Viewing inquiries for 07-1170U4

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Are contour grading plan sheets available for this project? If yes, please provide.
Inquiry submitted 11/07/2013

Response #1:The Contour Grading Plans are in Sheet # 157 and 158 out of 1475.

G-1, Sheet # 157 for Vincent Ave Undercrossing.
G-2, Sheet # 158 for Azusa Ave Undercrossing.

Response posted 11/08/2013




Inquiry #2: Please furnish flow charts for the sewer lines showing peak times and flow amounts. Please Identify high and low flows for a seven day period so we can design the bypasses accordingly.
Inquiry submitted 11/14/2013

Response #1:Bid as per Plans.
Response posted 11/14/2013




Inquiry #3: On sheet No. 786 of the project drawings, SW-68, the page shows the aesthetic design for the masonry sound wall. On the "Sound Wall Pattern" Elevation, to the far right, there's a note that says the pattern will repeat approx. every 66'-0"

The pattern is actually 99'-4" long. So is that a typo? And does the wall pattern repeat every 99'-4"? Thank you.

Inquiry submitted 11/20/2013

Response #1:The correct pattern repeat is approximately 99’-0” not the 66’-0” shown on the plans, and the pattern does repeat every 99’-0”.
Response posted 11/20/2013


Response #2:
Response posted 11/20/2013




Inquiry #4: Ref. Plan Sheet 1182 of 1475; We assume the girder lengths given in the table are measured from center of abutment to center of abutment. Please confirm.
Inquiry submitted 11/26/2013

Response #1:The "girder length" shown in the table on sheet 1182 of 1475 is end to end length. Please refer to "Elevation" and "Bearing Stiffener Details" of same sheet for clarity.
Response posted 11/26/2013




Inquiry #5: On page 204, last sentence, it states to seal the longitudinal construction joints with compression seal. CT never seals the construction joints in this application. I am verifying if this statement is to be followed or not?
Inquiry submitted 11/26/2013

Response #1:Yes, this statement is to be followed.
Response posted 11/27/2013




Inquiry #6: On Sheets 719 through 783, along with all the CMU sound walls on structure, the design "H" shown for all the CMU sound walls on top of a concrete barrier are incorrect for the CMU portion of that design height. These design "H"s on top of barrier are shown in the plans as 16', 14', 12' and 10'. If you subtract 3'-0" from the barrier from these heights you are left with heights of 13', 11', 9' and 7' which ARE NOT modular for 8" standardize CMU block.

Another problem is that the sound wall quantity, which is final pay, see page 790, is also incorrect because it based on the wrong CMU heights from the elevations. Each of the structure plans quantity sheet that have CMU sound walls is also wrong.

The overall design "H" for the sound walls on barrier either need to be increased or decreased by 4" and the quantity sheet for both the regular sound walls and sound walls on structure needs to be adjusted to reflect an accurate build total.

Also as a side note, the exact CMU aesthetic pattern which was constructed in El Monte and in Baldwin Park DID NOT use a 4" high unit in its construction. Were talking over 20,000+ LF of sound wall that is incorrect in height and quantity. It will require an addendum to address. The normal "bid as you see it" or "bid per contract plans" responses will not suffice. Please clarify. Thank you.

Inquiry submitted 12/03/2013

Response #1:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Until an addendum is issued addressing your concern please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 12/03/2013




Inquiry #7: For the Lark Ellen Avenue UC, please clarify if the rebar at the bottom of the precast girders are #4 or #9 bar (Sheet 1301).
Inquiry submitted 12/03/2013

Response #1:Please refer to Section B-B of sheet no. 1301.
Response posted 12/04/2013




Inquiry #8: Ref. Plan sheet 1183 of 1475; The Girder Shop Splice detail has been crossed out. We assume shop splices in girder flange and web plates will be allowed at approx. 1/3 points. Please confirm.
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2013

Response #1:Your inquiry is being reviewed. Until an addendum is issued addressing your concern please bid per the current contract bid documents.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #9: Per addendum No. 3 plan sheet no. 1009B (E-146) was added to plan set. This plan sheet 1009B references at the center bottom a plan sheet E-146C. Such plan sheet E-146C is missing from plan set. Please provide sheet E-146C.
Inquiry submitted 12/06/2013

Response #1:Please refer to Addendum #4 issued on 12/11/13.
Response posted 12/06/2013




Inquiry #10: Ref. Special Provision 10-1.97 and Plan Sheet 131-

1- This architectural treatment seems to be calling for rock surface recessed and joints to protrude. This is backward to traditional rock surfaces where rock is protruding and joints are recessed. What do you really want?


2- In 10-1.97, SURFACE TEXTURE there is an indication that this surface may be required on the top of the barrier. That is not what your Plan Detail on Sheet 131 shows. Please confirm that the top of barrier is to be a standard finish.

Inquiry submitted 12/09/2013

Response #1:1. The texture is to be constructed as shown on plan. Traffic Safety required this type of design. This detail is what was used for Rt. 10 Segment 1 median barrier which has already been constructed.

2. The texture does not need to be on the top of barrier, it is to be standard finish, as shown in detail.


Response posted 12/09/2013




Inquiry #11: According to plan sheet no. 1013 (E-150) SIC conduit and cable run at south west of the intersection is to be installed to "E Workman Ave approximately 600'." We believe that E Workman Ave is north of the intersection and note is in error. Please clarify. If SIC conduit and cable is to be installed, will SIC cable be required to be installed at next intersection controller or just coiled inside pull box at a given distance?
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2013

Response #1:Please see Addendum #5, issued today, 12/13/13.
Response posted 12/09/2013




Inquiry #12: Please refer to the amendments to the standard specifications contained within the Special Provisions. Are the amendments to the standard specifications considered part and parcel of the Special Provisions? Which will govern in case of conflict?
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2013

Response #1:Please refer to section 5-1.02 of the Standard Specifications.
Response posted 12/09/2013




Inquiry #13: Refer to section 10-3.24 of the Special Provisions. Please confirm that a cost of $4475 per unit is the purchase price (not including sales tax) is inclusive of all costs in the purchase of list of items (including the incidentals) to purchase direct from Pacific Lighting Sales for the duration of the project.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2013

Response #1:The sales price of $4,475.00 per unit includes all the list of items (the incidentals). The quotation of that price from Pacific Lighting Sales, Inc. is valid until January, 14 2014.


Response posted 12/09/2013




Inquiry #14: Refer to section 10-3.24 of the Special Provisions. Please confirm that a cost of $4475 per unit is the purchase price (not including sales tax) is inclusive of all costs in the purchase of list of items (including the incidentals) to purchase direct from Pacific Lighting Sales for the duration of the project.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2013

Response #1:The sales price of $4,475.00 per unit includes all the list of items (the incidentals). The quotation of that price from Pacific Lighting Sales, Inc. is valid until January, 14 2014.


Response posted 12/09/2013




Inquiry #15: Refer to section 4 of the Special Provisions. By virtue of the way the electrical is performed and its systems extend past the limits of the work locations as identified on the charts for incentive/disincentive amounts. Please confirm that the electrical work does not have to be complete to trigger any incentive/disincentive application or please specify if any details to consider.
Inquiry submitted 12/09/2013

Response #1:The electrical system needs to be in operation before reopening the ramp at that stage per plans.
Response posted 12/09/2013




Inquiry #16: Please refer to plan sheet no. 901 (E-38)note 2 under project notes added by addendum no. 3. Note 2 specifies that SCE is to relocate the existing lighting pole in the first part and on the second part it is unclear weather who is to remove foundation, install new foundation, type 30 pole with luminaire. Please clarify if the contractor is to include any work, otherwise all work is assumed by SCE.
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2013

Response #1:The contractor will be responsible to remove the existing foundation, install new foundation and the pole for type 30 with luminaire.
Response posted 12/11/2013




Inquiry #17: The footing layouts for the Lark Ellen, Hollenbeck, Cameron and West Covina bridges shown on sheets 1291, 1318, 1375 and 1347, show footings outside the TCE and ROW indicated on layout drawings L-12, L-16, L-5 and L-6, respectively. The bridge footings are not constructible within the provided TCE footprint. Please provide revised layout drawings with TCE’s that encompass the footprint of the footings and allow for construction of the footings.
Inquiry submitted 12/10/2013

Response #1:Bid per plans.
Response posted 12/11/2013




Inquiry #18: Architectural surface treatment for the concrete barrier types 60G and 60GA.
(1) Is the primary concrete barrier color Fed #20372 integral in the concrete or a stain after the barrier is poured?
(2) The rock surfaces are 4 different colors. Sheet 131 of the plans is unclear on how the rocks are stained? Normally each rock would be stained with one of the colors, with some overlapping for a more natural look. Is that what will be required?
(3) On page 131 of the plans the elevation view shows the Rancho wall pattern and how the rock pattern repeats. The rock pattern is 53" high, but there is not a dimension for the length. What is the length of the repeating pattern to allow for the purchase of the proper size form liners.

Inquiry submitted 12/11/2013

Response #1: 1. The color for the concrete barrier types 60G and 60 GA is a stain not integral color.

2. Yes per the notes on the detail on sheet 131, the stains (color) may overlap to develop a more natural look.

3. Per the Special Provision 10-1.97, the pattern repeats horizontally every 10’ OC.

Response posted 12/11/2013




Inquiry #19: RE: DBE Commitment/Good Faith Efforts Submittals must be received by the Department no later than 4:00 pm on the 4th business day after bid opening. The 4th business day falls on a holiday. Could we get an extension to submit DBE submittal information after the holidays? Thanks.
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2013

Response #1:A business day as defined in Section 1, Page 7 of 292 of the Amendments to the Standard Specifications included in the Contract Special Provisions is a Day on the Calendar except Saturday or Holiday.
Response posted 12/11/2013




Inquiry #20: Please provide plan sheet 1009C as referenced in Addendum #4. This 1009C plan sheet is missing from Addendum #4 plan sheets.
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2013

Response #1:The missing 1009C sheet has been provided.
Response posted 12/11/2013


Response #2:
Response posted 12/11/2013




Inquiry #21: Based upon Addendum 3 being issued with over 150 pages of changes and addendum 4 with 99 sheets of changes, we are requesting an extension of 2 to 3 weeks to fully analysis the project.
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2013

Response #1:This Contract will Bid as scheduled.
Response posted 12/11/2013




Inquiry #22: Are cross sections or complete contour plans for the whole project available as it is not possible to determine the Roadway Excavation quantity from the data provided.



Inquiry submitted 12/11/2013

Response #1:Bid as per plans.
Response posted 12/11/2013




Inquiry #23: In reference to Inquiry No.6, I've just rechecked all the adjusted SQFT. totals changed in Addendum No. 4 for the CMU sound walls. All the total changed in the structure plans are correct, but there are (3) walls in the main SW drawings that are incorrect as far as total quantities.

SW1805 is off by +727.93 SQFT.
SW1888 is off by +923.77 SQFT.
SW1899 is off by =504.26 SQFT.

These SW quantites need to be increased & re-adjusted in the SW Quantity Table (SW-72). They're easily checked by subtracting station points for length and multiplying by CMU SW height. These are "FINAL PAY" quantities. Please adjust & clarify.

Inquiry submitted 12/11/2013

Response #1:Bid as per plans.
Response posted 12/12/2013




Inquiry #24: In addition to the last inquiry, the Total SQFT for Item No. 183 should be approximately 263,120 SQFT.
Inquiry submitted 12/11/2013

Response #1:Bid as per plans.
Response posted 12/12/2013




Inquiry #25: There are existing overhead power lines which run parallel to sound walls 1871 and 1899. There is as little as 5’ clearance from the edge of the power lines to the edge of the sound wall. These walls will not be constructible within Cal OSHA separation guidelines without de-energizing the power lines. Will the Department make arrangements with the utility owner to de-energize these lines to allow sound wall construction?”
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2013

Response #1:Please see addendum #5 issued today, 12/13/13.
Response posted 12/12/2013




Inquiry #26: Structure plan sheet 1411 calls out for 144 LF of type 736SV-C Modified barrier. Sound wall plan sheet 743 shows this same location as being a type 736SV barrier. Please clarify which is the correct application and revise quantities accordingly.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2013

Response #1:The designation and quantity shown on sheet 1411 for concrete barrier is correct.


Response posted 12/12/2013




Inquiry #27: Structure plan sheet 1416 shows 20 LF of type 736SV-C Modified barrier. Sound wall plan sheet 754 shows type 736SV with CIDH piles at 4 foot centers at this same location. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 12/12/2013

Response #1:Please refer to Addendum #5, issued today, 12/13/13.
Response posted 12/12/2013




Inquiry #28: Quantity sheet 616 of 1475 shows type 736SV Modified barrier as being shown in the layout sheets. Layout sheets do not call out any of this type of barrier nor do the sound wall plan sheets. Please clarify where this type of barrier is located.
Inquiry submitted 12/13/2013

Response #1:Bid as per plans.
Response posted 12/13/2013




Inquiry #29: Construction Details C-43 calls for Chain Link Railing (Mod) Post Anchorage Detail refer to Construction Detail C-45, but Construction Detail C-45 is for TYPICAL CROSS SECTION EXCAVATION (AERIALLY DEPOSITED LEAD). Please clarify. Thank you very much.
Inquiry submitted 12/13/2013

Response #1:The Chain Link Railing (Mod) Post Anchorage Detail is in Construction Detail C-42.


Response posted 12/13/2013




Inquiry #30: For Item 220 Chain Link Railing (Modified) the detail shows the railing to be 3' High, but to use 6' chain link fabric, I'm sure it's just a type error, please clarify.
For Item 221 Chain Link Railing (Type 7 Modified), Type 7's Std. Plan is B11-52, but the detail shows a B11-7. What type of railing should it be?

Inquiry submitted 12/13/2013

Response #1:Item 220 Chain Link Railing (Modified); see Construction Details C-42, sheet # 140.

Item 221 Chain Link Railing (Type 7 Modified) details; see sheet # 1231.

Response posted 12/16/2013




Inquiry #31: 1-Ref Plan Sheets 134 and 135; Ref. Plan Sheets 586 and 587- Both these plans are supposed to portray your requirementfor Type 60 Mod. concrete barrier Item 231. These details are substantially diffrent. Which details are we to use?

2-Ref Plan Sheets 134 and 135- These plans are Titled to represent Type 60 Mod. Concrete barrier, but the Elevation Note refers to " Limits of Payment for Concrete Barrier Type 60 GR". There is no contract Item or quantity for Concrete Barrier Type 60GR. Please clarify this contradiction before bid date.

Inquiry submitted 12/14/2013

Response #1:1. Item 231; the details are as shown in sheets 586 and 587.
2. The details are as shown in sheets 586 and 587.

Response posted 12/16/2013




Inquiry #32: Ref Plan sheets 771 and 790- It appears that you only require Type 60 D c0oncrete barrier in front of the concrete retaining wall, approximately 218 LFT, but your quantity table calls for 342 LFT. Please clarify your requirement before bid date.
Inquiry submitted 12/14/2013

Response #1:Bid as per plans.
Response posted 12/16/2013




Inquiry #33: Ref Contract Items 232 Typ 60 C and Item 235 Type 60 GC Barriers- The information you have provided on X Section Plans and Construction Details is insufficient to determine the vertical roadway offsets for these barrier types. Note # 9 on Standard Plan A 76 A and # 7 on Standard Plan A76 D require additional reinforcing if offsets are greater than 1'-0" and substantial added concrete and labor are involved. Will you provide accurate pavment offsets for Items 232 and 235 before the bid date?
Inquiry submitted 12/16/2013

Response #1:Bid as per plans.
Response posted 12/16/2013




Inquiry #34: In the Special Provisions, Traffic Control lane charts, page 131, Chart #1 provides the lane closures for RTE 10, West bound. Page 132, Chart #2 provides the lane closures for RTE 10, West Bound. Both charts are identical. Page 132, Chart #3 provides for RTE 10, East Bound full Freeway closures only. There is no lane closure chart for RTE 10, East Bound. Please provide a lane closure chart for RTE 10, East Bound.
Inquiry submitted 12/17/2013

Response #1:Bid as per plans.
Response posted 12/17/2013




Inquiry #35: Refer to Inquiry # 14 and Section 10-3.24 of the Special Provisions.

1. The contractor understands that the sales price of $4,475.00 per unit (including incidentals, excluding sales tax) corresponds to the price of the units if obtained directly from Pacific Lighting Sales, Inc. Please confirm that the contractor will be able to obtain the units directly from Pacific Lighting Sales, Inc.

2. The contractor understands that the above stated price for the units is effective until January 14, 2014. This contract will not be awarded until after January 14, 2014. Please confirm which price the units will be available at after that date.

Inquiry submitted 12/18/2013

Response #1:1) Yes, the contractor are able to obtain units directly from Pacific Lighting Sales, Inc.
2) Bid as per SSP.
Response posted 12/18/2013




Inquiry #36: REFER TO PLAN SHEET 1070. PLEASE CONFIRM THE "PV" PANEL SHOWN ON THIS PLAN DETAIL IS NOT REQUIRED SINCE THE PLANS DO NOT INDICATE THE USE OF THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM.
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2013

Response #1:We need PV panel for MVDS as shown on plan sheet 1070 (SES 7).
Response posted 12/18/2013




Inquiry #37: REFER TO PLAN SHEETS 953 TO 1020 (TYPICAL). PLEASE CONFIRM THAT ALL MATERIALS/EQUIPMENT "SCHEDULE" INFORMATION SHOWN PREVAIL OVER PLAN DRAWINGS.
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2013

Response #1:All items are not shown on schedule. Only signal poles are shown on schedule.


Response posted 12/18/2013




Inquiry #38: REFER TO PLAN SHEET 1028 GENERAL NOTE #3. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THIS NOTE APPLIES TO EXISTING WORK SHOWN TO BE IN CONFLICT, IF ANY, AS APPLICABLE AND IS PAID FOR AS PART OF THE ROADWAY EXCAVATION ITEM.
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2013

Response #1:The removal of all Abandoned Conduits and Conduit Concrete Encasements are part of the Roadway Excavation.
Response posted 12/18/2013




Inquiry #39: REFER TO PLAN SHEET 1028 GENERAL NOTE #3. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THIS NOTE APPLIES TO EXISTING WORK SHOWN TO BE IN CONFLICT, IF ANY, AS APPLICABLE AND IS PAID FOR AS PART OF THE ROADWAY EXCAVATION ITEM.
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2013

Response #1:The removal of all Abandoned Conduits and Conduit Concrete Encasements are part of the Roadway Excavation.
Response posted 12/18/2013




Inquiry #40: REFER TO INQUIRY #36. THE PLANS OR THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS SECTION 10-3.18 DO NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OR THE REQUIREMENTS OF A "PV" PANEL WORK. PLEASE CLARIFY.
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2013

Response #1:The PV panel should be approximately 26” by 52”.
Response posted 12/19/2013




Inquiry #41: REFER TO PAGE 1071. PLEASE CONFIRM THIS TEMPORARY DETAIL WILL ONLY APPLY WHEN THE POLE IS NOT BUILT ON ITS FINAL CONFIGURATION OR LOCATION.
Inquiry submitted 12/18/2013

Response #1:The temporary pole detail is as shown on plan sheet No. 1071 (SES-8).


Response posted 12/19/2013






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.