BULLETIN BOARD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Libby Exigency Project
MDT in cooperation with Lincoln County is evaluating options to address the bridge on S-482, Farm to Market Road that was damaged by flooding in December 2025. MDT is assessing the options of repairing and replacing the current structure. Preliminary analysis indicates bridge replacement is the best long-term solution for this location. A new bridge is currently being modeled, while environmental and right-of-way impacts are being investigated. MDT is advancing this project quickly with the aim to have a permanent solution by the end of this year. The multi-span bridge will likely use prestressed concrete girders, with steel pile foundations, and a conventional concrete deck. These assumptions may change due to beam availability, and refinement as survey, hydraulics, geotechnical, and environmental work matures.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
New Q&A Forum Closing Time: Beginning with the April 9th bid letting, the Q&A Forum will close to Contractor questions at 8:00am (previously 10am) on the Monday before bid letting unless it’s a state holiday. Answers provided by the Department to the questions, clarifications, and notifications can be posted up to 5:00 p.m., the day before the bid opening.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manufactured Products Waiver Notification
Beginning with the November 13, 2025 letting, the manufactured products waiver within 23 CFR 635.410 will be rescinded. Effectively, this means that the final manufacture of all materials defined as manufactured products in Section MT 601 of the MDT Materials Manual must meet domestic origin requirements. The Department is in the process of updating contract documents. Please contact Randy Boysen at rboysen@mt.gov with questions or concerns.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Watch - Public Bid Opening - Live Stream: ZOOM MEETING INFORMATION
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Advertised Projects: If you would like to receive the Invitation for Bids PDF document when projects are advertised, please send an email request to mdtcps@mt.gov. Follow the link for more information: EMAIL DISTRIBUTION
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
201 - MOSBY - WEST - February 26, 2026
Notifications
No Notices available for this project.
Amendments
No Amendments available for this project.
Clarifications
-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 10-FEB-2026 03:57 PM
The following special provision is hereby added to the contract: ELECTRONIC TICKETING – PMS
UPDATE: Monday 23-FEB-2026 11:38 AM
The Electronic Ticketing – PMS special provision has been updated and is hereby added to this contract: ELECTRONIC TICKETING – PMS
-2-
Submitted: Thursday 19-FEB-2026 08:10 AM
New Federal Wage Rates, General Decision Number MT20260080 , are now in effect and hereby replaces General decision number MT20260079 found in the advertised proposal: WAGE RATES
-3-
Submitted: Tuesday 24-FEB-2024 10:55 AM
Plan Sheet B10 has been updated: SHEET B10
Questions
-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 04-FEB-2026 03:49 PM
Company: Beador Construction Company Inc.
Contact: Denise Gutierrez
Please advise if there is a dbe % requirement for the mentioned project.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 05-FEB-2026 08:48 AM
There are no DBE goals on current or upcoming lettings due to federal rule changes. MDT must evaluate and adjust the DBE program to comply with the new rules before reimplementing project goals. An announcement will be made when DBE goals are reinstated on projects.
-2-
Submitted: Sunday 15-FEB-2026 03:18 PM
Company: Mountain West Holding Company
Contact: Chris Connors
It appears that asphalt widening extends beyond the back of the existing guardrail posts. Will the asphalt be removed and not replaced beyond the shoulder to permit new guardrail installation without the need to cut out blockouts for guardrail posts?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 18-FEB-2026 10:40 AM
Expect to encounter asphalt when driving posts especially in the Embankment Protector areas. Use Detailed Drawings 606-05 and 603-28 when asphalt is encountered.
-3-
Submitted: Monday 16-FEB-2026 04:01 PM
Company: LHC
Contact: Sam Weyers
Would MDT consider a 08-17-26 flex time to allow more contractor flexibility with scheduling?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 18-FEB-2026 09:03 AM
The Flex NTP will remain as June 15, 2026 for this contract.
-4-
Submitted: Wednesday 18-FEB-2026 10:42 AM
Company: Alpine Sign, Inc.
Contact: John
There are three locations in the Signing and Delineation Plans showing W8-13 Bridge Ices Before Road. These are shown as hinged. My understanding was this new design follows the MUTCD and does not require hinging and seasonal opening and closing. Is that correct?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 23-FEB-2026 07:55 AM
The W8-13 sign is a new Standard Highway Sign in the 11th Edition. The hinged requirement is MDT’s way of covering the sign when the conditions are no longer present. Use the standard highway sign design with the addition of a hinge as required in the contract.
-5-
Submitted: Sunday 22-FEB-2026 11:54 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Company
Contact: Chris Connors
As a follow to question #2, is there existing asphalt widening and if so, will it be removed as part of the project or will it remain in place?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 25-FEB-2026 08:23 AM
Paved guardrail widenings are not anticipated on this project. If they are encountered and they are not removed through milling, then remove the remaining asphalt by Misc Work.
202 - I-15 BRIDGE DECKS - S OF DILLON - February 26, 2026
Notifications
No Notices available for this project.
Amendments
No Amendments available for this project.
Clarifications
-1-
Submitted: Thursday 19-FEB-2026 08:17 AM
New Federal Wage Rates, General Decision Number MT20260080 , are now in effect and hereby replaces General decision number MT20260079 found in the advertised proposal: WAGE RATES
Questions
-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 10-FEB-2026 04:03 PM
Company: Sletten Construction
Contact: Russ Robertson
Special Provision 23, as written, does not explicitly prohibit the use of mechanical milling to remove the top layer of the bridge deck prior to hydrodemolition. Please confirm whether mechanical milling is acceptable?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 20-FEB-2026 04:15 PM
Removal of concrete for bridge deck milling is to be performed using hydrodemolition. Mechanical milling of the bridge deck will not be allowed on this project.
-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 18-FEB-2026 10:11 AM
Company: Sletten Construction
Contact: Russ Robertson
Historically, MDT bridge rehabilitation projects of comparable scope, geographic dispersion, and complexity have required significantly higher contract time allocations. This project encompasses more than 50 miles from end to end, creating substantial logistical inefficiencies. Equipment mobilization, crew relocation, and material transport between widely distributed work sites impose non productive time that must be incorporated into the critical path. These repeated mobilization cycles reduce daily production outputs compared to projects with a more consolidated footprint. Further, each structure is required to be staged and completed in a half width configuration. Half width construction inherently constrains work zones and restricts equipment access. As a result, production rates are significantly slower than full closure operations. Half width sequencing results in double the duration per structure relative to full width work. Furthermore, if mechanical milling is determined to be unacceptable, the required full depth hydrodemolition of the bridge decks will extend the schedule considerably. Given the distributed work locations, half width construction requirements, and potential full depth hydrodemolition, the currently allotted contract time does not reflect realistic production capacities or logistical restrictions. Based on these constraints, the project requires at least 2 construction seasons to achieve a feasible schedule.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 23-FEB-2026 10:28 AM
An additional 25 days will be added to the contract for a total of 155 working days. Special Provision #2 Contract Time is hereby replaced with the following special provision: CONTRACT TIME
UPDATED: Monday 23-FEB-2026 11:49 AM
Special Provision #3 Sequence of Operations and Traffic Control is hereby replaced with the following special provision: SOO & TC
-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 18-FEB-2026 04:47 PM
Company: LS READY MIX
Contact: Flint McCullough
Is the e-ticketing optional for this project? We have never used it and are not sure how it works. Are there costs associated with it? We need this explained to us soon. This is not enough time to figure out something new for this big of a project.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 20-FEB-2026 04:22PM
HaulHub will work directly with the contractor and/or material supplier to evaluate whether the current ticketing system can integrate with HaulHub’s E-Ticketing technology. If it is determined that integration is not possible, the MDT Project Manager has the authority to waive this provision and require the use of paper tickets instead.
Special Provision #18 Electronic Ticketing - PMS is hereby rescinded and replaced with the linked special provision: ELECTRONIC TICKETING - PMS
Special Provision #19 Electronic Ticketing - Concrete is hereby rescinded and replaced with the linked special provision: ELECTRONIC TICKETING - CONCRETE
-4-
Submitted: Thursday 19-FEB-2026 08:18 AM
Company: L & J Construction Group, LLC
Contact: Estimating
If the shop drawings for the strip seal joints are requested on the day of award, the joints will not be delivered until the end of July at the earliest. This does not leave enough time to get the project completed with phased construction. We are requesting this project to have a completion date of Oct. 15th 2027.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 23-FEB-2026 10:30 AM
See response to Question #2.
-5-
Submitted: Thursday 19-FEB-2026 10:26 AM
Company: Casino Creek Concrete, Inc.
Contact: Andrew J Mathison
The e-ticketing portal does not appear to be operational at this time. Would it be acceptable to scan concrete batch tickets and email them to the PM?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 20-FEB-2026 04:35 PM
HaulHub has been consulted regarding this error and has assured MDT that the issue has been resolved. Following this, HaulHub will work directly with the contractor and/or material supplier to evaluate whether the current ticketing system can integrate with HaulHub’s E-Ticketing technology. If it is determined that integration is not possible, the MDT Project Manager will waive this provision and require the use of paper tickets instead.
Please refer to the response to Question #3 for updated special provisions regarding E-Ticketing.
-6-
Submitted: Friday 20-FEB-2026 11:24 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Company
Contact: Keith Johnston
It appears that the placement of the temporary barrier will result in conflicting pavement markings that must be removed. Since the striping will ultimately be restored in the same location, can these markings be removed using a line grinder?
Additionally, will a separate paint item be included to replace the striping that must be removed? Please clarify how the stripe removal work will be measured and paid for under the contract.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 23-FEB-2026 07:50 AM
Pavement markings can be removed using water blasting or a self-propelled grooving machine equipped with stacked diamond cutting blades. Do not use grinder type heads. Temporary striping removal and temporary striping is paid for under bid item 618 030 080 – TRAFFIC CONTROL – LS.
302 - KAGY BLVD - S 19TH TO WILLSON - April 15, 2026
Notifications
-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 01-OCT-2025 10:00 AM
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) is soliciting design and construction services for the Design-Build project identified below. Contractor and consultant teams (Firms) are encouraged to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) response electronically by
11:00 a.m., local time on October 29, 2025.
Project Name: KAGY BLVD – S 19TH TO WILLSON
Project No: STPU-SSS 1212(8)
Control No: 8931000
This project is located within the City of Bozeman on Kagy Boulevard from S. 19th Avenue to S. Willson Avenue. The scope of work for this project includes widening and reconstruction of Kagy Boulevard from S. 19th Avenue to S. Willson Avenue with intersection improvements. This includes two travel lanes in each direction, new curb and gutter, boulevard, multi-use path on both sides of the roadway, lighting, landscaping, storm drain, pedestrian crossing facilities via grade separation and/or at-grade solutions and raised median/turn lanes. Intersection improvements include two multi-lane roundabouts: one at the S. 11th Avenue intersection and another at the S. 7th Avenue intersection and signal improvements and protected intersection components at the S. Willson Avenue intersection.
The project RFQ and attachments can be found at the following link: RFQ and ATTACHMENTS
-2-
Submitted: Tuesday 07-OCT-2025 07:27 AM
The draft Preliminary Plans, referred to on page 3 of the Request for Qualifications, can be found here: 8931-Kagy-Prelminary-Plans. The Preliminary Plans that will be provided with the RFP transmittal may differ from the draft Plans provided in the link.
-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 19-NOV-2025 02:02 PM
Short-listed Firms (in alphabetical order)
- CK May Excavating, Inc. and DJ&A
- Riverside Contracting, Inc. and KLJ
- Sundt Construction Inc., Knife River-Belgrade, Jacobs and WGM Group
Amendments
No Amendments available for this project.
Clarifications
-1-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 08:45 AM
Revise section IV. E.4. of the RFP to state:
Utilize a WB-50 control vehicle for the design of the project. For the Roundabout utilize a WB-67 control vehicle allowing deviation from lanes on the approach and through the roundabouts without requiring backing, stopping to turn, and maintain at least a one-foot inside clearance from exterior face of curb or edge of pavement. Phase 1 documents indicate that a pair of WB-50’s are using the roundabout at the same time making a through/left movement and a right turn movement. One of the WB-50’s may be substituted with a passenger car the remaining WB-50 is not allowed to deviate from the lane within the circulating roadway a one foot inside clearance from the exterior face of curb or edge of pavement or edge of lane if modeled on the inside lane is required on the remaining WB-50. Alternatively, a Bus-40 (motorcoach) and passenger car may be substituted for the WB-50 for the roundabout design vehicle, the bus and car are to be modeled side by side in the two-lane section of the roundabouts. Provide a one foot inside clearance from the exterior face of curb or lane line, no clearance is required on the interior side of the vehicle. Provide turning movements and fastest path analysis of the roundabouts if geometry is changed from the phase 1 documents. Utilize a Bozeman fire engine for the control vehicle for southbound movement only at the Kagy Boulevard and S. Wilson Avenue Intersection.
-2-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 08:47 AM
The City of Bozeman requires contractors to guarantee all work related to public infrastructure improvements, including utilities, for a period of two years from the date of acceptance by the City. For city owned utilities, the date of will be the Conditional Final Acceptance. The Warranty shall remain in full force for the two-year period following the acceptance date. Prior to acceptance of utilities, the contractor shall post a maintenance bond with the City equal to 20% of the actual cost of the utility improvements to correct any deficiencies in workmanship which are found within the warranty period. The City reserves the right to draft the maintenance bond for repairs not completed by the contractor within the agreed upon calendar days of being advised that repairs are required.
-3-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 08:49 AM
Normal Traffic Flow is defined as: Two lanes, all movements free flowing and unimpeded by traffic control measures.
-4-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 08:51 AM
- Finalize project storm drain design with Storm and Sanitary Analysis (SSA), StormCAD, or a storm drain modeling software capable of routing. Use NRCS as the accepted Hydrology method.
- Finalization of the storm drain is anticipated to change the number of inlets needed, inlet types, locations, orientations, pipe sizes, pipe slopes, underground piping network, infiltration/detention chamber locations, and outfalls. A formal ATC is not required for these refinements.
- Infiltration/detention chambers relocations that impact ROW will require an ATC.
- Storm drain inlets should incorporate 9” or greater sumps for sediment control and maintenance.
-5-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 08:54 AM
MSU closures were modified from those stated in the RFQ to the RFP. As stated in the RFP, MSU will deny requests for major events at the MSU Football Stadium during the full Kagy Boulevard closure in only 2027. Use of Bobcat Stadium for standard MSU operations will continue throughout construction.
-6-
Submitted: Tuesday 23-DEC-2025 01:54 PM
Pursuant to an interim final rule issued by the US Department of Transportation (see 90 Fed. Reg. 47969 (Oct. 3, 2025)), the previously published required SBE participation of 10.3% for this project is removed and revised to a SBE aspirational goal of 10.3%.
-7-
Submitted: Wednesday 21-JAN-2026 01:40 PM
Tie in of any Kagy Boulevard storm drain system into to the existing 19th Avenue Storm drain system will need to meet MS4 water quality requirements prior to the 19th Avenue tie in. Discharge from any portion of the Kagy Boulevard storm drain will not contribute to the peak flow within the 19th Avenue system. Discharge from Kagy Boulevard will be gravity, no pumps.
-8-
Submitted: Wednesday 21-JAN-2026 01:42 PM
Updated RIGHT OF WAY PLANS
-9-
Submitted: Wednesday 21-JAN-2026 01:50 PM
The link is to a compilation of the groundwater data from 2025. The data contains an estimate of the ground surface elevation utilizing the existing surface.
Please note MW-6 did not exhibit any groundwater and the groundwater elevation was assumed to be 15 feet below ground surface to match the depth of the wells. The wells are flush mounted as shown in the attached link.
Linked are PDF Files of the available project alignment and/or structures geotechnical report(s), geotechnical report supplements, and geotechnical laboratory summaries. GROUNDWATER DATA COMPILATION
-10-
Submitted: Friday 30-JAN-2026 02:12 PM
Do not use metal chamber sections, regardless of coating type, for the underground stormwater chamber system.
-11-
Submitted: Monday 02-FEB-2026 01:26 PM
Replace the two (2) existing 3-head left turn signals with 4-head signals at the S. 19th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard intersection. Reuse existing signal poles.
Provide signal modifications as outlined in RFP section IV.DCCP-H. 1. a.-d. at all legs of the S. 19th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard intersection.
-12-
Submitted: Wednesday 25-FEB-2026 07:05 AM
In the City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual; 3.3 Irrigation Design Requirements; Sprinklers/Overhead Irrigation: 6) is modified to 7 feet in width in lieu of the 8 foot requirement.
Questions
-1-
Submitted: Thursday 16-OCT-2025 05:56 AM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Ben Becker
The RFQ states: Firms must attach a notarized statement from an admitted surety insurer authorized to issue bonds in the State of Montana that states: a. Firm's current bonding capacity is sufficient for the project and referenced payment and performance bonds; and b. Firm's current available bonding capacity. Is this required to be included in the SOQ or is this only to be included in the RFP? This isn't mentioned in the SOQ submittal requirements and want to confirm it should be included and if so that it won't count as a page in the page count.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 21-OCT-2025 07:15 AM
The RFP Section VIII applies only to the short-listed Design-Build firms. The bonding requirements listed in VIII.E. will be included as a proposal submittal requirement.
-2-
Submitted: Thursday 16-OCT-2025 05:51 AM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Ben Becker
Based on the recent DBE developments and guidance, will those requirements be removed from the RFP? If so, will it switch to just SBE requirements?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 21-OCT-2025 07:03 AM
Pursuant to an interim final rule issued by the US Department of Transportation (see 90 Fed. Reg. 47969 (Oct. 3, 2025), the previously published DBE aspirational goal of 10.3% for this project is removed and revised to a DBE aspirational goal of 0%. The requirement of 10.3% SBE participation will remain as outlined in the RFQ.
-3-
Submitted: Thursday 16-OCT-2025 05:49 AM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Ben Becker
For the requirement to provide Proof of Professional Liability Insurance, is it acceptable to have that provided by the just the Prime Firm (Contractor) or is it also needed from the Lead Design Firm on the team.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 20-OCT-2025 07:05 AM
Proof of Professional Liability Insurance for the Lead Design Firm is required.
-4-
Submitted: Wednesday 26-NOV-2025 04:11 PM
Company: Jacobs
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
At what time on 12/2/2025 are questions to be discussed in the Pre-Proposal Meeting due to MDT?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 01-DEC-2025 12:25 PM
Submit questions to MDT for the pre-proposal meeting no later than 1:00 PM MST on 12/2/25.
-5-
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 12:11 PM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
Can an ATC be introduced for the first time at the second ATC meeting?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 03-DEC-2025 01:58 PM
Yes, an ATC may be introduced for the first time at the second ATC meeting.
-6-
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 12:33 PM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
Who is responsible for the cost of MSU utility relocations caused by the project?
Answer
Submitted: 08-DEC-2025 08:28 PM
MSU Utilities relocation payment will be the responsibility of MSU. Design, coordination, and relocation of MSU utilities will be the responsibility of the Firm.
Efforts associated with design and relocation of MSU utilities should not be included in the lump sum bid price and will be invoiced to MDT separately.
-7-
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 12:46 PM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
Can strip map / roll plots be used for the Preliminary Plans section of the Technical Proposal? If allowed, how are they quantified with regards to the overall sheet count?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 03-DEC-2025 02:00 PM
No strip map / roll plots will be allowed for the Preliminary Plans section. Provide page sizing as outlined in the RFP.
-8-
Submitted: Wednesday 03-DEC-2025 01:37 PM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
1. The retaining walls are currently shown as Cast-in Place Concrete Cantilever walls. Would we need to submit an ATC to change walls or are they only conceptual and we do not need an ATC to propose a different wall type.
2. Referring to the Preliminary Plans provided, SOW Report, RW plans, and Section IV.A.3.d.i (ATCs) of RFP, are there certain typical section elements that are “set in stone” and not subject to the ATC process since they are tied to the very constrained RW? (e.g. path widths, boulevard width, lane width, and median widths)
3. Can the DB teams coordinate directly with the utility companies (both private and public)?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 08-DEC-2025 08:30 AM
1. Wall sections were agreed upon between MDT and City of Bozeman. Any deviations must be submitted as an ATC for approval.
2. Elements defined in the Typical Sections were agreed upon between MDT and City of Bozeman. Any deviations must be submitted as an ATC for approval
3. Yes, coordination with utility companies is allowable.
-9-
Submitted: Wednesday 03-DEC-2025 01:39 PM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
1. Since preliminary plans have already been prepared, can you expand on the expectations of MDT in regard to Section VI.B.c.i (pg 45 of RFP)? Is it to advance the particular sections of the AGR plans listed below to 50%?
• Plan and profile sheets?
• Roundabout grading?
• Path, tunnels, and landscaping?
2. Has SOW Report been approved, and therefore the proposed design variances, etc. that were presented in the draft SOW Report be considered approved as well?
• If “yes”, can a signed copy of the SOW Report be provided?
• If “no”, should we assume the SOW Report information is accurate to proceed with for our Technical proposal?
• Note, in the “Major Design Features” subsection “L” of the SOW Report, the discussion on PHB appears outdated based on information in RFP.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 08-DEC-2025 08:25 AM
1. Plans shall be developed to a level which demonstrates the Firm’s understanding of and approach to of the project and supports development of the lump sum bid price.
2. The SOW Report is complete and is currently in final review. The SOW Approval Memo will be posted to the Q&A when final signatures have been received. The SOW information provided in Attachment P is for information only as indicated in Attachment Q.
Any deviations in requirements from the Phase 1 documents dictated in the RFP shall be adhered to.
-10-
Submitted: Wednesday 03-DEC-2025 01:40 PM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
1. Please describe the A/V capabilities and physical capacity of the ATC meeting room.
2. Please provide, if applicable, the limit to the number of attendees each team can bring to the ATC meetings.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 08-DEC-2025 08:38 PM
1. MDT commission room will have availability to display content via screen share.
2. The Firms may bring who is needed to appropriately address the ATC’s presented, the room capacity after MDT staff is 20 people.
-11-
Submitted: Friday 05-DEC-2025 07:54 AM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
Follow up on the Preliminary Plan Sheets. With 11x17 being specified in RFP and clarified in the Q/A response. Is there a maximum/minimum scale that should be followed? Would these scales follow standard MDT criteria based on sheet type?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 09-DEC-2025 08:43 AM
Follow standard MDT scales for the sheet type.
-12-
Submitted: Tuesday 09-DEC-2025 10:17 AM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
Section VI.B of the RFP states that 55 total pages are allowed with the Technical Proposal. In the sheet breakdown "twenty" is spelled out but (22) is also stated. Please clarify if up to (20) or (22) 11x17 sheets are allowed in the total 55 sheet page limit.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 09-DEC-2025 11:50 AM
Twenty-two (22), 11x17 sheets are allowed in the Preliminary Plans sub-section.
-13-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:34 PM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
In reviewing the design files that were included with the Phase 1 Bridging Documents, it appears the following files are missing:
RDALNZ01.dwg -We have the XML files to get these alignments but the DWG was not provided
RDALNZ02.dwg - We have the XML files to get these alignments but the DWG was not provided
RDETRZ01.dwg - Existing Terrain Surface
RDCRRZ99.dwg - Combined Proposed Surface
RDUMAZ01.dwg - Storm Drain Pipe Network
RDUMAZ02.dwg - Sanitary Sewer Pipe Network
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 07:44 AM
The requested design files are here: DESIGN FILES
-14-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:45 PM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
It appears the landscaping base file RDLAZ01.dwg was not provided. Can this be posted to the Q/A forum?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 07:57 AM
The requested file is here: RDLAZ01
-15-
Submitted: Tuesday 30-DEC-2025 12:59 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Related to clarification number 4, what is MDT's expectation for showing the proposed storm drain design with the technical proposal. If storm drain plan and profile sheets are desired, can an additional 11 sheets be added to the proposal?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 07-JAN-2026 09:29 AM
MDT expects a conceptual based storm drain design for the technical proposal, which may include a rough layout of inlet locations and profiles.
ATC’s are not required for storm drain changes.
MDT will add 5 pages to the proposal.
-16-
Submitted: Tuesday 30-DEC-2025 01:00 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Please clarify whether NOAA Atlas 14 or Appendix 9B of the MDT Hydraulics Manual shall be used to finalize the stormwater design. Phase 1 stormwater documents use Appendix 9B. If NOAA Atlas 14 is to be used, please confirm that the rainfall data from Bozeman MSU Station (24-1044) is the appropriate location.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 30-DEC-2025 02:06 PM
Use NOAA Atlas 14. Pick rainfall data related to the center of project limits.
-17-
Submitted: Tuesday 30-DEC-2025 01:06 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Related to Clarification Number 4, we request that the 2nd ATC meeting as well as the technical and price proposal dates be delayed to better allow the Teams to be able to fully develop drainage ATCs and a design based on the new requirements.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 07-JAN-2026 09:30 AM
All dates provided in the Schedule of Events in the RFP will remain.
-18-
Submitted: Tuesday 30-DEC-2025 01:17 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Due to not having received the groundwater monitoring well readings, we request that the 2nd ATC meeting as well as the technical and price proposal dates be delayed. Per RFP Section IV.F.1.d, "Design and construct a low maintenance groundwater removal/mitigation system that keeps the pedestrian underpasses free of water at all times. Submit the groundwater removal/mitigation system as an ATC for approval." We will need sufficient time after receiving the data to develop a responsive ATC.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 07-JAN-2026 09:31 AM
Groundwater data from 2024 2025 provided in Phase 1 documentation should be used for preliminary design along with engineering judgement (and other possible sources if any) to account for potential seasonal or yearly groundwater fluctuations. 2025 2026 information will be provided to the Phase 2 team after project award.
Update:
Submitted: Wednesday 14-JAN-2026 03:12 PM
Please see the update to the response above.
-19-
Submitted: Tuesday 30-DEC-2025 01:21 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Related to clarification number 4, we request an increase in the stipend due to the substantial additional effort that will be required to redesign the entire drainage system.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 07-JAN-2026 09:33 AM
The stipend will not be increased.
-20-
Submitted: Tuesday 30-DEC-2025 01:57 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
The Landscape Details in the Preliminary Plans illustrate and quantify over 160 trees and more than 1,500 shrubs and flowers in the boulevards, medians, and roundabouts, in addition to over 200,000 sf of ground cover (sod, seed, mulch, etc.). An irrigation system must also be designed and constructed to provide water to the plantings. Further, page 22 of the RFP calls for "aesthetic enhancements … including decorative or stamped concrete … that feature patterns inspired by Montana’s native landscapes…incorporating wayfinding elements for local and regional landmarks" for the all underpass headwalls and wing walls, as well as for the retaining walls. However, the Post AGR Review Landscape Follow-Up Meeting Minutes state "The City knows that the $250k isn’t enough to get the outcome that we want." Is the intent to provide a design which falls into the $250K limit or to meet the minimums called out in the plans? If it is the latter, will the Engineer’s Estimate be based off the same assumption? The concern is that if the Engineer's Estimate doesn't take into account this cost, all the bids could fall outside the 10% range that was discussed in the Pre-Submittal meeting resulting in the bids not being opened.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 05-JAN-2026 01:46 PM
Provide a design to meet the requirements identified in the RFP and the intent of the Phase 1 documents. MDT has collaborated with the City of Bozeman to develop the engineer’s estimate as identified.
-21-
Submitted: Tuesday 30-DEC-2025 02:11 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Sheet 51 of the RFP plans titled "7th Ave. Tunnel Landscape Details" shows the Tunnel Aesthetics. Is what is shown on this sheet meant to be prescriptive? If not, can MDT clarify the intent/requirements of the wall surface treatment that is to be determined by the Phase 2 team? Also, are the walls at 7th Avenue the only walls that receive this treatment?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 05-JAN-2026 01:48 PM
Tunnel Aesthetics provided in the Phase 1 plans are conceptual. Provide aesthetic enhancements as outline in RFP IV.F.1. Aesthetic enhancements are required at both tunnel locations.
-22-
Submitted: Wednesday 07-JAN-2026 04:49 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Are there any camera or security requirements for the underpasses?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 12-JAN-2026 03:55 PM
There are no camera or security requirements for the underpasses.
-23-
Submitted: Wednesday 07-JAN-2026 04:47 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Please clarify how the access to Parcels 3 and 4 will be perpetuated. The Phase 1 road plans show the existing accesses to these Parcels from Kagy Boulevard are not perpetuated. The Right-of-Way Plans include a note stating there exists a 60' X 50' EX. ACCESS EASE. TO PARCEL 4 from an unnamed street adjacent to the east edge of Parcel 4. However, there is not an existing driveway route across Parcel 4 to that roadway, nor is there a Parcel 4 curb cut on that roadway. Please provide direction on who is responsible for providing the new access.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 14-JAN-2026 07:08 AM
Access to Parcel 3 will not be perpetuated as part of this project as shown on the Phase 1 road plans. It will be the responsibility of the Parcel 3 developer to provide access to that parcel. Access to Parcel 4 from Kagy Boulevard needs to be perpetuated, which is a change from the Phase 1 road plans, due to change in circumstance with private development.
-24-
Submitted: Wednesday 07-JAN-2026 04:45 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Regarding signal modifications at the intersection of Kagy and 19th, Part H of the Design and Construction Criteria Package says to “provide new ADVANCE radar detection” but then references Attachment J for “more information on radar PRESENCE detection systems” (emphasis added). Is the required radar addition at this intersection for advance detection or presence detection?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 12-JAN-2026 03:56 PM
ADVANCE radar detection is required for the project. Attachment J Special Provision 23 is hereby replaced with LINK (see attached).
-25-
Submitted: Wednesday 07-JAN-2026 04:46 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Please provide the as-built plans for the traffic signals at Kagy/19th and at Kagy/Wilson.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 08-JAN-2026 01:05 PM
The files linked below represent the as-built drawings. MDT provides them for informational purposes only. The drawings may not completely represent current conditions. Thus, some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project. The contractor should not rely solely on the as-built drawings provided for bidding purposes nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents.
KAGY & 19TH PLANS
KAGY & WILLSON PLANS
-26-
Submitted: Friday 16-JAN-2026 10:32 AM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
Please confirm that the 3 page limit on ACT Submittals include drawings, maps, tables, or other graphics and can be provided on 11” x 17” pages.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 21-JAN-2026 08:44 AM
Use 8.5”x11” sheet size for the ATC submittals.
-27-
Submitted: Tuesday 27-JAN-2026 07:43 AM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Please provide record drawings for the MSU stadium facility for all portions that connect to the Kagy Blvd storm drain system. These portions include parking lots, internal stadium/field drainage systems, and surrounding concrete walkways.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 29-JAN-2026 12:58 PM
MSU Facility plans will be provided to awarded team. Efforts associated with design and relocation of MSU utilities should not be included in the lump sum bid price.
-28-
Submitted: Tuesday 27-JAN-2026 07:42 AM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Please clarify the pipe bedding detail that shall be used for the project for PVC and other flexible pipe materials. The applicable City of Bozeman and MDT details contain conflicting information.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 29-JAN-2026 12:59 PM
Use MDT’s Standard Specification for pipe bedding.
-29-
Submitted: Tuesday 27-JAN-2026 07:43 AM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Please clarify the storm frequency that shall be used for design basis of the runoff-control systems for the pedestrian underpasses to prevent ponding. Please also clarify whether high groundwater shall be controlled in the underpasses.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 29-JAN-2026 01:00 PM
Design the pedestrian underpass to the same surface runoff storm frequency as the rest of the storm drain systems on the project; 10-yr storm drain design event. Surface runoff in or adjacent to the pedestrian underpass is not allowed to leak or infiltrate into the underpass groundwater drainage system. The pedestrian underpass will remain dry during high groundwater events.
-30-
Submitted: Tuesday 27-JAN-2026 07:41 AM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Please clarify whether profile wall PVC can be utilized for any portion of the storm drain system. Profile wall PVC is listed as an option in the Phase 1 special provisions (#19.B.1).
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 29-JAN-2026 01:00 PM
Profile wall PVC cannot be utilized for any portion of the storm drain.
-31-
Submitted: Wednesday 28-JAN-2026 07:29 AM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
The Phase 1 Traffic Plans provided by MDT show the proposed lighting on Kagy Boulevard beginning just east of S. 17th Avenue. Please confirm if MDT is expecting the lighting to extend to S. 19th Avenue?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 29-JAN-2026 12:58 PM
Install decorative luminaires through the entire corridor to 19th Avenue.
-32-
Submitted: Friday 30-JAN-2026 04:19 PM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
1. Which criteria governs storm drainage conveyance, water quality, and detention/retention design when City of Bozeman and MDT requirements differ? 2. Is there a formal hierarchy of governing criteria intended (City -> MDT -> AASHTO -> Federal)? If so, what is that hierarchy?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 04-FEB-2026 02:26 PM
The more stringent criteria of either the City of Bozeman or MDT design standards will govern storm water conveyance and water quality. See Q&A #33 for detention or retention facilities criteria.
-33-
Submitted: Friday 30-JAN-2026 04:22 PM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
1. Does City of Bozeman stormwater criteria control detention sizing within MDT right-of-way? 2. What is the required design storm basis for detention?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 04-FEB-2026 02:27 PM
Section 6.8, Runoff Control Facilities, as provided in the City of Bozeman’s Design and Construction Standards, design storm criteria does not apply for this project. All storm drain runoff control facilities need to meet a 10-year design, regardless of location within the project corridor.
-34-
Submitted: Monday 02-FEB-2026 05:00 PM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
Can MDT confirm the following regarding the technical proposal?
- Please confirm that the written narrative and contract completion dates (as required per Evaluation Criterion #1, b & c) can be included on the two (2) allowed 11" x 17" pages, as appropriate.
- Please confirm that the supporting narrative for the Traffic Control plan can be included on the six (6) allowed 11" x 17" pages, as appropriate.
- Please confirm that the minimum font size of 10pt does not apply to notes and callouts in the plan sheets and the schedule gantt chart.
- Please confirm that the cover, cover letter, and tabs are not included in the 55-page limit.
- Please confirm that the five (5) additional pages added to the page limit (detailed in MDT’s answer to Q&A #15 on 1/7/2026), are allowed as 11" x 17" pages within the Preliminary Design section. The resulting total allowed 11" x 17" pages in this section would be twenty-seven (27).
Submitted: Wednesday 04-FEB-2026 03:41 PM
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. A minimum font size 5pt can be used for the Gantt Chart on the 11” x 17” sheets allowed in the schedule section of the Technical Proposal. Written narratives on all 11” x 17” sheets must be minimum font size of 10pt. Notes and callouts should follow MDT Standard sizing for 11” x 17” plan sheets.
4. Each page that contains text, graphs, drawings, or other illustrations will be considered in the page limit. Fronts, backs, table of contents, and section dividers are not included in the page limit.
5. 11”x17” sheets may be used for the pages added through Q&A 15.
-35-
Submitted: Wednesday 04-FEB-2026 04:45 PM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
The RFP is specific for the luminaire type to be used along Kagy Boulevard, however there is no mention of the luminaire type to be used to light the pedestrian ramps, plazas, and tunnels. Can MDT provide the details for these devices?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 10-FEB-2026 02:21 PM
Utilizing the Traffic Engineering Manual ensure minimum illuminance criteria is met. Luminaire type is to be determined by the DB Firm.
-36-
Submitted: Thursday 05-FEB-2026 09:58 AM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Per RFP Section IV.F.2.c, the Design Build Team is to "securely affix a vehicle rail on areas of the newly constructed curb or behind shared-use path (depending on location), where vehicular departures from the roundabout could result in harm to pedestrians, as shown in the Phase 1 Documents". The locations for "Proposed Vehicle Barrier" are illustrated on Sheets 56-61 of the Phase 1 Documents. These proposed locations would, in some instances, not protect pedestrians as the rail is located on the back side of the shared-use path. Is this vehicle rail intended to protect the pedestrians, as stated in the RFP, or to protect the clear zone from drivers departing the roadway?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 10-FEB-2026 02:22 PM
The vehicle rail is intended to protect the clear zone from drivers departing the roadway.
-37-
Submitted: Wednesday 11-FEB-2026 10:11 AM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Can watertight dual wall polypropylene pipe (such as ADS HP Storm), or dual/triple wall polypropylene pipe (such as ADS Sanitite HP), or dual wall HDPE pipe (such as ADS N12) be used for the storm drain trunklines and laterals?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 13-FEB-2025 10:52 AM
Corrugated HDPE, ADS HP Storm, ADS SaniTite HP, dual wall HDPE, Profile Wall PVC, and Solid Wall PVC cannot be utilized for any storm drain laterals or trunklines. Use gasket RCP for storm drain laterals and trunklines. Connections between the local drainage collection systems for the Pedestrian Tunnels to the storm drain system are considered a lateral and will require 12” minimum RCP.
-38-
Submitted: Thursday 12-FEB-2026 01:48 PM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
For our stormwater analysis, and considering this is a multilane facility, we are assuming that the worst-case (City vs MDT design criteria) applicable spread width limitation is ½ of the outermost 10-ft travel lane or auxiliary lane plus gutter pan, for a total allowable spread width of 6.5-feet. We are also assuming a 25% clogging factor for on-grade curb inlets and 50% for sag inlets. Are these assumptions correct? If not, please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 17-FEB-2026 09:00 AM
The more stringent criteria between the City of Bozeman (COB) and MDT for this project are as follows:
1. This will be a 10yr storm drain spread width and system design.
2. For spread width in the roundabouts see Note 4, MDT Hydraulics Figure 14.3-1, 10’ travel lane – 8’ clear + 1.2’ from flow line = 3.2’
3. For spread width in roadway see MDT Hydraulics Figure 14.3-1 (ADT >1,000vpd, Design Speed < 45mph) = ½ driving lane.
10’ travel lane / 2 + 1.2’ from flow line = 6.2’
4. No curb overtopping
5. Inlets in sags have a 50% clogging factor (MDT and COB)
6. Inlets on-grade have a 25% clogging factor (COB Section 6.7.2.C.II.b)
-39-
Submitted: Friday 13-FEB-2026 09:44 AM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
1.) The RFP requires a water efficient irrigation system to all plants and trees installed within the project. Please confirm that irrigation design is desired for all groundcover planting areas with vegetation outside of the raised median and roundabout center islands, including boulevard planting and sod areas, as well as restoration sloped planting areas, and these areas should be integrated into one overall system with the medians and roundabout areas?
2.) If the boulevard areas are to be included, please confirm whether the boulevard areas east of 3rd Avenue should be included in the irrigation design? This area is designated for protecting existing trees, with re-sodding of disturbed areas only. However, the sod areas are narrower than the City of Bozeman's 8 foot minimum width requirement for broadcast irrigation.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 19-FEB-2026 01:37 PM
1. Yes, provide irrigation design for all groundcover planting areas. Restoration sloped areas do not need permanent irrigation.
2. East of south 3rd Avenue should not be included in the irrigation design.
-40-
Submitted: Friday 20-FEB-2026 06:47 AM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
In reference to Question and Answer Nos. 6 and 27, we understand efforts associated with design and relocation of MSU utilities should not be included in our bid price. Please confirm that this also includes any surfacing costs associated with these utility relocations that are outside of the ROW limits.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 25-FEB-2026 07:07 AM
Any surfacing costs associated with utility relocations outside of ROW will not be included in the lump sum bid price and will be invoiced to MDT separately.
-41-
Submitted: Friday 20-FEB-2026 06:48 AM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Ben Becker
Please confirm that any and all costs associated with reconfiguring the MSU parking lots such as, but not limited to, demo of existing curb and asphalt, placing new curb, surfacing costs, restriping of large portions of the lots to reestablish circulation routes, removal/replacement of parking lot luminaires, etc., which is outside of the roadway construction limit lines should NOT be included in the bid proposal and will instead be covered by Cost to Cure payments made to MSU during ROW negotiations.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 25-FEB-2026 07:08 AM
Impacts to the parking lot caused by elements in the proposed design should be included in the proposal and lump sum bid. Parking lot reconfiguration will be the responsibility of the Design-Build Firm.
MDT will not utilize Cost to Cure payments for the parking lot reconfigurations.
-42-
Submitted: Monday 23-FEB-2026 08:08 AM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
Based on the preliminary hydraulics report, the underground chamber near Willson Ave is intended to accommodate the runoff reduction volume. The report also indicates that changes in the drainage area have eliminated the need for storage at this facility. However, the total system sizing suggests that additional volume has been included.
Please advise whether this additional volume is intentional or if the system should be sized solely to meet the runoff reduction volume requirements.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 25-FEB-2026 10:28 AM
Design and sizing of infiltration/detention chambers would be considered part of the finalization of the storm drain system, see Q&A Clarification 4 provided December 12th, 2025. The Phase 1 design oversized the chamber at Willson Avenue since space was available. The additional chamber volume of 3,988 c.f., as determined with a different hydrology during Phase 1, is not required.