Viewing inquiries for 08-491804

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Reference Notice to Bidders page 1, paragraph 13, and Special Provisions page 7, section 2-1.03. The Notice to Bidders states that "No prebid meeting is scheduled for this project". Section 2-1.03 describes a "mandatory prebid meeting". Please clarify whether there is a madatory prebid meeting and if so, the date, time, and location of the meeting.
Inquiry submitted 06/10/2013

Response #1:Please refer to Addendum # 1 issued on 06/27/2013
Response posted 07/02/2013




Inquiry #2: There is a conflict in the spec book about the pre-bid meeting for this project.

Page 1 states that there is no pre-bid meeting for this project, while page 7 states that there is a mandatory pre-bid meeting for this project. Please clarify.

If there is a pre-bid for this project, we need to know the date and time. Thank you.

Inquiry submitted 06/10/2013

Response #1:Please refer to Addendum # 1 isued on 06/27/2013.
Response posted 07/02/2013




Inquiry #3: Is there any topography information available in order to do an accurate earthwork takeoff? Can Cross sections or .cad files be available to do this?
Inquiry submitted 06/13/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/02/2013


Response #2:Cross Sections for this project are available as per today July 12,2013.
Potential Bidders who are interested should call
909-829-3331 to arrange for obtaing a copy.
The Cross Sections are on a CD in a pdf format.

Response posted 07/12/2013




Inquiry #4: SECOND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:
Reference Notice to Bidders page 1, paragraph 13, and Special Provisions page 7, section 2-1.03. The Notice to Bidders states that "No prebid meeting is scheduled for this project". Section 2-1.03 describes a "mandatory prebid meeting". Please clarify whether there is a madatory prebid meeting and if so, the date, time, and location of the meeting.

Inquiry submitted 06/17/2013

Response #1:Please refer to Addendum # 1 issued on 06/27/2013.
Response posted 07/02/2013




Inquiry #5: Page 1 of the Special Provisions states "No prebid meeting is scheduled for this project". Page 7 of the Special Provisions states "The Department will conduct a mandatory prebid meeting for this contract". My question is: Is there a prebid meeting for this project.
Inquiry submitted 06/21/2013

Response #1:Please refer to Addendum # 1 issued on 06/27/2013.
Response posted 07/02/2013




Inquiry #6: Is the contractor required to profilograph and grind both the surface of the Type C HMA and the surface of the RHMA-G, or is it acceptable to only profilograph and grind the surface of the RHMA-G (the top surface)?
Inquiry submitted 06/24/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/02/2013


Response #2:Profilograph shall be done at the finish grade. If RHMA-G is the finish grade, profilograph shall be done at RHMA-G.
Response posted 07/08/2013




Inquiry #7: On the HMA Type C Acceptance chart on Page 27 of the Special Provisions, field compaction has subnote "j". Subnote J states that for STANDARD PROCESS the Engineer takes and averages 3 cores per every 250 Tons of HMA placed. This is QA/QC Process, not Standard Process. However, below the chart on Page 28 it states that the Engineer averages the 3 density cores you take from every 250 tons of HMA production. Is it the States intent to average three density cores for every 250 tons or to average three density cores for every 750 tons as is stated in Section 39-4.04A of the QA/QC section (page 454 of the Standard Specifications)?
Inquiry submitted 06/24/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/02/2013


Response #2: Section 39-1.23A(1) on page 23 of the special provisions indicates to produce and place the 1" HMA-Type C under the QCQA construction process.

On page 25, HMA Type C Minimum Quality Control of the special provisions, the requirement for field compaction is 1 per 750 tons. For QCQA this would be the average of 3 density cores taken from every 750 tons of HMA placed (1 core per 250 tons) per the QCQA requirements on page 454 of the 2010 Standard Specifications. For the Standard construction process only, footnote "J" indicates to take and average 3 cores per 250 tons of HMA placed.

The wording on page 28 to take 3 density cores per 250 tons, as well as the Reduced Payment Factor table on Page 29, should have been omitted from the special provisions as they apply only to the Standard construction process.

Response posted 07/20/2013




Inquiry #8: There is an existing AC dike along the outside (right) shoulder both northbound and southbound on Route 62. The contract does not make any provisions for the removal of this dike. Shall the AC dike that exists along the outside (right) shoulder be removed? If so, where is this work to be paid?
Inquiry submitted 06/24/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/02/2013


Response #2:Removal of existing AC dike on the right shoulder is added to the quantities. Addendum #3 will be forthcoming to address this issue.
Response posted 07/20/2013


Response #3:Please refer to Addendum # 3 issued on 07/26/2013.
Response posted 07/31/2013




Inquiry #9: Section 2-1.03 of the Special Provisions (Page 7) states that there will be a mandatory prebid meeting for this contract. However, the Notice to Bidders on Page 1 states no prebid meeting is scheduled for this project. Is there a prebid meeting for this project? If so, please provide a location and time.

Inquiry submitted 06/24/2013

Response #1:Please refer to Addendum # 1 issued on 06/27/2013.
Response posted 07/02/2013




Inquiry #10: The project plans show the existing asphalt on the bridge decks to be removed, however there is no pay item for remove asphalt concrete surfacing (Section 15-5.01C(4)). Where is this removal work paid for?
Inquiry submitted 06/26/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/02/2013


Response #2:Cold plane to remove AC on the bridges is added to the estimates. Addendum #3 will be forthcoming to address this issue.
Response posted 07/20/2013


Response #3:Please refer to Addendum # 3 issued on 07/26/2013.
Response posted 07/31/2013




Inquiry #11: on item 12 temp hydraulic mulch ( BFM ) lump sum . do you have any ideal on the S F for the disturbed areas ? i dont know exactly what areas the contractor will disturb, i can make ten phone calls ,and get ten different answers. Item 35 has 45 acres , is it going to be close to that . Thank you for your time
Inquiry submitted 07/01/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/02/2013


Response #2:The Landscape Architect confirms that the bonded fiber matrix in the median is 45 acres.
Response posted 07/08/2013




Inquiry #12: Reference Special Provisions section 12-2 "Construction Project Funding Signs" on page 9. How many Project Funding Signs are required? Where are the Project Funding Signs to be paid for?
Inquiry submitted 07/08/2013

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


Response #2:An Addendum will be forthcoming to address this issue.
Response posted 07/22/2013


Response #3:Please refer to Addendum # 3 issued on 07/26/2013.
Response posted 07/31/2013




Inquiry #13: Reference Bid Item No. 59 - Crash Cushion (Type CAT). The note in the Table of Contents at the bottom of page v of the 2010 Standard Plans states "Standard Plans for Crash Cushions (Types CAT, ADIEM, etc.) is deleted."
Please provide a detail for the Crash Cushion (Type CAT).

Inquiry submitted 07/08/2013

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


Response #2:2010 Standard Plans deleted all details for Crash Cushions, presumably to allow contractor to use more types of Crash Cushions, it only keep details for Sand filled Crash Cushions. On page 67, note 8 says "Caltrans approved Crash Cushions'. Contractor can submit to Resident Engineer any type of Crash Cushion for approval, for example type CAT.
Response posted 07/20/2013


Response #3:Please refer to Addendum # 3 issued on 07/26/2013.
Response posted 07/31/2013




Inquiry #14: Page 45 of 105 of Contract#08-491804 states: “Use the OBC specified on your Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form. No adjustments to asphalt binder content are allowed.” These requirements are new to Section 39 which historically has allowed the contractor to adjust the laboratory design OBC (target value) to accommodate changes in the aggregate properties during plant production. The contractor has also been allowed to adjust the plant binder set point to account for plant variability. Not being allowed to adjust the mix design OBC and binder set point will result in failed mix verifications. When this occurs as a result of these new provisions will Caltrans compensate the contractor for lost time and cost of testing associated with the failed mix verification(s)?
Inquiry submitted 07/09/2013

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


Response #2:Please note this is a QC/QA Construction Process. QC/QA requires Target Value (TV) for Optimum Bituminous Content (OBC) and TV for grading. Changes in TV are not allowed during construction (not in the past or present). Job Mix Formula (JMF) is proposed by Contractor and verified by Engineer, therefore there is no changes in TV after engineer's verification. Section 39-1.03 Hot Mix Asphalt Mix Design Requirements; may allow change in the JMF during construction, but at the same time requires a new mix design and JMF if there is change in TV for % binder, % grading, binder supplier, asphalt rubber binder, aggregate source, RAP and any material in the JMF. Please be advised that, computer program for statistical analysis accept only TV for Binder and Grading only. Please follow Caltrans Standard Specification 2010 and Caltrans most updated standard Special Provisions in project document.
Response posted 07/22/2013




Inquiry #15: Page 47 of 105 of Contract#08-491804 states: “during production, asphalt binder set point for HMA Type A, HMA Type B, HMA Type C, and RHMA‐G must be the OBC shown in Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form. For OGFC, asphalt binder set point must be the OBC shown on Caltrans Hot Mix Asphalt Verification form.” These requirements are new to Section 39 which historically has allowed the contractor to adjust the laboratory design OBC (target value) to accommodate changes in the aggregate properties during plant production. The contractor has also been allowed to adjust the plant binder set point to account for plant variability. Not being allowed to adjust the mix design OBC and binder set point will result in failed mix verifications. When this occurs as a result of these new provisions will Caltrans compensate the contractor for lost time and cost of testing associated with the failed mix verification(s)?
Inquiry submitted 07/09/2013

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


Response #2:Please note this is a QC/QA Construction Process. For OBC, please follow section 39-1.03E Job Mix Formula Verification from Caltrans Standard Specifications 2010 and most updated and edited Caltrans standard Special Provisions in Project document.
Response posted 07/22/2013




Inquiry #16: Page 33 of Contract#08-491804: Within the table, the 3/8” grading requires the mix to be produced with a DP 0f 0.9 ‐2.0. The industry standard and Caltrans previous specification requires a DP range of 0.6 – 1.2. It is widely accepted by HMA designers that attempts to design a ⅜” Type A mixes with a DP of 0.9 ‐2.0 can be problematic. Specifically, meeting the percent voids filled with asphalt (VFA) “keyhole” of 73% to 76%, the minimum percent voids in mineral aggregate (VMA), and the minimum Hveem stability requirements. It is very difficult to produce a mixture having these properties in a laboratory environment and near impossible to consistently replicate these properties through an HMA plant. Trying to increase VMA to meet the minimum requirement will generally results in less particle‐on‐particle contacts leading to reduced stability. Trying to achieve a VFA of 73.0% to 76.0% generally requires increased binder and/or increased rock dust also resulting in lower stabilities. If the mixture cannot be produces at the specified 0.9 – 2.0 DP will Caltrans issue a change order lowering the DP to the industry standard of 0.6 to 1.2 and compensate the contractor for failed attempts to meet the elevated DP?
Inquiry submitted 07/09/2013

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


Response #2:Please bid as per current contract documents.
Contractor must follow Caltrans Standard Specifications 2010 and most updated and edited Standard Special Provisions (SSP’s) of contract document.
Response posted 07/31/2013




Inquiry #17: The plans call for a "flume downdrain", but do not specify if it is plastic, steel, or alumimum. What type of pipe shall be used to construct the flume downdrain?
Inquiry submitted 07/09/2013

Response #1:The flume downdrain is according to Standard Plan D87D. It is made of corrugated metal.
Response posted 07/10/2013




Inquiry #18: Reference plan sheet 33 of 104. This sheet indicates that Erosion Control (Bonded Fiber Matrix) is to be placed on 45 Acres which is basically the width of the entire median for the length of the project. Will the contractor be required to remove ALL existing vegetation in the median prior to placement of the Erosion Control (Bonded Fiber Matrix)?
Inquiry submitted 07/10/2013

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


Response #2:The median will be cleared and grubbed. Soldier trees will be removed as specified and paid for in the estimates.
Response posted 07/20/2013




Inquiry #19: Reference Bid Item No. 48 - Bar Reinforcing Steel (Epoxy Coated) and Plan Sheet 88. Plan sheet 88 shows a quantity summary box for "seal pavement joint and bar reinforcing steel (epoxy coated)" for JPCP pavement leading one to believe that this item is for rebar in the JPCP. Is this item intended to cover the cost of the tie bars, dowel bars, basket assemblies etc. that are required in the JPCP and typically incidental to the JPCP? If not, what is Bid Item 48 intended for?
Inquiry submitted 07/12/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 07/15/2013


Response #2:Quantities for JPCP do not include Bar Reinf. steel(epoxy coated) which include all steel required for the bar reif. steel placed in the concrete.
Response posted 07/20/2013




Inquiry #20: Are the "B" seals on the bridge decks to be replaced as part of this project? If so, how are they to be paid?

Inquiry submitted 07/15/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
Response posted 07/15/2013


Response #2:There are no seals of any type on the bridges.
Response posted 07/20/2013




Inquiry #21: Item 57 - Transition Railing (Type WB) Usually requires a reinforced concrete anchor block to accommodate the WB attachment . The existing concrete barrier/railing does not meet the required dimensions for the WB attachment. Normally an Item for minor concrete is part of the contract for this work. Request you provide a detail and contract pay item for this requirement.
Inquiry submitted 07/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/20/2013


Response #2:Field inspection showed there are existing and relatively new connection blocks for connections to the WB railings. There are no needs for new connection blocks.
Response posted 07/22/2013




Inquiry #22: Item 59 - Crash Cushion (Type CAT) Can a FLEAT-MT be used as an alternative for the Type CAT?
Inquiry submitted 07/16/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/20/2013


Response #2:An Addendum will be forthcoming to address this issue.
Response posted 07/22/2013


Response #3:Refer to Addendum # 3 issued on 07/26/2013.
Response posted 07/31/2013




Inquiry #23: The cross sections referenced in Bidder Inquiry #3 and provided by the State do not have any proposed design on them, thus not allowing a takeoff to be done. Are there cross sections that incorporate and show the proposed design?
Inquiry submitted 07/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/20/2013


Response #2:There is no new design in this overlay project. The left shoulders are widened by 5 ft. Cross-sections with lay-out of the left shoulders are available at District 08 PBI Desk today. Please call (909) 829-3331 to arrange for getting a copy.
Response posted 07/23/2013




Inquiry #24: Reference Bid Item No. 12 - Temporary Hydraulic Mulch (Bonded Fiber Matrix) - 1 Lump Sum and Section 13-5.01 of the 2010 Standard Specifications. The second paragraph of Section 13-5.01 states that "The Engineer designates the areas to receive soil stabilization materials.....". Please consider changing the pay unit for Bid Item No. 12 to SF, SY, or AC as we are unable to bid a lump sum item when we do not know the quantity that the Engineer may designate for Temporary Hydraulic Mulch.
Inquiry submitted 07/17/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/20/2013


Response #2:Please refer to Addendum # 3 issued on 07/26/2013.
Response posted 07/31/2013




Inquiry #25: The cross sections that were supplied to the contractors only have existing topographical information; there is no proposed grading information on them. Can Cal Trans please furnish the bidders with cross sections that have industry-standard information, such as both existing and proposed finish surfaces on them?
Inquiry submitted 07/19/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/20/2013


Response #2:There is no finish grade for overlay. Finish grade is on widening of the left shoulders by 5 ft. The x-sections with the new shoulders are available at District 08 PBI Desk today, in pdf format, Please call (909)829-3332 to arrange for getting a copy.
Response posted 07/23/2013




Inquiry #26: The response to Inquiry #19 is rather confusing. Bid Item # 48 (Bar Reinforcing Steel, Epoxy Coated). Does this item include the dowel bars/baskets and tie bars for the JPCP?
Inquiry submitted 07/23/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/23/2013


Response #2:The estimates have separate bid items for concrete and steel reinf. in the Jpcp pavement. Item #48 include epoxy coated steel,tie bars,etc..to be put in the concrete. The standard plans show the sizes of steel reinf. bars, the spacings, etc... The bid item for Jpcp pavement does not include concrete and steel bars together.
Response posted 07/23/2013




Inquiry #27: Page 47 of 105 of Contract#08-491804 states:

“During production, asphalt binder set point for HMA Type A, HMA Type B, HMA Type C, and RHMA-G must be the OBC shown in Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form. For OGFC, asphalt binder set point must be the OBC shown on Caltrans Hot Mix Asphalt Verification form.”

These requirements are new to Section 39 and the Section 39 Superpave pilot project specifications which have historically allowed the contractor to adjust the plant binder set point to account for plant variability. Not being allowed to adjust the binder set point to target the CEM 3512 OBC during production will increase the probability of negative pay factors and/or high performing HMA pavements being rejected.

Will Caltrans issue a change order removing the above noted language, i.e., “during production, asphalt binder set point for HMA Type A, HMA Type B, HMA Type C, and RHMA-G must be the OBC shown in Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form. For OGFC, asphalt binder set point must be the OBC shown on Caltrans Hot Mix Asphalt Verification form.” from the contract specifications?

Inquiry submitted 07/25/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/30/2013


Response #2:Please bid as per current contract documents.
Contractor must follow Caltrans Standard Specifications 2010 and Standard Special Provisions (SSP's) of contract document.
Response posted 07/31/2013




Inquiry #28: Could you please provide a clear answer for Inquiry 18? The question was will ALL vegetation in the median be removed? There are several Tamarisk trees in the median along the roadway and at the drainage channels that may or may not interfere with the work. Are all the median trees to be removed? And what are soldier trees? Do you mean SHOULDER trees at the bottom of the slopes where the flume drains are to be installed on the outer edges of the road? Please clarify if soldier trees means that or something else.
Inquiry submitted 07/29/2013

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 07/30/2013


Response #2:Not ALL vegetation in the median will be removed by Clearing and Grubbing. Only the trees that do not allow the widening of the left shoulders in the Eastbound and Westbound directions will be removed.
Soldier trees is simply the term used by D8 for regular trees.
Response posted 07/31/2013






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.