Viewing inquiries for 04-235844

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Please provide PDF cross-sections for Rte 101, Contract #04-235844.
Inquiry submitted 02/24/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 02/24/2014


Response #2:You can download the files below:



Response posted 03/03/2014




Inquiry #2: Per Caltrans Project Delivery Directive Number PD-06 are the following electronic file formats available?

1. Alignments
XML file format

2. Profiles
XML file format

3. Cross Sections
XML file format

4. Basemap (layout of the designed roadway including EP’s, ETW’s etc.)
2D or 3D DGN or DWG file format

5. DDM (Design DTM) – one of the following formats (include DTM boundary)
XML file format
3D DGN or DWG file format

6. Existing Ground DTM
3D DGN or DWG file format

Inquiry submitted 02/24/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 02/24/2014


Response #2:Except for cross-sections (see BI#1), the rest of the listed files are not available.
Response posted 03/03/2014




Inquiry #3: It appears the informational handout provided for this contract is actually for a project in District 8. Please confirm the correct informational handout.
Inquiry submitted 02/24/2014

Response #1:We are in the process of correcting it.
Response posted 02/24/2014


Response #2:Fixed.
Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #4: 1) Will the high voltage power lines over the portion of the project south of Hwy 101 be relocated?
2) If the power lines are not to be relocated, will Caltrans arrange for the lines to be de-energized during construction?

Inquiry submitted 03/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/10/2014


Response #2:1) No.
2) No.
Response posted 03/10/2014




Inquiry #5: Will Caltrans provide a profile with elevations for each of the high voltage power lines over the southern portion of the project?
Inquiry submitted 03/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/10/2014


Response #2:

The links below are the drawings from PG&E that show the plans/profiles of the three tower lines.

These are the plan/profiles for the three tower lines involved. SM-Martin 1-2 is the northernmost line and the SM-Martin 5-6 is the southernmost line.


Response posted 03/11/2014




Inquiry #6: 1) Since Caltrans will not de-energize the power lines over the area south of Hwy 101, please provide the contact name and phone number for the agency that is responsible for de-energizing the power lines.
Inquiry submitted 03/11/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideratin.
Response posted 03/11/2014


Response #2:The contact person at PG&E to discuss the option of de-energizing would be Robert Grantham, and can be contacted at (925)674-4534.
Response posted 03/13/2014




Inquiry #7: Sheet L-7, +/- Sta 198+00 to +/- 200+84 of the B1 line, area where textured pavement (structural section 8)is to be placed, legend also shows that this area is to receive (structural section 4) OGAC friction course overlay. Is that correct?
Inquiry submitted 03/11/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/11/2014


Response #2:No. The mentioned area should receive only Structure Section No. 8 (textured paving).
Response posted 03/11/2014




Inquiry #8: According to Bid Item #152 (Lime Stabilized Soil), there is to be 1.50' of Lime placed according to Plan drawings C-81 thru C-85; however, there is nothing in the Specs that mention anything related to Lime Stabilized Soil, and no Lime Stabilized Soil is shown on Typical Cross Sections sheets X-1 thru X-23. Please revise Specifications and Typical Cross-Sections to show Lime Stabilized Soil details.
Inquiry submitted 03/17/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/17/2014


Response #2:Follow section 24-2 LIME STABILIZED SOIL of 2010 standard specifications. The lime stabilized soil is to be done at constant depth of 1.5’ at the limits shown on C sheets. The lime stabilized soil is not shown on typical cross sections for clarity.
Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #9: Regarding the PG&E transmission lines directly over the Broadway Bridge, Broadway On Ramp and the Deep Soil Mixing area. PG&E will not provide any information regarding de-energizing or relocating the transmission lines that affect the work. The contact person in PG&E provided by Caltrans in an earlier bidders inquiry response does not handle these types of matters.
The transmission lines over the area of the project south of highway 101 is directly affected. Will Caltrans relocate these lines or pay for the cost of de-energizing the lines.

Inquiry submitted 03/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/19/2014


Response #2:No.
Response posted 04/03/2014


Response #3:NO. The lines are not proposed to be relocated by Caltrans. We have determined that the work can be performed with the power lines in operation. Any deenergizing efforts and coordination with PG&E would have to be at the contractors expense. Please provide bid per the advertised plans.
Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #10: minor concrete item 190, has missing information' item 27b has no yardage,13k quanity is too much,503 is missing yardage,item 5a to 5r and 24h are missing length, 10b rapid is too little
Inquiry submitted 03/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/19/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 04/14/2014




Inquiry #11: Item #215-Metal (Roadside Sign) shows no details in the plans for the metal (Roadside Signs) and no information in the specials. In order to bid this, there needs to be more detail.


Inquiry submitted 03/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/19/2014


Response #2:All roadside signs are standard CA MUTCD type. Those that are not standard have details in the SD sheets. See S and SQ sheets for CA MUTCD sign codes. Each Sign has a weight based on size which is the quantity shown in the “Metal Roadside Sign” column in the quantity tables. This is one of the standard methods of payment for roadside signs on Caltrans projects. Refer to item no 562001 of Caltrans standard bid item list at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/construction_contract_standards/2010_BidItems/2010_BIL_ALPHABETICAL.xlsx
Response posted 03/20/2014




Inquiry #12: item 76, is too large a quanity,please review
Inquiry submitted 03/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/19/2014


Response #2:The item 76 Sand Backfill quantity is correct and has been verified as follows.

15.9 CY from Drainage Quantities DQ-37
150 CY from Sanitary Sewer Quantities SSQ-3

170 CY rounded Total

Response posted 03/20/2014




Inquiry #13: Regarding item #4 (Construction Area Signs), The "hotel sign", Sign #7 on TH-9 (Stage 2/Phase 1), Sign #7 on TH-22 (Stage 4/Phase 1) & Sign #2 TH-26 (Stage 4/Phase 2) shows to be a temporary relocate. Then again, relocate in final position under Item #65 (Relocate Roadside Sign)

This sign is a very large business sign and there are no details or specs on how to temporary relocate this sign in the staging plans. Do you have to pour a foundation each time it's relocated? Or should there be a temporary sign fabricated to be relocated per the staging plans?

The final relocation should be a separate item labeled "Relocate Business Sign" and should not be under item #65 (Relocate Roadside Sign), since this sign is not a normal Roadside Sign.

Inquiry submitted 03/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/19/2014


Response #2:Bidder may be misinterpreting the sign to be relocated. The large Holiday Inn and Max sign does not need to be relocated. The sign to be relocated is a typical roadside sign.
Response posted 03/20/2014




Inquiry #14: Spec. page 28, section 8-1.10B list liquidated damages for stage 2/1, 3/1 and 4/1 based on "days". Are the days listed work days or calendar days?
Inquiry submitted 03/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/19/2014


Response #2:The specified days in section 8-1.10B are working days.
Response posted 03/20/2014




Inquiry #15: The link for the dgn file appears to be broken and we are unable to download. Can these files be reposted? Is the B1 line now available?
Inquiry submitted 03/19/2014

Response #1:Fixed.

B1 is included in the zipped dgn file.
Response posted 03/19/2014




Inquiry #16: On page L-3, for the alignment of "RLN Line", the segment and the stations given at the beginning of the line do not match. Which ones are correct?
Inquiry submitted 03/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/19/2014


Response #2:The segment length should be 380.38’. See Addendum 2.
Response posted 03/27/2014




Inquiry #17: On sheet L-3, no alignment data is gven for the first segment of line B-2. Please revise the plans or provide this informaiton.
Inquiry submitted 03/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/19/2014




Inquiry #18: We are respectfully requesting a four week postponement past the current established bid day. Our bid schedule has been very heavy as of the last couple weeks; as everyone is getting ready to start the construction season. Due to the effort that this one will need; we are politely asking the State to forward a postponement. We are also asking the State to forward the addendum by this Friday the 21st of March. If the State elects to not postpone this projects bid date; we will not be able to forward a bid. As you can imagine even a firm of our size has ‘staffing” issues. Thank you for listening and hope you can work with the industry and grant this delay in the bid date.


Inquiry submitted 03/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/20/2014


Response #2:There are no plans to change the bid date. Unless if an addendum is issued, the bid date will not change.
Response posted 03/20/2014


Response #3:Addendum 1 changed the bid date to May 13, 2014.
Response posted 04/07/2014




Inquiry #19: Plan sheet C-54 (105 of 814) shows demolition of a building at 1212 Rollins Road. Is this building demo part of this contract? If it is part of this contract what item is it paid under?
Inquiry submitted 03/19/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/20/2014




Inquiry #20: Response for Inquiry #12 states (per link) refer to Section 56 of the Standards regarding method of payment for metal post. It states as follows:

56-4.02B Metal Posts
Mountings for roadside signs to be installed on barriers or railings must be fabricated from (1) welded or seamless steel pipe under ASTM A53/A53M, Grade B, and (2) structural steel complying with ASTM A36/A36M.
Bolted connections must comply with section 56-3.02D. Concrete anchorage devices must comply with section 75-1.03.
All metal parts for mounting roadside signs must be galvanized after fabrication. Galvanization must comply with section 75-1.05.

So based on this information, because this section relates to Fabrication Work, we will need a drawing for how Caltrans wants us to build or do you want us to use 2" Pipe or Unistrut?

We will need this information in order to quote correctly.

Inquiry submitted 03/20/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/20/2014


Response #2:Per plan sheet no 110, titled C-59, 4 NPS XS Sign Post is to be used.
Response posted 03/24/2014




Inquiry #21: The cross section on line B1 at 206+50 does not have any existing line work. Please add and reissue.
Inquiry submitted 03/20/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/20/2014


Response #2:You can download the revised Line B1 below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-235844/LineB1_v2.zip (zipped pdf and dgn files, 7MB)
Response posted 03/24/2014




Inquiry #22: The cross section of line B2 at Sta 211+86.38 does not show the retaining wall on one of the sides as it should. Please advise if the retaining should be there. If so, please revise the cross section and reissue.
Inquiry submitted 03/20/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/20/2014


Response #2:Download the revised cross sections below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-235844/BI_22.zip (zipped dgn and pdf files)
Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #23: The layout plans on sheets 29 to 33, L-1 to L-5, requires the installation of sleeve pipe. The summary of quantities on sheet 458, Q-1, also shows 220.6 LF of 4 and 6 inch sleeve pipe.
Please clarify under what item is the 4 and 6 inch of sleeve pipe be paid.

Inquiry submitted 03/20/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/24/2014


Response #2:The 4 and 6 inch schedule 40 PVC pipe is a non pay item. The (N) denotes an item for which payment is included in payment for the various items of work.
Response posted 03/25/2014




Inquiry #24: On the BWY line of the cross sections, there are large chunks of existing linework missing from cross 14+00 to 15+00. Please add the missing linework and reissue the cross sections.
Inquiry submitted 03/21/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/24/2014


Response #2:See revised BWY line below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-235844/BWY_LINE_STA_14+00_TO_15+00.pdf
Response posted 04/10/2014




Inquiry #25: Section 19-10.01C(1) Statement of Previous Work Experience states: "...10 successful soil-cement mixing projects within the past 5 years." Can that statement be changed to: "...5 successful soil-cement mixing projects within the past 5 years." This change will significantly increase the number of contractors that can bid the soil-cement portion of the contract.
Inquiry submitted 03/21/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consdiration.
Response posted 03/27/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 04/14/2014




Inquiry #26: On the BYSH line of the cross sections, there are large chunks of existing linework missing from cross sections 33+40.37 to 33+50. Please add the missing linework and reissue the cross sections.
Inquiry submitted 03/21/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/27/2014


Response #2:Download the BYSH Line for 33+40.37 to 33.50 below:

www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/construction/contracts/04-235844/XSections_BYSH_Line_33+40-37_TO_33+50.zip (zipped pdf and dgn files)
Response posted 04/11/2014




Inquiry #27: According to Bid Item #93 (Subgrade Enhancement Geotextile, Class B2), SEG is to be placed along with Lime Stabilization according to Plan drawings C-81 thru C-85; however, there is nothing in the Specs that mention anything related to Subgrade Enhancement Geotextile, and no Subgrade Enhancement Geotextile is shown on Typical Cross Sections sheets X-1 thru X-23. Please revise Specifications and Typical Cross-Sections to show Subgrade Enhancement Geotextile details.
Inquiry submitted 03/24/2014

Response #1:Subgrade Enhancement Geotextile, Class B2 is to be placed over the lime stabilized soil. The SEG is not shown on typical sections for clarity as it is used as a method of soil stabilization and not actual structural section. Follow section 19-8 SUBGRADE ENHANCEMENT GEOTEXTILE of the 2010 standard specs.
Response posted 03/25/2014




Inquiry #28: Plan sheet DP-9 (sheet 163 of 814) shows a drainage line #8.f. Drainage summary sheet DQ-14 (sheet 203 of 814) does not list line #8.f. Is the 200 LF length listed for line #8.e cover the length of #8.e + #8.f?

Inquiry submitted 03/24/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/25/2014


Response #2:Yes, 200 LF covers the length of #8.e and #8.f.
Response posted 03/27/2014




Inquiry #29: Can stay in place metal deck forms be used for the Broadway OC bridge (35-0351)?
Inquiry submitted 03/24/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/25/2014


Response #2:No.
Response posted 03/25/2014


Response #3:See RSS 51-1.03C(2)(c)(i) which states, "Permanent steel deck forms are only allowed where shown or if specified as an option in the special provisions." Since the Special Provisions do not mention Permanent steel deck forms as an option, the use is not allowed.
Response posted 04/09/2014




Inquiry #30: Bid items #144 for Imported Topsoil (5,140 CY) & #145 for Imported Biofiltration Soil (1,700 CY) will require roadway excavation to create space for the imported materials. Is the excavation paid for under bid item 81 "Roadway Excavation"?

Inquiry submitted 03/25/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/25/2014


Response #2:Yes, the excavation required for imported topsoil and bio filtration soil is paid for under bid item 81 "Roadway Excavation".
Response posted 03/26/2014




Inquiry #31: We respectfully request that Caltrans postpone the bid date for at least 2 weeks after the correct contact information is provided for the PG&E transmission lines so that we have sufficient time to properly analyze this aspect of the work.
Inquiry submitted 03/25/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/26/2014


Response #2:There are no plans to delay the bid. Unless if an addendum is issued, bid per plans and specs.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #3:See response to BI# 18.
Response posted 04/07/2014




Inquiry #32: Contract has several Jacked Steel Casing items. Caltrans designed steel casing to be installed utilizing traditional trenchless technology within the influence of ground water and tide influence conditions. Is it Caltrans intent to have contractor soil condition crown/envelope of proposed jacked steel casing alignment prior to jacking in order mitigate any ground movement/prevent sink holes, and assist in maintaining grade of casing during jacking operation?
Inquiry submitted 03/25/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/26/2014


Response #2:Ground improvements utilizing soil treatment are required in areas shown on plans (Sheets C-44 to C-47). For casing locations not within the soil treatment limits, the soil treatment is not required to improve embankment stability and minimize consolidation settlement. However, it is the Contractor's responsibility to monitor ground surface movement and take steps to avoid excessive settlement and damages near the pipe alignment. Spec Section 77-3, Jacked Pipe Casing, outlines the requirements in detail.
Response posted 03/27/2014




Inquiry #33: Sheet SS-6. Proposed SSMH-10 / receiving shaft location for jacked casing. SSMH-10 and Shaft are located within close proximity to the car dealership building foundation. There appears to be no information on building foundation. Will underpinning w/active shoring system be required at this location in order to facilitate excavation?
Inquiry submitted 03/25/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/26/2014


Response #2:Per section 77-3.01C , Work plan of the special provisions, the contractor is to submit shoring and bracing plan.
Response posted 03/26/2014




Inquiry #34: Is there a typical construction cross-section for the installation of the "Grated Line Drain", bid item #233?
Inquiry submitted 03/26/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/26/2014




Inquiry #35: Please clarify how the Structure Excavation and Structure Backfill for the Box Culvert Extension at Easton Creek gets paid.
Inquiry submitted 03/26/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/27/2014


Response #2:Section 51-1.04 of 2010 Standard Specification states, "Payment for structure excavation and structure backfill used in constructing structural concrete for box culverts is included in the payment for structural concrete, box culvert."
Response posted 03/28/2014




Inquiry #36: With respect to your response to BI #27, Section 51-1.01C(2)and Section 51-1.03C(2)(c) of the Standard Specifications allow the use of permanent steel deck forms. Where is it stated on the project plans or in the special provisions that the use of permanent steel deck forms are specifically prohibited from the Broadway OC?
Inquiry submitted 03/26/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/27/2014


Response #2:Caltrans RSS located at

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/construction_contract_standards/SSPs/2010-SSPs/_rss/RSS_A07-19-13.docx

mentions

    Add to section 51-1.03C(2)(c)(i):

      Permanent steel deck forms are only allowed where shown or if specified as an option in the special provisions.

Since the Special Provisions do not mention Permanent steel deck forms as an option, the use is not allowed.

Response posted 04/01/2014




Inquiry #37: Plans call out for various tie-ins to existing underground utilities, some of which are under pressure. Insertions valves to isolate the system have been considered, however, we did not notice any consideration or design for an anchor system on the existing pipe at connection points. The nearest existing pipe joint location to connection point and if existing pipe is even restrained, both are unknown at this time. Will Caltrans be adding details for anchoring systems on existing pressurized pipe rerouting connection points?
Inquiry submitted 03/26/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/27/2014




Inquiry #38: Sanitary Sewer details SSD-3 refers to trench detail with unstable ground beyond the initial 3" of bedding beneath pipe. Unstable ground calls for 1' of additional class 1 permeable material wrapped in fabric. How does contractor get paid for bedding material, additional excavation, additional haul off, additional shoring, additional traffic control, and additional crew time to deal with unforeseen condition?
Inquiry submitted 03/26/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/27/2014




Inquiry #39: With reference to the Information Handout provided, the Geotechnical analysis and design discusses the need to dewater for installation of underground utilities, yet we did not seem to find(or maybe we have overlooked it)information relating to what depth dewatering is required in relation to invert of proposed pipes. To what depth (above, at invert, or below pipe invert)is contractor required to dewater?
Inquiry submitted 03/26/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/27/2014


Response #2:For installation of underground utilities, dewater till the bottom of the utility trench, which will accommodate pipe bedding installation.


Response posted 04/01/2014




Inquiry #40: Project requires dewatering systems to be utilized in advance of many operations prior to starting work. Information provided did not address any potential impacts to existing facilities (building/manholes/transmission line towers, etc..) nor did we find where specification identified a max pumping GPM to mitigate potential impacts. Does Caltrans have any additional information and or geotechnial review of short term impacts of construction dewatering? Any limitations to duration of pumping?
Inquiry submitted 03/26/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/27/2014


Response #2:The Contractor must submit a Dewatering and Discharge plan including the rate per SSP 13-13.01B(2). Upon the review of the plan, engineer will verify that the Contractor's plan is not causing undue settlement of surrounding facilities.
Response posted 04/02/2014




Inquiry #41: Plan sheet 763 shows expansion joints (Detail B0-3, 3-4) 6.25' from the centerline of the bridge abutment. Sheet 775 shows the architectural pattern for the combined wingwall/retaining wall face and does not show this joint. Does the tree architectural pattern extend through the expansion joint or does it start at the expansion joint? Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 03/27/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/28/2014


Response #2:The retaining wall expansion joint will extend through the fracture rib with tree pattern.
Response posted 04/02/2014




Inquiry #42: Section AA and Section BB on sheets 781 and 782 have a gap in them from 11+86.5 to 12+75.5. Is there a barrier slab or a coping slab in this section? Same sheets show 3 transitions in the developed elevation view - using the cross sections would only yield two transitions (slab to coping then back to slab). Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 03/28/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/28/2014


Response #2:The mentioned limits would follow section AA and be a barrier slab as shown in the developed elevation view. There would be two transitions first at Sta 12+75 and second at Sta 14+79.1 as shown for coping slab and barrier slab per the elevation view. The transition shown at 11+86.5 is for concrete barrier and CL -3 fence to CL-6 fence.

Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #3:For the mentioned limits follow section AA. Section AA would apply from Sta 8+16.03 to Sta 12+75. There would be two transitions first at Sta 12+75 and second at Sta 14+79.1 as shown for coping slab and barrier slab per the elevation view. The note on SECTION A-A should only read Type CL-3 fence. The transition shown at 11+86.5 does not apply.
Response posted 04/01/2014




Inquiry #43: How is the grated line drain shown on sheets 783 and 795 paid for? Said grated line drain is not shown on the drainage sheets.

Inquiry submitted 03/28/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:The GLD along the RW 209 is shown on the drainage plans and profiles. The Quantity is shown on DQ-36 (sheet 225) for drainage item no. 31d.
Response posted 04/01/2014




Inquiry #44: There is a new sigh structure on this project - bid items #207 & 208. This sign structures sits on a 60" CIDH that is 35 LF. There is no bid item for the 60" CIDH. Please add this item.
Inquiry submitted 03/28/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014




Inquiry #45: There is a bid item for the structure excavation of Wall B and the planter wall, but there is not a separate bid item for the backfill of these walls. The quantity of structure backfill does not include these structures. Should there be a bid item for structure backfill of the planter wall and Walls A & B?
Inquiry submitted 03/31/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 2.
Response posted 04/14/2014




Inquiry #46: Since power lines will not be de-energized or relocated, please tell us the minimum height for each line and the require clearance from each line.

Inquiry submitted 03/31/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:Refer to sheet 752 for the clearances. See response to bidder question no 5. For the minimum height of the lines.
Response posted 04/02/2014




Inquiry #47: Plan sheets 118 and 119 show details for an 80' diameter traffci medallion to be built in the intersections of Broadway & Bayshore and Broadway & Rollins. The traffic plans for stage 4/1 allow the contractor time and work room to build the medallion at Bayshore, but the traffic plans for stage 5/1 make it imposiible to build that medallion.

It will take 2 weeks to build this medallion. The existing traffic plans only allow an 8 hour night window. This is a complicated piece of construction that could not be built in an 8 hour night closure.

Inquiry submitted 03/31/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:City of Burlingame would be accommodating nightly lane closures in each direction for the two weeks of construction period required.
Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #48: As per section 14.11.11 Is it correct in assuming that this item (#33) is only for the plan, and that sampling, testing, removal/disposal will be paid for at force account?
Inquiry submitted 03/31/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014




Inquiry #49: Please refer to plan sheet 233. Sanitary sewer MH #8.a requires a receiving pit for a 14" jacked pipe. There is about 20' from the edge of the receiving pit to the curb line on the west side of the receiving pit.

Plan sheet 345 shows the traffic control plan for this stage of work. It shows three lanes of traffic going bthru and over the area of the reciving pit for MH #8.a. The traffic control plans for stage 2/1 need to be revised in order to allow room for the jacked pit operation that will occur in this stage.

Inquiry submitted 03/31/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:Jacked pipe is going to be constructed in Stage 1 Phase 2. Please see plan SC-2 (sheet 300). City of Burlingame will accommodate night lane closure for this work.
Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #50: The planting list and specifications on sheet 492, PL-2, calls for 5.5 CY and 12 CY of imported topsoil for the 48" box and 60" box trees, which totals about 315 CY The Special Provisions on page 10, bid item 144, calls for 5,140 CY of imported topsoil.

Please clarify if the imported topsoil required in the planting list is paid under bid item 144, imported topsoil. Under what item is the imported topsoil required for the trees be paid?

Inquiry submitted 03/31/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:Yes, imported topsoil for the 48" box and 60" box trees is paid for under bid item 144. refer to summary of quantity sheet Q-5.
Response posted 04/01/2014




Inquiry #51: This is to follow up with the question and response to inquiry 23, 4 and 6 inch sleeve pipe.
The layout plan on sheet 29 to 33, L-1 to L-5, call for 4 and 6 inch schedule 40 sleeve pipe.The Summary of Quantities on sheet 548, Q-1, shows a total of 200.6 LF of 4 and 6 inch pipe. It also shows a quantity of 1,613.6 LF of 8" Corrugated High Density Polyethylene Pipe Conduit (CHDPE). Additionally, the Special Provisions on sheet 10, bid item 142, call for 1,620 LF of 8" CHDPE.
Please clarify if the 4 and 6 inch schedule 40 sleeve pipe be paid under bid item 142, CHDPE. Under what other items will the sleeve pipe be paid? What other irrigation items will the sleeve be paid? Should there be a new item?

Inquiry submitted 03/31/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:Irrigation Conduit (Schedule 40 PVC) is quantified on Q-1 as Non Pay item.

The location of the Irrigation Conduit (Schedule 40 PVC) is shown on the Construction Detail Sheets.

The item Irrigation Conduit (Schedule 40 PVC) is a non-pay item and should be paid for as part of Plastic Pipe (Schedule 40) Supply Line, see SSP 20-2.08D.

Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #52: Are there as-builts of the building to be removed? Has the building been cleared of any asbestos or other hazardous materials? The informational handout did not include any building demolition reporting.
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:No As built of the buildings are available. The building removal would include removal of lead and asbestos if present. See section 16-1.01 and section 14-11.11 of the special provisions.
Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #53: Section 19-10.01C(3) of the Special Provisions is very unclear as written. As written, the contractor is to construct a 30' x 60' test area for the DSM PPC, then place a 3000 psf surcharge over the grading plane, and then wait for 60 days to see what the settlement is. Is it Caltrans' intention for the contractor to place the DSM test area, fill the approximately 25' of dirt to the final subgrade, then fill another 25' - 30' above the subgrade, and then wait for 60 days? Or is it Caltrans' intention to place the 3000 psf surcharge over the grade from which the DSM is installed? As written, the contractor will spend several months building the surcharge above the grading plane, and then removing the entire fill to build the abutments. This effectively reducing the actual number of days by around 100 work days. Please clarify as to where the contractor is to place the 3000 surcharge from.
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:Place the 3000 psf surcharge over the grade from which the DSM is installed.
Response posted 04/08/2014




Inquiry #54: As the bridge abutments are in cut, please verify that Section 19-6.03D of the Standard Specifications is not applicable to this contract.
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:The first sentence of Standard Specification 19-6.03D says it applies where an embankment settlement period is specified. No embankment settlement periods are specified in the structural technical special provisions.
Response posted 04/02/2014




Inquiry #55: On Plan Sheet #710, there are 3-4" electrical conduits shown hanging from the bridge. The plan notes refer you to the electrical drawings. There are no electrical plans that show these conduits, except for sheet E-32, which shows a fiber optic cable going across the bridge. What are these conduits for and are they part of the electrical package or are they part of the bridge package? There are no separate bid items for these conduits.
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:Sheet E-32 shows one 4" conduit for fiber optic/interconnect cable to be hung under the bridge. The other 2 conduits shown are not required.
Response posted 04/02/2014


Response #3:Bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 04/04/2014




Inquiry #56: Regarding Inquiry #16; Response #2 states the segment length should be 380.38', see Addendum 2. When was Addendum 2 issued, also what happened to Addendum 1? When can we expect an Addendum to be issued? Due to the time constraints of the bid being a mere two weeks away, and the needed time for analyzation of the Addenda and questions yet to be answered, we respectfully ask Caltrans to postpone the bid opening at least 2 weeks.
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2014

Response #1:Response to BI#16 was in error. Revised response to BI#16 will be posted.
Response posted 04/01/2014




Inquiry #57: Line BYSH from 33+15 to 33+50 show a ditch on the right side. This is neither on the layouts or constuction details. Is the ditch part of the project or is it just a mistake on the cross section.

Please delay the bid date of the project 4 weeks due to all of the unanswered questions.

Inquiry submitted 04/01/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:The ditch is shown on grading plan sheet G-2, and is part of the project.
Response posted 04/02/2014


Response #3:Addendum 1 changed the bid date to May 13, 2014.
Response posted 04/07/2014




Inquiry #58: On plan sheet 62/C-11 on line BYSH, pavement elevations #'s 69 & 70 differ from the BYSH cross section by almost a foot. Which one is correct?
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:Follow the cross section elevation.
Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #59: On sheet L-9 both of the TR3 & TR4 lines are called out to have structural section #3 (0.10' HMA OGFC / 0.50' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A). However, on sheets X-16 & X-23 both lines are called out to have structural section #21(0.50' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A). Which one is correct?
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/01/2014


Response #2:Use structural section #21.
Response posted 04/02/2014




Inquiry #60: Reference the Medallions to be constructed on sheet #119, there is a callout for 3 foot high precast concrete letters to be install in the concrete being poured. How is this paid for?? Is their a perferred supplier that is available for these letter??
Inquiry submitted 04/01/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/02/2014




Inquiry #61: In Section Ten of the Foundation Report for the Broadway Overcrossing, it says that Bay Mud or native fat clays should not be used "in constructing the approach fill and bent and abutment backfill". Can Caltrans specifically define the limits of where these materials may not be placed?
Inquiry submitted 04/02/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/03/2014


Response #2:Bay mud and native fat clays are unsuitable for earthwork per section 19-1.01B and section 19-7 of standard spec. in addition to the areas mentioned in the foundation report, these materials are not be placed under roadway structural section and sidewalks. Follow section 19 of the standard spec for earthwork.
Response posted 04/09/2014




Inquiry #62: Regarding the Lightweight Embankment Material (Cellular Concrete), how is the excavation for this item to be paid?
Inquiry submitted 04/02/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/03/2014


Response #2:Excavation for the "Lightweight Embankment Material (Cellular Concrete)" is accounted for in the Roadway Excavation Totals.
Response posted 04/08/2014




Inquiry #63: The Special Provisions on page 8, bid item 104, call for to maintain existing planted areas. The Special Provisions, however, do not specify for how long the contractor is to maintain the existing planted areas.
Please clarify how long is required to maintain the existing planted areas.

Inquiry submitted 04/02/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/03/2014


Response #2:Per section 20-2.03D of standard specs, Maintain existing planted areas must be maintained from the 1st working day through Contract acceptance.
Response posted 04/08/2014




Inquiry #64: ITEMS #294,EAA-SFT,#295,ALT.FLARED TS,#296,ALT.IN-LINE TS:
Specials Section 83-1.02C(2) & (3):
Midwest Guard Rail System is specified. Should 31 inch Midwest Guard Rail Systems be specified for the above Items?

Inquiry submitted 04/02/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/03/2014


Response #2:Yes. Refer to 2010 RSP mentioned in the special provisions.
Response posted 04/08/2014




Inquiry #65: How is water pipe removal paid?

How is Water pipe abandonment paid?

Provide diameter and pipe material for water & Sewer pipe to be removed.
Delineate/Quantify ACP (Asbestos Cement Pipe) meterials to be removed.

Detal B SSD-1 Shows a 60X48 concentric cone terminating with a 48" diameter Frame & Cover. Is this your intention or do want to further reduce the 48" to 24" and provide a 24" diameter frame & Cover for access?

SSD-6 shows Wet Tap of 33" RCP. Is the existing pipe Reinforced Concrete Pipe or Concrete Cylinder Pipe. If indeed is RCP provide more detail for the wet taps.

Provide minimum and maximum flows (GPM)for Sanitary Sewers.

Provide working pressure for all Sanitary Force Mains.

Provide sufficiant geotechnical information on instu materials to determine dewatering requirements and potential of ground settlement during dewatering operations.

Inquiry submitted 04/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideraton.
Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #66: Bidder Inquiry #9 has not been answered. The high voltage power lines are a serious safety issue for all personnel, including Caltrans personnel, and needs to be addressed. Considering the approaching bid date, the absence of any response or direction from PG&E or Caltrans, the following is recommended to handle the high voltage power line issue. Caltrans should add an allowance bid item to the bid item list with a stipulated cost amount to handle all PG&E costs in dealing with the power line issue. This would be fair to all bidders and not deal the bid opening date.
Inquiry submitted 04/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/03/2014


Response #2:Adequate clearances are available for construction around the power lines. See response to bidder question 9.

Response posted 04/04/2014




Inquiry #67: The plans have various concrete elements (precast and C-I-P)that are shown to contain integral colors. Is there a listing or chart that shows the specified colors and which concrete elements they are used for? The cost of color additives and their use rate can vary significantly.
Inquiry submitted 04/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/03/2014


Response #2:A chart is not available. Integral colored concrete items except Medallion letters to use Benjamin Moore classic colors "Boardwalk" 1102 concrete color. Medallion concrete letters to be Antique Bronze" ME 204 by Modern Masters and must match color of metal letters on the gateway walls.
Response posted 04/11/2014




Inquiry #68: In the new x-Section files, there are a set with SWL lines, where are they located in the plans?
Inquiry submitted 04/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/03/2014


Response #2:For "SWL" see sheet DD-12 Section O-O
For "SWL1" see sheet DD-10 Section D-D
For "SWL2" see sheet DD-10 and Section G-G For "SWL4" see sheet DD-12 and Section P-P For "SWL5" see sheet DD-12 and Section Q-Q For "SWL6" see sheet DD-11 and Section L-L For "SWL7" see sheet DD-11 and Section N-N For "SWL8" see sheet DD-13 and Section S-S.

Response posted 04/08/2014




Inquiry #69: Referencing Section 77-5.03:

1. What color is the integrally colored concrete?
2. What is a "light sand blast finish" form liner? Please provide a detail for this form liner.
3. How is the anti-graffiti coating and efflorescence concrete sealer paid for? What are the limits where each is placed?

Inquiry submitted 04/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #70: With respect to Caltrans' response for Inquiry #5, has Caltrans Survey verified the given elevations of the power lines? Most of the piling work for the On Ramp Bridge and a substantial portion of the DSM work on the west side of 101 is directly impacted by the elevation of these lines. PG&E's rough estimates for working near the lines are in excess of $10k per day; should the lines not be as shown will Caltrans pay for any and all additional costs?
Inquiry submitted 04/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/03/2014




Inquiry #71: The existing structure Section 4 for Bayshore is defined as .10'-.70' HMA/ 0-.67' CTB/variable plant mix sub base and base.

The Sewer plans define the existing section as . 67' HMA over .83' Concrete.

Which one is existing and if it is concrete is it reinforced? CRCP or JPCP?

Inquiry submitted 04/03/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/04/2014




Inquiry #72: ITEM #53, REMOVE SIGN STRUCTURE:
#SS3-C Is a two-post Sign Structure spanning across five(5) lanes of Broadway at Rollins Road. Please provide a
Traffic Control chart for the complete closure of Broadway to facilitate the safe removal of this Structure.

Inquiry submitted 04/04/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/04/2014




Inquiry #73: The Bid Schedule for Bid Item #277 list the total footage for CL3, Vinyl as 613'. Sheet 459 (Q-2) lists the total footage for CL3, Vinyl as 1,811' (613' from structure plans).

**Please revise the bid schedule for bid item #277 to 1,811 LF as listed on the Summary of Quantities.

Inquiry submitted 04/07/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/08/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 2, issued on April 9, 2014.
Response posted 04/11/2014




Inquiry #74: The Bid Schedule for Bid Item #278 list the total footage for CL6, Vinyl as 302'. Sheet 459 (Q-2) lists the total footage for CL6, Vinyl as 4,543' (302' from structure plans).

**Please revise the bid schedule for bid item #278 to 4,543 LF.

Inquiry submitted 04/07/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/08/2014


Response #2:See Addendum 2, issued on April 9, 2014.
Response posted 04/11/2014




Inquiry #75: In reference to BI #56, we understood your second response but your third response muddied the waters again. Neither the bridge plans nor the electrical plans show how or where these electrical conduits are terminated if they are there for future use. Can Caltrans provide drawings that show the termination points and method of termination? Should there also be a bid item that quantifies the payment of these conduits?
Inquiry submitted 04/09/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/09/2014




Inquiry #76: 1) Referencing the Lime Treatment - in the standards the method of payment for lime treatment is by area for mixing, etc. and by tonnage for the Lime material. There is no lime tonnage item for payment. Will this item be added??

2) The location of the Lime Treament has some areas outside of the roadway section. Is the lime treatment to be perform on the original ground or the subgrade of the roadway?? The answer to Inquiry #8 is incomplete with regards to the exact location.

Inquiry submitted 04/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/11/2014


Response #2:
1) Section 24-2.04 of 2010 standard specifications states " Lime stabilized soil is measured from horizontal measurements of the planned surface of the lime stabilized soil."
The work is paid as item code 240105. No additional lime tonnage item will be added.

2) Perform lime treatment on subgrade of the roadway in cut situation and on the original ground in fill situation on the areas shown on C-81 thru C-85 , and in accordance with the typical sections and design cross sections.

Response posted 04/14/2014




Inquiry #77: 19-10.01D only specifies the sampling and testing frequency of Wet Grab Samples for the PPC Program. Please clarify the required sampling and testing frequency for Wet Grab Sampling during the remainder of the production soil mixing as well as the coring sampling and testing frequency for the project so that pricing can be more accurate.
Inquiry submitted 04/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/11/2014




Inquiry #78: Per Plan Sheet 794, the legend shows Limits of Structure Excavation (Type D) at MSE Walls. Is this to be paid under Bid Item 86?
Inquiry submitted 04/10/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/11/2014




Inquiry #79: In previous bidders questions concerning the high voltage lines over the southern end of the project, Caltrans has responded that the lines will not be relocated and Caltrans will not arrange for the lines to be de-energized during construction.

PG&E has indicated that the cost to de-energize the lines is difficult to determine from the bid documents, but their preliminary estimate would be upwards of $1,000,000 million dollars plus. With this huge unknown cost to the project, will Caltrans reconsider arranging the de-energizing of the lines or at least consider amending the special provision to consider this cost as extra work to eliminate the high degree of uncertainty of what cost to include in our bid?

Inquiry submitted 04/11/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/11/2014




Inquiry #80: Bid Items 265: Sheet SSD-9 details various bypasses for the Sanitary Sewer connections associated with Sheet SS-6. Can you include a detail of your proposed bypass connection to the 51" VCP Main at the intersection of Cadillac and Rollins Rd? The plan call for a modification to the manhole base and in doing so would require a significant bypass. Also it would be helpful to include peak/ offpeak flows to calculate a bypass system sufficient to handle the flows.
Inquiry submitted 04/11/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/11/2014




Inquiry #81: Plan sheet C-43 (94 of 814) implies that all the Y-1 and Y-2 materials could be buried in the bridge fills in stages 2/1 and 3/1. My take-off shows that this area will only absorb 15,600 CY of Y-1 and Y-2 materials. Also there is about 6,500 CY of Y-1 and Y-2 materials that are excavated after the stage 3/1, so the potential on-site burial area is completed.

I feel that Caltrans needs to have two bid items for this work. One item would pay for Y-1 and Y-2 materials buried on-site and a second item for Y-1 and Y-2 materials that need to be off-hauled and disposed of at a commercial site.

Inquiry submitted 04/15/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/15/2014






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.