Viewing inquiries for 11-2M6304

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Within Section 30-4.01D(4)(b) Test Strip and then in Section 30-4.03H Supplemental Compaction - It requires recompaction of CIR within 2 to 4 days of initial compaction. This may be in contradiction to curing requirements of section 30-4.03G Maintain and Protect Surface. Recompaction must be conducted after curing is complete and during sunlight hours with higher pavement temperatures to be effective. In addition, with traffic closure limitations there is no way to recompact within 4 days since the CIR operation will be longer than 4 days, without the CIR operation stopped for a day to several days while recompaction catches up. This is even more of an issue with the intelligent compaction requirements, since if in fact an RE does require the supplemental compaction to be done four days after CIR, in the middle of the project, then with the intelligent compaction equipment required on the reroll, this would cause a major cost increase and cause a disruption to the project during the CIR. The CIR operation should be continuous and then recompaction of the entire roadway should be conducted after curing is complete. This is the way every CIR job has been conducted to date in the State as well as North America. With respect to the State projects, this requires a change order post bid or ignoring the specification requirement which is commonly done. Please advise.

Section 30-4.01D(4)(c) Quality Control Testing - Quality Control Requirements Table – Footnote D appears to be associated with CT308 and CT309 Testing not CT375 as indicated. Please Advise.

Section 30-4.01D (4) (d) Smoothness - An MRI on the CIR is specified without significant experience on whether the requirements are reasonable for the CIR of this project. It is required to place the CIR 0.25’ in thickness. The CIR is subject to the variability of the existing road and maintenance treatments as well as the environmental conditions when placed, all leading to changes in screed density and potential bumps. How is a placement contractor able to make the smoothness requirements as specified without excessive bump grinding and leaving a potentially weaker structural section open to traffic while smoothness requirements are met? Why not a percentage improvement or a reasonable mandatory bump grind specified so that the RE’s do not have to deal with changes to the specification after the fact? Please advise.

Section 30-4.02H Asphaltic Emulsion - It specifies that Grade SSIh or Grade CSS1h is to be used. In discussing the issue with the emulsion suppliers, the ERA typically used for CIR generally meets all the requirements of CSS1h. However, in some instances, the ERA may meet all the quality requirements except for the storage requirements, since the material is used to break faster for a quick release to traffic on the CIR. The storage requirements are not applicable for the CIR fog seal since the material is used daily. Why can’t the ERA be used for fog seal on this project? It guarantees compatibility. In addition in most all projects for the State, the 1:1 (50/50) dilution has been waived and the Fog Seal is applied at a 60 (water)/40 (emulsion) dilution instead. There is less pickup and it spreads smoother. Please advise.

Section 30-4.03C(8) Compacting Equipment – It requires that rollers be at least 5.6 feet wide. Steel rollers generally come in widths of 5.5 feet and 6.5 feet. Although the 6.5 feet wide rollers are heavier, in most cases due to a larger contact area they actually have fewer pounds per foot than the 5.5 feet roller. Therefore in some cases a 5.5 feet roller may be preferred. Please advise.

Section 30-6.01A(4)(d)(iii) IC Test Strip – It indicates that after each Intelligent Compaction roller “pass” … ten density tests are required. It appears that the requirement should be for each roller “coverage” not “pass”. The difference is requiring approximately 300 nuclear density tests (based on coverage) which is already excessive to requiring 900 (based on pass) for just the test strip.






Inquiry submitted 04/24/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/24/2014


Response #2:
Bidder Inquiry 1A
Within Section 30-4.01D(4)(b) Test Strip and then in Section 30-4.03H Supplemental Compaction - It requires recompaction of CIR within 2 to 4 days of initial compaction. This may be in contradiction to curing requirements of section 30-4.03G Maintain and Protect Surface. Recompaction must be conducted after curing is complete and during sunlight hours with higher pavement temperatures to be effective. In addition, with traffic closure limitations there is no way to recompact within 4 days since the CIR operation will be longer than 4 days, without the CIR operation stopped for a day to several days while recompaction catches up. This is even more of an issue with the intelligent compaction requirements, since if in fact an RE does require the supplemental compaction to be done four days after CIR, in the middle of the project, then with the intelligent compaction equipment required on the reroll, this would cause a major cost increase and cause a disruption to the project during the CIR. The CIR operation should be continuous and then recompaction of the entire roadway should be conducted after curing is complete. This is the way every CIR job has been conducted to date in the State as well as North America. With respect to the State projects, this requires a change order post bid or ignoring the specification requirement which is commonly done. Please advise.

Response 1A: Please refer to Addendum No. 2, dated May 1st, 2014.

Bidder Inquiry 1B
Section 30-4.01D(4)(c) Quality Control Testing - Quality Control Requirements Table – Footnote D appears to be associated with CT308 and CT309 Testing not CT375 as indicated. Please Advise.

Response 1B: Please refer to Addendum No. 2, dated May 1st, 2014.

Bidder Inquiry 1C
Section 30-4.01D (4) (d) Smoothness - An MRI on the CIR is specified without significant experience on whether the requirements are reasonable for the CIR of this project. It is required to place the CIR 0.25’ in thickness. The CIR is subject to the variability of the existing road and maintenance treatments as well as the environmental conditions when placed, all leading to changes in screed density and potential bumps. How is a placement contractor able to make the smoothness requirements as specified without excessive bump grinding and leaving a potentially weaker structural section open to traffic while smoothness requirements are met? Why not a percentage improvement or a reasonable mandatory bump grind specified so that the RE’s do not have to deal with changes to the specification after the fact? Please advise.

Response 1C: Please bid per the current contract documents.

Bidder Inquiry 1D
Section 30-4.02H Asphaltic Emulsion - It specifies that Grade SSIh or Grade CSS1h is to be used. In discussing the issue with the emulsion suppliers, the ERA typically used for CIR generally meets all the requirements of CSS1h. However, in some instances, the ERA may meet all the quality requirements except for the storage requirements, since the material is used to break faster for a quick release to traffic on the CIR. The storage requirements are not applicable for the CIR fog seal since the material is used daily. Why can’t the ERA be used for fog seal on this project? It guarantees compatibility. In addition in most all projects for the State, the 1:1 (50/50) dilution has been waived and the Fog Seal is applied at a 60 (water)/40 (emulsion) dilution instead. There is less pickup and it spreads smoother. Please advise.

Response 1D: Please bid per the current contract documents.

Bidder Inquiry 1E
Section 30-4.03C(8) Compacting Equipment – It requires that rollers be at least 5.6 feet wide. Steel rollers generally come in widths of 5.5 feet and 6.5 feet. Although the 6.5 feet wide rollers are heavier, in most cases due to a larger contact area they actually have fewer pounds per foot than the 5.5 feet roller. Therefore in some cases a 5.5 feet roller may be preferred. Please advise.

Response1E: Please refer to Addendum No. 2, dated May 1st, 2014.

Bidder Inquiry 1F
Section 30-6.01A(4)(d)(iii) IC Test Strip – It indicates that after each Intelligent Compaction roller “pass” … ten density tests are required. It appears that the requirement should be for each roller “coverage” not “pass”. The difference is requiring approximately 300 nuclear density tests (based on coverage) which is already excessive to requiring 900 (based on pass) for just the test strip.

Response1F: Please refer to Addendum No. 2, dated May 1st, 2014.


Response posted 05/01/2014




Inquiry #2: 1) On page 139 of 287 of the project specifications in Contract#11-2M6304, Section 39-1.03E states the following: “Use the OBC specified on your Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form. No adjustments to asphalt binder content are allowed.”

Section 39 has historically allowed the contractor to adjust the laboratory design OBC (target value) to accommodate changes in the aggregate properties and/or normal plant production variability. Not being allowed to adjust the mix design OBC and binder set point will likely result in failed mix verifications. Being aware of this concern Caltrans has agreed to modify the 2015 Standard Specifications (current draft specification effective 3-7-2014) to allow the plant binder set point to be adjusted by ± 0.2 percent during mix verification. Will Caltrans issue an addendum or contract change order to compensate the contractor for lost time and additional mix verification trials associated with the inability to adjust the plant binder set point?

2)On page 142 of 287 of the project specifications in Contract#11-2M6304, Section 39-1.08A states the following: “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.”

Section 39 has 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. Recognizing this, the above noted binder set point requirements have been removed from the current 2015 Standard Specifications (current draft specification effective 3-7-2014). Will Caltrans issue an addendum or contract change order to compensate the contractor for lost time and other negative impacts associated with the overly restrictive binder set point provision?

3) For the Bid Item No. 22 “Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded)”, what is the design air void and OBC requirement for the mix design


Inquiry submitted 04/25/2014

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 04/25/2014


Response #2:1) On page 139 of 287 of the project specifications in Contract#11-2M6304, Section 39-1.03E states the following: “Use the OBC specified on your Contractor Hot Mix Asphalt Design Data form. No adjustments to asphalt binder content are allowed.”

Section 39 has historically allowed the contractor to adjust the laboratory design OBC (target value) to accommodate changes in the aggregate properties and/or normal plant production variability. Not being allowed to adjust the mix design OBC and binder set point will likely result in failed mix verifications. Being aware of this concern Caltrans has agreed to modify the 2015 Standard Specifications (current draft specification effective 3-7-2014) to allow the plant binder set point to be adjusted by ± 0.2 percent during mix verification. Will Caltrans issue an addendum or contract change order to compensate the contractor for lost time and additional mix verification trials associated with the inability to adjust the plant binder set point?

Response 1: Please refer to Addendum No. 2, dated May 1st, 2014. Please bid per the current contract documents.



2)On page 142 of 287 of the project specifications in Contract#11-2M6304, Section 39-1.08A states the following: “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.”

Section 39 has 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. Recognizing this, the above noted binder set point requirements have been removed from the current 2015 Standard Specifications (current draft specification effective 3-7-2014). Will Caltrans issue an addendum or contract change order to compensate the contractor for lost time and other negative impacts associated with the overly restrictive binder set point provision?

Response 2: Please refer to Addendum No. 2, dated May 1st, 2014. Please bid per the current contract documents.


3) For the Bid Item No. 22 “Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded)”, what is the design air void and OBC requirement for the mix design.

Response 3: Please refer to Addendum No. 2, dated May 1st, 2014.

Response posted 05/01/2014




Inquiry #3: Please indicate why the term polymer was removed from the descriptive text in the materials property table 37-6.02A, General thus allowing only an epoxy polymer to be used on this project as the High Friction Surface Treatment resin binder. Other Caltrans projects utilizing this spec section have allowed for either epoxy or polymer material usage.

The use of the alternative 37-6.02A “polymer” technology as a resin binder system will allow a more rapid return to traffic, more flexibility with weather conditions and an advantage to the State as far as a competitive bid.

Inquiry submitted 05/06/2014

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


Response #2:Please bid per the current contract documents.
Response posted 05/08/2014






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.