2013






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.