Viewing inquiries for 10-1F6104

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Bid Item #9 for Prepaving Grinding is listed as a Lump Sum. Historically, this item has been quantified by days to avoid disputes tied to the new MRI/IRI specifications. By not quantifying this item with a suitable unit of measure, the design of the project now rests solely on the contractor as they may choose alternative methods of construction (Mill & Fill vs. ALR Grinding vs. HMA Leveling). This will ultimately lead to an imbalanced playing field as the contractors now partake into an integral part of design during the project bidding / building phase. For an example, if a contractor decides to mill the entire project limits to achieve the desired pre-pave MRI/IRI specifications, than the new .10’ layer of RHMA may not be sufficient as the overall structural section has been significantly reduced. Lump Sum bids received will not be true comparisons of each other nor reflect similar scope. This concern is currently being discussed in the STG meetings with Cal Trans Headquarters and has been determined that there are significant issues in changing the unit of measure from “Days” to “Lump Sum”.
Please change Bid Item 9 quantity from “Lump Sum” to “Days” and quantify the amount of days necessary so ALL contractors can accurately bid the project and ALL prices are reflective of the same scope.
[Feel free to reference contract 11-2M9604 (bid 2/16/17) and 10-1F5704 (bids 3/15/17) which had similar issues during the bidding phase pertaining to Prepaving Grinding. Ultimately, an addendum was issued on both of these contracts changing the unit of measure from Lump Sum to Days.]

Inquiry submitted 03/14/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/14/2017


Response #2:No changes will be made to the Bid Item No. 9 unit of measure. Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 03/27/2017




Inquiry #2: Is this project considered a "Pilot Project"?
Inquiry submitted 03/15/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/15/2017


Response #2:Reference revised standard specification 2-1.09 BID ITEM LIST and standard specification 5-1.02 CONTRACT COMPONENTS and Submit a bid based on the bid item quantities shown on the Bid Item List.
Response posted 03/27/2017




Inquiry #3: On sheet Q-1, Summary of Quantities, Charts Repair failed areas and Shoulder repair failed areas have an overstated amount of Cold plane (bid item 16) as well as HMA (bid item 10). Specifically the first description in both charts EB Rte 152 On/Off-Ramp which has a length that is twice the amount shown on sheet C-2 for this location. However, the widths shown in the same charts appear to be correct. Will the state please verify their quantities for Bid item 16 and 10
Inquiry submitted 03/15/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/15/2017


Response #2:Quantities for Bid items 10 and 16 are correct. Length shown on Q-1, under "Repair Failed Areas" EB Rte. 152 ON/OFF Ramp is correct for ON-RAMP length and OFF-RAMP lengths together. As shown on sheet C-2:
EB Rte. 152 ON-RAMP = 1050 L.F.
EB Rte. 152 OFF-RAMP = 1050 L.F.
for a total of 2,100 L.F. (which is shown on Q-1)
For further clarification, please see Motorist Information Plan sheet MI-1 and MI-2.

Response posted 03/21/2017




Inquiry #4: On sheet Q1, Summary of quantities, Chart, Conform taper at Public road intersections has values that do not equate. All Area calculations are in error, as the width and length when multiplied do not equal the corresponding SY. Will the State please verify that their quantities are correct for bid item #10 (HMA)?
Inquiry submitted 03/15/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/15/2017


Response #2:Summary of Quantities, Chart, Conform taper at Public road intersections bid item #10 (HMA) quantities are correct.
Details shown on sheet C-1 identify values reflected on sheet Q-1 correctly, but additional quantities
are needed for the tapered portion of the public intersections. In order to account for flared/tapered sections of the public intersections and calculate total square yards, additional quantities were added.
Response posted 03/21/2017




Inquiry #5: In response to the State's response on inquiry #3. If the length is correct as Caltrans states in their response AT 1050 LF for each ramp, than the width is in error as neither ramp has a traveled way of 28' wide as currently shown. Sheet Q-1, Summary of Quantities, charts repair failed areas shows a width of 28' wide for 2100 LF. Obviously the width is 14', and can be easily field measured or viewed on Google earth. Basically EB Rte 152 ON-RAMP= 1050 LF Long and 14LF wide and EB Rte 152 Off RAMP =1050 LF long and 14 LF wide. When you multiply them you get a value of 3,267 SY not 6,534 SY as shown on Sheet Q-1. The same error exists in the Shoulder repair failed areas. Will the state please revise the quantity for the Cold plane and the HMA quantities?
Inquiry submitted 03/22/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration
.
Response posted 03/22/2017


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 1 dated March 30, 2017.
Response posted 03/30/2017




Inquiry #6: According to plan sheet Q-1 'Roadway Quantities', the 'Conform Tapers at Private Driveways' is designated to be HMA Type A. However, since these are only a 3' length taper overlay with no grinding, it will be more cost effective and time efficient for these private driveway tapers to be RHMA-GG.
Inquiry submitted 03/28/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/28/2017


Response #2:Refer to Addendum No. 1 dated March 30, 2017.
Response posted 03/30/2017




Inquiry #7: There is an abundant amount of existing crack fill on this project that is not scheduled to be removed during the replace ac surfacing operations. These areas may not show up on the IP reports initially, but when the RHMA-G is placed, the crackfill material tends to shove and create new areas of roughness. How does the state plan on addressing these areas?
Inquiry submitted 03/29/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/30/2017


Response #2:
The crackfill locations will be identified during construction and noted on the initial IP report by both the Engineer and Contractor. Per Spec Section 39-2.01C(3)(e), “Prepaving Grinding,” these areas can be identified and if they cannot be corrected by prepaving grinding, the Engineer may order you to either not correct this area or correct by a different method.
Response posted 04/04/2017




Inquiry #8: Section 39-2.01C(3)(e) Prepaving Grinding applies to existing asphalt concrete surfaces:

1. That will not be cold planed or milled
2. That will receive and HMA overlay less than or equal to 0.20 foot exclusive of OGFC
3. If a bid item for prepaving grinding day is shown on the bid item list

Since there is not bid item for prepaving grinding DAY, what specification section pertains to bid item 9 Prepaving Grinding?

Inquiry submitted 03/29/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/30/2017


Response #2:
Refer to Addendum No. 2, dated April 3, 2017.
Response posted 04/04/2017




Inquiry #9: Can the contractor remove part of the existing structural section by method of cold plane (not diamond grinding)to obtain the pre-paving grinding surface requirements? If so, are they required to replace the previously existing section prior to RHMA-G overlay?
Inquiry submitted 03/29/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/30/2017


Response #2:
Per Spec Section 39-2.01C(3)(e), “Prepaving Grinding,” correct areas of localized roughness greater than 180 in/mi. The final lift should be equivalent to the previously existing section thickness.
Response posted 04/04/2017




Inquiry #10: After a jobsite examination was performed, many areas throughout the project limits are in need of AC surfacing replacement. These areas are not shown on the summary sheets. These areas also cannot be correct via diamond grinding as severe surface failure has taken place. How is the contractor expected to achieve the smoothness requirements when the existing design is inadequate?
Inquiry submitted 03/29/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/30/2017


Response #2:
Per Spec Section 39-2.01C(3)(e), “Prepaving Grinding,” these areas can be identified and if they cannot be corrected by prepaving grinding, the Engineer may order you to either not correct this area or correct by a different method.
Response posted 04/04/2017




Inquiry #11: After review of the profile data, it seems as if the amount of corrective grinding required will take a majority of the working days. Please add additional days to the contract to bring the Road into the specified tolerances prior to RHMA-G overlay.
Inquiry submitted 03/29/2017

Response #1:Submitted for consideration.
Response posted 03/30/2017


Response #2:
Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 04/04/2017






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.