Montana Department of Transportation

Contractor's System Project Question & Answer Forum

Contractor's System Question & Answer Forum

Current Questions and Answers

Ask a Question | Read Archives

Bid Letting Dates:

May 25, 2017

June 14, 2017

June 15, 2017

June 16, 2017

201 - FRENCHTOWN-E & W & FRENCHTOWN-SE - May 25, 2017

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday   16-MAY-2017 01:08 PM  
Company: Nelcon, Inc.  
Contact: Sam Weyers
Upon award of this contract, if due diligence to obtain a MT DEQ Open Cut Mining permit for a pit to be utilized on this project is demonstrated to MDT by the Contractor, will MDT consider a delay caused as a result of the permitting process to be a "delay not caused by the Contractor's fault or negligence" as per section 108.07.4 A of the Standard Specifications? If so, would the time extension remain consistent with the time required to obtain a MT DEQ Open Cut Mining permit, allowing the Contractor a reasonable amount of contract time to complete the work?

Answer
Submitted: Friday 19-MAY-2017 09:19 AM
If the contractor can demonstrate due diligence in attempting to obtain a MT DEQ Open Cut Mining Permit, and is not able to begin work on the Notice to Proceed date due to reasons beyond their control, the Project Manager will not charge contract time per subsection 108.02 Notice to Proceed.

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 17-MAY-2017 07:41 AM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Ben Olsen
Please confirm the new open median crossover R.P. 95.21 does not require the "additional 0.40' overlay" since it is beyond the limits of the mainline PMS overlay.
Answer
Submitted: Monay 22-MAY-2017 12:50 PM
The new open median crossover at R.P. 95.21, does not require the additional 0.4 feet overlay.

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 17-MAY-2017 11:28 AM
Company: Nelcon, Inc.
Contact: Sam Weyers
Will MDT provide quantities for items listed in SP#29.D.1 thru D.3?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 22-MAY-2017 12:54 PM
These quantities will not be provided.  The contractor must perform an on-site project review as required in the Standard Specifications.

-4-
Submitted: Wednesday 17-MAY-2017 02:04 PM
Company: HighMark Traffic Services, Inc.
Contact: Bradley Meyer
With traffic being detoured where is the Temporary Striping being applied?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 23-MAY-2017 10:30 AM
The temporary striping would be applied on the newly paved plant mix if delineation is needed for the traveling public and any additional locations requested from the MDT Project Manager.

-5-
Submitted: Wednesday 17-MAY-2017 06:30 PM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Ben Olsen
Please clarify the scope of work required for item 618030300 Crossover-Maintain, Close. Will the crossover at R.P. 84.516 require an overlay, seal, & cover?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 22-MAY-2017 12:48 PM
The closed median crossover at R.P. 83.30 will require the removal of concrete barrier rail to use this location as a crossover.  Resetting the concrete barrier rail is required after finishing using this crossover.  No dirt work, plant mix, or seal & cover will be needed at this location.  Please refer to special provision 43 for more requirements on the crossovers.

-6-
Submitted: Wednesday 17-MAY-2017 06:41 PM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Ben Olsen
Is a culvert for median ditch drain required in the new ramp crossover at R.P. 90.05?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 22-MAY-2017 12:44 PM

The median ditch does not require a culvert to be placed to build the new ramp crossover at R.P. 90.05.

-7-
Submitted: Thursday  18-MAY-2017 10:51 AM  
Company: LHC, Inc  
Contact: David Steely 
In regards to SP 22 for the Pavement Pulverization, under "A.", last sentence, it states "If excess material exceeds the amount needed on the project, excess material will become the contractor's property." You will potentially have to go through multiple test strips to come up with a pattern that satisfies your intended end result product. You have a "Shoulder Gravel" bid item in place to handle a shortfall of the existing materials. There is not sufficient info to fully determine / quantify if there will be an excess or not that would need to be hauled elsewhere with varying conditions throughout the length of this project, therefore, would the State consider using "Misc Work" or "Force Account" to handle this excess material if it works that there is excess material generated?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 23-MAY-2017 04:07 PM
Excess material is to be hauled to the maintenance stockpile site at the JCT of I-90 and US 93.  Payment will be made under miscellaneous work on a force account basis
or at agreed prices as described in Standard Specification 104.04 – Miscellaneous Work.

-8-
Submitted: Friday    19-MAY-2017 12:30 PM  
Company: Mountain West Holding Co  
Contact: Chris Connors  
Special provision 37. C.4 (Maintenance During Construction) requires the repaired sections to be re-inspected and certified by the manufacturer and that the contractor is responsible for maintenance until the project is accepted under Section 105.15. The questions are:
1)  This project, per the sequence of operations, requires the cable rail to be installed after completion of the WB lanes in 2017. Does all cable rail have to be done in 2017 or can it continue in 2018 prior to or during the construction of the EB lanes?
2)  Will cable rail runs be considered for acceptance under 105.15 that are completed in 2017 even if all cable rail is not complete?
3)  Is the maintenance of the cable rail considered minor and the cost burden on the contractor or will it be paid per 104.02.4?
4)  Following installation of cable rail near Billings and Laurel, the contractor was responsible for maintenance for approx. 2 months in which time there were in excess of 30 repairs during good weather conditions. All cable systems come from out of state and the cost to fly in a representative for each repair would become very significant. Since a pre-training will have been conducted with the contractor personnel and MDOT personnel, could the post inspection of accident repairs be eliminated?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday    23-MAY-2017 04:45 PM  
1)  The cable rail can be installed in 2017 or 2018.  Contract time will be charged in accordance with the contract documents.
2)  Yes - acceptance of the amount completed prior to winter shutdown in 2017 will be made in accordance with 105.15.  No partial runs will be considered for acceptance.
3)  Maintenance of the rail will be repaired in accordance with 104.05.1
4)  Repairs must be inspected per Special Provision - #37 - Cable Median Barrier Rail.  A separate inspection is not required, but can be made at the next regularly scheduled inspection by the manufacturer's representative.

-9-
Submitted: Friday    19-MAY-2017 12:54 PM  
Company: Mountain West Holding Co  
Contact: Chris Connors  
Special provision 37 states to provide manufacturer's concrete specifications to the project manager. Will the contractor not be responsible to meet MDOT specifications for concrete or any class of concrete requirements accordingly? No incentive or deducts would apply per MDOT specifications? Who would be responsible for performing testing of the concrete to assure it meets the manufacturer's specifications?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday    23-MAY-2017 04:48 PM
The contractor is to provide the manufacturer's requirements for concrete, and indicate with MDT class of concrete that meets these requirements will be used.  Concrete will be tested in accordance with the applicable concrete class specifications.

-10-
Submitted: Tuesday 23-MAY-2017 01:16 PM

Company: Mountain West Holding Company  
Contact: Chris Connors

The previous project,  Mossmain Interchange, required TL 4 Median Cable Rail with a four cable barrier system under SP 33.B.5.  Most of the specifications are the same for the Frenchtown project except it does not specify in the special provisions a four cable system. The plans show four cables but the drawing appears to be very generic.  I am told by a couple suppliers that there are both 3 and 4 cable systems that meet the TL4 requirement.  Please confirm if it is the Departments intent to use a 4 cable system.
Answer

Submitted: Tuesday 23-MAY-2017 01:55 PM
Either 3 or 4 cable systems are acceptable if they meet the TL4 requirement.

202 - NEIHART-MONARCH HILL - May 25, 2017

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday 28-APR-2017 08:50 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-BUILT BRIDGE PLANS


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Monday 08-MAY-2017 01:03 PM
Remove any existing portions of the Timber Bumper that may still be present at the bridge ends of RP 40.3.  All costs associated with removing this material will be paid for as Miscellaneous Work.

Install an approved Silicone Joint sealant at the bridge ends of RP 42.2 following Class A repairs, and as directed by Project Manager.  Use a rapid-curing, high movement, ultra-low modulus, self-leveling, two-component silicone sealant in conjunction with a closed cell expanded polyethylene backer rod.  Estimated quantity of joint sealant needed is 139.7 ft.  All work associated with furnishing and installing sealant will be paid for as Miscellaneous Work.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Friday  19-MAY-2017 11:38 PM  
Company: LHC, Inc  
Contact: David Steely
Regarding SP 24, "Recycling and disposal of cold millings", if the contractor does not recycle millings into the plant mix,"the contractor is responsible for transporting 500 CY of remaining cold milled material derived from this project to the MDT Maintenance Yard at Armington". Will others be stockpiling these millings or is it the contractor's responsibility to also stockpile these millings?
Answer

Submitted: Monay  22-MAY-2017 12:53 PM  
MDT Maintenance forces will be stockpiling these millings.

203 - I-15 INTERSTATE FENCING (D2) - May 25, 2017

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

-1-
Submitted: Thursday 18-MAY-2017 10:17 AM
An Addendum has been posted for this project:  ADDENDUM
To download the addendum bid files, click here:  BID FILES


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 03-MAY-2017 03:56 PM
Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance-Vegetation Removal is hereby added to this contract.
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT COMPLIANCE -VEGETATION REMOVAL [107] (ADDED 9-26-13)
A.  Description.  Suitable nesting habitat (trees and shrubs) exists for migratory birds within the construction limits.
B.  Construction Requirements:  Perform any required cutting of trees or shrubs between August 16th and April 15th.  Remove only those trees and shrubs in direct conflict with the permanent construction limits.  Where possible, do not remove, but trim trees and shrubs as necessary for equipment access and construction activities.
C.  Method of Measurement and Basis of Payment. Work described in this provision is not measured for payment. Consider all costs associated with this provision incidental to performance of the work. Include the cost in the cost of other items.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Monday    01-MAY-2017 12:27 PM
Company: Reeverts Fencing LLC
Contact: Boe Reeverts
1)  Will clearing/logging of fence line on MDT property be allowed to install and remove fence in thickly wooded areas? Can downed trees be left where they lay or must they be removed? If removed can clearing be added as a bid Item?
2)  On the terrain that would require the most clearing and can't be accessed with usual equipment used to install fence will the state allow for fence to be moved to base of slopes as done on many other portions of interstate?
3)  Originally this project was given 140 days to complete. Now it is 90 days. What changed that allows for 35% loss of works days?
4)  In areas where frontage road parallels interstate is only fence between frontage road and interstate being replaced or will both the fence between frontage road and interstate and the farther out fence on outside of frontage road be replaced also?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 03-MAY-2017 03:42 PM

1)  Due to the fence being replaced in its current location; a limited amount of tree and shrub trimming and/or removal is expected. Dispose of the resulting debris, branches, etc. in accordance with Subsections 607.03.2 and 201.03.5.

2)  Replace fence in the current location.
3)  An addendum will be issued increasing the number of Working Days to 120.
4)  Only fence located between the interstate and frontage road is being replaced.

-2-
Submitted: Monday    01-MAY-2017 02:09 PM
Company: Reeverts Fencing LLC
Contact: Boe Reeverts
1)  Is there a designated area that temporary fence is to be installed on the project or is bid item just for possible need purpose?
2)  On curving R.O.W. where fence normally would be installed on outside of curve will state want that installed on inside also or outside as 607 Drawing Specifications detail.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 03-MAY-2017 03:19 PM
1)  The Temporary Fence item will be removed from the contract by addendum. Subsection 607.03.1 General requires fence closure be maintained at all times. Sequence fence removal and replacement work in a manner that facilitates replacement of removed fence by the end of each work day.

Updated
Submitted: Thursday 04-MAY-2017 11:31 AM
REVISED PLAN SHEET #3

2)  Note 3 in Detailed Drawing 607-10 is revised as follows: "PLACE ALL FENCE WIRE ON THE INTERSTATE SIDE OF POST, EXCEPT ON CURVES. THEN, PLACE THE WIRE ON THE OUTS IDE OF THE CURVE."

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-MAY-2017 07:59 AM
Company: Boise River Fence
Contact: Mike Birch
1)  On The summary it is stated that there will be 63,360' of Wildlife Friendly FW. Is this Type 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 fencing?  Can you let me know which standard drawing this is on?
2)  Does MDT have a specification for the fencing materials, wood and steel posts and wire?  Where can I find this specification?  I have searched the MDT files and have not found exact specifications for these just the sampling and testing requirements.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday11-MAY-2017 08:32 AM

1)  The note below the summary frame on Plan Sheet 3 denotes Type 1 Wildlife Friendly Fence and also noted in Special Provision No. 12, WILDLIFE FRIENDLY FARM FENCE.  Please refer to Detailed Drawing 607-01 WILDLIFE FRIENDLY FENCE. DETAILED DRAWINGS 607 FENCES
2)  Refer to Sections 607, 706, and 712 for specifications on fencing materials. Standard Specifications 2014 edition and Supplemental Specifications are available online under Contracting and Consulting at the linked location. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 2014

-4-
Submitted: Tuesday   16-MAY-2017 12:11 PM
Company: Boise River Fence
Contact: Mike Birch
What is the difference between "Wildlife Friendly Fence" and "Wildlife Friendly - Farm Fence" or "Farm Fence" on this project. Standard Drawing 607-01 shows the same fence under these 2 different names.
Answer
Submitted:  Wednesday 17-MAY-2017 08:12 AM
A.  Wildlife Friendly Fence generally references a fence design that incorporates smooth wire and reduced height in comparison to typical farm fence installations.  Refer to the differences of drawing 607-00 and 607-01. 
 
B.  Wildlife Friendly Fence is a general name that titles detail 607-01, and generally describes type 1 through type 6 Wildlife Friendly Farm Fence.  Type 1 through Type 6 Wildlife Friendly Farm Fence is bid under item 607 100 009 Fence - Wildlife Friendly FW.  Farm Fence is bid separately under the respective bid item(s) 607 100 229 Farm Fence - Type F4W and 607 100 252 Farm Fence - F4M.  Farm fence is detailed in standard drawing 607-00.

-5-
Submitted: Tuesday    23-MAY-2017 04:22 PM  
Company: Boise Rive Fence, Inc.  
Contact: Mike

I have a question regarding the traffic control requirements for this project.  Nowhere in the project specs does it state any project specific traffic control requirements for fencing.  Can you tell me where to look to find the specifics for this project or can you answer it for me?

204 - HELENA - N & S - May 25, 2017

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

-1-
Submitted: Thursday 18-MAY-2017 10:19 AM
An Addendum has been posted for this project:  ADDENDUM
To download the addendum bid files, click here:  BID FILES


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-MAY-2017 01:42 PM
The bid item for Final Sweep and Broom will be deleted by addenda


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

304 - D1 Slope Stability Phase II - June 14, 2017

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday  27-JAN-2017 09:50 AM
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) is soliciting construction and design services for the design-build project identified below. Contractor and consultant teams (Firms) are encouraged to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) response electronically to the email address in the RFQ or in hard copy to the Montana Department of Transportation - Engineering Division, Contract Plans Bureau, Room 101, 2701 Prospect, Helena, Montana by 11:00 a.m., local time on March 7, 2017.

D1 Slope Stability Phase II
STPP-NH-IM STWD (408)
This project includes design and construction of slope stabilization measures for unstable cut slopes or embankments at the following locations:  
Site 1 – US-2, MP 5.1, Yaak Hill, West of Troy, Lincoln County.
Site 2 – US-2, MP 5.5, Yaak Hill, West of Troy, Lincoln County.
Site 3 – US-2, MP 5.6, Yaak Hill, West of Troy, Lincoln County.
Site 4 – US-2, MP 5.8, Yaak Hill, West of Troy, Lincoln County.
Site 5 – US-2, MP 158.7, East of W. Glacier, Flathead County.
Site 6 – MT 200, MP 56.8, East of Highway 141 junction, Powell County.
Site 7 – MT 1, MP 29.0, West of Georgetown Lake, Granite County.
Site 8 – MT 1, MP 29.15, West of Georgetown Lake, Granite County.
Site 9 – MT 1, MP 29.5, West of Georgetown Lake, Granite County.
Site 10 – I-90, MP 70.3, Cyr Interchange, Mineral County.

The project RFQ is at the following link:  RFQ

-2-
Submitted: Monday 20-MAR-2017 3:40 PM
SOQ RANKED SHORT LIST

1      GeoStabilization International/Shannon & Wilson/HDR
2 Geobuild/Gannett Fleming
3 Oftedal Construction/Terracon

-3-
Submitted: Friday 31-MAR-2017 11:50 AM
PREPROPOSAL MEETING MINUTES


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 04-APR-2017 01:38 PM
Please note the updated project name and number:
D1 – SLOPE STABILITY (PHASE 2)
STPIP-NHIP-IMIP STWD(408)

-2-
Submitted: Thursday 13-APR-2017 01:51 PM
Attached are Inclinometer Plots for Sites 2, 3 and 4 on Yaak Hill.
PLOTS YAAK
Attached is the Inclinometer Plot for Site 6 on MT 200.
PLOTS MT 200


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday   07-FEB-2017 08:48 AM  
Company: Morrison-Maierle  
Contact: John Pavsek
Has MDT conducted topographic survey of the 10 sites and will that information be available DB teams?  Reason for question is survey has been provided on past slope stability projects. This effort can be a significant for DB teams to undertake in the Tech Proposal process.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday   07-FEB-2017 09:40 AM
MDT is finalizing the survey information. The survey information will be provided with the RFP.

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday   07-FEB-2017 09:37 PM  
Company: Hayward Baker Inc  
Contact: Spencer Mills
Would MDT consider moving the completion date for the project to fall of 2018?  Given the high snowfall potential for the Missoula District, construction lane closures during the winter and early spring months will likely impede snow plow operations.  The current delivery schedule significantly restricts access to the sites and poses some safety concerns.  An extension would allow teams to better mitigate risks associated with inclement weather construction.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 09-FEB-2017 08:52 AM

MDT will extend the contract time from what is included in the RFQ. New contract time language will be finalized and included in the Request For Proposals (RFP).

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 08-FEB-2017 08:52 AM
Company: ConstructConnect
Contact: Stacey Mighton
Are there any union requirements?  When is the start date?

Answer
Submitted:  Thursday 09-FEB-2017 08:56 AM
There are no union requirements in the contract. However, any contractor union requirements are the contractors responsibility. Davis Bacon wage rates apply to this contract. The tentative schedule is included in the posted RFQ.

-4-
Submitted: Thursday  09-FEB-2017 03:08 PM
Company: Sletten Excavating
Contact: Neal Barnes
I would like to find out what consultants are pursuing this project.
Answer
Submitted: Friday  10-FEB-2017 03:14 PM

MDT has no way of knowing which consultants are pursuing this project.

-5-
Submitted: Monday    03-APR-2017 04:40 PM
Company: KNIFE RIVER
Contact: Eric Van Hemelryck
We noticed that in the posted Pre-Proposal Meeting minutes that only 2 of the 3 short listed firms attended. Since the one short listed firm was not in attendance they should be deemed non-responsive. What action, if any, will MDT consider for filling this spot
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday  04-APR-2017 04:39 PM
There was a malfunction in the Montana File Transfer System, which is how the short listed teams were issued the RFP. The third short listed team did not receive the RFP until the day of the pre-proposal meeting.  Due to the malfunction in the Montana File Transfer System, MDT determined that the third short listed team will be allowed to submit Technical and Price Proposals.

-6-
Submitted: Wednesday 26-APR-2017 05:52 PM
Company: GeoStabilization International
Contact: Bryan Wavra
For Section IV, will MDT consider raising the page limit to 80 pages, to include plan sheets, or maintain the page limit at 40 pages, but not include plan sheets in the page limit count?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 28-APR-2017 08:55 AM
The maximum allowed pages for Section IV is increased to 50 pages.

-7-
Submitted: Tuesday   02-MAY-2017 10:07 AM  
Company: GeoStabilization International  
Contact: Bryan Wavra  
The duration for Phase II of construction is 130 calendar days. Please confirm the start date or range in start dates that Phase II may commence. Alternatively, to avoid confusion, would MDT consider making Phase II a completion date contract in lieu of a calendar day contract?
Answer
Submitted: Friday   05-MAY-2017 02:47 PM

The Contract Time in the RFP is changed to completion date. The Contract Time for Phase 2 may not exceed October 12, 2018.

-8-
Submitted: Tuesday   02-MAY-2017 10:10 AM  
Company: GeoStabilization International  
Contact: Bryan Wavra  
Can guardrail be installed at sites that currently have concrete barrier if the guardrail is designed and installed per MDT specifications?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 05-MAY-2017 08:34 AM
Concrete Barrier Rail must be replaced with updated concrete barrier rail meeting current standards.

-9-
Submitted: Wednesday 03-MAY-2017 02:58 PM
Company: GeoStabilization International
Contact: Bryan Wavra
Can MDT supply, if available, more recent as builts that would provide more detailed information on the existing retaining wall at site 1?
Answer

Submitted: Wednesday 05-MAY-2017 04:35 PM
AS-BUILT PLANS

-10-
Submitted: Saturday  06-MAY-2017 06:24 AM  
Company: Gannett Fleming  
Contact: Matt Morris
Pertaining to the schedule, is a Public Notice of Construction required after the Issuance of Construction Drawings prior to construction mobilization?  If so, what is the duration of the notice period?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday  09-MAY-2017 09:00 AM  
There is not a specific Public Notice of Construction required. There may be possible public notice required due to some permitting requirements.

-11-
Submitted: Monday    08-MAY-2017 04:23 PM
Company: Oftedal Construction, Inc.
Contact: Greg Jackson
Are there any as-built drawings available for the bin walls at the CYR interchange?
Answer

Submitted: Tuesday    09-MAY-2017 01:47 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

SITE 10 AS-BUILT PLANS

-12-
Submitted: Wednesday 17-MAY-2017 09:31 AM
Company: GeoStabilization International
Contact: Bryan Wavra
Please confirm that MDT will be providing a revised bid price proposal form that has Phase 2 as a completion date contract.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 17-MAY-2017 01:50 PM
Linked is the Updated Bid Price Proposal Form:
  BID PRICE PROPOSAL FORM

101 - COLUMBIA FALLS-URBAN - June 15, 2017

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

102 - SF 129-SFTY IMPR E BONNER - June 15, 2017

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

103 - SF 139-ARMINGTON SLOPE FLT - June 15, 2017

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

104 - S OF BIG SANDY-BOX ELDER - June 15, 2017

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

105 - 1ST ST-7TH AVE (LEWISTOWN) & CASINO CREEK DRIVE (LEWISTOWN) - June 15, 2017

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

106 - MAKAWASHA AVE WALKS-CROW AGENCY - June 15, 2017

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

301 - Bozeman – Livingston ADA UPGR - June 16, 2017

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday  17-MAR-2017 09:10 AM
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) is soliciting construction and design services for the design-build project identified below. Contractor and consultant teams (Firms) are encouraged to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) response electronically to the email address in the RFQ or in hard copy to the Montana Department of Transportation - Engineering Division, Contract Plans Bureau, Room 101, 2701 Prospect, Helena, Montana by 11:00 a.m., local time on April 7, 2017.

Bozeman – Livingston ADA UPGR
CMDO STWD (479)
9214000
DB717

This project includes design and construction of ADA compliant sidewalk, ramps and approaches along the following routes:  
Main St. – Bozeman – From Yerger Dr. to W Babcock St.
N 7th Ave. – Bozeman – From Aspen St. to Wheat St. / Nikles Dr.
N 19th Ave. – Bozeman – From Commerce Way to 22nd Avenue
Geyser Street – Livingston – From Park St. to H St.
Park St – Livingston – From Merrill Ln. to I St.
RFQ

-2-
Submitted: Friday 21-APR-2017 08:56 AM
The following is the ranked short list for the Bozeman – Livingston ADA UPGR Design Build Project:
 
#1 - Riverside Contracting / DOWL
 
#2 - Century Companies / Sanderson Stewart
 
#3 - Knife River / Hyalite


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Monday 08-MAY-2017 12:03 PM
The following is the updated scope spreadsheet for the Bozeman – Livingston ADA UPGR Design Build Project.
UPDATED SCOPE SPREADSHEET

-2-
Submitted: Monday 08-MAY-2017 03:02 PM
The following are the Pre-Proposal Meeting Minutes and Attachments for the Bozeman – Livingston ADA UPGR Design Build Project.
PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING MEETINGS
PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING MINUTES ATTENDANCE SHEET
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 17-MAY-2017 08:31 AM
The following are the Preliminary Plans for the 19th Street INTCH Signal-Bozeman:  PRELIMINARY PLANS


Questions

No Questions available for this project.