Bidder Inquiries

Sign In | Create Account

Viewing inquiries for 05-1F7104

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Section 39-2.02C calls for using a material transfer vehicle on HMA type A mix, does this include the Repair Failed Areas? If yes, how would the contractor use a MTV for 4' wheel track Repair Failed Areas?
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/16/2018


Response #2:Refer to Section 39-2.01C(3)(e) of the Standard Specifications for requirements of Prepaving Grinding. Bid per current contract documents. Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated January 30, 2018.
Response posted 01/25/2018




Inquiry #2: Section 83-2.01B(3)(f) calls for using a mechanical or vibratory screed for the Vegetative Concrete placement, does this include areas adjacent or under the MGS? If yes, how would you fit a mechanical or vibratory screed under the MGS without damaging it since this is normally handwork?
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/16/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated January 30, 2018.
Response posted 01/30/2018




Inquiry #3: Section 39-2.01C(3)e, "Prepaving Grinding," does not mention what labor and equipment is to be used for the prepave grinding. Please provide details on what crew and equipment will be expected for each prepave grinding shift.
Inquiry submitted 01/16/2018

Response #1:submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/17/2018


Response #2:Refer to Section 5-1.01 of the Standard Specifications. Where the means and methods to complete the work are not described in the Contract, choose the means and methods to complete the work.
Response posted 01/22/2018




Inquiry #4: Section 39-2.01C(3)e, “Prepaving Grinding,” states to perform prepave grinding after prepaving inertial profiling and to correct areas of localized roughness with an International Roughness Index (IRI) greater than 180 in/mi. There is no Mean Roughness Index (MRI) requirement mentioned. Considering IRI affects MRI, what MRI must the surface meet after the prepave grinding?
Inquiry submitted 01/17/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/17/2018


Response #2:Refer to Section 39-2.01C(3)(e) of the Standard Specifications for requirements of Prepaving Grinding. Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/23/2018




Inquiry #5: Plan Sheet Q-1 shows a quantity of 2,046 Ton of Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (Gap Graded) for HMA Dikes, we assume that means the RHMAG under the dikes and not the dikes themselves, correct?
Inquiry submitted 01/18/2018

Response #1:Correct. Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 01/21/2018




Inquiry #6: Caltrans Standard Specifications 2015, Section 6-1.05 Specific Brand or Trade Name and Substitution states "reference to a specific brand or trade name establishes a quality standard and is not intended to limit competition. You may use a product that is equal to or better than the specified trade name if authorized".

Further, FHWA Title 23 CFR 635.411 states Federal Funds shall not participate, directly or indirectly, in payment for any premium or royalty on any patented or proprietary material, specification, or process.

The MSKT is a Caltrans approved in-line terminal and we believe it should be allowed for use on this project.

Please review and clarify why Caltrans will only allow the proprietary Softstop on this federally funded project.


Inquiry submitted 01/25/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/26/2018


Response #2:If the project contract documents have an approved PIF (FHWA Public Interest Finding) for the proprietary system, the brand named in the contract or an equivalent may be required for use by the contractor. The district should authorize an equivalent system, if indeed it's considered equivalent or better, per SS 6-1.05. The contractor will need to submit a substitution request to use any product that is equal to or better and/or has been approved for use in the past.
Response posted 01/26/2018


Response #3:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated January 30, 2018.


Response posted 01/31/2018




Inquiry #7: We do not agree with this. Caltrans Standard Specifications 2015, Section 6-1.05 Specific Brand or Trade Name and Substitution states "reference to a specific brand or trade name establishes a quality standard and is not intended to limit competition. You may use a product that is equal to or better than the specified trade name if authorized".

Further, FHWA Title 23 CFR 635.411 states Federal Funds shall not participate, directly or indirectly, in payment for any premium or royalty on any patented or proprietary material, specification, or process.

The MSKT is a Caltrans approved in-line terminal and we believe it should be allowed for use on this project.

Please review and clarify why Caltrans will only allow the proprietary Softstop on this federally funded project.


Inquiry submitted 01/25/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/26/2018


Response #2:If the project contract documents have an approved PIF (FHWA Public Interest Finding) for the proprietary system, the brand named in the contract or an equivalent may be required for use by the contractor. The district should authorize an equivalent system, if indeed it's considered equivalent or better, per SS 6-1.05. The contractor will need to submit a substitution request to use any product that is equal to or better and/or has been approved for use in the past.
Response posted 01/26/2018


Response #3:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated January 30, 2018.


Response posted 01/31/2018




Inquiry #8: Just clarifying Inquiry #1 response, to check the Pre-pave grinding specifications and not answering about the MTV? Section 39-2.02C calls for using a material transfer vehicle on HMA type A mix, does this include the Repair Failed Areas? If yes, how would the contractor use a MTV for 4' wheel track Repair Failed Areas?
Inquiry submitted 01/26/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/26/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated January 30, 2018.
Response posted 01/30/2018




Inquiry #9: In reference to bidder inquiry # 7 and Caltrans response "Response #2:If the project contract documents have an approved PIF (FHWA Public Interest Finding) for the proprietary system, the brand named in the contract or an equivalent may be required for use by the contractor. The district should authorize an equivalent system, if indeed it's considered equivalent or better, per SS 6-1.05. The contractor will need to submit a substitution request to use any product that is equal to or better and/or has been approved for use in the past."

In reviewing the specifications for this project, I do not find a PIF included in the contract documents.
Caltrans Section 6 also appears to be left out of these contract documents.

It is our opinion that the MSKT should be listed in Section 83 as an allowable MASH In Line Terminal. The MSKT and Softstop are equal alternates and should be treated as such.

Is there a Public Interest Finding on this project which is why Caltrans will not allow competition?

Inquiry submitted 01/26/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/26/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated January 30, 2018.
Response posted 01/30/2018




Inquiry #10: The special provisions do not specify a certain type of pavement marking material to be used. The specifications do call for a 5 year warranty, including a warranty bond for the traffic stripes and markings. Does the State intend on allowing the contractor to decide which material they want to use, as long as it comes with a 5 year warranty? Please clarify the intent for this project.
Inquiry submitted 01/30/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/30/2018


Response #2:Refer to Section 84-5 of the Special Provisions for requirements.
Response posted 01/31/2018




Inquiry #11: With only 120 working days on a $13 million dollar contract it doesn't appear that Caltrans has given enough working days with regards to JMF approval, material procurement, subcontractor coordination, etc... Please advise if Caltrans can add additional working days to make the completion time more reasonable and realistic?
Inquiry submitted 01/31/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 01/31/2018


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 3, dated February 2, 2018.
Response posted 02/05/2018




Inquiry #12: Please clarify Item 33 - Stain Galvanized Surfaces. Section 78 calls for staining only the steel posts for Midwest Guardrail System and did not mention any of the rails, terminal systems and crash cushion to be stained. Also, same section shows pricing for staining steel posts only. Thanks
Inquiry submitted 02/02/2018

Response #1:Refer to Section 78-4.05 of the special provisions. Only the steel posts for the Midwest Guardrail System will receive the stain.
Response posted 02/05/2018




Inquiry #13: Caltrans response to Inquiry #10 still does not provide an answer to the material that is to be utilized. The project Special Provisions under Section 84-5.02 Materials only provides information to the reflectivity of the applied product. As a bidder we need to know what striping material is being required on the project.
Inquiry submitted 02/02/2018

Response #1:Refer to Section 5-1.01 of the Standard Specifications and Section 84-5 of the Special Provisions. The Department is not specifying a specific material to be used. The specification requires the contractor to select a material that meets the requirements listed.
Response posted 02/05/2018




Inquiry #14: With regards to Inquiry #11, with only 140 working days on a $13 million dollar contract it still doesn't appear that Caltrans has given enough working days with regards to JMF approval, material procurement, subcontractor coordination, etc... No contractors have an approved RHMA mix design currently and that process can take up to 40 days. Also, based on the given items of work another 60 working days would be reasonable to complete the project on time.
Inquiry submitted 02/05/2018

Response #1:Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 02/06/2018




Inquiry #15: The special provisions are calling out 6x8x14" plastic blocks, there is 3000' of F dike under the GR. Just want to confirm if Caltrans is wanting a 6x12x14" block on GR where dike is under GR or are they sticking with a 6x8x14" block.


Inquiry submitted 02/06/2018

Response #1:Refer to Section 83-2.02C(1)(a) of the Special Provisions, 6-by-8-by-14-inch plastic blocks are required for line posts.
Response posted 02/06/2018




Inquiry #16: How is payment made for the concrete demo/removal necessary to construct the Type 27 barrier transitions?
Inquiry submitted 02/06/2018

Response #1:Refer to Section 83-3.03D of the Standard Specifications.
Response posted 02/06/2018




Inquiry #17: In the Electronic bid book (Expedite) quantities have not changed from 120 to 140 for bid item 2. Is there a reason for this not to change?
Inquiry submitted 02/07/2018

Response #1:Item 2 has been changed, EBS indicates 140 WDAY.
Response posted 02/07/2018




Inquiry #18: If Backfill is required prior to pouring the vegetation control per section 83-2.01B(2)(d) Backfill Material, will the material be paid under bid item 14 Shoulder Backing?
Inquiry submitted 02/07/2018

Response #1:Refer to Section 83-1 of the Standard Specifications and Section 83-2.01B of the Special Provisions. Clearing, excavation, and backfill required to construct minor concrete vegetation control is included in the vegetation control item.
Response posted 02/08/2018


The information provided in the responses to bidder inquiries is not a waiver of Section 2-1.07, "JOB SITE AND DOCUMENT EXAMINATION" 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.


Contracting Information

Statewide Alerts and Other Information