Viewing inquiries for 05-1H4204

Submit new inquiry for this project


Inquiry #1: Plan sheet X-1 shows the typical cross sections for Route 192 to either have AC dike or shoulder backing on the outside edges. The shoulder backing is shown to be 3’ wide. Most shoulder areas on this job have very narrow shoulders and would require excavation or fill in order to achieve a 3’ wide shoulder. Excavation would consist of rock and a slope cut, and fill would possibly be next to a creek. There are no bid items for excavation or embankment. The same issue exists for where the safety edge may go. Please clarify in detail what the shoulder work consists of.
Inquiry submitted 03/14/2017

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


Response #2:For tapered edge refer to Std Plan P74 for locations where pavement edge treatment is not required, including "Narrow Side Slopes".

Limits of shoulder backing can vary based on terrain.

Shoulder widening is not part of proposed work and is not intended to accommodate shoulder backing.

Response posted 03/17/2017




Inquiry #2: Standard Specification Section 39-2.03C states that a Material Transfer Vehicle (MTV) must be used when placing RHMA-G. There are many overhead obstructions, including utilities and trees. A MTV is around 12’ high. Is there enough clearance for this machine on Route 192? If not, who is responsible to raise conflicting utilities and trees?
Inquiry submitted 03/14/2017

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


Response #2:Refer to Section 5-1.36 of the Revised Standard Specifications.

Bid per current contract documents.

Response posted 03/17/2017




Inquiry #3: Standard Specification Section 39-2.03C states that a Material Transfer Vehicle (MTV) must be used when placing RHMA-G. This MTV weighs about 75,000 pounds and is supported by only 4 tires. Are there any under or in ground structures that cannot handle the load of this vehicle? The plans do not include any existing structure information.
Inquiry submitted 03/14/2017

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


Response #2:Refer to Section 5-1.37 of the Standard Specifications and Section 5-1.36 of the Revised Standard Specifications. For work proceeding under a construction contract, the Department will only review proposed overload conditions after award of the contract and only for the awarded contractor. The contractor is encouraged to submit all extralegal/overload requests at the start of the contract.

Bid per current contract documents.

Response posted 03/17/2017




Inquiry #4: Plan sheet Q-2 shows a spreadsheet for Adjusting Utilities to Grade. All this work is to be done by others. Does this work by others include lowering of the utilities before the cold planing operation?
Inquiry submitted 03/14/2017

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


Response #2:Yes.
Response posted 03/15/2017


Response #3:Yes.
Response posted 03/15/2017




Inquiry #5: Project Specification section 39 states, “Replace the 3rd and 4th paragraphs in section 39-2.01B(2)(b) with: Treat aggregates with lime slurry with margination." Treatment of aggregate with dry lime has been an acceptable method in District 5 on previous projects. Is there a reason that dry lime treatment of the aggregates is not allowed?
Inquiry submitted 03/14/2017

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


Response #2:Refer to Addenda #1, dated March 17, 2017.
Response posted 03/17/2017




Inquiry #6: Plan sheet C-2 shows some typical locations for the misc AC to be paved with HMA. Plan sheet Q-1 shows the Misc AC to be 110 tons and 850 SY. The plans do not show enough detail to bid the Misc AC work properly. Please provide the detail on how 850 SY and 110 tons for this work was generated, including each location’s description, size, side of the road, PM, and tonnage so the item can be bid properly.
Inquiry submitted 03/14/2017

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


Response #2:Refer to Addenda No. 1, dated March 17, 2017. Place HMA (Misc Area) quantities have been accounted for with all specified locations shown on C-1 & C-2, and are included in the table on Q-1.

Response posted 03/17/2017




Inquiry #7: Plan sheet C-1 shows AC Ditch Conforms and Typical Driveway Conforms to be paved with RHMA-G. This type of paving is much different than mainline and side road conform paving. Please provide the detail for each AC Ditch including SY and tons per location. Please provide the detail for each Driveway Conform including address, width, SY, side of road, and tons per location.
Inquiry submitted 03/14/2017

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


Response #2:Refer to C-1 detail for driveway conforms. Quantities for this work are included in Q-1 Pavement Structure Table. Also, refer to Section 2-1.07 of the Revised Standard Specifications.

Bid per current contract documents.

Response posted 03/15/2017




Inquiry #8: Plan sheet C-1 shows fog sealing of the AC Berm and typical over-side and down drains. Please provide the location of each area to be fog sealed including the PM, side of road, and SY per location.
Inquiry submitted 03/14/2017

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


Response #2:Refer to Section 2-1.07 of the Revised Standard Specifications. An estimate of the quantity required to fog seal existing dike, berm, overside drains, and downdrains as shown on C-1 is included on Q-1.

Bid per current contract documents.


Response posted 03/15/2017




Inquiry #9: Standard Specification Section 39-2.01A(4)(i)(iii), "Pavement Smoothness," states that the completed surface of the new roadway after cold planing and overlay activities is to be 75 in/mi or less MRI and that there be no areas of local roughness over 160 in/mi IRI. Looking at the pre bid smoothness data that was provided by Caltrans, the average MRI numbers for the existing surface of these roads is very rough. There are areas that would normally have Pre-Pave Grinding performed before overlay operations. This project does not have a bid item for Pre-Pave Grinding. Removing and replacing a constant depth of asphalt follows the existing imperfections of the roadway. The State and the Construction Industry have agreed that each opportunity for smoothness results in about a 30% smoothness improvement. For this project a 30% improvement in smoothness is still way out of specification limits. It is unrealistic for the State to expect the smoothness to be improved to 75 MRI or less than 160 IRI without extensive corrections to either the existing surface prior to the cold planing or to the final HMA surface after the overlay operation when the plans say to cold plane a constant depth and place a constant depth overlay. Smoothness corrections to get the surface within specification after the final surface placement would most likely result in more than 25% of the new asphalt being removed, which is not acceptable. These roads also have multiple turns, multiple vertical curves/hills, and/or multiple stop signs on them which do not allow the Inertial Profiling to be done at a constant speed which could result in inaccurate IP data. The smoothness specifications do not include enough detail to address how to achieve smoothness on roadways like the ones included in this project. Please clarify.
Inquiry submitted 03/14/2017

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


Response #2:The pavement profile smoothness requirements on this project are specified in the current contract documents. Bid per current contract documents.
Response posted 03/20/2017






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.