Bidder Inquiries

Sign In | Create Account

Viewing inquiries for 05-1J3004

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: 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".

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 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




Inquiry #2: The detail on C-1 'southbound longitudinal conforms under 13th street overcrossing" identify a proposed thickness of 0.2'. Per the Specifications, that thickness requires a 3/4" rhma bwc material. However, the rest of the mainline is 1/2" mix. Will Caltrans allow this detail and details like it to be 1/2", consistent with the rest of the project?
Inquiry submitted 02/09/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 02/09/2018


Response #2:Refer to the table in the 2nd Paragraph of Section 39-2.05B(2)(d) of the Standard Specifications, ½" gradation is acceptable.
Response posted 02/09/2018




Inquiry #3: It is our understanding that ground surfaces to receive 0.10’ RHMA do not require pre-pave grinding. By removing 8 miles of Open Grade via cold planning the mainline, the entire project should be omitted from pre-pave grinding on the mainline. What scope does Item #19 cover?
Inquiry submitted 02/12/2018

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 02/12/2018


Response #2:Refer to Section 39-2.01C(3)(e) of the Standard Specifications and Section 36-3 of the Revised Standard Specifications, specifically Section 36-3.01D(3)(b)(i).

The Prepaving Grinding Days are for use at the following ramps with traffic lanes 1,000 feet or longer:
-NB Spring St Off-ramp
-SB 46W On-ramp
-NB Main On-ramp
-SB Main On-ramp.

Bid per current contract documents.

Response posted 02/14/2018




Inquiry #4: Grinding off .08' and replacing with .10' RHMA will not be sufficient to meet smoothness requirements. Will the pre pave grinding occur on the existing surface prior to cold planing?
Inquiry submitted 02/14/2018

Response #1:Refer to Section 39-2.01C(3)(e) of the Standard Specifications, prepaving grinding days do not apply to cold planed surfaces.

Refer to notes 8 and 9 on plan sheet X-1 (#2 of 83). Bid per current contract documents.

Response posted 02/14/2018


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