22-14-C Request for Clarification Responses

Supplemental Information - Not Part of the Contract Documents

The following list is comprised of paraphrased Requests for Clarification (RFC) submitted by potential bidders or sub-bidders in writing via email, letter, and this form:

22-14-C Request for Clarification Form

These paraphrased questions and associated responses are not part of the contract documents and shall have no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the Standard Specifications, the Standard Plans, the Special Provisions, or the Plans. Nor shall they have any bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of other publications referenced therein.

Questions without answers may be posted here to indicate that we have received them before the deadline and we intend to respond.

Last updated: 10/3/2022 3:49 pm

Are AutoCAD files available for takeoff purposes?  (RFC 49060 submitted 8/31/2022)

CAD format files will not be provided to potential bidders; however CAD may be available to the awarded Contractor once contract gets executed. Cross sections with volume calculations will be uploaded in the Supplemental Information section of the website soon. These sections are for the contractor's information only. This is not to be considered to be part of the contract documents and shall have no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the standard specifications, the standard plans, the special provisions, nor shall it have any bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the other publications referenced therein. Response date: 09/21/2022

Specification No. 20
There are bid items & specs for planting & irrigation, but I did not see any plans. Are there plans for planting & irrigation?  (RFC 49107 submitted 9/2/2022)

Yes, in Region 2, sheets 136 to 172 are planting and irrigation plans. Response date: 09/21/2022

Specification No. 39-3.06 Cold In-Place Recycling (Foamed Asphalt) 
The County's specification for CIR-FA limits the recycling equipment to a multi-unit train only. As the spec is written, a single unit recycling machine is not allowed.

39-3.06A(1) Submittals
3) The CIR recycling unit shall demonstrate the ability to crush, size and screen the RAP used in the CIR process. ** Note there are multiple locations within the county specification referencing multi-unit trains. 

Caltrans currently allows both multi-unit and single unit in-place recycling machines. 

By not allowing single unit machines the amount of specialized subcontractor capable of bidding on this project is reduced. All of the contractors in the state of CA performing CIR on a regular basis have Single Unit Recycling Machines.

SUGGESTED LANGUAGE:
Recycling Equipment: A single-unit self-propelled cold recycling machine with a down cutting cutter head shall be capable of pulverizing and recycling the existing hot-mix asphalt pavement to a maximum depth of 6 inches (0.12m), incorporate the foamed asphalt and compaction water, and mix the materials to produce a homogeneous material.
The milling and mixing unit must be equipped with a gradation control bar that will stabilize the milled surface during milling to prevent the pavement from chunking. The minimum power of this machine shall be 950 hp. The machine shall be capable of pulverizing and recycling not less than 12 feet 6 inches wide in each pass.

The CIR machine must rear load directly into the paver’s receiving hopper or the paver’s loading equipment must pick up the CIR mixture and deposit it in the paving machine without waste. If the paving screed is directly attached to the CIR equipment, feed the CIR mixture directly to the paving screed.

Please see the attached sample specification, this may be a good solution in lieu of the current spec. (RFC 49187 submitted 9/8/2022)
Question details RFC #49187(PDF, 305KB)

Contractor can use single unit recycling machine or multi-unit machine. See Addendum #1. Response date: 09/21/2022

Please provide earthwork cross sections so the contractor can get an accurate earthwork takeoff.  (RFC 49196 submitted 9/8/2022)

The cross-sections have been posted to the website under Supplemental Information. Response date: 09/21/2022

Will the county be adding a shoulder backing bid item?  (RFC 49197 submitted 9/8/2022)

A bid item has been added for Shoulder Backing. See Proposal 2A in Addendum #1. Response date: 09/21/2022

Is the ditch excavation shown on the drainage sheets included in the roadway excavation quantity? If not, will the county provide a bid item for this?  (RFC 49198 submitted 9/8/2022)

Ditch excavation shown in drainage sheets are included in the roadway excavation quantity. Response date: 09/21/2022

Drawing No. Electrical
Plans indicate PG&E to Furnish and install conductors and Street Light poles and the contractor to install conduit and foundations yet the Bid Document do not indicate this, number of foundations is equal to number of 15TS street lights.  (RFC 49241 submitted 9/12/2022)

The quantity for the conductors is correct, however, the quantity of 15TS Poles and Luminaries were incorrect. Refer to the revised quantities of Item No. 112  and the quantity of Item No. 115 in Proposal 2A in Addendum #1. Response date: 09/21/2022

Specification No. 15-1
Specification section 15-1 - Existing Facilities, provides a table labeled "Utility Relocation and Contractor-Arranged Time for the Relocation and Adjustment". 

Question: Are the utility owners completing the work shown in this table? Please clarify which utility relocations and adjustments are the responsibility of the contractor and which are the responsibility of the utility owner.  (RFC 49261 submitted 9/13/2022)

The Contractor is to perform utility relocation or adjustments unless noted "BY OTHERS". However, the Contractor does not need to adjust AT&T manholes to grade. AT&T will adjust their own manholes. Quantities have been adjusted in Bid Item 56 of Proposal 2A in Addendum #1. Response date: 09/21/2022

Specification No. Bid Item 17 - Adjust Utility Box to Grade
City of Selma Drawing Number U-1 shows Utility Note 5 - Adjust (E) Utility Box to Grade. 

Question: Does Utility Note 5 show the utility boxes that are paid in Bid Item 17 - Adjust Utility Box to Grade? Are these utility boxes for water, telecom or PG&E?  (RFC 49263 submitted 9/13/2022)

The utility boxes included in Bid Item 17 are water, PG&E, traffic signal, and streetlight.  Response date: 09/21/2022

Drawing No. City of Kingsburg SC-1 to SC-4

The staging plans for City of Kingsburg show Stage 2 and Stage 3 to be completed by others. When does The County anticipate the completion of Stage 2 and 3? Does the contractor need to wait for Stage 2 and 3 to be completed by others before starting on Stage 4?  (RFC 49264 submitted 9/13/2022)

The Contractor does not need to wait for Stage 2 of 3 to be completed by others before starting on Stage 4. Response date: 09/21/2022

Drawing No. LAYOUT & UTILITY PLANS Specification No. 83: RAILING & BARRIER
The new Midwest Guardrail on Plans for all three Regions appears to closely parallel underground Fiber Optics and Telephone lines on the northbound outside shoulder. Has the Engineer determined if the Guardrail and Utilities are clear and not in conflict?  (RFC 49291 submitted 9/14/2022)

Utilities have not been positively identified. Contractor is responsible for potholing the areas and coordinate with the Engineer before installation if utilities will conflict with the guardrail installation.  Response date: 09/21/2022

Specification No. Bid Item 56 - Adjust Manhole to Grade
The quantity for Bid Item 56 appears to include the Adjustment of (E) Comm Manholes to Grade as shown in the various Utility Plans. The Utility Plans show these Comm Manholes to be owned by AT&T. Typically AT&T adjust their own manholes. Does the County want the contractor to adjust the existing AT&T manholes to grade? Please confirm these manholes are part of bid item 56.  (RFC 49300 submitted 9/15/2022)

Bid Item 56 does include AT&T manholes. AT&T manholes will be adjusted to grade by AT&T. Contractor does not need to adjust AT&T manholes to grade. Refer to the revised quantities of Bid Item 56 of Proposal 2A in Addendum #1. Response date: 09/21/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg Region Phase 1 SB
It seems that the cross section file provided titled Kingsburg Region Phase 1 SB-1 is a duplicate of the file Kingsburg Region Phase 1 NB-1. Can the County please provide the correct file? (RFC 49314 submitted 9/15/2022)

The correct cross-section for Kingsburg Region Phase 1 SB-1 has been uploaded to the website. Response date: 09/15/2022

As a means to expedite the project schedule and reduce overall costs, please consider allowing traffic to drive on a ground/cold plane surface. Will The County allow traffic to drive on a ground/cold plane surface for up to 10 working days before HMA is placed? (RFC 49319 submitted 9/16/2022)

The County will allow traffic to drive on cold plane surface for up to five (5) working days before HMA is placed. Refer to Addendum #1. Response date: 09/21/2022

Specification No. 78-2 Incidental Construction
After survey monuments are replaced, will the Contractor need to record or file records with The County?  (RFC 49320 submitted 9/16/2022)

Yes. See Addendum #1.  No. Contractor is responsible for setting the monument. County Surveyor will file the records required by State Code. The Survey Monument Bid item was mistakenly removed from the Bid Item List – Proposal 2. Addendum #2 addresses (or will address) this and include(s) the Bid Item "Survey Monument." Response date: 09/21/2022 Revised 9/22/2022

Specification No. 39-3.06
There are currently some areas specified to receive a CIR treatment that due to the size and maneuverability of the Cold In-Place Recycling train would greatly slow down production causing the cost of the project to increase. Please see attached marked up plan set for the Fowler Region. Would the county consider switching the areas highlighted in blue over from a CIR treatment to a traditional mill & fill to help streamline the CIR production on this project? The file is too large to submit on this form, can you please provide an email address to submit the marked up plans to?  (RFC 49328 submitted 9/16/2022)
Question Details RFC #49328(PDF, 20MB)

The County will consider switching the areas highlighted in blue to a Grind/Sami-R/Overlay. Each location will need to be reviewed and an alternative pavement section will be determined and approved by the Engineer. The email address is DesignServices@fresnocountyca.gov. Response date: 09/28/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg L4-L16, Specification No. 39-3.06
There are currently some areas specified to receive a CIR treatment that due to the size and maneuverability of the Cold In-Place Recycling train would greatly slow down production causing the cost of the project to increase. Please see attached marked up plan set for the Kingsburg Region. Would the county consider switching the areas highlighted in blue over from a CIR treatment to a traditional mill & fill to help streamline the CIR production on this project? The file is too large to submit on this form, can you please provide an email address to submit the marked up plans to?  (RFC 49329 submitted 9/16/2022)   
Question Details RFC #49329(PDF, 13MB)

The County will consider switching the areas highlighted in blue to a Grind/Sami-R/Overlay. Each location will need to be reviewed and an alternative pavement section will be determined and approved by the Engineer. The email address is DesignServices@fresnocountyca.gov. Response date: 09/28/2022

Drawing No. L-4, Sheet No. 15, Kingsburg
The Kingsburg Plan set shows new Bollards per COF STD P-61. Under which bid item are these bollards paid?  (RFC 49357 submitted 9/19/2022) Bid item has been added for bollards.

A bid item has been added for bollards. See Proposal 2A in Addendum #1. Response date: 09/21/2022

The project plans show existing traffic loops that will need to be removed and replaced. Can The County provide a bid item for replacing traffic loops?  (RFC 49359 submitted 9/19/2022)

A bid item has been added to replace loop detectors at Sierra St. See Proposal 2A in Addendum #1. Response date: 09/21/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg Region Phase 1 NB
Can the County re-upload the cross sections for Kingsburg Region Phase 1 NB-1. The cross sections seem too blurry and the data cannot be vectorized.  (RFC 49360 submitted 9/19/2022)

Cross sections were re-uploaded. Response date: 09/21/2022

Specification No. Bid Item 41 - Remove Concrete Pavement and Base
We are trying to accurately quantify the amount of Concrete Pavement and Base to Remove for Bid Item 41.

Question: Does the bid item quantity for Bid Item 41 include the existing HMA on top of the existing PCC?  (RFC 49371 submitted 9/20/2022)

Yes, includes the HMA on top of existing PCC. Response date: 09/21/2022

Specification No. 39-3.05 Remove Base and Surfacing State

Specification 39-3.05C-Construction, states "Where base and surfacing are described to be removed, remove base and surfacing to a depth of at least 6 inches below the grade of the existing surfacing. Backfill resulting holes and depressions with embankment material under section 19."

The project plans show areas labeled "Remove Base and Surfacing" within the limits of the new Roadway. Should these areas be paid under bid item 23 - Roadway Excavation? (RFC 49373 submitted 9/20/2022)

Remove base and surfacing within new/existing roadway should be paid under Bid Item 23 - Roadway Excavation. Bid item 40 has been updated. See Proposal 2A in Addendum #1. Response date: 09/21/2022

As there are multiple unanswered questions and earthwork cross sections have just been provided, please consider pushing the bid date back to allow contractors ample time to bid the project.  (RFC 49374 submitted 9/20/2022)

At this point, the County is not planning to postpone the bid date. Response date: 09/21/2022

Specification No. Add to Section 12-3.32C
Are Portable Changeable Message Signs required 24/7? If so please specify how many and provide a bid item for payment.  (RFC 49377 submitted 9/20/2022)

A bid item has been added for Portable Changeable Message Signs. See Proposal 2A in Addendum #1. Response date: 09/21/2022

Specification No. 12-4.02C(12)
If Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction Systems are required please provide a bid item.  (RFC 49379 submitted 9/20/2022)

Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction is paid under Bid Item 7 - Temporary Traffic Control. Response date: 09/21/2022

Notice to Bidders
We respectfully request a two week bid extension in order to properly analyze the SWPPP requirements not identified and paid for by bid item, and traffic control requirements needed to comply with the staged construction drawings.  (RFC 49380 submitted 9/20/2022)   

See Addendum #2. Response date: 09/28/2022

Question Details RFC #49386(PDF, 161KB)

(PDF, 161KB)Submittals will be reviewed and approved after Contract award. The Contractor can submit a product submittal of another luminaire indicating how it meets or exceeds the product being replaced for review and approval. Response date: 09/28/2022

Specification No. Caltrans Traffic Permit
The Specifications reference Caltrans 2015 Standard Plans & Specs. The permit references 2018 Standards. Please clarify.  (RFC 49387 submitted 9/20/2022)

Caltrans 2015 Standard Plans and Specs are to be used throughout the project except for work to be done included in the Caltrans Encroachment Permit, use Caltrans 2018 Standard Plans and Specs. Response date: 09/28/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg L-4/Sheet 15, Specification No. Caltrans Permit
The Caltrans permit states lane closures are only allowed at night. It appears that a portion of the work on Sierra St. (Hwy 201) will require lane closures. Will the work in the State ROW on Sierra St. be required to be done at night? If so will the Contractor be charged for inspection and testing for that portion of the work? Please clarify. (RFC 49391 submitted 9/20/2022)

Contractor will need to comply with permit requirements. If Caltrans requires night work only, then County will waive County Inspectors fees for inspections related to the work done under such permit. Contractor shall be responsible for Caltrans inspections fees. Response date: 09/28/2022

Drawing No. Proposed FDR: X-1 Fowler & X-4 Selma
The proposed FDR section in Fowler and Selma are not the same.
Fowler Plan Sheet 3, Drawing X-1, Typical Cross Section Station 457+40.95 to 470+14.97 shows proposed section No. 2 as .55' Grind/.55' HMA/.65' FDR. 
Selma Plan Sheet 6, Drawing X-4, Typical Cross Section Station 413+82.94 to 418+23.89 shows proposed section No. 3 as .55' HMA/.65' FDR.
The FDR portion in Selma does not call for grinding before the FDR process. Is grinding needed for Proposed Section 3 in the Selma Plans? If grinding is required, will the grinding be included in Bid Item 38 - Cold Plane Asphalt Pavement?  (RFC 49392 submitted 9/20/2022)

Proposed section No. 3 has been revised to 0.55' Grind/0.55' HMA/0.65' FDR to match Fowler Plan sheet 3, proposed section No. 2. 
Grind is included in Bid Item 38 - Cold Plane Asphalt. See Addendum #2. Bid quantity has been updated in Bid Item List - Proposal 2B. See updated Selma Plan Sheet 3A." Response date: 09/28/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg G-1/Sheet 2
Note 8 indicates the Contractor is responsible for to obtain permits and pay fees. Can the county provide a list of permits required and associated fees for all contractors to include in their bids?  (RFC 49394 submitted 9/20/2022)

Participating Local Agencies will waive all fees associated with permitting. It is the
Contractor's responsibility to review the plans and specs of the project to determine which permits and fees are required. Response date: 09/28/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg L-1/Sheet 12
There is a return graphically shown at Sta 20+75 on the corner of Golden State and Earl with no station information or call outs. Is this return to be replaced?  (RFC 49395 submitted 9/20/2022)

The information for that curb return can be found on L-17 and CD-1. Response date: 09/28/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg X-2/L-5 The typical on X-2/sheet 4 has a call out for Remove Base and Surfacing which by specification would be outside the roadway excavation prism. Drawing L-6/sheet 17 graphically shows Remove Base and Surfacing both inside and outside the roadway prism. Please clarify.  (RFC 49396 submitted 9/20/2022)   

See Addendum #2. Response date: 09/28/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg L-4/L-5/L-6/L-7/L-8/L-9
The referenced sheets graphically show Remove Base and Surfacing within the roadway prism. Is this excavation paid as Roadway Exc or Remove Base and Surfacing? (RFC 49397 submitted 9/20/2022)

Remove base and surfacing within new/existing roadway should be paid under Bid Item 23 - Roadway Excavation. Bid item 40 has been updated. See Revised Bid Item List Proposal 2B in Addendum #3 Response date: 09/29/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg CD-6/Sheet 37
Detail "D" indicates start and stop stations for a commercial driveway but doesn't graphically depict it? Is the driveway section 4" AC / 6" AB like most others or just 6" AB? Please clarify. (RFC 49399 submitted 9/20/2022)

Driveway has been revised to be depicted correctly. Driveway shown on Detail "D" on CD-6 is just 6" AB. See updated Kingsburg Sheet 37B in Addendum #3. Response date: 09/29/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg CD-7/Sheet 38
All the Details indicate the start and stop stations for commercial driveways but don't graphically show them. Please clarify. (RFC 49400 submitted 9/20/2022)

Driveways has been revised to be depicted correctly. See updated Kingsburg Sheet 38B in Addendum #3. Response date: 09/29/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg SC-2/SC-3
What work is to be completed in Stage 2 & 3? There are no notes on the staging plans. (RFC 49402 submitted 9/20/2022)

No work is to be completed in Stage 2 and 3. Response date: 09/29/2022

Drawing No. G-1 Specification No. 12-4.02A(3)(a)
Drawing G-1 indicates one (1) 11-foot driving lane must be maintained in each direction at all times. Section 12-4.02A(3)(a) states lane closures are limited to 1 mile in County areas and between major signalized intersections within the City limits. Please clarify if the Contractor can temporarily close lanes for any length of the job and time as long as one (1) 11-foot lane is maintained thru the project. (RFC 49411 submitted 9/21/2022)

One (1) 11-foot driving lane must be maintained in each direction. Lane closures along Golden State Blvd within County areas will not be allowed for more than 1 mile at a time, and at least 1 mile must separate lane closure at any time in both directions, or as approved by the County Engineer. In City limits, it must be between major signalized intersections and as approved by the City and County Engineers. Response date: 09/29/2022

Specification No. 39-3.04A Cold Plane
Section 39-3.04A states "Schedule cold planing activities such that the pavement is cold planed, the HMA is placed, and the area is opened to traffic during the same work shift". There are many areas on the project, due to the new structural section being built, that this is not possible or practical. Please consider deleting this requirement or the use of a micro-mill to minimize the raveling once traffic is placed on the milled surface. (RFC 49412 submitted 9/21/2022)

Refer to RFC # 49319 and Addendum #1 Response date: 09/29/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg L-4/Sheet 16
There is a call out for "Replace In Kind Advanced Detectors" . Please provide a plan and pay item for this work. (RFC 49414 submitted 9/21/2022)

Call out has been updated to "Replace in Kind Signal Conduit and Magnetmeters for Advanced Detectors". Pay item added on Bid Item List - Proposal 2B. Response date: 09/29/2022

Drawing No. X-1 Selma Section
Proposed section number 12 is calling for .30 grind/SAMI-R/.30 HMA. 2 lifts of paving in this area will be required, is the County requiring 1/2" mix since the lifts will be less than 2" thick? (RFC 49421 submitted 9/21/2022)

Yes. County will require bottom lift to be 0.1' with HMA Type A 1/2" and upper lift to be HMA Type A 3/4". Proposal 2B added HMA Type A 1/2" bid item. Response date: 09/29/2022

Drawing No. X-1 Selma Section Has the County taken into account the existing Petromat thru the Selma area when the street gets ground? (RFC 49423  submitted 9/21/2022)   

Based on the review of pavement cores in the Selma region, there appears to be a layer between HMA layers that could be an asphalt seal or possibly a geosynthetic interlayer. The bidders should anticipate the potential to encounter Petromat or other geosynthetic layers while executing the work throughout the alignment. Response date: 10/03/2022 

Drawing No. Selma X-1/Sheet 3
Proposed section 3 calls for 0.55' HMA/0.65' FDR. Is the intent to raise the grade 0.55' or should the section indicate 0.55' Grind? (RFC 49425 submitted 9/21/2022)

The proposed section 3 should call out for 0.55' Grind/0.55' HMA/0.65' FDR. See updated Selma Plan Sheet 3A. Refer to Addendum #3. Response date: 09/29/2022

Drawing No. Kingsburg L-13/Sheet 24
At +/- Sta 165 and Sta 166 there is a call out for bollards, please provide a pay item for this work. (RFC 49428 submitted 9/21/2022)

Yes, these are called out on CD-16. Pay item has been added to Bid Item List - Proposal 2B. Response date: 09/29/2022

Specification No. NTB - Bid Date
This is a complex, detailed project that requires a tremendous amount of take-off and quantifying to properly price the project. It would be in the best interest of the County to extend the bid date for two (2) weeks to allow the contractors time to put together the most competitive bid. Please consider a bid date extension. (RFC 49432 submitted 9/21/2022)

Refer to Addendum #2 Response date: 09/29/2022

Drawing No. PC-1 Specification No. 2A Bid Schedule
The PC-1 plan notes have been changed relative to the monuments as well as the Q&A addressed a question regarding the contractors responsibility to submit corner records yet Bid Item 156 - Survey Monument was deleted. How does the contractor get paid for survey monuments? 
Why did the County delete the survey monument bid item? If there are survey monuments that need to be adjusted/reconstructed, the contractor will need a bid item.  (RFC 49433 and RFC 49447 submitted 9/21/2022)

See above response to RFC #49320 and Addendum #3. Response date: 09/22/2022

Specification No. 13 Water Pollution Control
There are no permanent erosion control plans provide. If required please provide plans and bid items for the work.  (RFC 49448 submitted 9/22/2022) 

There is not permanent erosion control work. Response date: 09/29/2022   

Drawing No. D-1 Sheet No 53 - Drainage Plan for City of Kingsburg
Drainage Plan D-1 for City of Kingsburg shows Drainage System No 1 on Laurel Street. What are the trench paving requirements for Laurel Street? Please provide a trench paving detail for this portion of DS-1. (RFC 49453 submitted 9/22/2022)

Use City of Kingsburg Std Plan UT-1 "Trench Backfill Existing Streets". Response date: 09/29/2022

According to Bid Item List, bid item #139(F) shows 55,596 LF of 5/8" drip irrigation tubing. However, based on our takeoff, quantity is only 37,917 LF. Please clarify. (RFC 49457 submitted 9/22/2022)

Quantities have been verified for the whole project and by Point of Connection. Response date: 09/29/2022

According to Bid Item List, bid item #147, gate valve is 1" size. However, the irrigation schedule on sheet IL-1 shows gate valve is line size (2''). Please clarify. (RFC 49458 submitted 9/22/2022)

The 2" Gate Valve is to be used. Response date: 09/29/2022

There are several lateral lines without size shown on IP-01 through IP-11. Please provide a size for lateral line. (RFC 49459 submitted 9/22/2022)

Pipe sizes larger than 3/4" are labeled. 3/4" pipe is not. Response date: 09/29/2022

Confirm civil or Landscape contractor is responsible for hot tapping, service line and 2" water meter shown on IP-01, IP-04 & IP-10. Please provide a detail and model number of water meters. (RFC 49460 submitted 9/22/2022)   

See Addendum #3. Contractor is not responsible for hot tapping service line and 2" water meters. See Addendum #4. Response date: 10/3/2022 

Use Schedule 40 PVC. - Refer to Addendum #3 Response date: 09/29/2022

Clarify for what irrigation items on IL.1, detail 4/ ID-1 shall be used. (RFC 49464 submitted 9/22/2022)

Disregard detail #4 - Refer to Addendum #3. Response date: 09/29/2022

Please provide the irrigation as-built plans if available. (RFC 49465 submitted 9/22/2022)

As-built plans not available. Response date: 09/29/2022

Confirm that all irrigation components (except controllers) to be bid per Caltrans standard specification and description shown on irrigation schedule on sheet IL-1 since there is no model number specified on the irrigation schedule. (RFC 49466 submitted 9/22/2022)

Bid per Caltrans Standard Specifications. Response date: 09/29/2022

What shall be included in bid item 127 Service Irrigation? (RFC 49467 submitted 9/22/2022)

Bid Item 127 - Service Irrigation is the work contained within the Selma Sheets IC-1 through IC-3. This bid should include all items within these sheets. Response date: 09/29/2022

Will there be any roto tilling or soil preparation and plant pit backfilling required? Only package fertilizer is shown for plants under the bid item list. (RFC 49468 submitted 9/22/2022)

Caltrans standards for backfill is to be followed. Response date: 09/29/2022

Per General notes #1 on sheet G-1, work shall be done in accordance with provisions of specifications entitled county of Fresno, standard specification , latest edition. However, per Division I General Provisions , work shall be done in accordance with 2015 Standard Specifications, 2015 Standard Plans and the following special provision. Please provide the precedence for landscape work. (RFC 49469 submitted 9/22/2022)

Refer to Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 30 and Golden State PS&E. Response date: 09/29/2022

Specification No. 39-2.01
Who will be responsible for HMA quality control testing (nuclear gauge, coring, etc.) at the jobsite? Contractor or County? (RFC 49478 submitted 9/22/2022)

Quality Control is responsibility of the Contractor per Section 39-2.01A(3)(c). Acceptance testing is performed by the County. Response date: 09/29/2022

Specification No. 30
Bid item 26 calls out Full Depth Reclamation - Cement (FDR-C) but there doesn't appear to be any specifications regarding this item. Can the county please provide a specification section for this portion of the work? (RFC 49480 submitted 9/23/2022)

Refer to Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 30. Response date: 09/29/2022

Are all the oleanders on the project to be removed? During our inspection of the jobsite, we found that many of the oleanders shown to be removed were already gone. We also found many oleanders that are not shown on the plans. Please consider adding station limits for oleanders to be removed. (RFC 49507 submitted 9/26/2022)

Yes, the intent is to remove all oleanders within the project area. Response date: 09/29/2022

Specification No. ADD#1 Bid Item 156
Bid Item 156 - Shoulder Backing was added to the bid schedule. Is the intention of this item that native material be used for shoulder backing or is a shoulder backing material required? (RFC 49511 submitted 9/26/2022)

The contractor will be allowed to use native soil as long as there is available material on-site. Any imported material shall meet Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 19-9. Response date: 09/29/2022

Specification No. Bid Schedule
There are currently no temporary erosion control plans or bid items. This work can be very extensive on a project of such length. Please considering adding individual bid items or an allowance item for Temporary Erosion Control Measures so bidders aren't left to guess what will be required. (RFC 49512 submitted 9/26/2022)

Temporary Erosion Control is paid under Bid Item 11 - SWPPP Implementation. Response date: 09/29/2022

Drawing No. Selma X-1/Sheet 3
The typical cross section 235+56.27 to 256+81.08 indicates overlay over the existing PCC and AC shoulder. The AC shoulder has raised up at the edge of the PCC such that some method of remediation of the AC shoulder will be needed prior to the overlay. Please clarify what will be required to get the AC shoulder flush with the PCC and how it will be paid. (RFC 49513 submitted 9/26/2022)

If additional cold planing is necessary on the AC shoulders, this will be reviewed and approved by the Engineer. Response date: 09/29/2022

Drawing No. Various Layouts
Assuming the "X" shown on the layouts indicates tree removal, there appears to be over 80 trees marked for removal yet Bid Item 21 - Remove Tree is for 17 each. Please clarify. (RFC 49515 submitted 9/26/2022)

Bid quantity for Item 21 has been updated. Refer to Bid Item List - Proposal Sheet 2B. Response date: 09/29/2022

Specification No. ADD#3 - 2B Bid Schedule
Bid Item 162 - HMA (Type A) 1/2" was added to the bid schedule, does this mean Item 29 - HMA (Type A) is 3/4"? Also, we don't usually see HMA bid items by aggregate size on public works projects and there is no designation of HMA by size of aggregate indicated on the plans. Please clarify where each type of HMA by size of aggregate is to be used so contractors can properly price each bid item. (RFC 49550 submitted 9/28/2022)   

Quantity was calculated where pavement strategies were less than 0.2' HMA. In addition, where the pavement strategy is 0.30'grind/SAMI-R/0.30' HMA; 1/3 of the area was calculated to use 1/2" aggregate size as a result of RFC #49421 response "Yes. County will require bottom lift to be 0.1' with HMA Type A 1/2" and upper lift to be HMA Type A 3/4". Proposal sheet 2B added HMA Type A 1/2" bid item" Response date: 10/3/2022   

Drawing No. U1 to U-13
In order to properly bid for item 161 2" water meters contractor needs to know the size of the water main for hot tap. Utility plans only show location of water main but no size? What is the size of the water main? (RFC 49577 submitted 9/29/2022)   

CalWater is responsible for providing water meter and hot tapping. Contractor shall coordinate with CalWater. See Addendum #4. Response date: 10/03/2022   

The response to RFC 49480 is telling us to refer the Caltrans section 30, unfortunately, section 30 is not specific to the soil conditions, without this information we will be guessing on what exactly to base our FDR proposal on. (RFC 49592 submitted 9/30/2022)   

The Contractor shall refer to Caltrans Standard Spec Section 30-4.01C(2)(b) Mix Design. It is the Contractors’ responsibility to field and lab testing to appropriately come up with the mix design. The Geotechnical Design Report, provided on the project website under Supplemental Information, was performed for the section of the road within the project limits. The report is made available to Contractors as supplemental information only and is for the contractor's information only. It is not to be considered to be part of the contract documents and shall have no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the standard specifications, the standard plans, the special provisions, nor shall it have any bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the other publications referenced therein.  Response date: 10/03/2022