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:

February 22, 2018

March 15, 2018

March 30, 2018

In an effort to reduce costs, Contract Plans will no longer be printing and distributing project plans.  This includes the proposal, cross sections, erosion control plans, etc.  All of this information will be available on-line. Paper distribution will cease on March 31, 2018. 


201 - RARUS/SILVER BOW CR STRUCTURES - February 22, 2018

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday 26-JAN-2018 1:00 PM
Here are the links to the Supplemental Reports regarding Soils Investigation, Asbestos Inspection and the Miles Crossing Location map.
SOIL DATA SUMMARY REPORT
ASBESTOS INSPECTION REPORT BRIDGES
MILES CROSSING LOCATION MAP


Addendums

-1-
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 02:18 PM   
An Addendum has been posted for this project: ADDENDUM
To download the addendum bid files, click here: BID FILES


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday 26-JAN-2018 11:31 AM
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 Thus, some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project.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

-2-
Submitted: Friday 26-JAN-2018 11:35 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 DRAWINGS

-3-
Submitted: Tuesday 30-JAN-2018 08:52 AM
Special Provision #27 – Public Advisory Program – is hereby replaced with the following – Public Involvement Firm [107] (Revised 12-7-17).
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FIRM

-4-
Submitted: Wednesday 31-JAN-2018 11:46 AM
Be advised, the following supplemental specification covering non-destructive testing of steel structures is effective starting with the January 18, 2018 bid letting:
556.03.5 QUALITY CONTROL

Within Subsection 556.03.5 add the following Part (6) following Part (5):
3. NDT, Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT). This method may be used in place of RT and UT for the inspection of CJP groove welds. Perform all aspects of PAUT inspection in accordance with AWS D1.5, Annex K. Provide for approval, a submittal package 30 days prior to inspection. Provide all information, qualifications, etc. needed to determine the requirements of Annex K can be met. Include the inspector’s history of successful NDT projects specific to PAUT and the requirements of AWS D1.5.

-5-
Submitted: Tuesday 06-FEB-2018 12:50 PM
Revisions on the linked sheets are for the reinforcing steel in the backwalls of bridges A and B.  Sheet B3 shows the revised quantities for Reinforcing Steel and Reinforcing Steel-Stainless bid items and will be changed by addenda.   The link includes sheets B3, B5a, B6a, B7a, B5b, B6b, B7b, B13a.  The only change on Sheet B13a was to remove the “Preliminary” watermark.
REVISED PLAN SHEETS

 


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Monday    29-JAN-2018 09:10 AM
Company: Knife River - Yellowstone
Contact: Van Hildreth
Please post the Geopak design files for the project.
Answer
Submitted: Monday    29-JAN-2018 12:50 PM
The design files for the requested project are posted on the MDT FTP site for your use at: GEOPAK

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    29-JAN-2018 12:07 PM  
Company: NORTHERN ROCKIES AGENCY  
Contact: KIT
There are no specifications for "617303300 HIGH EFFICACY LUMINAIRE LED 22.000 EACH" - Please give us specification.
Answer
Submitted: Monday    29-JAN-2018 03:07 PM
The following special provisions are hereby added to this contract:
           Service Assembly
          Include the cost of the photoelectric controls and the 6” x 6” pressure treated wood post (underground service) as part of this bid item. 
          HIGH EFFICACY LED LUMINAIRE
A.       Description.  Install luminaires that use light-emitting diodes (LED) as a light source.
B.       Material.  Provide luminaires with a die cast aluminum housing and a universal four-bolt slip fitter mount.  Provide luminaires with a light distribution of type 2.  Provide luminaires rated at 17,700  delivered lumens with 700 mA drive current.  Submit Backlight, Uplight, and Glare (BUG) ratings.  Provide luminaires that have an uplight rating of U1 or less.  Provide luminaires that are photometrically tested by certified independent testing laboratories in accordance with IES LM-79 testing procedures.  Use a correlated color temperature (CCT) of 4000 K and a minimum color rendering index (CRI) of 70.  Use LEDs that are mercury and lead free.  Use LEDs that are tested in accordance with IES LM-80 testing procedures.  Use LEDs rated at a minimum of 50,000 hours of life at 25°C, L70.  Submit a TM-21 report for the LEDs.  
    Provide a power supply with a minimum power factor of .90 and a maximum total harmonic distortion (THD) of 20% or less.  Provide surge protection with a minimum of ANSI/IEEE C62.41 category C protection.  Wire luminaires for 240-volt operation.  Provide access to electrical components without the use of tools.  Provide luminaires that are UL listed for use in wet locations. 
Provide a minimum 10 year warranty for the entire luminaire assembly including material, workmanship, photometrics, power supply and LED modules.  If more than 10% of the individual LED’s fail within the warranty period the luminaire must be repaired and replaced.
C.       Construction Requirements.  Adjust luminaires at night to provide the best roadway lighting distribution.   Adjust luminaires so they are level from side to side to limit glare.

-3-
Submitted: Tuesday   30-JAN-2018 10:14 AM
Company: Jim Gilman Excavating, Inc.
Contact: Paul Thompson
There appears to be quantity discrepancies for the subexcavation and special borrow in the SB lanes.
1)  Sheet 1 of the SB cross sections shows a subexc quantity of 16,289 cy for the SB lanes, while the additional grading summary on plan sheet 19 shows a subexc quantity of 23,694 cy in the SB lanes. Please verify the correct quantity.
2)  Sheet 1 of the SB cross sections shows a special borrow quantity of 17,929 cy in the SB lanes, while the special borrow summary on plan sheet 18 shows a total quantity of 27,206 cy for the SB lanes. Please verify the correct quantity.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 30-JAN-2018 02:04 PM
The quantities in the Additional Grading Frame, sheet 19 and the Special Borrow Frame sheet 18, are correct.
23,694 cy sub excavation, SB lanes
27,206 cy special borrow, SB lanes

-4-
Submitted: Thursday  01-FEB-2018 03:42 PM
Company: Vigor
Contact: John Montgomery
Bridges C & D have steel girders with sweep or curve but I'm not finding a centerline radius or any other information that dimensions the sweep or curve. Please supply a simple centerline radius.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 02-FEB-2018 08:21 AM
Bridges C and D are partially located on a spiral horizontal curve, so a simple centerline radius does not exist for the full length of each girder.  For girder curve radii, see the "Table of Girder Bending Information" on sheets B27c and B28d.

-5-
Submitted: Tuesday   06-FEB-2018 05:06 PM
Company: Jim Gilman Excavating, Inc.
Contact: Paul Thompson
This project has a completion date of 6-29-2020 and special provision #28 indicates that the phase 3 work planned for the spring of 2020 includes seal & cover, and epoxy pavement markings.  Please confirm that interim paint will not be applied over the chips, so no waiting period for epoxy is required.  MDT usually does not start contract time on seal & cover work until July 5th of each year.  The Butte area often experiences cold nights and rain on many days throughout June, and the completion date does not allow for additional time if seal & cover operations or epoxy are delayed by weather.  We request that MDT either move the completion date to 7-15-2020, or agree to grant additional time by change order if weather delays the work in June of 2020.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 09-FEB-2018 09:19 AM
An addendum will be issued revising the completion date specified in Special Provision #2 Contract Time- Completion Date to August 28, 2020.
Special Provision #2 is hereby replaced with the following:
CONTRACT TIME - COMPLETION DATE [108] (REVISED 1-21-16)
This contract is a completion date contract.  The work begins on the effective date stated in the Notice to Proceed (NTP) and all work is to be completed no later than August 28, 2020.  Unusually severe weather is not considered as a delay cause. The NTP will be issued with an effective date of March 16, 2018.
During Phase 3 as specified in Special Provision #32 - Sequence of Operations; do not perform work that restricts the normal flow of I-15/90 traffic during the following events:
1)  Montana Folk Festival- Typically the 1st week of July.
2)  Evel Knievel Days -  Typically the last weekend in July.
3)  An Ri Ra Irish Festival - Typically the 2nd weekend in August.

-6-
Submitted: Thursday  08-FEB-2018 04:00 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Company, Inc.
Contact: Estimating
Will Optional Blended Base Course be allowed on this project?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 08-FEB-2018 04:29 PM
The following Special Provision is hereby included in the contract:
OPTIONAL BLENDED BASE COURSE [301] (REVISED 5-23-13)
A.  Description.  This optional work consists of blending Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) or Recycled Concrete Aggregate with existing crushed aggregate course, additional aggregate course, or a combination of these on a prepared surface.  The blending of these materials is optional and is not a requirement of this contract.
B.  Materials.  Furnish recycled or crushed aggregate course that, when blended with the virgin aggregates, meet the requirements of Subsection 701.02.1 and Subsection 701.02.4
C.  Construction Requirements.  Recycled products must be pugmilled with existing or virgin aggregates to produce a uniform mixture.  Blend no more than 40% RAP or 50% concrete by weight with existing or virgin aggregates.  Total recycled mixtures may not exceed 50% by weight of the blended base course.  Use weighing or metering devices to control the recycled material introduced into the mix within the specified limits.
Meet the compaction requirements of Subsection 301.03.5.
D.  Method of Measurement and Basis of Payment.  Crushed Aggregate Course is measured and paid for as found elsewhere in the contract.  Payment will be made for the amount of crushed aggregate course placed as required by the contract.  No additional payment will be made for preparing, crushing, screening or blending of recycled materials.
Payment at the contract unit price is full compensation for all resources necessary to complete the items of work under the contract.

-7-
Submitted: Thursday  08-FEB-2018 05:46 PM
Company: Malcolm Intl
Contact: Carter Masterson
To properly price the required Railroad Protective Insurance, please provide the following information:  Number of Trains and working hours per day for Passenger Trains, Freight Trains, and unscheduled trains.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday    13-FEB-2018 09:10 AM
Information pertaining to the two railroad entities involved:
Rarus (BAP):
- 2-3 trains a week between Ramsay and Butte having 20 +/- cars.
- Train speeds vary from 5-15 mph.
- Working hours are 7 AM to 3 PM.
- No passenger trains.
BNSF:
- Two trains average in a 24-hour period.
- Train speed equals 25 MPH average.
- No passenger trains.

-8-
Submitted: Sunday    11-FEB-2018 11:25 AM  
Company: Nelcon, Inc.  
Contact: Nelcon, Inc.
In the soil data summary report by Pioneer, it demonstrates that excavation materials are highly likely to be contaminated with heavy metals.  With respect to question #6, will these materials be allowed for use with blended CAC?  Also, will all onsite materials, regardless of contamination levels, be allowed for use as embankment?  Will all other soils/excess excavation have to be hauled to landfill for disposal?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 10:02 AM

Revised: Friday 16-FEB-2018 10:37 AM
Only the Streamside Restoration waste and Olive Branch Mine waste must be managed as specified in Special Provisions 25 and 43.  MDT conducted extensive testing of material in the project corridor and discovered isolated pockets of contamination however; nothing so high in metals or arsenic that it could not be re-used as embankment or incorporated in other materials used on the project.

Additionally, the project is outside the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit (with the exception of the work in the Streamside Operable Unit), so there is no Record of Decision dictating the final disposition of the soils.  For this reason, the Butte Silver Bow (BSB) government entity has the Dirt Moving and Excavation permit process (Special Provision #28), which requires the contractor summarize where all excavated material goes.  When the contractor applies for that permit, BSB has the authority to approve or deny the requests.  Based on the testing Pioneer Technical performed and summarized in the report referenced for the project, MDT does not expect BSB to have any objections to the use/re-use of dirt on this project, outside of the areas that have already been addressed by the special provisions.  If a previously unknown pocket of highly contaminated materials is encountered on the project (marked by fine grained texture and many of the colors of the rainbow), those materials will be managed and paid for separately.

-9-
Submitted: Monday    12-FEB-2018 09:19 AM
Company: R.T.I Fabrication, Inc.
Contact: Bob McCoskery
RE: Steel Structures: 556.03.5 Quality Control We ask the State to recognize AASHTO/AWS D1.5 Section 6.7 Nondestructive Testing (NDT), in place of Montana DOT Section 556.03.5, minimum requirements 1. & 2.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday    13-FEB-2018 01:11 PM
Specification subsection 556.03.5 applies in its entirety, including the supplemental specification as described in Clarification #4.

-10-
Submitted: Monday    12-FEB-2018 02:12 PM  
Company: Sletten Construction  
Contact: Chad Mares
For the drainage system, can you verify if this bid item will have to have the design calculations and plans for the support system sealed and signed by a professional engineer licensed in Montana?  The proposal only states to submit shop plans, does not state to have engineer stamp.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 13-FEB-2018 08:18 AM
Design calculations are not required to be submitted for the drainage system supports.

-11-
Submitted: Monday    12-FEB-2018 04:00 PM
Company: Jim Gilman Excavating, Inc.
Contact: Paul Thompson
Cross sections show that NB sta 438+26.35 through sta 441+77.14 is a fill section over existing roadway. Will MDT allow existing road surfacing to remain in place as is in this area?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday    13-FEB-2018 01:13 PM
No, this work is required to improve drainage in the subgrade near the bridge end.

-12-
Submitted: Tuesday   13-FEB-2018 09:51 AM  
Company: Nelcon, Inc.  
Contact: Nelcon, Inc.
Is there any geotechnical information on the layer of concrete that is shown below the existing asphalt section with respect to pounds per square inch?  If not, can MDT provide some data?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 04:18 PM
MDT did not collect any samples of the PCCP and did not perform any strength testing on this material.

-13-
Submitted: Tuesday   13-FEB-2018 05:43 PM
Company: Malcolm International
Contact: Carter Masterson
Exhibit E, Guideline for preparation of demolition plans for structures over railroads, (page 30 of 102 of the special provisions package) states the following; “All employees of the Contractor and Subcontractor on the project site must be Safety Trained. Refer to http:/www.railroadsafetytraining.com”. This can be read and can be enforced to mean everyone working on the entire project site from traffic crossover to traffic crossover need to complete this railroad training. Is this the intent or does this training only apply to “all employees working within the railroad right-a-way”. Please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 03:45 PM

Safety training applies to all employees working within the railroad right-a-way; including the area within railroad right of way above the tracks.

-14-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 08:22 AM
Company: Malcolm Drilling Compan, Inc.
Contact: Jim Tripp
Drilled Shafts - Past experience in drilling next to railroad tracks, the railroad requires that the drilled shafts be cased full depth. Is this a requirement for this project?

Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 04:15 PM

Permanent casing of the drilled shafts is not required.  Temporary casing is required per specification subsection 558.03.8.

-15-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 09:41 AM
Company: Malcolm Drilling Company, Inc.
Contact: Jim Tripp
Drilled Shafts - There are two ways to construct the drilled shafts on this project.
Option 1) Drill the shafts to tip, set drilled shaft rebar cage, place concrete up to bottom of column rebar cage elevation, leaving casing in the ground to provide access for setting column rebar cage.
Option 2) Drill the shaft to tip, set drilled shaft steel and column steel at the same time, and pour concrete to top of drilled shaft elevation.
Option 1) Is this an acceptable construction method? Specification 558.03.8 of the standard specification states any temporary casing left in the ground which cannot be removed are considered defects to the shaft. The casing left in place to facilitate placement of the column rebar cage will not be removed. Is this acceptable or will it require the shaft to be extended deeper into the rock? If so, for every foot of casing left in place, how much deeper does the shaft have to be extended?
Option 2) As the column steel will project as much as 36' above the top of the drilled shaft and being 2' smaller diameter than the drilled shaft rebar cage, It will be nearly impossible to get a temporary casing pulled up over the top of the rebar and maintain the require tolerances. If this option is used, does the drilled shaft tolerance specification or the column tolerance specification govern?

Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 04:10 PM
It is not acceptable to leave any portion of the drilled shaft temporary casings in place permanently.  Tolerances for the columns and drilled shafts are as presented in Table 564-1 of the specifications.  Column tolerances apply above the top of drilled shaft elevation shown in the plans, and drilled shaft tolerances apply below this elevation.

Alternative construction methods to Options 1 and 2 as described are available.  See notes on sheets B12a, B12b, B14-16c, and B15-17d regarding allowable splicing and wet insertion of column reinforcement.

-16-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 09:47 AM
Company: Malcolm Drilling Company, Inc.
Contact: Jim Tripp
Drilled Shafts - Is 120" dia. O.D. temporary casing used for controlling sloughing or caving of the drilled shaft while drilling acceptable?

Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 04:12 PM
No.  See Table 564-1 of the specifications for drilled shaft diameter tolerance.

-17-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 03:13 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co, Inc.
Contact: Estimating
The Special Provision 25 indicates the contaminated material from the Olive Branch Mine is to be removed and disposed of at the Butte-Silver Bow Landfill. In conversation with the Glen Rafish, the material to be disposed needs to be approved by Pioneer Technical prior to dumping in the landfill. Pioneer-Technical has concluded that the metal contaminated soils do not comply with the definition of solid waste and cannot be accepted for disposal at the Butte-Silver Bow Class II Landfill. If this is true, where should the material be disposed of and who is the contact for the disposal area.

-18-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 04:35 PM 
Company: Missouri River Contractors 
Contact: Kris Anderson 
Due to manufacturers recommendations for temperature regarding item 563 000 040 Polymer Overlay. Would MDT allow the Polymer Overlay to be completed in 2020 prior to seal and cover operations.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 03:48 PM
Yes, polymer overlays may be placed during Phase 3.

-19-
Submitted: Thursday  15-FEB-2018 10:00 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co, Inc.
Contact: Estimating
Will the Contractor be required to stockpile and/or load the contaminated material at the Miles Crossing Load Out site? Can you provide the contact information for the Miles Crossing Load Out site?
Answer
Submitted: Friday  16-FEB-2018 11:04 AM
An area will be available at the site allowing the contractor to dump the contaminated soils. No additional handling of the materials will be required by MDT's contractor. Contact information for the Streamside Operable Unit disposal site at Miles Crossing is provided in Special Provision #43 - Streambank Restoration and Existing Pier Removal - section D. 3)

-20-
Submitted: Thursday  15-FEB-2018 10:32 AM
Company: Jim Gilman Excavating, Inc.
Contact: Paul Thompson
In response to question #6 above, MDT added the provision for Optional Blended Base Course.  Special Provision #36 for this project indicates that the Special Borrow must meet the requirements for CAC.  Is it the intent of MDT that the Option Blended Base Course provision apply to both the CAC and Special Borrow items, or only to the CAC bid item?  Please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 10:40 AM
Option Blended Base Course provisions apply to Crushed Aggregate Course (CAC) materials only.

-21-
Submitted: Thursday  15-FEB-2018 11:44 AM
Company: Malcolm Drilling Company, Inc.
Contact: Jim Tripp
Drilled Shafts - Is a below grade construction joint permissible?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 10:43 AM

A below grade construction joint is permissible for the drilled shafts.  Note the requirement for mandatory removal of the temporary casing is still applicable.  Permanent casing of any length is not allowed.

-22-
Submitted: Thursday  15-FEB-2018 03:47 PM  
Company: Mountain West Holding Company  
Contact: Cody Cunningham  
It appears that MDT has not made any provisions regarding construction traffic access to the closed lanes. There are areas of both Phases of construction that will require special considerations for truck traffic entering and leaving the site. a. Would MDT consider allowing construction traffic to merge in and/or out of two-way traffic? If so, would traffic control devices used be measured for payment? b. On past projects, contractors have utilized splitting of on/off ramps to route haul trucks. Would MDT consider allowing on/off ramps to be split for this project? If so, what traffic control devices would be required and would they be measured for payment?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 02:532PM
a)  No. Haul unit turning movements are restricted to right-turn movements only.
b)  No. Utilizing active interchange ramps for use as haul routes is prohibited. 

When considering options to access the closed lanes during Phase 1.
a)  MDT will consider proposals to establish haul road(s) on the existing fill from Santa Claus Road to the portion of Interstate 15/90 located between the bridges.
b)  MDT will consider proposals to create a right of way access break where Greenwood Avenue and Stuttgart Street intersect MDT right of way.

-23-
Submitted: Thursday  15-FEB-2018 04:40 PM  
Company: Mountain West Holding Company  
Contact: Cody Cunningham
SP 34C refers to "protection of Existing Roadway and Railroad Under Structures" provisions.  I do not see where MDT has made any special arrangements for traffic on Santa Claus Road.  Would MDT please clarify the plan to manage traffic under the structures and how the traffic control will be paid for?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 02:31 PM
Santa Clause Road will be closed to through traffic during activities such as, bridge demolition, beam placement, deck placement, etc. Provide traffic control as directed by MDT’s Project Manager.  Traffic control for Santa Clause Road will be measured by the unit used and accepted according to the value shown in the “Traffic Control Rate Schedule”.

-24-
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 08:58 AM
Company: Hollow Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Office
DETAIL (SHEET 21) EXISTING ROAD CROSS SECTION TO BE REMOVED The Dirt Runs appear to absorb this detail as excavation in cut sections. How will this detail be measured/paid in fill sections?
Answer
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 12:49 PM
Detail (SHEET 21) shows the Existing Road Cross Section to be removed. The Dirt Runs do absorb this detail as excavation in cut sections.  In fill sections; the intent is to also remove the existing typical section to improve drainage in the subgrade. A rough calculation of 1,800 ± cubic yards would need to be removed and replaced with Emb+. The work would be paid for as unclassified excavation.

-25-
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 01:23 PM
Company: Hollow Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Office
Please clarify the SPECIAL BORROW provision. Will pugmill mixing be required of the SPECIAL BORROW (CAC) material or does this specification only apply to Crushed Aggregate Course Surfacing Construction (301.03.5)?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 02:26 PM
Pugmill mixing applies to Crushed Aggregate Course (surfacing) materials shown in the plan typical sections.

202 - MSLA-E & W VAN BUREN ST INCHG - February 22, 2018

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

-1-
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 02:18 PM   
An Addendum has been posted for this project: ADDENDUM
To download the addendum bid files, click here: BID FILES


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday 02-FEB-2018 11:02 AM
Revised: Friday 02-FEB-2018 11:18 AM
The bid item for Solar LED Embedded Sign will be deleted and a bid item for Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon will be added by addenda.

Special Provision 67. SOLAR LED EMBEDDED SIGN-WIRELESS is hereby replaced with the following:
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) - WIRELESS - SOLAR

-2-
Submitted: Friday 02-FEB-2018 11:06 AM
Replace Special Provision 68 – Push Button-Pedestrian-Tactile with the following:
68.  PUSH BUTTON – PEDESTRIAN - TACTILE
Description.  Provide push buttons for the eastbound entrance slip lane pedestrian crossing that are capable of operating with a solar powered Rapid Flashing Beacon.  The push buttons do not need to have vibrating push buttons.

-3-
Submitted: Friday 02-FEB-2018 11:35 AM
The following plan sheets have been revised to correct quantities – these changes will be made by addenda:

Signing Sheets S-1, S-2 ,S-4, S-5, S-6 ,S-9, S-13, S-14, S-15 and S-18
Electrical Sheets E1, E-6 & E-10. 
The revised sheets can be found at the following links:  REVISED SIGNING SHEETS    REVISED ELECTRICAL SHEETS

-4-
Submitted: Friday 09-FEB-2018 10:10 AM
Add the following to the end of SP 2.  Contract Time and Incentive/Disincentive section 2.B.6) Stage 4: “Contract time assessment for Stage 4 will start on the first day Stage 4 work begins or on the first Working Day following the completion of Stage 3b, whichever is sooner.”

-5-
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 11:46 AM
The following Special Provision – Underground Irrigation Systems – is hereby made a part of this contract. UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSYEMS


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 31-JAN-2018 03:33 PM
Company: Macon Supply
Contact: Jeff Monaco
1)  What is the required reinforcing for where the curb and gutter meets the PCCP?
2)  Where the Full Depth PCCP (15") meets the 9" PCCP what height is the reinforcing to be placed?  Center of the 9" PCCP?Answer
Submitted: Monday 05-FEB-2018 09:58 PM
1)  Treat it as a PCCP to PCCP Longitudinal Construction Joint, as shown in Dt. Dwg 501-00 except the #5 epoxy coated bar only needs to be 24" long for the curb and gutter to PCCP joint.
2)  Yes.

-2-
Submitted: Monday    05-FEB-2018 04:52 PM  
Company: NORTHERN ROCKIES AGENCY  
Contact: KIT
Please clarify what length mast arm is required on the 2 cantilevers overhead structures.  Sheet E6 has a 35' mast arm but sheet E10 has a 25' mast arm.
Answer
Submitted: Friday    09-FEB-2018 11:04 AM  
The detail on sheet E6 showing a mast arm length of 35' is not correct.  The required mast arm length is 25' for pole 7 and pole 22 as correctly indicated in the Pole Schedule on sheet E10.

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 07-FEB-2018 08:35 AM
Company: Glacier Preacast
Contact: Doug Hammerberg
Item 614 010 052 Noise barrier wall Special Provision #58 Line B Materials: Reinforcing Steel
Question: Can the rebar be galvanized instead of epoxy coated?  It has been used in high-salt states such as Colorado and Utah.  It can be readily available through our supplier and is more durable and less expensive.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 09-FEB-2018 12:37 PM
No.

-4-
Submitted: Thursday  08-FEB-2018 10:59 AM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Mike Eichner
Will the City of Missoula permits for curb and gutter, sidewalk, and asphalt be required for this project?   If so, how will these be paid for?  I do understand that the SWPPP MS4 will be required for this project per past work within this MS4 district, and this cost will be included in the Temp Eros Control LS item.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 09-FEB-2018 12:39 PM
The contractor is responsible for all permits and fees as detailed under Standard Specification 107.02.  MDT will pay Miscellaneous Work (Standard Specification 104.04) only for permits required by the City of Missoula for permanent work incorporated into the project.

-5-
Submitted: Friday    09-FEB-2018 09:19 AM
Company: White Resources Group, Inc.
Contact: estimating
Would you provide the csv file for the roundabout?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 09-FEB-2018 02:10 PM
The design files for the requested project are posted on the MDT FTP site for your use at:
  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.

-6-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 10:54 AM
Company: TrueNorth Steel
Contact: Juel Berg
The rail drawing calls out for galvanized pipe, but then in the notes it calls for the rail to be primed and finish painted.  Please clarify if this rail is one of the following?
• Galvanized
• Primed and Finish Painted (Black)
• Galvanized, Primed and Finish Painted. (Black)

-7-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 02:03 PM
Company: Missoula Concrete Construction
Contact: Dale Clouse
Standard specifications call for a siloxane based anti graffiti coating. We have used the product that is listed on the QPL and have found it to leave a rubbery texture on panels that is very prone to collect dust. We have been using an acrylic micro-emulsion anti-graffiti coating that is approved by MT FWP and have been pleased with the results. Would it be possible to get MDT approval for an alternate anti-graffiti coating?

Answer
Submitted: Thursday 15-FEB-2018 11:19 AM
Bid the anti-graffiti coating as specified.

-8-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 04:37 PM 
Company: Superior Transparent Noise Barriers 
Contact: Eric Humphries 
Under item 61 section A in the specification, “Acrylite Soundstop TL4 Noise Barrier System”, it states, “….lightweight transparent noise barrier system designed, tested and accepted to meet Test Level 4 criteria specified in NCHRP Report No. 350…” In the 7th Ed AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual with interim updates, section 15.8.4 allows for use of a non-crash tested noise barrier in the clear zone if a controlled failure scenario is utilized in lieu of crash testing. Will MTDOT allow use of a non-crash tested noise barrier if it meets the requirements of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge manual section 15 and more specifically section 15.8.4?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 09:11 AM 
No.

-9-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 04:43 PM
Company: Frontier West, LLC
Contact: Craig Lien
Having Trouble matching project cross sections to either stationing for walls or what appears to be main line stationing. Could you provide an equation or further guidance? Also, It appears that the footing for the walls that are in close proximity to the on /off ramps and the mainline of the interstate will undermine the interstate without shoring. Please verify that most near road sections of wall will require 6 to 8 ft of shoring to construct without undermining adjacent roadbed. If the footing excavation can not be laid at a safe slope without undermining the roadbed, how will this shoring be paid for?

Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 11:00 AM
Response to Question 1:
The wall stationing is equated to the adjacent ramp and/or I-90 mainline stationing at the begin/end of each wall and at PI stations along each wall. See Sheets NB-1, NB-2, NB-3, NB-4, and NB-5.
Response to Question 2:
Temporary shoring may be required along the WB entrance ramp to maintain enough road width for traffic. Excavation work associated with SP#28 - Spread Footings - and the spread footings is considered to be structure excavation Type 1 and in accordance with Section 209, temporary shoring is not measured for payment.

-10-
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 09:47 AM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Mike Eichner
Sound barrier wall "C" shows an existing power line that parallels and crosses the proposed alignment of the new wall. Is this power line outside the construction limits for the foundation of this wall. If not how will issues be addressed and paid for?
Answer
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 11:48 AM
The existing powerline shown is underground power for the existing irrigation system.  Segments that conflict with noise wall footing excavation can be removed.
Coordinate location of conduit openings in the base of the noise wall (as shown on Sheet NB-9)  for the new irrigation systems with the irrigation contractor.

-11-
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 10:16 AM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Mike Eichner
Sound barrier wall "A" alignment parallels the west bound on ramp and is close enough to edge of pavement that the 8' +/- deep excavation of the foundation will require shoring of this excavation. How will this shoring be paid for? Also in order to install/remove shoring and wall erection the equipment will need to be placed on the westbound on ramp resulting in its closure. What phase will the time and closure of 30 +/- working days be charged to for the construction of this sound wall.
Answer
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 11:02 AM
See response to question #9 above. Reference SP #2 - Contract Time and Incentive/Disincentive - in regards to which stage time will be charged to the work in question.

-12-
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 11:08 AM  
Company: Mountain West Holding Company  
Contact: Devan Blake  
This project has a 2 separate bid items for impact attenuators. Material requirements for the Impact Attenuator (#606-011-520) at station 219+41.79 to 219+86.56 LT are detailed in Special provision 48, which specifies use of a 58" WideTRACC I.A. with a 10-Bay double flare wing extension structures to be placed in the WB Exit ramp Gore. Per manufacture drawings SS1018 & SS497, the combined overall LON of the I.A. & the transition is 44.42' long, which loosely aligns with the station limits specified for this unit. The bid item for the other I.A. (606-011-549 - Impact Attenuator - 4 Bay) is not covered anywhere in the special provisions that I can see. The stationing for this 4-bay I.A. are within the EB Exit Ramp station limits, from 106+23.52 to 106+39.60. This calculates to a 16.08' allowance for the 4-Bay I.A. The only I.A. I can find that matches these parameters is a 4-bay Quadguard as seen on MDT Detailed. Dwg.606-30A (chart in lower left corner), however, the maximum design speed for this unit is only 50 MPH, which does not meet TL3 criteria. Is this the desired unit for this application? Can a standard TRACC attenuator that meets TL3 criteria (per MDT Dwg. 606-30B) be used here? The TRACC has a LON of 21'-3". Please advise.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 02:28 PM
Install a Test Level 3, 24-inch (610 mm) wide impact attenuator at the location shown in the plans. The device must be rated for 60 mph (100 kph) and conform to the detail drawings.  An impact attenuator that has six or more bays may be needed to meet this requirement.

203 - CULVERT-SOUTH OF OPHEIM - February 22, 2018

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.

204 - ST MARY'S RD-SPIDER LAKE RD - February 22, 2018

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday    13-FEB-2018 09:07 AM
The Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference referenced in Special Provision #3 slated for today, Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 has been cancelled due to road closures.  When this will be rescheduled is not known at this time.  Please check back for further updates.

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday    13-FEB-2018 01:53 PM
Due to the cancellation of the Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference this project will be moved to the March 29, 2018 Letting.  Please look for the advertisement on March 1, 2018 for updated information regarding the Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

205 - SF 159 HELENA SFTY IMPRV - February 22, 2018

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Monday    29-JAN-2018 03:25 PM
Revised Plan Sheets S3 and S4 can be found at the following link: REVISED PALN SHEETS 3&4
"Site 1" was added to Plan Sheet S3 and the note “See As-Built STPHS 282-192)0, UPN 3380 for Stationing” was added to Plan Sheet S4.

-2-
Submitted: Monday    29-JAN-2018 04:02 PM
The following Special Provisions are hereby included in this contract:  ADDED SPECIALS


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Monday    12-FEB-2018 08:16 AM
Company: HighMark Traffic Services, Inc.
Contact: Bradley Meyer
Will the no passing zone stripes be placed out side the centerline rumble strips or at the typical 4" space between the stripes?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 12-FEB-2018 08:46 AM
Anytime there are 2 centerline stripes, the stripes are to be placed outside the CLRS, offset both yellow stripes (whether skip or solid) 6 inches from the roadway centerline to the edge of the stripe, regardless of rumble strip width. The skip stripe is to be placed on the centerline if there is passing allowed in both directions.

-2-
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 01:35 PM  
Company: Pavlik Electric Co., Inc.  
Contact: Sarah Michaelson  
In the wage determination for Electrician, Helena is not listed as a base city for computing Travel Pay, is that correct? Will travel pay have to be computed from the next closest city on the list?

206 - SF 159 BIGFORK SFTY IMPV, SF 159 SANDERS CO SFTY IMPRV, SF 159 FLATHEAD SFTY IMPRV - February 22, 2018

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Monday    12-FEB-2018 08:21 AM
Company: HighMark Traffic Services, Inc.
Contact: Bradley Meyer
Will the no passing zone stripes be placed out side the centerline rumble strips or at the typical 4" space between the stripes?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 10:47 AM

Anytime there are 2 centerline stripes, the stripes are to be placed outside the CLRS, offset both yellow stripes (whether skip or solid) 6 inches from the roadway centerline to the edge of the stripe, regardless of rumble strip width. The skip stripe is to be placed on the centerline if there is passing allowed in both directions.

-2-
Submitted: Thursday  15-FEB-2018 04:04 PM  
Company: MWHC  
Contact: Chris Connors  
Please clarify the requirements for a Panel Snowpole Delineator as shown on plan page S3 of HSIP-G STWD(412).Note 2 says to mount two reflectors to the top of the extension and one to the back side of the metal u post. Then below in sub part E. it says 2 or 3 reflectors required.
Should it be for a Type A that there is a Panel reflector on the steel u post and one 4"x 4" reflector at the top of the snowpole on the same side. Accordingly, a Type F would be a Panel reflector on the steel u post with a 4"x 4" reflector on the opposite side of the steel u post as well as two back to back 4"x 4" buttons at the top of the snowpole. If these are correct, the note 2.E. should read 1 or 3 required.
The same problem has existed in the standard snowpole drawing put in every set of plans that uses them. Note 2 indicates every assembly would have 4 buttons yet sub part E indicates either 2 or 4 buttons depending on the delineator type. It would be pointless to have both Type A & Type F if every one has 4 buttons. Please correct this standard cut and paste drawing for future projects to avoid the dilemma we run into on every project with these in them. The easiest correction would be to revise Note 2. to read "Attach reflector(s) to the top of the extension as shown." Same for the line below it referencing the reflector(s) for the U-Channel.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 02:14 PM
Panel Snowpole Delineator Detail
Note 2 should read: "Attach reflector(s) to the top of the extension as shown"
Subsection E should read: "Reflector 1 or 3 required"

Snow Pole Delineator Detail
Note 2 should read: "Attach reflector(s) to the top of the extension as shown"
Note 2 should also read: "Attach reflector(s) to the metal u channel as shown"

The revised Plan Sheet S3 can be found at the following link:
  REVISED SIGNING SHEET S3

207 - E HELENA BARRIER SKID CONCRETE - February 22, 2018

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

-1-
Submitted: Friday    16-FEB-2018 02:19 PM   
An Addendum has been posted for this project: ADDENDUM
To download the addendum bid files, click here: BID FILES


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday  02-FEB-2018 09:06 AM
A bid item for Remove and Salvage Flexible Delineators will be added by addenda.  Please contact Mike Matthews at 406-444-6399 prior to removing and salvaging the delineators.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 08:57 AM
Company: MWHC
Contact: Chris Connors
This project has a bid item called Impact Attenuator-9 Bay. The plans show a 30ft long Impact Attenuator. Special provision 14 defines the attenuator as a Test Level 3, 30 inch wide attenuator rated for 60mph. Does the attenuator need to be a "9 Bay" attenuator that is 30ft long or can any NCHRP 350 TL3 attenuator that is 30" wide and is rated up to 60 mph be used?

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 09:47 AM 
Company: MWHC 
Contact: Chris Connors 
The project is currently allocated 20 working days of contract time which would start on April 23, and end approx May 18th. Would contract time be suspended to fabricate the concrete barrier for this project? Current specifications for pouring concrete barrier limit the contractor due to both cold and warm weather concrete work. These factors have the potential to delay and slow down production rates for fabrication. As there is no certain way to know what the weather will be, the contractor has no way of knowing when we can start to pour the barrier following receipt of all necessary materials nor how many days would be lost due to weather. Pouring the barrier would take between 3-4 weeks and curing would take up to 28 days from the time the last piece is poured. All barrier could be set in 2-3 days at which time the Impact Attenuator pads could be poured, cure, and then set attenuators. If weather permitted pouring to start by April 16, with no further delays, the barrier would be poured by approx. May 2nd. The 28 day cure would make the barrier available around May 30th. Barrier would be set by June 4th. Concrete pads would be poured, cured, and and attenautors set by approx June 7th. This time line does not allow for any weather delays. The contractor feels the contract time is sufficient for the work but requests that the notice to proceed could be delayed to procure the materials.

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 01:30 PM
Company: MWHC
Contact: Chris Connors
On page 2 of 5 in the Railroad Insurance section, it says insurance should be based on minimum premium levels.  The railroad coverage has a minimum premium level based off the dollar figure that the contractor must provide when applying for coverage.  I want to make sure that the intent of this comment in the special provisions is that the contractor only has to list a dollar figure that does not exceed the minimum premium level, regardless of the cost of the project . If that is not true, please provide the value of work that the coverage needs to be calculated off of.

208 - SF 159 DUCK LAKE INTX SFTY IMP - February 22, 2018

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday    13-FEB-2018 09:07 AM
The Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference referenced in Special Provision #3 slated for today, Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 has been cancelled due to road closures.  When this will be rescheduled is not known at this time.  Please check back for further updates.

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday    13-FEB-2018 01:53 PM
Due to the cancellation of the Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference this project will be moved to the March 29, 2018 Letting.  Please look for the advertisement on March 1, 2018 for updated information regarding the Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

101 - BASIN-BOULDER & ROCK SLOPE-W OF BASIN - March 15, 2018

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 - CASCADE-EAST & SIDEWALKS-CASCADE - March 15, 2018

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 - I-315 BRIDGES (RP 1.0) - March 15, 2018

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 - LONEPINE-NORTH - March 15, 2018

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 - SF 139-MISSOULA SIGNALS SAFETY - March 15, 2018

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 - SF 159 S OF ROGERS PASS SAFETY - March 15, 2018

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.

303 - GREAT FALLS ADA UPGRADES - March 30, 2018

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Monday 04-DEC-2017 10:30 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 January 5, 2018.

Great Falls ADA Upgrades
CMDO 5299(129)

This project includes design and construction of ADA compliant sidewalk, ramps, and approaches along the following routes:

Central Avenue W – I-15 to 9th Street NW / 9th Street SW

6th Street SW – Country Club Boulevard to Central Avenue W

Not all intersections will be included in this project, a spreadsheet with the estimated sidewalk quantity and the number and location for ADA ramps and alleys will be developed for the RFP.

The project RFQ is at the following link:  RFQ

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday 23-JAN-2018 11:40 AM
SOQ Ranked Short List

1 - Knife River/WGM Group/ Lorenzen Soil Mechs.

2 - CDM Smith/CDM Constructors

3 – Talcott Construction/KLJ


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Monday 05-FEB-2018 01:19 PM
If any trees will be removed or trimmed with this project they should be removed or trimmed outside the typical nesting season.  Removal should take place between August 15 and April 15 or when nests are not active.

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 07-FEB-2018 01:40 PM
The linked wage rates replace the rates that were included in the RFP.  WAGE RATES

-3-
Submitted: Tuesday 13-FEB-2018 09:55 AM
Linked are the Pre-Proposal Meeting Minutes:  PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING MINUTES


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Monday    29-JAN-2018 09:55 AM  
Company: WGM Group  
Contact: Cody Thorson  
We request that MDT post any available record drawings for the Central Avenue W and 6th Street SW corridors related to the project limits.
Answer
Submitted: Monday    29-JAN-2018 02:44 PM 
The files linked below represent the as-built drawings for these locations. MDT provides them for informational purposes only. Some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project. The Firm 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

-2-
Submitted: Friday    02-FEB-2018 11:04 AM  
Company: KLJ  
Contact: Scott Fanning
Can you define the midblock areas that are non-compliant, requiring the approximate 200 square yards of new sidewalk?  Are these the multiple approaches within the corridors?

-3-
Submitted: Friday    02-FEB-2018 11:38 AM  
Company: WGM Group  
Contact: Cody Thorson  
1) Can the maximum allowed page limit on Section 1, Quality Management Plan, of the Technical Proposal be increased to 20 pages?
2) The majority of the 'T' intersections along 6th Street SW do not have existing curb ramps that allow crossing 6th Street SW. Would MDT want new curb ramps only to facilitate ramps parallel to 6th Street SW, or prefer adding 1, or 2, ramps that would allow crossing 6th Street at these intersections?
Answer
Submitted: Friday    02-FEB-2018 03:52 PM 
1)  Yes, the page limit for Section 1, Quality Management Plan, is increased to a maximum of 20 pages.
2)  Provide 2 ramps if there is an existing crossing of 6th Street SW. Provide 1 ramp parallel to 6th Street SW if there is no existing crossing of 6th Street SW.

-4-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 10:32 AM
Company: WGm Group
Contact: Cody Thorson
If sidewalk does not exist along intersecting streets, should this be considered a constraint (per Question 9 of the pre-proposal meeting minutes) and justification for using a single diagonal ramp, or would MDT prefer to extend sidewalk to allow double ramps at these intersections (example Central Ave and 10 St NW).