Contractor's System Project Question and Answer Forum

-1-
Submitted: Friday 07-NOV-2025 01:01 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: George Shick
Can MDT post the design files, mass diagram, dirt runs, and any additional geotechnical information.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 12-NOV-2025 09:15 AM
The design files for the requested project are posted here:  DESIGN FILES

The requested files do not represent the staked project, but are only design files.  The Department cannot guarantee the accuracy of the electronic data, particularly as it may be called up by your computer, nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents.

In addition, the Department will not make any revisions to the electronic files pertaining to the staked project, change ordered work, or changes that are made during construction to fit field conditions.

Linked are PDF Files of the available project alignment and/or structures geotechnical report(s), geotechnical report supplements, and geotechnical laboratory summaries.  There is remaining geotechnical information that is voluminous and very difficult to compile in a concise manner.  Contractors are welcome to come to MDT Headquarters to inspect rock samples taken for the project that are stored here or to look through the complete set of Geotechnical field investigation notes, laboratory testing, analytical, or other data in our project files.  It should be noted that the project may have undergone significant changes during the design process after the original geotechnical report and supplements were issued.  Thus, some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project. Some of the changes include, but are not limited to: Project splits (for funding, ROW issues, etc.) alignment and grade changes; and changes due to environmental factors (sensitive areas, etc.).  The documents can be found at the following link: GEOTECH FILES

-2-
Submitted: Friday 07-NOV-2025 04:06 PM
Company: Montana Fence
Contact: Jacob Wutke
It appears that you are using 2 single panels to make a right of way break. With Metal Fence Posts there is not a fastening detail for attaching the 2x6 material- Would the state consider stretching the corresponding fence style across the gap as opposed to using treated lumber? Or on recent jobs, the department has used a corner brace offset one side or the other from the right of way monument. If this is acceptable, an adjustment to the single vs double panels would need to be calculated.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 18-NOV-2025 07:15 AM
Install steel double panels at R/W breaks offsetting the center post one foot to either side so that the property monument will not be disturbed. There are approximately 129 R/W breaks on this project.

-3-
Submitted: Monday 10-NOV-2025 02:45 PM
Company: ECP
Contact: Beau Summers
On bid item #603012777 RCP 78 IN, would you accept 84 IN RCP in place of the 78IN RCP?
On bid item #603012793 RCP 90 IN, would you accept a 7X7 RCB in place of the RCP?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 13-NOV-2025 08:12 AM
An 84 IN RCP is an acceptable alternate for the 78 IN RCP at Sta 2396+99. Bid the 90 IN RCP as-is at Sta 2327+87.  Pay quantities will be based off the basic bid items and sizes and will not reflect quantities required for alternate sized culverts.

-4-
Submitted: Wednesday 19-NOV-2025 10:09 AM
Company: ECP
Contact: Beau Summers
Will you accept 96" RCP in place of the 90" RCP?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 20-NOV-2025 01:20 PM
A 96 IN RCP is an acceptable alternate for the 90 IN RCP specified in the contract.  Pay quantities will be based off the basic bid items and sizes and will not reflect quantities required for alternate sized culverts.  The detailed drawings only show FETS for culverts up to 90 IN RCP so the contractor will need to submit drawings/designs for review and approval by MDT for the larger pipe.

-5-
Submitted: Monday 24-NOV-2025 11:00 AM
Company: True North Steel
Contact: Amanda McCulloch
For pipe stations: 2241+41 (48"), 2251+94 (42"), 2372+69(48"), 2392+34 (60"), 2407+32(66") , and 2430+21 (48") would 14ga Aluminized T2 CSP be an allowable pipe option? With the 42" & 48" being STD (2 2/3" x 1/2") corrugation and 60" & 66" 5x1 Corrugation.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 25-NOV-2025 08:42 AM
No, those options are not allowable alternatives.  Due to the soil conditions and fill height, bid what is in the advertised plans.

-6-
Submitted: Sunday 30-NOV-2025 09:23 AM
Company: Battle Ridge Builders
Contact: Cody Ham
It appears the new bridge is at a much higher elevation than the existing road, and the new bridge protrudes into the existing road prism but there is no detour plan and no temporary shoring item. What is the expectation here?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 08:11 AM
Staged construction of the wingwalls along with steepened fill slopes and reduced width of the PTW was anticipated as necessary to complete the construction of the new bridge while maintaining traffic. Include temporary measures necessary to complete the work detailed in the plans in the cost of other items included in the plans. Alternative methods may be proposed at no additional expense to MDT.

-7-
Submitted: Monday 01-DEC-2025 09:26 AM
Company: True North Steel
Contact: Amanda McCulloch
Could you please provide clarification of the height of cover requirements in regard to the answer in question number 5? According to the ASTM/AASHTO manual & design guides the height of cover listed in the plans does not exceed the design of corrugated steel pipe. Could corrugated steel pipe that is poly coated be added to the acceptable pipe for those stations listed in question 5?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 01-DEC-2025 10:06 AM
The sites in question 5 are considered deep fill sites and require a longer service life, which can’t be achieved with T2 aluminized or polymeric coated CSP. Bid the options in the advertised plans.

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 25-NOV-2025 12:05 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc.
Contact: Grant Roberts
It appears there is existing concrete pads within the area shown on plans for the Remove Bituminous Pavement item. Would the concrete pads need to be removed or would they stay in place?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 10:17 AM
The concrete pads will need to be removed.  Payment for the removal will be handled in accordance with 109.04. 15,000 units of MISCELLANEOUS WORK have been hereby added to the contract. The following bid item quantity has been changed:
104 030 010   MISCELLANEOUS WORK has been increased to 35,000 units.  An amendment will be issued.

-2-
Submitted: Monday 01-DEC-2025 09:33 AM
Company: LHC
Contact: Sam Weyers
The typical paving detail shows paving fabric width of 28.0 ft or 14.0 ft per lane. It appears that suppliers only have roll in 12.5 ft widths. Is 12.5 ft an acceptable width per lane?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 10:16 AM
14’ per lane of paving fabric will be required.  Longitudinal joint overlap of the fabric should be installed per the manufacturer recommendations.

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 18-NOV-2025 10:07 AM
Company: Teton Prestress Concrete
Contact: Beren Colby
Being that the thick topping slab will have entrained air, has that eliminated the need for air entrainment in the bridge girders?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 20-NOV-2025 10:29 AM
Due to air entrained concrete being specified for the structural concrete overlay, the use of air entraining in the flat slab concrete beams is not required.  Non-air entrained concrete meeting the requirements Concrete – Class Pre is allowed to be used for the Prestressed Girder-Slab beams.

-2-
Submitted: Friday 21-NOV-2025 12:42 PM
Company: Knife River Prestress Inc.
Contact: James Moss
The overall slab LF shown of 1,221 seems to have not taken into account the 9" overhang from center of bearing to end of slab at the abutments. Can this be clarified or updated to show total LF of slab?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 26-NOV-2025 09:28 AM
Per Montana Standard Specification 553.04, the Method of Measurement for prestressed concrete members is from centerline of bearing to centerline of bearing, which does not include overhangs.  The estimated bridge plan quantity of 1221.0 Ln.Ft. as called out is correct.

-3-
Submitted: Tuesday 25-NOV-2025 02:58 PM
Company: COP Construction
Contact: Olivia Adolph
Can MDT provide the Geotechnical Report for this project?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 26-NOV-2025 09:29 AM
Linked are PDF Files of the available project alignment and/or structures geotechnical report(s), geotechnical report supplements, and geotechnical laboratory summaries. There is remaining geotechnical information that is voluminous and very difficult to compile in a concise manner. Contractors are welcome to come to MDT Headquarters to inspect rock samples taken for the project that are stored here or to look through the complete set of Geotechnical field investigation notes, laboratory testing, analytical, or other data in our project files. It should be noted that the project may have undergone significant changes during the design process after the original geotechnical report and supplements were issued. Thus, some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project. Some of the changes include but are not limited to: Project splits (for funding, ROW issues, etc.) alignment and grade changes; and changes due to environmental factors (sensitive areas, etc.). The documents can be found at the following link:
Link 1
Link 2
UPDATE
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 02:01 AM
This answer has been updated to show the GeoTech Report.
Link 3

-1-
Submitted: Friday 14-NOV-2025 03:24 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: George Shick
Can MDT post the design files for the project
Answer
Submitted: Monday 24-NOV-2025 08:49 AM
The design files for the requested project are posted here: DESIGN FILES
The requested files do not represent the staked project, but are only design files.  The Department cannot guarantee the accuracy of the electronic data, particularly as it may be called up by your computer, nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents.
In addition, the Department will not make any revisions to the electronic files pertaining to the staked project, change ordered work, or changes that are made during construction to fit field conditions.

-2-
Submitted: Monday 17-NOV-2025 07:03 PM
Company: Insituform Technologies, LLC
Contact: Brad Conder
On plan Sheet No. RD-56, a pipe dissipator detail is provided. Note 4 states to install dissipator rings for culvert liners at Stations 139+15, 180+54, and 428+71. However, plan Sheet No. RD-55 shows CIPP liners being installed at Stations 180+54 and 428+71. Are you intending that the 48" CIPP liner be installed first, and that the 44" steel pipe with dissipator rings then be installed through the finished CIPP liner? How do you propose that this work could be completed without damaging the newly installed CIPP liners? Please provide further clarification.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 21-NOV-2025 10:31 AM
The contractor has the option to install steel pipe with internal dissipation rings or to use a CIPP method with appropriate internal dissipation rings that must be installed accordingly to CIPP manufacturer recommendations and standards. Only one rehabilitation method may be used at each crossing location, a CIPP liner should not be installed in addition to a steel liner.

-3-
Submitted: Monday 17-NOV-2025 06:31 PM
Company: Insituform Technologies, LLC
Contact: Brad Conder
Can you provide clarification on the Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) bid quantities? In the file "9487001ADV_PLANS”, Sheet No. RD-55 on PDF pg. 55, CIPP lining is described at Stations 180+54 and 428+71 (total 534 LF of 48"). However, in the file "“9487001ADV_PROPOSAL”, the bid Schedule of Items does not include any CIPP bid items.
Furthermore, in the file "“9487001ADV_PROPOSAL”, Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) Drainage Structures, Article 42.E.2.c (PDF pg. 39) states to remove the existing baffle before installing the CIPP liner in the 108" pipe at Station 267+82, which contradicts Sheet No. RD-55 which calls out a new steel pipe being inserted not CIPP lining. In the next paragraph, Article 42.E.2.d (PDF pg. 39) it states to install internal energy dissipation rings at Stations 139+15, 180+54 and 428+71 as part of CIPP lining. Again, this contradicts Sheet No. RD-55 for the pipe at Station 139+15 which calls out a new steel pipe being inserted.
If we go by the culvert lining detail on Sheet No. RD-55, we’re only CIPP lining at Stations 180+54 and 428+71. If we go by the CIPP lining specification in “9487001ADV_PROPOSAL”, PDF pg. 39, we should be CIPP lining at Stations 139+15, 180+54, 267+82 and 428+71. If we go by the bid schedule, there’s no CIPP lining at all.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 09-DEC-2025 01:50 PM
The proposed culvert rehabilitation provides two options for bidding.  These options are shown on revised plan sheet RD-55.  Only one option should be included in the contractor’s bid, for the respective bid item.

The following bid items are hereby added to the contract:
104 030 100 – MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A-LS – 1.0 LS
104 030 101 – MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS B-LS – 1.0 LS
104 030 102 – MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS C-LS – 1.0 LS
104 030 103 – MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS D-LS – 1.0 LS

The following bid items are hereby deleted from the contract:
104 030 065 – MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A – LNFT – 1,062.0 LNFT
603 016 054 – STEEL CASING 48 IN – 178.0 LNFT

The following plan sheets have been revised for further clarification.
Plan Sheet RD-18 has been revised: RD-18
Plan Sheet RD-55 has been revised: RD-55

The following special provisions have been revised and hereby replace the ones found in the contract.
Special Provision 42. Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) Drainage Structures has been revised: SP 42
Special Provision 43. Concrete Invert Lining has been revised: SP 43
Special Provision 44. Slip Lining Culverts has been revised: SP 44

An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-4-
Submitted: Monday 17-NOV-2025 06:49 PM
Company: Insituform Technologies, LLC
Contact: Brad Conder
In the bid Schedule of Items, Prop Line No. 0420, Item Number 603016054, Steel Casing 48", a bid quantity of 178 LF is provided. In the bid document "9487001ADV_PROPOSAL", in Article 41.A (PDF pg. 29), a table is provided that gives a bid quantity of 178 LF of 48" at Station 139+15, which seems to correspond to the bid item referenced above. However, on plan Sheet No. RD-55, the culvert lining detail gives a quantity of 166 LF of 48" at Station 139+15. Please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 09-DEC-2025 02:06 PM
Please refer to the response to question #3.

-5-
Submitted: Friday 21-NOV-2025 03:09 PM
Company: Insituform Technologies, LLC
Contact: Brad Conder
We previously asked a question about internal dissipation rings and CIPP. The response provided was that the "appropriate internal dissipation rings must be installed according to CIPP manufacturer recommendations and standards". When a steel pipe liner is used, the detail on plan Sheet No. RD-55 shows the dissipation rings being welded to the steel pipe. By contrast, no detail is provided how to install and secure the internal dissipation rings when CIPP is used, since dissipation rings cannot be welded to the CIPP liner. There are also no CIPP manufacturer recommendations and standards for this work. Please provide additional details on how this work is supposed to be completed so all contractors can provide pricing on equal grounds.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 02:05 PM
Plan sheet RD-56 has been updated to show the section for both CIPP and the steel liner as the dissipator rings are needed for both options: SHEET RD-56
Work with CIPP manufacturers to price this work based on the spacing and dimensions shown in the plans and the updated detail.

-6-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:15 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please clarify the intent of the “Concrete Barrier Rail” note on Plan Sheet RD-2. Specifically, does the term “reused” refer to use in temporary configurations only, or is the intent to incorporate existing Standard Concrete Barrier into the permanent configuration and therefore reduce the quantity required under the “Concrete Barrier Rail” bid item? Additionally, in either scenario, there is no pay method identified for sorting, loading, hauling, or other handling of existing barrier for reuse. Should this work be assumed to be paid under Force Account, or will MDT designate a bid item?

-7-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:21 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please clarify the intent of Special Provision #60 – Temporary Barrier Rail. Sections B and C imply that the existing centerline two-loop barrier may be reused as Temporary Barrier Rail for the Phase 1 and 2 construction traffic control configurations. Section D.1 states that this work will be measured and paid by the foot as Temporary Barrier Rail. However, the Contract does not include a bid item for Temporary Barrier Rail. The only related item is “Reset Temporary Barrier Rail,” with a quantity of 36,000 LF, which is only sufficient to account for two full project-length resets of the existing 18,000 LF of barrier. Given the construction phasing, it appears that three project-length barrier installations will be required (Phase 1, Winter configuration, Phase 2). Please review and clarify. We suggest either adding a dedicated bid item for Temporary Barrier Rail with a quantity of 18,000 LF to align with the work described in SP #60 – or add 18,000 LF to the “Reset Temporary Barrier Rail” item and clarify the measurement and payment method.

-8-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:19 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please clarify the work included under the “Crossover-Median Barrier Rail” bid item. Special Provision #5 lists removal of median barrier, temporary paving, temporary impact attenuators, signing/striping, and surfacing/stripe maintenance as included in this item. Several of these activities are already covered under separate bid items (e.g., Temporary Impact Attenuators, Traffic Control–Crossover). In addition, SP #5 and SP #56 both appear to describe overlapping work for their respective items. Please clarify which work elements are intended to be paid under each item so bidders can price the work accurately.

-9-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:22 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Plan Sheet RD-68 includes a note directing the Contractor to backfill the temporary median between Phase 1 and Phase 2 with pavement millings during the winter shutdown, and states that this work will be paid under “Traffic Gravel.” However, there is no bid item for Traffic Gravel included in the Contract. Please clarify how this work is to be paid, and provide an appropriate bid item and quantity.

-10-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:18 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please provide a specification and applicable detail(s) for the “Ramp Crossover” bid item. Our assumption is that this item covers the temporary ramp crossover work at RP 0.0 in the general locations shown on Plan Sheet RD-67; however, the Contract currently does not contain enough information to accurately price this work. Are temporary attenuators required for these openings? Additionally, Sheet RD-67 includes labels for “RP 0.2 Closed Median Ramp Crossover,” but this does not appear to relate to any existing or temporary feature. Please clarify the intent of these labels.

-11-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:18 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Special Provision #3 states that the eastbound direction will be constructed in Phase 1. Please confirm whether this sequencing is mandatory, or if the successful bidder may choose which direction to construct in the first season, provided all other contract requirements are met.

-12-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:17 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
All Concrete Barrier Rail in this Contract is located on shoulders and appears to require anchoring in accordance with Standard Drawing 605-05, Type 1 Anchor, Option 2 (asphalt substrate). Should all new Concrete Barrier Rail be cast with four pinning holes (two on each side), or are only two pinning holes required on the traffic-side face, given that anchoring is only performed on the traffic side under the referenced standard?

-13-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:16 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Plan Sheet RD-60 shows project-specific modifications to MDT Standard Barrier details, including elimination of scuppers at the bottom of both Standard and Tall barrier types. The adjacent Taft-West project included scuppers in its final barrier design. Does MDT intend for this Contract to incorporate the same scupper detail for consistency across the corridor? If so, please issue a revised project-specific detail.

-14-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:16 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please confirm that the Tall Concrete Barrier Rail is not required to be anchored.