Contractor's System Project Question and Answer Forum

-1-
Submitted: Sunday 29-SEP-2024 12:11 PM
Company: Alpine Sign, Inc
Contact: John
Stations 11+21 RT and 18+18 LT on the Sign Location and Specification show multiple signs mounting to single S5x10 structural posts. I see two issues:
These locations are on ramps. Please confirm sign sizes. How are these multiple signs mounted to the post?
There is no back bracing called out. If Windbeam is to be used, shouldn't these be listed and paid as Increment
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 03-OCT-2024 02:03 PM
Signs at Sta. 11+21 RT and 18+18 LT are located on the crossroad (Bad Route Road). Therefore, the sign dimensions should follow the plaque size from MUTCD for a Conventional Road and not Oversized as the advertised plans show.

Sign sizes have been updated to reflect Conventional Road dimensions. Due to the reduction in sign size, the post type has been revised to a treated 5” dia. wood pole with a standard breakaway device.

Signs are to be mounted to the wood post using the necessary backbracing as shown in MDT Detailed Drawing 619-21.

Plan sheets S1, S7, and S8 have been updated. UPDATED PLAN SHEETS

The following Signing Quantities have been updated. An amendment will be issued. Updated Bid Files will be provided.
619 010 090 SIGNS-ALUM REFL SHEET XI – 483.6 SQFT
619 010 320 POSTS-STEEL STRUCTURAL SIGN – 387 LB
619 010 490 POLES – TREATED WOOD 5 IN – 261 LNFT

The following item is hereby deleted from the contract:
619 010 724 FRANG SIGN POST BKWY-S5X10 – ITEM REMOVED

-2-
Submitted: Thursday 03-OCT-2024 09:07 AM
Company: Knife River Corporation- North Central
Contact: Michael Lawrence Risty
Would it be possible to get access to the design files for this project for the purpose of performing an earthwork take-off?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 07-OCT-2024 9:25 AM
The design files for the requested project are posted here: 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

-3-
Submitted: Thursday 10-OCT-2024 11:13 AM
Company: 3 Bull Contracting LLC
Contact: Kelsey Allen
For the pressure treated timbers that are required for the Wildlife jump outs, would Douglas Fir Pressure Treated dimensional lumber be acceptable for the timbers? There is no Specification for incised on the plan sheet, but this lumber would be able to fall under the BABA requirements as well as MDT pressure treated post requirements. Douglas Fir has a tighter cell density than pine and can withstand ground contact without being incised.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 11:25 PM
Pressure treated Douglas Fir dimensional lumber is acceptable for the timbers. Provide pressure treated lumber meeting the requirements of Section 706.

-4-
Submitted: Monday 14-OCT-2024 10:18 AM
Company: shotcrete montana
Contact: Larry p Mooney
Are there video or photographic documentation of condition of the 60" and 75" culverts scheduled for the CIPP lining?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 15-OCT-2024 09:44 AM
The requested photos of the culvert at Sta 2102+92 are posted here: PHOTOS

MDT provides these photos for informational purposes only. Photos may not completely represent the current condition of the culvert. The contractor should not rely solely on the photos for bidding purposes.

-5-
Submitted: Tuesday 15-OCT-2024 11:31 AM
Company: Insituform Technologies
Contact: Leanne Goodhue
Can videos or pictures of the culverts to be rehabilitated with CIPP be provided?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 16-OCT-2024 01:44 PM
See the response to question #4 for photos of Sta 2102+92. Video inspections of the other 3 CIPP sites are posted here: VIDEOS

MDT provides these videos for informational purposes only. Videos may not completely represent the current condition of the culverts. The contractor should not rely solely on the videos for bidding purposes.

-6-
Submitted: Thursday 17-OCT-2024 01:20 PM
Company: Insituform Technologies
Contact: Leanne Goodhue
Can you please provide the Station # to locate the 24" pipe for CIPP?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 09:18 AM
The station for the 24" CIPP liner is 2098+95

-7-
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 09:25 AM
Company: Central Specialties Inc.
Contact: Adam Ibrahim
Are there cut/fill tables available for this project?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 09:28 AM
Yes, the cut/fill tables are shown on the typical section plan sheets.

-8-
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 09:24 AM
Company: Central Specialties Inc.
Contact: Adam Ibrahim
Are there existing or in place typical sections for the road?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 09:20 AM
The files linked below represent the as-built drawings for the structures. MDT provides them for informational purposes only. They do not include drawings for modifications to the structures, such as joint replacements and guardrail revisions and 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.
AS BUILTS
Refer to the geotechnical bore logs in the contract for the measured in-place depths of surfacing materials at the bore locations.
Updated: Monday 21-OCT-2024 09:51 AM
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) data collected in 2015 for this project showing average in-place depths of plant mix and gravel is available for informational purposes only.
GPR DATA

-9-
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 09:28 AM
Company: Central Specialties Inc.
Contact: Adam Ibrahim
Is there supposed to be a remove bituminous pavement bid item for the reconstruct/pipe replacement locations? Is this already quantified in the unclassified excavation?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 10:51 AM
Bituminous pavement removal will be paid as unclassified excavation.

-10-
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 11:59 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Company
Contact: Keith Johnston
After reading special provision 47, it is unclear how the epoxy pavement marking will be paid. Method of Measurement sections 2 and 3 seem to contradict each other. Please Clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 02:05 PM
Epoxy traffic paint will be measured and paid for in accordance with Section 620. Special provision #47, Crossover Traffic Control has been updated: CROSSOVER TRAFFIC CONTROL

-11-
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 12:12 PM
Company: Subsurface Inc
Contact: Mike Aubol
There are two 4"-6" drain pipes located under the 60" draining into the 75" culvert. There is also a 24" riser draining area between I94 and the frontage road running east of Fallon. The location for this riser is 20' south of the end of the 60". Riser has large concrete and dirt chunks lodged into opening of 75". How does the DOT want to address additional findings?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 09:59 AM
The existing subdrainage pipes that enter the culvert at the 60” to 75” size transition will not be perpetuated. Install the new liner continuously past the subdrainage pipes. MDT is aware of the debris in the riser pipe. The contractor is not required to clean the riser pipe, but the riser pipe opening, and culvert barrel must be adequately prepared to facilitate the liner installation. Preparation work at the ends of the subdrainage pipes or the riser penetration is incidental to the liner installation. Refer to the details and special provisions for additional requirements.

-12-
Submitted: Saturday 19-OCT-2024 04:59 PM
Company: Montana Lines, Inc.
Contact: Pat Bomgardner
Concerning the weigh station flasher scope, please confirm the following or provide direction otherwise:
1. All necessary conduit work occurs only at the weight station sign locations and is only above ground.
2. No new wire is needed between the building and sign locations.
3. No wire needs to be removed between the building and sign locations.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 08:32 AM
1.    Correct, the new flashing beacon controller will mount to the existing sign pole. The existing conductor will be utilized from the sign activation cabinet to the sign base where a new breakaway junction box will be installed. The new conduit work is only on the sign structure above ground.
2.    Correct, the existing branch circuits, from the building to the existing open/closed sign control unit, powering the sign controllers will be utilized as-is in place.
3.    Correct, the existing branch circuits, from the building to the existing open/closed sign control unit, powering the sign controllers will be utilized as-is in place.

-13-
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 02:58 PM
Company: Mountain West Holding Company
Contact: Cody Cunningham
1) SP 47 states to mask conflicting striping with removable, preformed tape. On past projects, MDT has determined that the center skip line in areas of two-way traffic is a conflicting stripe and has required it to be covered. Should the contractor assume we are to mask the center skip line prior to placing raised pavement markers?
2) Will painting the yellow edge line to white for two-way traffic and then back to yellow for normal traffic patterns be acceptable? No grinding will be required.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 09:26 AM
1. Mask centerline skips using preformed tape.
2. Painting edge lines where no obliteration (i.e. grinding, water blasting etc.) is required is acceptable.

-14-
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 03:57 PM
Company: Montana Fence Company
Contact: Jim Ritter
Regarding bid item 607100020 Gate Wildlife. Will these 4' wide 'Inspection Gates' be required to have concrete dig barrier aprons?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 09:43 AM
Dig barrier aprons are not required under the wildlife fence gates.

-1-
Submitted: Monday 30-SEP-2024 03:37 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting Inc.
Contact: Dennis Devous
Can you change the Type 2 chips to Type 1 so we don't have to haul them so far?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 08-OCT-2024 11:11 AM
The chips will remain Type 2 for this project.

-2-
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 02:04 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting Inc.
Contact: Dennis Devous
Riverside would like to request an additional 24 days be added to the Contract Time due to the amount of dig out work cross-over work and subcontract work to schedule in we feel the time will run short before all can get done.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 02:51 PM
Special Provision #2, Contract Time is hereby replaced by the following:
108-6

-3-
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 04:31 PM
Company: Mountain West Holding Co
Contact: Chris Connors
Plan page 13, Note 2 says all items are included in the bid price per each of Crossover,-Maintain & Close. Per the summary on plan page 6, the crossover at the stationing 920 to 924 should be under Crossover Median Barrier. Please clarify what bid item the work shown on plan page 13 should be paid under.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 03:02 PM
The summary on Sheet 6 is correct. Sheet 13 of the plans has been revised:
SHEET 13

-4-
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 09:04 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Co
Contact: Chris Connors
Plan sheet 13 has a note "Ex Concrete Barrier Rail Reset As Required for Traffic Control" beyond the limits of the crossover area. However, Sheet No 19 includes a note "Do Not Disturb Existing Median Concrete Barrier Rail Outside of Crossover". Please clarify that the median barrier is not to be removed, reset, or replaced beyond the quantity shown and location shown for the crossover opening.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 03:16 PM
Median barrier is not to be removed, reset or replaced beyond the quanitty and location shown for the crossover opening. Sheet 13 of the plans has been revised to remove the callouts:
SHEET 13

-5-
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 08:55 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Co
Contact: Chris Connors
Typical Section No 2 on sheet 03 indicates that the chip seal will go up to the face of barrier. However, on sheet 13 it shows the seal & cover to be under the barrier through the crossover section. Will the Department consider not placing chip seal under the barrier at stations 920+10.2 to 924+75 and match the rest of the median barrier section of roadway by placing chip seal up to the edge of the barrier?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 03:12 PM
The quantity for bid Item # 409000020 – COVER TYPE 2 – has been updated to 380,183 SQYD in the contract. The chip seal will be removed under the barrier through the crossover section to match the adjacent sections. Sheet 4 and Sheet 13 of the plan set now includes the quantity change.
SHEET 4 & SHEET 13

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

-1-
Submitted: Monday 07-OCT-2024 02:38 PM
Company: United Materials of Great Falls, Inc.
Contact: Scott Schuman
The concrete valley gutter frame shown on sheet 7 of the plans provides the stationing and quantity in square yards. The valley gutter detail on plan sheet 10 shows the width of the valley gutter replacement at three feet. I am questioning the quantity of the valley gutter. I tried to confirm the width or the length of the valley gutter replacement on plan sheet 33, but no information relating to the valley gutter is provided. I am assuming the valley gutter being replaced is located in the intersection of 9th Avenue SW. Thank you.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 09-OCT-2024 02:51 PM
The stationing and quantity shown in the summary on sheet 7 is incorrect. The valley gutter is for drainage at the Crescent Circle intersection RT of centerline. The correct stationing is 42+69.47 – 43+60.72. 
 
Sheets 7, 10 and 34 of the Road Plans have been revised and can be viewed here:REVISED ROAD PLANS
 
Bid Item #609010160 - CONC VALLEY GUTTER is hereby modified to 30.4 square yards.
 
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 16-OCT-2024 09:49 AM
Company: United Materials of Great Falls, Inc.
Contact: Scott Schuman
The contract plans for the reinforcing dowels and deformed tie bars for the seven inch concrete paving and the concrete pavement slab replacement refers to the MDT Detailed 501 Series Drawings. The MDT Detailed 501 Series Drawings are based on a typical nine inch thick concrete paving section. Does MDT want to reduce the size of the reinforcing items in the areas of the seven inch thick concrete paving?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 17-OCT-2024 12:06 PM
MDT does not want to reduce the size of the reinforcing items. Use the reinforcing dowels and deformed tie bars per the MDT detailed drawings.

-3-
Submitted: Thursday 17-OCT-2024 08:25 AM
Company: United Materials of Great Falls, Inc.
Contact: Scott Schuman
Standard Detail Drawing 501-05 shows 6"x6" galvanized mesh reinforcement for conditions "B", "F", and "J". Please provide the gage of the wire.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 12:35 PM
Provide galvanized mesh reinforcement with a minimum opening of 4" x 4" and maximum opening of 6" x 6" with a a gauge of 4.

-4-
Submitted: Saturday 19-OCT-2024 04:15 PM
Company: Montana Lines, Inc.
Contact: Estimating
The sum of the quantities of square tubular steel within the signing summary sheets is 1,255lb while the bid quantity is 999lb. Please clarify. Please also indicate whether any new sign foundations are to be installed in existing hardscape.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 12:07 PM
Bid item #619010340 POSTS-TUBULAR STEEL-SQ-PERF is hereby modified to 1,255.0 LB.

Sheet S1 and S9 of Sign Plans has been revised and can be found here: SHEET S1 & S9

In accordance with the detail drawings surface mount options on the Departments QPL are allowed for hardscape (concrete/sidewalk) supports where the “triangle” symbol for the breakaway support is used.  Otherwise, new foundations will be required.

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

-1-
Submitted: Sunday 29-SEP-2024 12:00 PM
Company: Alpine Sign Inc
Contact: John
Station 46+71 LT on the Sign Location and Specification shows a single S4x7.7 post for G9-56A. Is that correct?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 30-SEP-2024 09:45 AM
The G9-56a sign at station 46+71 LT is mounted on two S4x7.7 supports with breakaway devices.  The support lengths are estimated at 14-foot 6 inches and 15-foot 6 inches with a 4-foot 10-inch sign support spacing.  This is indicated on the sign location and specification sheets in the plans under support spacing and estimated lengths.

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday 01-OCT-2024 09:54 AM
Company: Alpine Sign Inc
Contact: John
Sign Location 46+71 LT does account for two S4x7.7 posts although only one Frang Sign Post Breakaway.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 04-OCT-2024 08:52 AM
A second breakaway will be added to the contract via amendment. 
Bid Item #619 010 722  FRANG SIGN POST BKWY-S4 X 7.7 is hereby increased to 2.0 EACH.
Updated Signing Sheet S1 is included here: SHEET S1
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 02-OCT-2024 07:16 AM
Company: CK MAY EXCAVATING INC
Contact: Josh McKenzie
With the high volume of traffic in Bozeman from Montana State University students until a few weeks after MSU graduation in May, can a flex time date be added to the contract with an effective date of June 3rd?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 07-OCT-2024 10:15 AM
No, the notice to proceed date for this contract is April 15, 2025.

-4-
Submitted: Wednesday 02-OCT-2024 11:45 AM
Company: CK MAY EXCAVATING INC
Contact: Josh McKenzie
1.) Can you please provide the linework for this project in dwg format along with any alignments/surfaces/corridors in xml format?
2.) Since the contractor must bid the milling haul off to Gallatin County at various locations with various costs depending on the distance and access to side/belly/end dumps, can you provide an approximate quantity each location will take and what locations can utilize side/belly dumps.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 08-OCT-2024 01:38 PM

-5-
Submitted: Wednesday 02-OCT-2024 11:43 AM
Company: CK MAY EXCAVATING INC
Contact: Josh McKenzie
SP 25 C. 2) states "All work requiring lane closures is to be completed at night. Noise mitigation measures and requirements should meet the requirements of the City of Bozeman and the Special Provisions." SP 25 C. 12 states "All lane closures must be approved by the Project Manager prior to being implemented. Lane closures may be restricted during peak hours if deemed necessary by the Project Manager. Peak hours are between 7:00 am and 9:00 am and between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm." These seem to contradict each other.
1. Was SP 25 C. 2) meant to say " "All work requiring road closures..."? This work will require shifting traffic to the northbound and southbound travel lanes with lane closures throughout the project.
2. Is night work only required when closing the intersections of the various main arterial cross streets, or any lane shifting which would be the entire project?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 04-OCT-2024 08:25 AM
Special Provision #25, Sequence of Operations, is hereby replaced with the following special provision: SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS

-6-
Submitted: Monday 14-OCT-2024 09:03 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Company
Contact: Cody Cunningham
SP 25: Sequence of Operations says to provide single use signs to direct traffic to businesses as necessary. Will MDT please add item 618 100 000 - Single Use Signs to the contract?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 16-OCT-2024 07:55 AM
If business access signs are deemed necessary by the Project Manager, they will be paid for in accordance with the traffic control rate schedule.

-7-
Submitted: Monday 14-OCT-2024 10:41 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Cale Fisher
There is no pay item listed in the schedule of items for hydrated lime. SP 27.B(1) details the use of hydrated lime in the Highly Modified Asphalt Mix and SP 27.D notes that it will be measured and paid for separately. Please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 17-OCT-2024 09:33 AM
The surfacing summary sheet is revised and can be viewed here: SHEET 19
Bid Item #401 020 300  HYDRATED LIME is hereby added to the contract at a quantity of 233.0 TONS.
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-8-
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 06:49 AM
Company: HighMark Traffic Services, Inc.
Contact: Bradley Meyer
Stripe Groove specifications are not included in the latest addition of the Standard Specification. Can you please add Stripe Groove Specification to the Special Provisions.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 04:45 PM
The following Special Provision is hereby added to the contract:
PAVEMENT MARKINGS GROOVING

-9-
Submitted: Friday 18-OCT-2024 09:29 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Cale Fisher
Upon reviewing the durations of the required work and project schedule, the 60 working days MDT is allowing for on this project is not adequate. In addition to the amount of work on this project, the requirement for night work will affect normal productions. The project location has a high volume of traffic and access to work outside of lane closures will be difficult, also impacting production rates. We request an additional 35 working days be added to the contract.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 04:28 PM
An additional 10 working days will be added to the contract for a total of 70 days.
Special Provision 2. Contract Time – Flex Time Proceed Date is hereby replaced with the following updated special provision: CONTRACT TIME - FLEX TIME PROCEED DATE

-10-
Submitted: Sunday 20-OCT-2024 01:55 PM
Company: Montana Lines, Inc.
Contact: Pat Bomgardner
Is Item 617763410, RADAR VEHICLE DETECTION, intended to be Item 617763500, DETECTOR-RADAR/PRESENCE?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 08:55 AM
Bid Item 617 763 410  RADAR VEHICLE DETECTION, quantity of 28 EACH, is hereby deleted. Bid Item 617 763 500  DETECTOR-RADAR/PRESENCE, quantity of 28 EACH, will be added by amendment.
Updated Plan Sheet E1 can be viewed here: SHEET E1
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.
Update
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 11:50 AM
Plan Sheet E1 has been updated to correct Bid Item #''s: UPDATED SHEET E1

-11-
Submitted: Sunday 20-OCT-2024 08:50 PM
Company: Montana Lines, Inc.
Contact: Pat Bomgardner
Pole L1 on sheet E7 appears to be classified as a type 3 traffic signal pole but will be used for lane usage signing instead of traffic signals. While this concept makes sense, please confirm this structure will be held to traffic signal pole standards, i.e., those included in detail sheet E4, and not to those typically directed by special provisions regarding Item 619010521, OVERHEAD STR/METAL-CANTILEVER. Further, sheet S16 appears to detail this structure, but the detail does not include a luminaire extension/mast arm, and it includes foundation details that are not consistent with detail sheet E4. Please clarify. Lastly, the pole schedule on sheet E7 indicates breakaway type foundation, should this be anchor?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 09:31 AM
Pole L1 is to be designed to signal pole standards as shown in the plans on E4. Sheet S16 has been revised to remove the design information for clarity.
Pole L1 has been updated to TYPE 3-A-900-8 and Bid Item 617 713 097  SIG STANDARD TYPE 3-A-900-7 has been removed and replaced with Bid Item 617 713 098  SIG STANDARD TYPE 3-A-900-8 with a quantity of 1.0 EACH.
Pole L1 foundation has been updated from Breakaway to Anchor.
Revised Sheet E1 can be viewed in the response to Question #10.
Revised Sheet E7 can be viewed here: SHEET E7
Revised Sheet E16 can be viewed here: SHEET E16
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-12-
Submitted: Sunday 20-OCT-2024 10:58 AM
Company: Lumen FX
Contact: Frank Dugas
On the signage summary on sheet S01 it lists only one cantilever sign structure. It appears there should actually be two with one at 45+95 and another at 54+11. Both are listed as new structures on sheets S03 and S12. Please clarify how many structures there should be.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 08:35 AM
It is correct that only one cantilever sign structure included in the plans. The structure at 54+11 is the structure being paid for via Item 619 010 521, OVERHEAD STR/METAL-CANTILEVER and the signs located at 45+95 are being placed on luminaire L1 and the structure is paid for via Item 617 713 098  SIG STANDARD TYPE 3-A-900-8.

-13-
Submitted: Sunday 20-OCT-2024 01:58 PM
Company: Lumen FX
Contact: Frank Dugas
On sheet E7 pole #L2 (signal standard) is listed as Breakaway Foundation. Please advise if that is a typo or if you envision some sort of slip base.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 09:42 AM
Sheet E7 has been revised to show that pole L1 has an Anchor Foundation. Pole L2 is correctly shown as a breakaway.
Revised plan sheet E7 can be viewed in the response to Question #11.

-14-
Submitted: Sunday 20-OCT-2024 09:16 PM
Company: Montana Lines, Inc.
Contact: Pat Bomgardner
Please provide a pay item and special provision for electrical items to be removed and reset.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 09:20 AM
Bid Item 617 731 622  REMOVE AND RESET EXIST POLES, quantity of 1 LS, Will be added by amendment.  This bid item will cover the removal and reinstallation of Pole No. 5 on Sheet E12, and Pole No. 6 on Sheet E15. This item is paid per Standard Specification 617.03.22.
Updated plan sheet E1 can be viewed in the response to Question #10.
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-15-
Submitted: Sunday 20-OCT-2024 09:12 PM
Company: Montana Lines, Inc.
Contact: Pat Bomgardner
Electrical plans indicate a number of items are to be removed. Please provide a pay item for this work or provide direction as to how it will be paid. Please also provide a special provision for this item or at least direction as to what is to be done with salvaged equipment.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024
Bid Item 617 781 000  REMOVE AND SALVAGE MISC ELECTRICAL, quantity of 1 LS, will be added by amendment.

A.    Description. Remove and salvage existing traffic signal standard at the E Valley Center Rd. and N 19th Ave intersection in Bozeman. Remove and salvage traffic signal indications, pedestrian signal indications, pedestrian signal poles, and pedestrian push buttons, and video vehicle detection where new item is shown. 
B.    Construction Requirements. Take care not to damage equipment. Securely attach all miscellaneous parts associated with salvaged equipment (e.g., nuts, bolts washers, caps, hand-hole covers) to the equipment to prevent loss or damage. Dispose of removed wiring, remove, and dispose of foundations.
        Give two working days advance notice to the Maintenance Superintendent before delivery of salvaged equipment. Deliver removed equipment to the Bozeman MDT Maintenance yard 22129 Frontage Rd, Belgrade, MT. Contact Dan Diaz at (406) 410-1881. Supply personnel and equipment to unload salvaged equipment. MDT personnel will not unload salvaged equipment.
C.    Method and Measurement and Basis of Payment. Payment is lump sum, which includes removing, salvaging, disposal, and delivery to MDT.

Updated Plan Sheet E1 can be viewed in the response to Question #10.
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-16-
Submitted: Sunday 20-OCT-2024 09:04 PM
Company: Montana Lines, Inc.
Contact: Pat Bomgardner
Sheet E9 indicates new pre-emption detection is needed for pole 2. Please provide a pay item for this or provide direction as to how it will be paid. Please also provide a special provision for this item.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 01:02 PM
The state will furnish the emergency preemption cable and emergency preemption detectors.
Transport the emergency preemption equipment from the Department of Transportation building in Helena to the construction site and install it.  Give a minimum of five working days advance notice to the traffic engineering section before arriving to pick up the preemption equipment.  Contact Erich Wulfekuhle at 406-444-7246.
Bid Item 617 905 502  EMER PRE-EMPT DET CABLE-INSTALL is hereby added to the contract at a quantity of 190.0 LNFT.
Bid Item 617 905 505  EMER PRE-EMPT DET HEAD INSTALL is hereby added to the contract at a quantity of 1.0 EACH.
Updated Plan Sheet E1 can be viewed in the response to Question #10.

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

-17-
Submitted: Sunday 20-OCT-2024 08:49 PM
Company: Montana Lines, Inc.
Contact: Pat Bomgardner
Please provide a Special Provision for Item 619010521, OVERHEAD STR/METAL-CANTILEVER.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 04:43 PM
See Standard Specification sections 619 and 704 for design and construction requirements for Item 619 010 521, OVERHEAD STR/METAL-CANTILEVER.
Item 619 010 521, OVERHEAD STR/METAL-CANTILEVER includes all work for overhead structure and foundation as noted on plans.

-18-
Submitted: Sunday 20-OCT-2024 08:56 PM
Company: Montana Lines, Inc.
Contact: Pat Bomgardner
Pole schedule sheet E9 indicates foundation size for pole 2 that is inconsistent with detail sheet E4. Please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 09:44 AM
Sheet E9 has been revised to show a 3’-0” x 12’-0” foundation for Pole 2.
The quantity for Item 617 000 000  FOUNDATION-CONCRETE has been decreased to 14.5 CUYD.
Revised sheet E9 can be viewed here: SHEET E9
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-19-
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 09:49 AM
Company: Calumet Refining
Contact: Brad Newcomb
Will the PG64E-34 that is specified be analyzed according to the JNR diff max of 75%, or will that be "for report only" as it has been on the PG58V-34? As you are probably aware, the combined state testing group of 6 surrounding states to the east of Montana have waived entirely the JNR diff results as a specification. Also will the JNR@3.2 be for report only or will that be a potential deduct? If so, what will be the penalty schedule, or is it already established elsewhere in the specifications? Will there be the same consideration given for this grade in the testing regimen as is given the PG58V-34?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 01:27 PM
The difference in non-recoverable creep compliance or JNR-Diff is to be submitted for report only and not for acceptance.
The JNR @ 3.2 Kpa will be tested for acceptance. (JNR@3.2Kpa ≥ 0.5 Kpa-1 for PG MSCR “E” Grades).
Section 402 in the Standard Specifications has not been updated to accommodate acceptance testing for JNR or %Recovery from a statistical analysis standpoint. Therefore, acceptance will be “pass/fail” with any potential price reductions negotiated based on type and degree of failure, up to and including removal and replacement of any highly modified asphalt mixture placed with failing PG MSCR binder. It is MDT’s intent to give this binder the same consideration as the original introduction of MSCR binder by Special Provision.

-1-
Submitted: Thursday 26-SEP-2024 04:08 PM
Company: Battle Ridge
Contact: Cody Ham
Is it possible to move the NTP forward on this project?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 30-SEPT-2024 02:12 PM
Special Provision 2. Contract Time – Completion Date is hereby replaced with the following special provision: CONTRACT TIME – FLEX TIME PROCEED DATE

-2-
Submitted: Friday 27-SEP-2024 04:23 PM
Company: Condon-Johnson
Contact: Ty Jahn
What is the allowable deflection for the micropiles?
What depth is permanent casing required for the micropiles?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 01-OCT-2024 11:53 AM
The allowable lateral deflections for the micropiles are less than ½” for all non-seismic load cases, and less than 1” for the seismic load cases. 
The depth of the permanent casing shall be below an elevation of 2865ft.  This elevation ensures that the casing is well below the thalweg and should likely be within the boulder conglomerate layer as shown on the plans.

-3-
Submitted: Monday 30-SEP-2024 03:15 PM
Company: Battle Ridge
Contact: Cody Ham
In section 48 of the proposal it states there always has to be at least 6 ft of clearance between the water and temporary structures. The schedule of this project goes right through high water, and even at a Q2 event there isn't quite 6 ft of clearance to the bottom chord of the designed truss. At a Q100 event there is only about 2.5 ft there, could we use the bottom chord of the designed bridge as the base elevation for any temporary structures and change the signage? Anything else will likely have inaccurate signage at the time of high water.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 02-OCT-2024 03:29 PM
The bottom chord of the designed bridge may be used as the base elevation for any temporary structures.  Adjust maximum clearance signing height as necessary to meet field conditions.

-4-
Submitted: Tuesday 01-OCT-2024 08:14 AM
Company: Condon-Johnson
Contact: Ty Jahn
On Drawing Sheet 83 the Abutment 2 Design Values Table lists the loads for the Abutment to be designed for. Can you please annotate each load column for which loads a vertical and which loads are lateral? Also, can you please let us know what the full name is for the load nomenclature used in the chart? For example what does BR, TU, and WS stand for?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 03-OCT-2024 10:54 AM
Descriptions of the listed loads are specified in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, 9th Edition.  The design should meet all requirements within the LRFD specification.  The provided Abutment 2 design value table summarizes minimums required for categories shown.
 
The first row of load values marked “Gravity” are all downward loads.
The second row of load values marked “Bridge Transverse” are lateral loads perpendicular to the long bridge direction.
The third row of load values marked “Bridge Longitudinal” are lateral loads parallel to the long bridge direction. 
The columns are:
DL-SUB STR = DC loading from the substructure
DL-SUP STR = DC loading from the superstructure
All other design values listed in the table follow the naming convention from the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th edition.

As noted above, the service loads shown in the table are the minimum required loads to design the foundation for Abutment 2.  Other loads such as seismic load cases that may be dependent on the foundation design should be added as required by the micropile design, using the Seismic Design Values provided for Bent 2.  All LRFD load combinations and factors shall be applied as prescribed by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, 9th Edition.

-5-
Submitted: Wednesday 02-OCT-2024 10:12 AM
Company: Hamilton Construction Co.
Contact: Wendell Snook
Could you please make available any as-built bridge drawings?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 02-OCT-2024 02:02 PM
The files linked below represent the as-built drawings for the structures. MDT provides them for informational purposes only. They do not include drawings for modifications to the structures, such as joint replacements and guardrail revisions and 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. AS-BUILTS

-6-
Submitted: Thursday 03-OCT-2024 11:44 AM
Company: Hamilton Construction Co.
Contact: Wendell Snook
Attempts to gain steel truss information from the contact person at U.S. Bridge have gone unanswered to date. - Can MDT provide Steel Truss Shop drawings so we may determine piece size & weights, number of connections & number of bolts/connection? - Are we responsible for transportation costs from the MDT Maintenance Yard listed in the specials provisions or from a U.S. Bridge facility? - Does MDT have an agreement for providing the fabrication representative per special provision 39.B1? - Any information you can share regarding steel truss specifics would be very helpful in determining our costs to transport and erect.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 03-OCT-2024 04:25 PM
Steel Truss Shop Drawings have not been completed to date. Steel Truss – Design and Fabrication information along with additional scope details are linked here: STEEL TRUSS DESIGN & FABRICATION SCOPE DETAILS
The contractor is responsible for transportation costs to transport the steel truss from the MDT Ferndale Maintenance Yard to the project site.  A signed contract was completed between MDT and US Bridge to provide onsite technical assistance during contractor installation for up to 5 days. Pose all further questions pertaining to the steel truss on the Q&A Forum. Do not contact US Bridge directly.

-7-
Submitted: Friday 04-OCT-2024 07:47 AM
Company: Condon-Johnson
Contact: Ty Jahn
1. What is the bridge operational category and appropriate corresponding substructure response modification factor for the micropiles?
2. Can the designer provide lateral seismic design forces for the abutment to utilize in designing the micropiles?
a. We anticipate there will be bridge longitudinal and transverse design cases, both with reactions from the superstructure (applied at the superstructure bearing baseplates) and substructure (applied at the center of mass of the abutment cap and soil cover).
b. We acknowledge that the foundation loads may vary depending on the period of the foundation system selected, so we request these loads for the owner-specified micropile sizes and configuration
3. Please advise if seismic transverse forces on the superstructure will have an overturning effect on the abutment (reducing vertical load under the bearing on one side, and increasing it on the other), or if they can be taken as a pure lateral force applied at the bearing baseplates
4. Please advise on the seismic longitudinal force/weight imposed on abutment 2. Is the superstructure dead load given in the “Abutment 2 Design Values” table the entirety of seismic weight applied to Abutment 2, or is it greater due to this end being the fixed bearing?
5. Do any soil seismic loads need to be considered on the backfilled side of the abutment? If so, can these be provided?
a. Alternately, does the owner-specified micropile design include a seismic increment for the soil behind the abutment?
6. Please confirm or correct our assumptions regarding load locations for the loads provided in the “Abutment 2 Design Values” table with respect to Abutment 2 geometry:
a. We assume that the vertical loads provided act at the centerline of the abutment when viewed in cross-section, and are concentric with the owner-specified pile group.
b. We assume that the bridge transverse load “WS” acts at the centerline of the abutment when viewed in cross-section, and at an elevation equal to the superstructure bearing baseplates.
c. We assume that the bridge longitudinal loads “BR”, “WS”, and “TU” act at an elevation equal to the superstructure bearing baseplates, and “EH” acts at an elevation 1/3 of the height between the typical bottom of footing and roadway surface
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 08-OCT-2024 12:50 PM
The following is provided for information only.  Final design of the micropile foundation is the responsibility of the micropile contractor and may vary from the preliminary assumptions provided below.

2a., 2b., & 3.  Consideration of this assumption is the responsibility of the Engineer of Record completing the micropile design.
4.    The seismic force imposed on abutment 2 shall include the entire seismic weight of the superstructure in the longitudinal direction.  To further clarify, the seismic tributary load in the bridge longitudinal direction is approximately 1165-kip. The seismic tributary load in the bridge transverse direction is approximately 750-kip.  These design demands used for preliminary abutment seismic analysis include all acting permanent loads and a portion of the live load.
5.    Passive soil resistance may be considered to reduce seismic shear in the micropiles.  For this structure, the abutment design assumes that the expansion joints may close and transfer load to the opposite bridge end under seismic conditions. 
Provided for information only, the preliminary abutment 2 seismic analysis approximated the passive soil resistance using the nonlinear soil-abutment-bridge structure interaction method (Shamsabadi et al. 2007) in the 2011 LRFD Guide Specification.  This analysis indicated that approximately 0.4in of soil engagement for a 25ft of backwall would resist about 340-kips. 
5a.  See above.
6a., 6b., & 6c.  These assumptions are consistent with the abutment design

-8-
Submitted: Wednesday 09-OCT-2024 09:13 AM
Company: Frontier West, LLC
Contact: Craig Lien
The haunches depicted on Sheet B18 are not modern type vertical sided that can be adjusted for final deck grade / thickness just prior to the deck pour as required per MDT standard requirements. Also, it would appear that the haunches as depicted would require additional reinforcing; and, none is shown in the section or on the structure bill of reinforcing steel. Per standard modern construction techniques and practices, will the final design incorporate vertical stringer stepping that will allow for vertical haunches that are relatively short, require no additional reinforcement, and can be adjusted to ensure final design deck thickness and finish grade just prior to pouring? Thanks,
Answer
Submitted: Friday 11-OCT-2024 12:30 PM
The cross section that is shown on B18 shows a generic truss and deck cross section and may not represent the final design that will be provided by the truss manufacture.  The interface between the truss and final deck is unknown until the shop drawings from the truss manufacturer are approved.  Bid the reinforcing steel as shown in the quantity table.  The basis of payment in Standard Spec 555.05 will apply for additional reinforcing steel involved in changes ordered by the Project Manager as required.

-9-
Submitted: Friday 11-OCT-2024 08:17 AM
Company: Hamilton Construction Co.
Contact: Wendell Snook
UHPC is called out in the plan sheets to be placed in the bearing pedestals and in the expansion joint block outs. Special Provision 40 UHPC describes the requirements for placing UHPC specifically for the bearing pedestals but makes no reference to the expansion joint block out placement. Can MDT provide special provision requirements as they pertain to the placement of UHPC in the expansion joint block outs?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 15-OCT-2024 11:26 AM
Special Provision 40. Ultra High-Performance Concrete (UHPC) is hereby replaced with the following updated special provision: UHPC

-10-
Submitted: Wednesday 16-OCT-2024 02:43 PM
Company: Condon-Johnson
Contact: Ty Jahn
Please confirm that the expectation is to not have the micropile casing galvanized and that bare micropile casing is allowable (and if needed steel corrosion can be taken into account for the micropile casing design). For the center reinforcing bar is epoxy coating allowed or does the center reinforcing bar need to be galvanized?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 17-OCT-2024 02:45 PM
The design life for the bridge is 75 years. Materials and designs that meet this 75-year requirement are acceptable, including the use of non-galvanized casing and reinforcement.

-11-
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 09:00 AM
Company: Sletten Construction
Contact: Russ Robertson
Would MDT please provide the full geotechnical report?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 22-OCT-2024 10:31 AM
The Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Geotechnical Investigation and Preliminary Foundation Design, and the Geotechnical and Materials Report are linked below.
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: GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

-1-
Submitted: Sunday 20-OCT-2024 09:29 PM
Company: Montana Lines, Inc.
Contact: Pat Bomgardner
Foundation concrete quantity for the 3ea Type 1-100 signal poles and the 4ea traffic signal poles sums to 13.61 CUYD, plan quantity is 6.86, please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 21-OCT-2024 11:40 AM
Bid item #617000000 FOUNDATION - CONCRETE is hereby modified to 13.61 CUYD.
Sheet E1 of the Electrical Plans has been revised and can be found here: REVISED ELECTRICAL SHEET
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

No Questions available for this project.

No Questions available for this project.

No Questions available for this project.

No Questions available for this project.

No Questions available for this project.

No Questions available for this project.

No Questions available for this project.

No Questions available for this project.