Viewing inquiries for 04-152724

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Are cross sections available for the 17 ramp widening locations which also includes the 6 retaining wall locations?
Inquiry submitted 05/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/19/2014


Response #2:You can download the cross sections below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-152724/CrossSections/CrossSections_pdf.zip (zipped pdf files, 39.9MB).
Response posted 05/27/2014


Response #3:See revised cross section below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-152724/CrossSections/XSections_Updated_04-152724.zip (zipped pdf files, about 40MB>
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #2: The typical cross sections shown on the plans do not indicate the limits of the existing structural section to be removed as roadway excavation or the makeup of those sections. Could you please provide this information.
Inquiry submitted 05/20/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/21/2014


Response #2:No. We do not have the information of the existing structural section for all of the locations.
Response posted 05/28/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #3: Plan Sheets 408 and 409 and 424 and 425 show details for Cover plates for the openings in the 732A Concrete Barrier. How are these Cover plates and associated hardware paid for?
Inquiry submitted 05/21/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/21/2014


Response #2:The steel plates are included in the payment for the type of concrete barrier to which the steel plates are attached. Refer to the 6th paragraph of section 9-1.03 in the Standard Specifications. The 4th paragraph of section 83-2.02D(2) in the Standard Specifications references sections 75-1.03A and 75-1.05 for the structural steel plates. The 10th paragraph of section 83-2.03 in the Standard Specifications also has a payment clause for the steel plates. Bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 05/28/2014




Inquiry #4: Can you please provide cross sections for all retaining walls?
Inquiry submitted 05/22/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideation.
Response posted 05/22/2014


Response #2:See revised cross section below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-152724/CrossSections/XSections_Updated_04-152724.zip (zipped pdf files, about 40MB>
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #5: RGW is requesting that you postpone the bid opening for the above project for two weeks.

We have a heavy bidding schedule & the cross-section are still not available.

Thanks



Inquiry submitted 05/23/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/27/2014


Response #2:On June 11, 2014, Addendum 2 changed the bid date from June 17 to July 8, 2011.
Response posted 06/12/2014




Inquiry #6: Bid item #111 is titled 54" Steel Flared End Section. Drainage quantity sheet shows this as a 12" on DS 16d.
Please clarify.

Inquiry submitted 05/23/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/27/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #7: I have looked for, and cannot find item #92 36" CIDH on the plans. The closest I do find is the 30" CIDH for the CCTV (17 ea) and CMS sign (1 ea). RSP ES-16B shows these as 30".
18 x 8'd = 144 - the bid qty. Please Clarify.

Inquiry submitted 05/23/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/27/2014


Response #2:Please see plan sheet page number 468 for details and the quantities are shown on page number 172.
Response posted 05/28/2014




Inquiry #8: Based on the area shown for the Y-1 excavation @ 1.5' and sheet C-23, we can only come up with about half of the bid item quantity for Y-1 excavation. Is there an error in the excavation quantity?
Inquiry submitted 05/27/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/28/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #9: Missing details for the Morello Ave. WB wall on sheet 413. The last 124' of wall is missing the elevation and plan section of wall- should be on structural plan sheet No. 5? Also for the Morello Ave EB wall, all the elevation and plan information is missing?
Inquiry submitted 05/28/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 05/29/2014


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 06/02/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #10: Comparing Layout drawing L-1 (pg 17) with pavement elevation plan C-1 (pg 37), the dimensions of the Alhambra Ave EB on-ramp (right) are not the same. Please clarify or re-issue correct drawings.
Inquiry submitted 06/04/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #11: Sheet C-6 shows new pavement section elevations through station 26+50, while both the cross sections and the typical sections stop at 23+50. Please advise on the limits of work on EB Morello.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #12: Cross Sections for EB Alhambra stations 16+40 through 18+00 show no slope from the dike to existing ground. Additionally, the OG line data does not extend far enough for that absent FG slope to catch onto. Please provide corrected cross sections.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #2:We could not provide an extension of OG info from 16+40 to 18+00 due to limited survey data.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #3:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/01/2014


Response #4:Bid per Contract plans and Specs.
Response posted 07/02/2014




Inquiry #13: Typical Sections for WB Morello show an unlined V-Ditch at 29+00 to 31+00, yet the cross sections show no such ditch. Please provide complete cross sections.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See BI#1, for a link to the updated cross sections.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #14: EB Pacheco cross sections show a dike throughout the entire ramp, yet the layouts and the typical sections suggest the dike starts only at 26+08. Please advise on the limits of the dike and provide corrected cross sections.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See BI#1, for a link to the updated cross sections.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #15: WB Pacheco cross sections 20+80 to 22+04 show the pavement section extending all the way to the face of CB, while the typical sections show a Curb and Gutter (Type 3) between the edge of paving and the CB. Please advise which is the correct scenario and provide corrected cross sections. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #16: Bid item #116 "Minor Concrete (Curb, SW and Curb Ramp)" appears to be over stated at 820 CY. Is it possible that the bid quantity should be SF and not CY?
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #17: Would Caltrans offer a little more information on their response to inquiry #7? Plan sheet 468 shows a general detail for the 30" CIDH, but it does not tell me what the 30" CIDH is supporting, how many CIDH there is per location, and the LF of each individual CIDH.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #2:Plan sheet 468 shows typical detail for 36" CIDH (not 30") for signal standard type 23-4-100 , 18-4-100 or 1B foundation, please see Electrical plan sheet E35-E36 for locations.
Response posted 06/06/2014




Inquiry #18: WB Pine Retaining Wall with gutter shows a slope of 2:1 or flatter on Typical Sections (12+80 to 29+24), but in order for that slope to catch the provided existing ground it must be at least 1.3:1 or steeper. Same goes for modified Type 60 barrier with gutter on WB Pacheco. Here, the slope must be at least 1.5:1 or steeper in order to catch the existing between stations 28+50 and 29+00. Please correct typical sections and cross sections in order to accommodate the desired slopes, or advise on new slopes. Thanks.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #19: The Bid Book description for Bid Item #85 calls out Full Depth Reclamation-Foamed Asphalt. Is there this work on this project or is this just a typo?
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/05/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #20: The description for bid item #85 appears to be incorrect, since there is no reclaimed pavement on this project.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/06/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #21: EB Pine Cross Sections show slope of 2:1 between 10+50 and 14+60, while the Typical Sections show 4:1 or flatter. Additionally, the cross sections show a slope of 10:1, suggesting a wall, starting at 14+70, while the typical sections and the Retaining Wall plans show the wall starting at 15+60. Please advise on the shoring/slope solution between 14+60 and 15+60, as well as clarify which slope should be used between 10+50 and 14+60. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/06/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See BI#1 for updated cross sections.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #22: Can we substitute Directional Louvers (see Caltrans Standard Plan RSP ES-4C) in place of the proposed Programmed Visibility (PV) Signals. The Louvered Signals weigh about half as much, cost about a fifth the price, and provide the same effect as PV Signals (limiting the visibility of the indications). This change could save the State tens of thousands of dollars on this job.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/06/2014


Response #2:No. Please bid according plans and specs.
Response posted 06/09/2014




Inquiry #23: We will not be able to build the project per Traffic Handling Plan Sheet TH-1 (plan sheet 126). That plan sheet indicates that we have the work room to set up k-rail and work on both sides of the road at one time.

The cross sections and plan sheet X-1 (plan sheet 5) show that there is only 12' of room between the two new road sections, so if we attempted to put in two rows of k-rail it would only leave an 8' width for traffic.

Please reissue plan sheet TH-1 showing that the work needs to be staged.

Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/06/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #24: Cross Sections for WB Pacheco do not have enough OG data from 26+00 to 27+00 to accommodate the takeoff for Wall B5. Please extend the existing line-work further north and resubmit the cross sections. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 06/05/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/06/2014


Response #2:We could not provide an extension of OG info due to limited survey data.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #3:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/01/2014


Response #4:Bid per Contract plans and Specs.
Response posted 07/02/2014




Inquiry #25: EB Solano cross sections show a dike and a 2:1 slope all throughout the ramp, while the typical sections show 4:1 or flatter, without dike, from 11+40 to 13+42, and 2:1 with dike for the rest of the ramp. Please clarify and provide corrected cross sections. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 06/06/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See revised cross section below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-152724/CrossSections/XSections_Updated_04-152724.zip (zipped pdf files, about 40MB>
Response posted 06/23/2014




Inquiry #26: Special Provision Section 8-1.04C Items #1 & #2, require a submittal for a contractor supplied biologist and a biological resource information program. There are no bid items for either of these items. Is the contractor required to supply a biologist and biological resource program for this contract?
Inquiry submitted 06/06/2014

Response #1:Caltrans Biology will supply the biologist and the biological resource program.
Response posted 06/09/2014




Inquiry #27: Layout sheet L-3 (page 19) shows that there is a cut slope. Based on OG grades shown, in order to get to the 1.5' below top of wall elevation per wall plans, there may be up to 2' of fill, at the back of wall and sloped up to the cut line shown. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 06/06/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/01/2014


Response #3:Bid per Contract plans and Specs.
Response posted 07/02/2014




Inquiry #28: I feel there may be some missing plan sheet information regarding the concrete flatwork removal and replacement:
1) Plan summary sheet 172 indicates 164 CY of new concrete flatwork @ Pine St. WB, but appears to be missing the quantity for "Concrete Removal".
2) Plan summary sheet 172 has removal and replacement quantities for Pacheco WB and Willow Pass WB, but there are no construction detail sheets for the work at these locations.

Please provide the missing details and info.

Inquiry submitted 06/06/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #29: WB Solano cross sections show a 2:1 slope off a dike all throughout the ramp, while typical sections show no dike and a 4:1 slope from 20+70 to 24+75. Please correct. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 06/06/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #2:See BI#1 for updated cross sections.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #30: Plan sheet 57 (C-21) shows a detail for 6 each MVP. The roadway excavation, CL4 aggregate subbase and asphalt quantities for this work do not appear to be included in the quantity summary log on plan sheet 171 (Q-1). Please revise the bid quantities to reflect these 6 MVP.
Inquiry submitted 06/06/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #31: Refer to plan sheet 171 (Q-1)The CL4 aggregate subbase quantity for Morello WB is listed as 5 CY. Would you please correct?
Inquiry submitted 06/06/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #32: Again referring to plan sheet 171 (Q-1). The CL3 aggregate base quantity for Solano WB is listed as 130 CY, but I believe it is closer to 466 CY.
Inquiry submitted 06/06/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #33: The Special Provisions on page 1, Notice to Bidders, calls for not to bid more than 250 working days. The Special Provisions on page 5, bid item 60, call for plant establishment. Additionally, the Special Provisions on page 69 requires a Type 1 plant establishment.
Please clarify how long is the plant establishment. Is the plant establishment at the same time as the construction period? When does the plant establishment begin and when does it end?

Inquiry submitted 06/06/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #34: WB Port Chicago cross sections and typical sections between stations 26+00 and 27+80 show different slopes coming off the northern pavement strip. Please advise and provide corrected cross sections. Thanks.
Inquiry submitted 06/06/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #2:See BI#1 for an updated cross section.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #35: Regarding Bid Inquiry #22, there is only one source for the PV Signals. Given that this is a Federally Funded project, this equipment should be State Furnished.
Inquiry submitted 06/09/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/09/2014


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #36: There seems to be a problem with the quantity table on Sheet Q-2. The quantity for minor concrete is 820 CY, yet the work is to construct new curb ramps. There is not nearly this quantity of minor concrete. Under remove concrete, other than the gore area on Alhambra Ave., the only other concrete removal is to remove existing concrete to construct the new curb ramps. This quantity also seems overstated. Plus, the table refers to plan sheets that do not exist. Is this table accurate for this project, and if so, are there additional plan sheets that need to be issued?
Inquiry submitted 06/09/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #37: Sheet 57 shows a MVP at location 79, but sheet 138 has this as location 78. Which is correct?
Inquiry submitted 06/09/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #38: With the bid due in one week and no addendum sent out addressing any of the critical inquiries, we respectfully request the bid date be postponed 3 to 4 weeks due to the amount of unanswered inquiries on this contract.
Inquiry submitted 06/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/10/2014


Response #2:See Bidder Inquiry #5.
Response posted 06/12/2014




Inquiry #39: Bid item #85 is "Asphalt Binder (Full Depth Reclamation-Foamed Asphalt)", the quantity sheet in the plans callout for "Asphalt Emulsion (Paint Binder)", which is correct?
Inquiry submitted 06/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/11/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 3.
Response posted 07/01/2014




Inquiry #40: "Response #2:We are working on this inquiry, but unless an addendum is issued, bid per current plans and specs.
Response posted 06/10/2014"

I am disappointed by Caltrans blanket response to a number of bidder inquiries. These are all good questions that deserve thought out responses.

Please either address the questions or delay the bid date until the corrections to the plans and specifications can be addressed.

Inquiry submitted 06/11/2014

Response #1:Comments noted.
Response posted 06/11/2014


Response #2:Regarding the delay of bid date - See response to Bidder Inquiry #5.
Response posted 06/12/2014




Inquiry #41: The Chain Link Railing shown on various walls seems to be installed using the "Anchorage Detail" (post attached with plate with anchor bolts). We are requesting to use the "alternate anchorage detail" (Post set in post pocket).

**Please confirm if this is acceptable.

Inquiry submitted 06/16/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/17/2014


Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents. Proposals for changes to the contract documents may be submitted to the Engineer after contract award.
Response posted 06/18/2014




Inquiry #42: When may I expect to see addendum #3 that hopefully will address all the inquiries that have been submitted?
Inquiry submitted 06/24/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/25/2014


Response #2:See Addendum #3.
Response posted 07/02/2014




Inquiry #43: Newly issued addendum 3 plans show "Remove and constuct [sic] ADA curb ramp (see construciton details)" on sheet 17 (L-6), pointing to three locations. The details from neither the original plan set nor from addendum plans show details for the two southern ramps, however. Please either provide those details or remove this work form contract. Thanks.
Inquiry submitted 06/30/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 06/30/2014


Response #2:Please use the Revised Standard Plan RSP A88A and RSP A88B details for the additional ADA curb ramp locations.
Response posted 06/30/2014




Inquiry #44: Elevation #22 on sheet 45 (C-9) reads 56.58 for northern EP. Drainage profile on sheet 81 (DP-7), system 13 inlet "a", however, is shown to have TG elevation of 57.87, more than a foot higher than the EP it is adjacent to, while the drawing itself suggests it should be two feet below the edge of road. Additionally, that whole concrete lined ditch on sheet 71 (D-4) is shown to flow uphill. Fix it please.
Inquiry submitted 07/01/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/01/2014


Response #2:Unless an addendum is issued addressing your concern, please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 07/01/2014


Response #3:See Addendum 4.
Response posted 07/03/2014




Inquiry #45: In response to answer for inquiry #33, regarding plant establishment and number of days: Plant establishment = 250 WD. "B" days - bid 250 Max, yet test existing irrigation, remove existing irrigation, place new irrigation and planting after some of the earthwork. Please verify that the "B" days are exclusive of(do not include)the plant establishment period.
Inquiry submitted 07/02/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/02/2014


Response #2:Do not include plant establishment working days in your bid, see Addendum #4.
Response posted 07/03/2014




Inquiry #46: Due to receiving two addendums with less than a week before the bid date, a week which includes a national holiday, we respectfully request the bid date be pushed to allow enough time to review the addendums thoroughly. Thank you.
Inquiry submitted 07/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/03/2014




Inquiry #47: Is the subcontractors License number to be place on the subcontractors listing form?? If so what location??
Inquiry submitted 07/08/2014

Response #1:Complete the form per instructions.
Response posted 07/08/2014






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.