Contractor's System Project Question and Answer Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-6-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:15 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please clarify the intent of the "Concrete Barrier Rail" note on Plan Sheet RD-2. Specifically, does the term "reused" refer to use in temporary configurations only, or is the intent to incorporate existing Standard Concrete Barrier into the permanent configuration and therefore reduce the quantity required under the "Concrete Barrier Rail" bid item? Additionally, in either scenario, there is no pay method identified for sorting, loading, hauling, or other handling of existing barrier for reuse. Should this work be assumed to be paid under Force Account, or will MDT designate a bid item?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 16-DEC-2025 03:30 PM
Existing barrier should only be reused in a temporary configuration. Please refer to the Temporary Guardrail summary frame on RD-16. The effort associated with this work shall be included in the unit bid price for 618 190 110 RESET TEMP BARRIER RAIL.

-7-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:21 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please clarify the intent of Special Provision #60 – Temporary Barrier Rail. Sections B and C imply that the existing centerline two-loop barrier may be reused as Temporary Barrier Rail for the Phase 1 and 2 construction traffic control configurations. Section D.1 states that this work will be measured and paid by the foot as Temporary Barrier Rail. However, the Contract does not include a bid item for Temporary Barrier Rail. The only related item is "Reset Temporary Barrier Rail," with a quantity of 36,000 LF, which is only sufficient to account for two full project-length resets of the existing 18,000 LF of barrier. Given the construction phasing, it appears that three project-length barrier installations will be required (Phase 1, Winter configuration, Phase 2). Please review and clarify. We suggest either adding a dedicated bid item for Temporary Barrier Rail with a quantity of 18,000 LF to align with the work described in SP #60 – or add 18,000 LF to the "Reset Temporary Barrier Rail" item and clarify the measurement and payment method.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 23-DEC-2025 11:22 AM
18,000 LNFT of Bid Item #618 190 110  RESET TEMP BARRIER RAIL is hereby added to the contract for a total quantity of 54,000 LNFT to account for phasing during winter configuration.  Plan Sheet RD-16 has been revised: RD-16
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-8-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:19 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please clarify the work included under the "Crossover-Median Barrier Rail" bid item. Special Provision #5 lists removal of median barrier, temporary paving, temporary impact attenuators, signing/striping, and surfacing/stripe maintenance as included in this item. Several of these activities are already covered under separate bid items (e.g., Temporary Impact Attenuators, Traffic Control–Crossover). In addition, SP #5 and SP #56 both appear to describe overlapping work for their respective items. Please clarify which work elements are intended to be paid under each item so bidders can price the work accurately.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 11:03 AM
Special Provision #5 Temporary Closed Median Crossover is hereby replaced with the following special provision: LINK

The following items are to be paid for separately and not included in unit price bid for CROSSOVER-MEDIAN BARRIER RAIL or TRAFFIC CONTROL-CROSSOVER bid items:

• Remove Concrete Barrier Rail (See Concrete Barrier Rail Summary Frame)
• Reset Concrete Barrier Rail (See Concrete Barrier Rail Summary Frame)
• Temporary Impact Attenuator (See Temporary Guardrail Summary Frame)

• Temporary paving
• Maintenance of surfacing, drainage, concrete barrier rail, attenuators, and erosion control.

• Setup and removal of signing, striping and traffic control devices
• Maintenance of striping, signing, and traffic control devices.

-9-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:22 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Plan Sheet RD-68 includes a note directing the Contractor to backfill the temporary median between Phase 1 and Phase 2 with pavement millings during the winter shutdown, and states that this work will be paid under "Traffic Gravel." However, there is no bid item for Traffic Gravel included in the Contract. Please clarify how this work is to be paid, and provide an appropriate bid item and quantity.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 16-DEC-2025 03:46 PM
Bid Item 301 020 268  TRAFFIC GRAVEL is hereby added to the contract with a quantity of 1,090 CUYD as shown on sheet RD-14.  An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-10-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:18 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please provide a specification and applicable detail(s) for the "Ramp Crossover" bid item. Our assumption is that this item covers the temporary ramp crossover work at RP 0.0 in the general locations shown on Plan Sheet RD-67; however, the Contract currently does not contain enough information to accurately price this work. Are temporary attenuators required for these openings? Additionally, Sheet RD-67 includes labels for "RP 0.2 Closed Median Ramp Crossover," but this does not appear to relate to any existing or temporary feature. Please clarify the intent of these labels.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 03:23 PM
As shown in the Traffic Control Summary Frame on RD-13 and the detail on RD-67, the RAMP CROSSOVER bid item refers to the WB and EB ramps at the Lookout Pass Interchange. The detail on Sheet RD-67 provides a concept showing work zones to maintain full ramp access during construction. The contractor will need to determine the signing, striping, and traffic control devices to accommodate this work.  Alternative options for ramp construction work and maintenance of traffic can be submitted for consideration after project award.  Special Provision RAMP CROSSOVER is hereby added to the contract: LINK

-11-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:18 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Special Provision #3 states that the eastbound direction will be constructed in Phase 1. Please confirm whether this sequencing is mandatory, or if the successful bidder may choose which direction to construct in the first season, provided all other contract requirements are met.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 16-DEC-2025 03:44 PM
Eastbound construction was chosen for Phase 1 to provide newly constructed outfalls for the storm drain system and culvert replacements after the first construction season. The contractor can present alternative traffic control and sequence of operations for consideration after project award.

-12-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:17 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
All Concrete Barrier Rail in this Contract is located on shoulders and appears to require anchoring in accordance with Standard Drawing 605-05, Type 1 Anchor, Option 2 (asphalt substrate). Should all new Concrete Barrier Rail be cast with four pinning holes (two on each side), or are only two pinning holes required on the traffic-side face, given that anchoring is only performed on the traffic side under the referenced standard?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 24-DEC-2025 11:43 AM
All concrete barrier rail on the shoulders should be cast with four pinning holes (two on each side).  Anchoring in these locations will only be required on the traffic side per 605-00 and 605-05.  Plan Sheet RD-60 has been updated and Plan Sheet RD-60A is hereby added to the contract to show requirements for anchoring median concrete barrier on PCCP, as shown in the concrete barrier rail-anchored frame on plan sheet RD-17.  This anchoring detail supersedes detail drawing 605-05 for concrete pavement only.
Plan Sheet RD-60 can be viewed in the response to Question #13.
Plan Sheet RD-60A can be viewed here: RD-60A
 

-13-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:16 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Plan Sheet RD-60 shows project-specific modifications to MDT Standard Barrier details, including elimination of scuppers at the bottom of both Standard and Tall barrier types. The adjacent Taft-West project included scuppers in its final barrier design. Does MDT intend for this Contract to incorporate the same scupper detail for consistency across the corridor? If so, please issue a revised project-specific detail.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 22-DEC-2025 07:34 AM
The detail on sheet RD-60 is hereby updated to incorporate scuppers into both standard and tall barrier types: LINK
Scuppers are to be blocked after barrier manufacturing using a method approved by the project manager. Blocking the scuppers will be handled in accordance with 109.04.
UPDATED:
Submitted: Wednesday 24-DEC-2025 11:26 AM
Sheet RD-60 has been updated to include an additional detail: UPDATED RD-60

-14-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:16 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please confirm that the Tall Concrete Barrier Rail is not required to be anchored.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 16-DEC-2025 03:32 PM
Tall Concrete Barrier Rail is not required to be anchored.

-15-
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 10:39 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Cale Fisher
With regards to the four pipe rehab culverts, are there any clearing and grubbing restrictions to either access the inlets/outlets or to provide enough work area to perform the specified rehab options? What, if any, additional permitting may be required to either access the inlets/outlets or provide a clear working area at these locations? A note was added under the Culvert summary on the amended sheet RD-18, "See Special Provisions for work that may take place outside of Right of Way". To which special provision is this note referring as it is not clear in any of the special provisions nor is it clearly stated in the amended special provisions provided in the MDT response to question 3.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 23-DEC-2025 09:47 AM
The contractor should not impact the aquatic resources identified in the plans and adhere to Section 208.03.1 – Water Pollution Control and Section 208.03.2 - Aquatic Resources of the MDT Standard Specifications. Clearing and grubbing activities should be governed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act vegetation requirements identified in the Environmental Specifications special provisions.
The contractor will need to coordinate with landowners and obtain written approval for any work, property disturbance, or access outside MDT right-of-way per MDT Standard Specifications.

-16-
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 02:16 PM
Company: The Lighting Agency North
Contact: Frank Dugas
In the special provisions item 50 ...HIGH EFFICACY LUMINAIRE LED [617] (ADDED 4-03-25) ..B14 calls out "Furnish LEDs rated to produce a minimum of 90% intensity at 100,000 hours of life based on IES TM-21 (L90). " After an extensive search, we believe there are no commercially available roadway luminaires on the US market that meet L90 @100,000. The best we have been able to locate is L70 @ 100,000. Please advise the name of the manufacturer you are basing the L90 @ 100,000 specification on.

-17-
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 03:47 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Cale Fisher
Will MDT allow the contractor to use the MDT area at the Taft Interchange for staging and stockpiling?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 22-DEC-2025 02:47 PM
The area within MDT R/W on the south side of the Taft Interchange is available for staging and stockpiling. R/W plans for this area can be found at the following link: Taft Interchange R/W
Two-way traffic must be provided for Old Hwy 10 to the west of the interchange, and Randolph Creek/Rainy Creek roads to the east of the interchange. A traffic/pedestrian control plan will need to be submitted for approval for this area along with staging and plant area blueprint to be occupied.

Access to all MDT maintenance facilities must be provided at all times. The area inside the red lines in the following link: Taft Sand Shed, is to be free of any contractor equipment or supplies for the duration of the project. The entire site, if occupied, will be brought back to original condition or better at the end of the project prior to final acceptance being granted by the project manager. A land use agreement covering these stipulations will be signed and agreed upon between the contractor and Missoula District Maintenance chief prior to any occupation of the property.

Property outside MDT R/W as shown on the exhibit is USFS ownership. Contact information for the Lolo National Forest Service is Bruce Paulsen: bruce.paulsen@usda.gov (406) 210-1843.

-18-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 03:42 PM
Company: Corridor Contractors
Contact: Joe Chidiac
The installation of the 24" embankment protector and 30" CSP will require tree removal on the slopes for the pipe to be installed. Are the trees to be removed and disposed offsite? Can access to the embankment runs come from the low end of the pipe "outlet"? What bid item is tree removal paid under?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 22-DEC-2025 02:51 PM
Per note #8 on Sheet RD-46 and RD-47, payment for the pipe caps (where specified) and for excavation and grading, tree, brush, vegetation, rock and debris removal as required to facilitate construction along slopes, as well as for proper disposal of all debris and materials, is included in the unit bid cost for the 24” embankment protector and 30” CSP.
Access to the embankment runs will be determined by the contractor. The contractor will need to coordinate with landowners and obtain written approval for any work, property disturbance, or access outside MDT right-of-way per MDT Standard Specifications.

-19-
Submitted: Monday 29-DEC-2025 07:55 AM
Company: HighMark Traffic Services
Contact: Brad Meyer
Please confirm the quantities for Temporary Striping are accurate.

-20-
Submitted: Wednesday 31-DEC-2025 08:38 AM
Company: PEC
Contact: Estimator
There appears to be a conflict between SP 55 sub surface temperature probe material quantity and Note 3 on plan page EL-6. Note 3 mentions one probe #942, however, two sub surface temperature probes are listed in SP 55 material quantities. Please clarify.
In SP 55 two new cameras are listed on the new towers. Is the existing camera located on the overpass bridge to be removed per SP 53?
Also, is the existing RWIS RPU, tower, sensors, and foundation to be removed as part of SP 53? Please clarify.
Regarding SP 54, the existing surface sensors appear to be at stations appx. 121 and 136. Is it the intention to place two new RWIS RPU's, towers, foundations, and RWIS equipment listed in SP 55 adjacent to the existing sensor locations? If so, what is the plan to provide utility power to station 136? Is there cell coverage at station 136? Please clarify.

-1-
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 04:53 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: George Shick
Can MDT post the design files, dirt runs, and any additional geotechnical information?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 29-DEC-2025 10:34 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

The dirt runs are 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. DIRT RUN

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

-2-
Submitted: Monday 22-DEC-2025 09:35 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: George Shick
Can MDT clarify which material classification and spec the Special Borrow will be required to meet?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 22-DEC-2025 10:46 AM
The following special provision are hereby added to the contract: SPECIAL BORROW

-3-
Submitted: Monday 22-DEC-2025 10:11 AM
Company: True North Steel
Contact: Amanda McCulloch
Will 14ga Aluminized Type 2 or Poly Coated CSP be allowed for the main line culverts? In special provisions #31, CSP is listed in the proposed structures but is not listed in the culvert schedule in the plans.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 22-DEC-2025 01:48 PM
Due to the corrosivity of the soils throughout the length of this project neither 14ga Aluminized Type 2 nor Poly Coated CSP will be allowed for mainline culverts.
The only allowable materials for mainline culverts are concrete and aluminum.

-4-
Submitted: Monday 22-DEC-2025 01:33 PM
Company: Montana Fence
Contact: Jacob Wutke
Per the summary the number of singles seams to be quite high for amount of footage specified. Are some of these right away breaks? and if so could we know the quantity of those listed as either corners or doubles to have right amounts of materials on hand?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 23-DEC-2025 11:07 AM
Fencing plans are part of the contract and are available in the advertised bid package. There are 60 R/W breaks on this project, please review the plans to estimate materials needed.

-5-
Submitted: Tuesday 23-DEC-2025 02:46 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc
Contact: Estimating
Can the department please explain Special Provision No. 14 "STAKE-LESS CONSTRUCTION"?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 29-DEC-2025 09:13 AM
With current technologies and use of 3D models, the volume of stakes previously placed is unnecessary.  For this project, minimal wood stakes will be placed on the project.

-6-
Submitted: Tuesday 30-DEC-2025 03:01 PM
Company: Battle Ridge Builders
Contact: Cody Ham
WIth an award date of January 25, there is not enough time between there and March 15 to engineer and permit a 180ft detour even if it was started the day of the award with standard wait times. Even if that was accomplished that still leaves less than 140 days to install a large detour, build a multispan bridge, then remove the detour and rehab the wetlands before Oct. 1 per the permits. This is significantly more aggressive than other MDT contracts, will MDT extend this contract into a second season or extend the contract time?

-7-
Submitted: Wednesday 31-DEC-2025 08:45 AM
Company: Hamilton Construction Co.
Contact: Wendell Snook
Are pipe piles requied to be filled with concrete? If so, at what depth below cut off elevation is concrete to be placed?

No Questions available for this project.

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 30-DEC-2025 09:19 PM
Company: Montana Fence Co.
Contact: Eric Wutke
Question 1. On the fencing summary it calls out for F5M (5 strands on t-posts.). On the proposal it is calling out F5w. As all of the singles and doubles are metal, can we assume the department wants F5M? Is so please change the bid item in the proposal to match the style in the fencing summary. Question 2. It appears that the state is calling out for two single panels at every right of way break. The department does not have a design for wooden right of way break boards mounted to two single metal panels. There is also not a bid item for this as it is not the same as two singles panels. On past jobs in the area this has been changed to a double panel offset one side or the other of the right of way break monument. Would the department make a modification to the single and double fm quantities on the proposal to reflect this change?

-1-
Submitted: Monday 22-DEC-2025 04:51 PM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Estimating
Can MDT please post the design files?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 29-DEC-2026 10:22
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.

No Questions available for this project.