Contractor's System Project Question and Answer Forum

-1-
Submitted: Thursday 12-DEC-2024 02:36 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: George Shick
Can MDT please post the Design Files for earthwork takeoff purposes?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 16-DEC-2024 08:15 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.

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday 17-DEC-2024 08:22 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc
Contact: Grant Roberts
Please post any additional geotechnical data, dirt runs, and mass diagram for the project.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 23-DEC-2024 12:55 PM
Attached 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  Thus, some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project.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: GEOTECH REPORTS

The additional information that is requested will be answered in subsequent posts.

UPDATED: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 12:22 PM
Bid Item # 203 020 100 EXCAVATION-UNCLASSIFIED is hereby changed from 194,987 CY to 190,907 CY.
Bid Item # 203 020 310 SPECIAL BORROW-NEAT LINE is hereby changed from 73,447 CY to 74,554 CY.
Bid Item # 203 020 200 EXCAVATION-UNCLASS BORROW is hereby added to the project with a quantity of 20,645 CY.

An Amendment will be issued. Updated bid files will be posted.

New Plan Sheets: PLAN SHEET RD-14 & PLAN SHEET RD-20

UPDATED: Friday 03-JAN-2025 08:48 AM
Plan Sheet RD-14 has been updated to remove the FPR and Preliminary Stamps. The updated sheet is linked here: PLAN SHEET RD-14

The mass diagram is provided for informational purposes only and represents plan quantities.
The Contractor remains responsible for selecting the best means and methods to complete the project within project guidelines. MASS DIAGRAM

-3-
Submitted: Monday 30-DEC-2024 02:05 PM
Company: Martin Construction, Inc.
Contact: Jim Ouldhouse
Is there a mass haul diagram available for this project?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 21-DEC-2024 03:20 PM
The mass diagram is provided for informational purposes only and represents plan quantities. The Contractor remains responsible for selecting the best means and methods to complete the project within project guidelines. MASS DIAGRAM

-4-
Submitted: Monday 30-DEC-2024 03:23 PM
Company: True North Steel
Contact: Amanda M
For the 30" Drainage Pipe, bid item list calls out 166lf of 30" but the culvert schedule only has 150lf (Sta. 139+19 - 64' and 216+92 - 86'). Is there a missing station of 30" drainage pipe?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 31-DEC-2024 10:05 AM
Bid Item # 603 010 056 DRAINAGE PIPE 30 IN is hereby changed from 166 LF to 150LF.
A new plan sheet RD-18 can be found here: PLAN SHEET RD-18

An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.
UPDATED: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 03:00 PM
Plan Sheet RD-18 has been updated. PLAN SHEET RD-18

-5-
Submitted: Tuesday 31-DEC-2024 09:49 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc.
Contact: Grant Roberts
Please verify the Geotextile Stabilization bid quantity of 199,339 SQYD. The summaries for Geotextile, Embankment Foundation Treatment, and Culverts in the plans do not add up to this bid quantity.

-6-
Submitted: Tuesday 31-DEC-2024 10:30 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc
Contact: Grant Roberts
Per the Culvert Foundation Treatment special provision please add a bid item for the Foundation Material shown in the plans.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 02:30 PM
Bid Item # 603 000 060 FOUNDATION MATERIAL – 572 CY is hereby added to the contract
A new plan sheet RD-18 can be found here: PLAN SHEET RD-18

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

-7-
Submitted: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 08:40 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Estimating
Can A-1-b material be substituted for Special Borrow? This has been done on recent projects in the area. Also, can the department post the dirt run for the project to verify that the mass diagram is accurate?

-8-
Submitted: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 10:43 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc
Contact: Grant Roberts
Please verify the quantity shown in the plans for Crushed Aggregate Course at the Mailbox Turnout locations is correct.

-9-
Submitted: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 11:03 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc
Contact: Grant Roberts
Please verify the quantities for surfacing items on approaches is correct, the approach summary on plan sheet RD-03 is not matching up with additional surfacing summary on sheet RD-14.

-10-
Submitted: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 11:30 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc
Contact: Grant Roberts
The Embankment Foundation Treatment summary shows stations 354+00 to 358+00 and 460+75 to 463+00 as being embankment in place but still requires using special borrow material. Please clarify why this quantity for these two areas is not included in the Special Borrow bid item.

-11-
Submitted: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 01:46 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Estimating
Preliminary scheduling calculations indicate that 140 working days are not adequate to complete the project. Please add an additional 20 working days to the contract.

-12-
Submitted: Friday 03-JAN-2025 08:07 AM
Company: Contech
Contact: Dennis Dirks
Hi, I was not able to find any call out for the Safety Slope End Sections to be only aluminized or polymerically coated. Would galvanized end sections be acceptable? Thank you

-13-
Submitted: Friday 03-JAN-2025 10:15 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc
Contact: Grant Roberts
With respect to question #11 we agree that 140 working days is not adequate to complete the project due to slower production on surfacing items caused by the hauls from the material sources being further than normal and slower excavation operation caused by the project specific restriction on allowable exposed subgrade surface to traffic. Please add an additional 20 working days.

-14-
Submitted: Friday 03-JAN-2025 09:51 AM
Company: montana fence
Contact: larry iverson
On this project, There is 9380 feet of metal fencing and no metal panels to match. Would the state consider changing all the panels to metal for cost and longevity (fire resistant and rotting)? Also, would the state consider changing all the fencing to using of the metal posts for the same reasoning. Please advise.

-1-
Submitted: Friday 13-DEC-2024 08:28 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Dwayne Rehbein
Special Provision #23 requires the special borrow to be: "A-1-a group classification, with 100% passing the 4-inch sieve and a maximum of 3% by weight passing the number #200 sieve". Local pits will require processing to ensure the product is 4-inch minus and has a maximum of 3% passing the #200 sieve. Can the specification be changed to have "a maximum of 8% by weight passing the number #200 sieve", the same requirement as the Crushed Aggregate Course?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 16-DEC-2024 12:36 PM
The material specifications were developed by geotechnical research to provide non-frost susceptible material to mitigate damage from freeze/thaw cycles. Please provide the material meeting the specifications provided in the Special Provision #23.

-2-
Submitted: Monday 16-DEC-2024 12:26 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc
Contact: Grant Roberts
The plans show 1,191 CUYD of Topsoil Salvaging & Placing, the schedule of items in the proposal has 1,191 CUYD of Topsoil (imported). Please clarify whether the topsoil will be onsite salvage and place or if it needs to be imported topsoil.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 17-DEC-2024 07:20 AM
Bid item # 610010100 Topsoil is hereby deleted from the contract.
Bid item # 203080100 TOPSOIL-SALVAGING AND PLACE is hereby added to the contract 
           
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-3-
Submitted: Monday 23-DEC-2024 11:23 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc
Contact: Grant Roberts
Per Special Provision for Special Backfill for Culverts "Provide backfill material consisting of Type 5A CBC per 701.02.4". To match the grade that contractor selects to utilize for the Crushed Aggregate Course item would MDT change this to allow Special Backfill material meeting Type 5A, 6A, or 7A CBC per 701.02.4?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 26-DEC-2024 10:00 AM
Provide material meeting standard spec 701.02.4 Grade 5A, 6A, or 7A CBC for the special backfill.

-4-
Submitted: Monday 23-DEC-2024 02:38 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc
Contact: Grant Roberts
Preliminary scheduling figures 60 working days are not adequate to complete the project, please add 15 working days to the contract.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 26-DEC-2024 11:20 AM
MDT will add 10 Working Days to the contract.  Contract Time is hereby changed to 70 Working Days. CONTRACT TIME

-5-
Submitted: Tuesday 31-DEC-2024 11:55 AM
Company: Subsurface Inc
Contact: Mike Aubol
Line item 26 of page 18 of the proposal lists ultra-violet, conventional, or non-styrene conventional as methods to cure pipe. The table on pages 18 and 19 shows only non-styrene conventional checked. Can ultraviolet be an approved method as it has been utilized for installs in several districts of MT DOT projects?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 09:22 AM
The non-styrene conventional method was selected due to the presence of wetlands on both ends of most pipes or due to the lining of arch pipes. The non-styrene conventional method requires less space to install than the ultraviolet method, reducing the impacts to the wetlands.
For these reasons ultraviolet is not an approved method for this project.

-1-
Submitted: Thursday 19-DEC-2024 09:31 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Estimating
Can MDT post the Design Files for earthwork takeoff purposes?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 26-DEC-2024 08:19 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: Thursday 19-DEC-2024 09:53 AM
Company: Montana Fence Company
Contact: Jim Ritter
R/W breaks are built with two single braces with treated 2x6s bolted to the posts spanning the gap between the braces [MDT 607-20] so as to not disturb property monuments. It seems there are approximately 45 of these on the referenced project. The state is asking for 45 ea Single FW panels and 50 ea Double FW panels both of which are detailed on MDT 607-05. Simply considering R/W breaks as Double Panels is misleading and creates inaccurate materials and labor and the current system creates confusion for MDT inspectors on payout for R/W breaks. Will the state verify my quantities and add a new bid item for R/W breaks as detailed on MDT 607-20 so that planned panel quantities and bid costs can be more accurate? Though not relevant to this project but is on many others, will the state also provide detail drawings for R/W breaks using metal posts?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 03:45 PM
Install steel panels throughout the projects, as indicated in the plans.

Install steel double panels at R/W breaks offsetting the center post to either side so that the property monument will not be disturbed.

A revised summary table and bid items will be added. REVISED SHEET 10
UPDATED: Monday 06-JAN-2025 10:25 AM
Sheet 10 has been updated: UPDATED SHEET 10

Bid items FARM FENCE-PANEL/SINGLE FW (607100360) and FARM FENCE-PANEL/DOUBLE FW (607100380) are hereby deleted.

The following bid items are hereby added to this contract through amendment:
FARM FENCE-PANEL/SINGLE FM – 607100362 – 30 each  
FARM FENCE-PANEL/DOUBLE FM – 607100385 – 75 each
An amendment will be issued. Updated Bid Files will be provided.

-3-
Submitted: Friday 20-DEC-2024 01:17 PM
Company: Baranko Companies
Contact: Justin Rice
Is there a mass haul ordinate and/or diagram that could be provided with the bid docs?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 26-DEC-2024 10:11 AM
The mass diagram is provided for informational purposes only and represents plan quantities. The Contractor remains responsible for selecting the best means and methods to complete the project within project guidelines: MASS DIAGRAM

-4-
Submitted: Monday 30-DEC-2024 02:08 PM
Company: Martin Construction, Inc.
Contact: Jim Ouldhouse
Is pug milling of Crushed Aggregate Course required in this project?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 31-DEC-2024 09:10 AM
Pug MIll mixing is required on this contract.

-5-
Submitted: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 02:39 PM
Company: Central Specialties, Inc
Contact: Sam Honebrink
1. Is the 22,708 cyds on Sheet 10 Blasting Consultant table included in the 66,678cyds on Sheet 8 on the Grading Table? If the excavated volume is summed from the cross sections from station 641+50-647+00=8,914 cys which is 13,794 cyds short of the quantity 22,708 cyds on Sheet 10. Is the stationing 641+50-647+00 correct?
2. Is blasting the only method of excavation that can be used based off the tables on Sheet 8 Grading Table?
3. Is there a location pick up that can be specified for the Test Trailer, Transport, & Set bid item?
4. Can their be an option for the centerline pipe patch areas be temporally stabilized with blotting sand & MC 70 Prime?
5. Can a township, section, & range numbers or address be given for the Beaver Slide Maintenance yard?
6. It appears the pipe will have to be done while keeping one lane open. If a traffic diversion at the pipe/box locations has to be built to get traffic moving safely around the operation how is it paid for?
7. The spec 618.04.4 and 618.04.5 states the Flagger and Pilot Car are paid for by the hour, but are not bid items for this project. Can they be added?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 06-JAN-2025 10:16 AM
1) The blasting quantity is included in the grading frame quantities.  Quantities have been revised to match cross sections.  The volume given in the remarks on the Blasting Consultant frame is for information only.  Quantity is based on straight line grading, additional material may need to be removed to allow for grading the slopes as shown.  REVISED SHEET 10
2) No, blasting is not the only option to remove the material in the specified locations.  The Geotechnical section evaluated the area and it shows that the material may be too hard to remove by traditional methods.  Other methods may be used but it will still be paid for under the unclassified excavation bid item.
3) The test trailer is expected to be hauled from the Miles City MDT office.
4) The culvert replacement areas are not required to have PMS immediately after installation.  Gravel surfacing may be utilized until plant mix is placed.  The contractor will be required to maintain a suitable surface until plant mix is placed.
5) MT 59, South of Miles City , RP 34.8
6) Maintain a minimum of one lane traffic at all times during culvert installations.  The contractor may elect to build temporary widening areas to accommodate the installation.  Include any of these costs in the contract bid item for the culvert.
7) Flagging and pilot car hours are paid by the hour using the Traffic Control Rate Schedule . Pilot car and Flagger hours are paid under bid item 618030005 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES CB

-6-
Submitted: Friday 03-JAN-2025 08:38 AM
Company: True North Steel
Contact: Amanda M
For the 42" Arch pipe Equivalent (Sta. 657+52) the culvert schedule is calling for 14ga but the 42" round is calling for 12ga. Should the 42" Arch equivalent be 12ga as well?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 03-JAN-2025 11:35 AM
The pipe thicknesses listed in the plans are correct. The 42” round pipe at Sta 635+90 is in a deep fill and requires a heavier gage for extended service life. The contractor may elect to use a thicker gage pipe than the thickness listed in the plans.

No Questions available for this project.

No Questions available for this project.

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 18-DEC-2024 02:01 PM
Company: Pavement Maintenance Services
Contact: Jason Simmons
Plans show a full width scrub seal application. Has MDT considered the impact of scrub sealing over existing rumble strips and the amount of excess oil that will accumulate in them?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 20-DEC-2024 01:09 PM
MDT has considered this and is confident that the rumble strips will remain effective after the scrub seal.

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 18-DEC-2024 02:08 PM
Company: Pavement Maintenance Services
Contact: Jason Simmons
Will MDT allow a standard chipseal using PMRE in detailed areas such as transitions to concrete, bridge ends, tapers/gores and intersection? Places where dragging a scrub broom is not feasible.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 20-DEC-2024 10:11 AM
A standard chipseal operation will be allowed in select areas where dragging a scrub broom is not feasible as approved by the EPM.

-3-
Submitted: Monday 30-DEC-2024 01:01 PM
Company: Helena Sand & Gravel
Contact: Estimating
Special Provision 21-Protection of Anti-Icing System Equipment. Is the anti-icing system (spray nozzles) also installed in the asphalt pavement section located before the concrete bridge decks. Will this system need to be tested and protected before scrub seal operations? Do you have as-built drawings of the nozzle locations in the asphalt and concrete bridge decks? Is the system currently operational?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 31-DEC-2024 03:01 PM
Yes, there are nozzles in the asphalt pavement section and the system will need to be protected during the scrub seal. As-built drawings showing the nozzle location are not available, the nozzles will be located and marked by MDT prior to construction.  The system will be operational during the testing as required by the Protection of Deicing Equipment provision. Linked are 3 pdfs which provide system details. They are provided for information only.  SYSTEM DETAILS

-4-
Submitted: Friday 03-JAN-2025 11:33 AM
Company: Helena Sand and Gravel
Contact: Solomon Redfern
Project does not have a bid item for fog seal, or final sweep and broom. Would you please consider adding one of these bid items. If MDT adds one of these bid items, would you consider adding 5 more days to the contract time.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 06-JAN-2025 04:46 PM
Final Sweep and Broom (409000000) is hereby added to this contract. The quantity is 26.1 CRMI. Sheet 11 has been revised. REVISED SHEET 11

An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted. Contract time will remain as stated in Special Provision, #2, Contract Time - Flex Time Proceed Date. 

-1-
Submitted: Monday 16-DEC-2024 07:50 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Cale Fisher
The bid schedule has an item for 11,264-lnft of Temporary Striping. Please clarify where this striping will be needed.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 19-DEC-2024 11:18 AM
Bid item #620012955 Temporary Striping is hereby deleted from the contract.
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday 17-DEC-2024 02:57 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: George Shick
With the NTP date of March 10th, when will the state start charging contract time? If Rumble Strips are performed before the start of Chip Seal season will the state still enforce fog sealing the rumble strips within 10 business days
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 18-DEC-2024 08:25 AM
The Notice to Proceed is hereby changed to a Flexible Notice to Proceed date of July 14^th ,2025. Meet the requirements in the standard specification 401.03.24.
Special Provision #2, Contract Time is hereby rescinded and replaced by the linked provision: CONTRACT TIME – FLEX TIME PROCEED DATE
 

-3-
Submitted: Thursday 02-JAN-2025 03:26 PM
Company: United Materials of Great Falls, Inc.
Contact: Estimating
Rumble strip plan quantity is 15.9 miles. Can a breakdown be provided. By our calculation, there is ~8.5 miles on I-15 northbound and ~4.8 miles at the interchanges (12,593.1 LF x 2 (both sides)).
Answer
Submitted: Friday 03-JAN-2025 02:27 PM
MDT has reviewed the calculations, and the plan quantity is correct.  There are 8.3 miles of continuous(inside shoulder) and 7.5 miles intermittent(outside shoulder less ramps openings) for a total of 15.8 miles. No rumble strips are planned on the ramps or crossroads. RUMBLE STRIPS SUMMARY

-1-
Submitted: Friday 10-JAN-2025 10:06 AM
Company: Kiewit Infrastructure
Contact: Anton Hocevar
Can the contractors bidding the project be sent the CAD files for the project?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 16-JAN-2025 11:30 AM
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. DESIGN FILES
 

-2-
Submitted: Friday 17-JAN-2025 05:01 PM
Company: Kiewit Infrastructure Co.
Contact: Anton Hocevar
What is the anticipated completion date for the utility relocations of the project? Have those relocations begun?

-3-
Submitted: Friday 17-JAN-2025 05:12 PM
Company: Kiewit Infrastructure Co.
Contact: Anton Hocevar
19.E.1) says that Culvert Foundation Material is paid for under Subsection 603.05, but there is no pay item for Culvert Foundation Material. Please advise on where to price this work.

No Questions available for this project.

No Questions available for this project.