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:

October 26, 2017

November 14, 2017

November 29, 2017

201 - I-90 BR DECKS MP 40-70 D1 - October 26, 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: Monday    09-OCT-2017 11:14 AM
Company: Frontier West, LLC
Contact: Craig Lien
Special 17 stipulates 1-1/2" agg. for deck concrete.  Would standard 3/4" be acceptable given the typical overlay thickness of 1-1/2"?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 10-OCT-2017 12:39 AM
Special Provision #17 - Class Deck Concrete is hereby deleted from this contract.

 

202 - SWAN RIVER-5 MI E BIG FORK - October 26, 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: Friday    29-SEP-2017 08:03 AM  
Company: SLETTEN CONSTRUCTION  
Contact: TRACY GILBERT  
CAN YOU PLEASE POST THE AS-BUILT FOR THIS PROJECT?
Answer:
Submitted: Friday 29-SEP-2017 03:11 PM
The files linked below represent the as-built drawings for the structures. MDT provides them for informational purposes only. They do not include drawings for modifications to the structures, such as joint replacements and guardrail revisions and may not completely represent current conditions. Thus, some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project. The contractor should not rely solely on the as-built drawings provided for bidding purposes nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents.
  AS-BUILT DRAWINGS

-2-
Submitted: Thursday  05-OCT-2017 03:21 PM
Company: Battle Ridge Builders, LLC
Contact: Cody Ham
There are no special provisions or details on the detour, will there be any information released on this?  If so, when?

-3-
Submitted: Tuesday   17-OCT-2017 11:30 AM  
Company: Sletten Construction  
Contact: Chad Mares
There is some conflicting information in the plans and specs regarding the existing pier removal.  To what elevation or depth do the piers need to be removed?  Are they required to be completely removed or 3' below the river bed?  Also, what type of shoring or positive separation is required around the existing piers during the demolition (blasting) process?

203 - MILK RIVER-4 MI W OF ZURICH - October 26, 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   03-OCT-2017 11:22 AM  
Company: Sletten Construction  
Contact: Chad Mares
On Bridge plan B10, is the cross section for the bridge scupper?  Can you please list what brand of scupper you want used for the deck drains?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday   03-OCT-2017 03:05 PM
The Department does not have a preference on what brand of scupper is supplied and installed.  Please provide and install scuppers meeting the requirements shown on sheet B10 of the plans.

-2-
Submitted: Monday    16-OCT-2017 02:45 PM
Company: COP Construction
Contact: Olivia Poettmann
1)  Does the existing structure contain lead paint?
2)  Special Provision 29 discusses Salvaged Material:
a)  Does the contractor have the option to remove and dispose of the bridge deck planks and timber stringers?  Or is the contractor required to disassemble (versus demolish) the bridge deck planks and timber stringers?
b)  How much of this material will Blaine County require?
4)  Can you provide the as-built drawings and the weight for the existing bridge structure?

204 - BRIDGE PRESERVATION-SHELBY - October 26, 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.

205 - SF 169 GLENDIVE NORTH CLRS - October 26, 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.

206 - 4 M SE OVANDO-BR DECK - October 26, 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.

207 - TIMBER PILING PRESERVATION-JOC - October 26, 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.

208 - SF-149 BLGS SOUTH SFTY IMPRV & SF 139-LAUREL GRD RAIL - October 26, 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   10-OCT-2017 01:07 PM  
Company: Mountain West Holding Co  
Contact: Chris Connors  
Special provision 3 states that representatives of the Crow tribe will be present to answer questions at the mandatory pre bid meeting. The same is stated again in the MOU under section V,I.c as well as in the PSA section A. No representative from the Nation was present today at the meeting. This leaves the contractor in a situation in which we must make efforts to obtain information related to fees, permits, and other associated costs, mentioned or not mentioned in our contract documents with the MDOT, directly from the Nation without any presence by the MDOT. The Tribal office that we are directed to contact has no obligation to respond to the contractor verbally or in writing. If the Tribal office does respond, what course of action does the MDOT take if the the Tribe changes their requirements after the bid process? How is it documented or proved as to what was discussed? As required by contract between the contractor and MDOT, the contractor must adhere to all the regulations and associated costs of the Tribe and not involve the MDOT. But these requirements and costs are not included as part of the contract between the MDOT and contractor. Instead they are requirements between the contractor and Tribe but with no contractual obligation on the Tribe to present them or honor them. How can the contractor reasonably enter a contract with the MDOT with no assurance that we have been presented with accurate and binding information from the Tribe. We are requesting that the MDOT post all the fees, permits, costs, etc. that are required to work with the Tribe so that all contractors have the same information to bid the project with in light of their absence at today's meeting.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 17-OCT-2017 11:47 AM

Tribal laws, ordinances, regulations and requirements have been established by the Tribe as a sovereign entity on the Reservation.  Dealings with the Tribe and its requirements, other than those related to the Clean Water Act, aquatic resources permitting and/or cultural resources, are solely between the Contractor and the Tribe and must be addressed in the appropriate forum between them alone.  Please refer to the Indian Reservation Work specifications listed in Special Provision #10.

For bidder inquiries to the Tribe, or for more information about Tribal requirements please see contact Tribal officials listed Special Provision #10.9).

As stated in Special Provision #13, the Department will calculate and pay the Tribal Employment Relations Office (TERO) and/or Improvement Of Services fees, in accordance with the MOU.

For Tribal taxes, fees and permits, please refer to the MOU Specific Terms part I.g.

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday   10-OCT-2017 01:43 PM  
Company: Mountain West Holding Co  
Contact: Chris Connors  
Are the TERO & IOS fees discussed in special provision 12 the same 3% fee talked about in the MOU under section V.II.d? Is this the same as the 3% fee per the PSA section D? What fees or permits are required that are not included in the IOS and/or TERO fees? Confirm that the contractor does not need to include these costs in their bid.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday   11-OCT-2017 03:33 PM
As stated in Special Provision #13, The Department will calculate and pay the Tribal Employment Relations Office (TERO) and/or Improvement Of Services fees, in accordance with the MOU and PSA with the Apsaalooke Nation.  These fees will be calculated and shown on the estimate for informational purposes only, but will not be withheld from the Contractor payments.
 
For Tribal taxes, fees and permits, please refer to the MOU Specific Terms part I.g..  For additional bidder inquiries to the Tribe, or for more information about Tribal requirements please see contact Tribal officials listed Special Provision #10.9).

301 - I-90 BRIDGES - BONNER - November 14, 2017

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday    30-JUN-2017 10:20 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 August 3, 2017.

I-90 Bridges - Bonner
IMIP 90-2(149)110
This project includes design and construction activities to replace the two interstate bridges over the Blackfoot River near Bonner, MT. The project is located on Interstate 90 at milepost 110.19 approximately 0.46 miles southeast of the Bonner I-90 Interchange in Missoula County. This project includes removal of the existing structures, grading of the abutment slopes, and installation of the new structures on the current alignment.

The project RFQ is at the following link:  RFQ

-2-
Submitted: Thursday 17-AUG-2017 8:30 AM
SOQ Ranked Short List

1       Kiewit Infrastructure West Co./WGM Group/Shannon & Wilson
2 Frontier West, LLC/Morrison Maierle Inc.
3 Sletten Construction Company/HDR Engineering, Inc.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 05-SEP-2017 03:05 PM
The following questions were asked prior to the Pre-Proposal Meeting:
1)  The survey file appears to only contain terrain data, will the planimetric information be made available?   Linked is the Map file showing terrain and existing bridges.
2)  Is the SUCON mapping file available to complete the control traverse?
Linked is the TIN file from Survey
MAP AND SURVEY
If these are not the requested files, please provide additional clarification with a follow-up question.

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 06-SEP-2017 09:45 AM
All related MDT Headquarters files for the I-90 Bridges – Bonner DB Project have been compiled and are in the Geotechnical Section Office. These files are available for review by appointment at (406)444-6281 or email

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 06-SEP-2017 12:00 PM
Linked are the Letter of Map Revision Files:  LETTER OF MAP REVISION FILES

-4-
Submitted: Wednesday 06-SEP-2017 12:08 PM
Linked are the Pre-Proposal Meeting Minutes:  PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING MINUTES

-5-
Submitted:  Friday 15-SEP-2017 2:15 PM
Linked is the updated Public Involvement Firm Special Provision:  PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FIRM SPECIAL

-6-
Submitted:  Wednesday 27-SEP-2017 4:00 PM
Linked is a spreadsheet from the USGS with elevation and section data around the Bonner bridge piers. MDT cannot guarantee the accuracy of the data, nor does any data in this file supersede the data in the contract documents. The information is being provided for information only. USGS SURVEY DATA


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Friday    28-JUL-2017 08:07 AM  
Company: Frontier West, LLC  
Contact: Mike Murphy
Can electronic copies of the existing structures as-builts, including the plans for the seismic retrofit and slope stability mitigation be provided?  The I-90 Bridge Stabilization Design and Construction Summary Report indicates two major reports consisting of a Milltown Bridge Infrastructure Mitigation Hydraulics Report, October 2006 and a Geotechnical Report for the Milltown Reservoir Bridge Mitigation Projects, December 2006 were prepared.  Can electronic copies be provided?
Answer:
Submitted: Friday 28-JUL-2017 01:14 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:


The As-built plans for the original construction, the 1994 widening and the 1999 retrofit are at the following link:  AS-BUILT PLANS

The plans attached in the I-90 Bridge Summary Report Final (linked with the RFQ) for the seismic retrofit and the slope stability mitigation are the only plans.  There are no as-built plans for this work.

 

The 2006 Hydraulics Report is at the following link:  HYDRAULIC REPORT
Updated:
Submitted: Tuesday 01-AUG-2017 10:51 AM

The 2006 Geotechnical Report for the Milltown Reservoir Bridge Mitigation Projects is not available. The 2007 Milltown Bridge Infrastructure Mitigation Slope Stabilization Summary Report includes relevant information and can be found at the following link:  SUMMARY REPORT

-2-
Submitted: Monday    28-AUG-2017 11:15 AM  
Company: WGM Group  
Contact: WGM Group  

After reviewing the reports, could MDT please see the below for a list of additional documents and provide them if possible?
Geotechnical Report for the Milltown Reservoir Bridge Mitigation Project, CH2M, December 2006.
Milltown Bridge Infrastructure Mitigation, Inclinometer Installation and Survey Technical Memorandum, CH2M, April 5, 2007.
Milltown Bridge Infrastructure Mitigation, Jet Grout Test Column Evaluation, CH2M, 2007.
Independent review of jet grout approach and design, Donald A. Bruce/Geosystems LP, February 1, 2007.
Milltown Bridge Infrastructure Mitigation, Slope Stabilization Package, CH2M, March 2, 2007
Micropile Modification to the Milltown Bridge Infrastructure Mitigation, Slope Stabilization Package, CHM.
Any slope stability design calculations.

In addition, can you request monitoring data at the existing bridges for:
Inclinometers
Piezometers
In-place inclinometers

Current traffic volumes and data for the project area?
Answer

Submitted: Thursday    31-AUG-2017 04:00 PM  
Reports and Additional Documents:
Linked is the December 2006 Geotechnical Report for the Milltown Reservoir Bridge Mitigation Project.
December 2006 Geotechnical Report. 
MDT is compiling all other available information on the I-90 Bridges Bonner project into one location for the Firms to access and review the information. A location and time will be provided for Firms to view the information.

Traffic Volumes and Data:
2016 traffic volumes are available on MDT’s traffic web page.  The data can be access on the interactive web map: 
TRAFFIC DATA MAP
In the interactive web map, there are 3 layers and you can click on those features in the map and a pop up box will open with additional attributes – like traffic AADT’s.  Use your mouse to zoom in and out or use the zoom tools in the upper left corner or use the search bar to query Bonner, MT.  Zoom all the way in past the orange county layer until the points and lines start to show up.  You can zoom in all the way to street level.  The points are the actual traffic collection points and at the end of the year all the point data is applied to segments of road to make a complete traffic network.

-3-
Submitted: Monday    11-SEP-2017 08:53 AM
Company: Kiewit
Contact: Kevin Rozendaal
Will the EB I-90 loop area formed at entrance/exit ramp #109 just west of the railroad bridges be available as a contractor staging area during construction?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday    12-SEP-2017 09:20 AM
Yes, but the contractor must secure a written agreement with MDT Maintenance.  In addition, access must be detailed in the traffic control plan for approval prior to use.

-4-
Submitted: Monday    11-SEP-2017 08:57 AM
Company: Kiewit
Contact: Kevin Rozendaal
Existing guardrail doesn't appear to meet current standards. Is it acceptable to leave existing guardrail that is undisturbed?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday    12-SEP-2017 10:04 AM
Yes. Transition sections must be included to connect existing rail to the new rail.

-5-
Submitted: Monday    11-SEP-2017 09:01 AM
Company: Kiewit
Contact: Kevin Rozendaal
RFP page 33 of 42, section IV, requires bidders to submit three different graphic representation options that are large scale and suitable for display at a public meeting. Will electronic files satisfy this requirement for the proposal, and then the selected proposer can provide actual large scale samples? If samples are to be provided, please establish the minimum size.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 13-SEP-2017 09:07 AM
Submit three different graphic representation options showing proposed aesthetic treatment for the new structures.  The representations should be 24" x 36" and suitable for mounting and display at a public meeting.  It is acceptable to provide 11" x 17" with each three ring binder as long as at least one copy of each aesthetic treatment on 24" x 36" is submitted with the proposals.

-6-
Submitted: Monday    11-SEP-2017 03:30 PM  
Company: Frontier West, LLC  
Contact: Mike Murphy
Clarifying our request on the request for survey data: The provided files do not contain the line work, ie topographic breaklines such as edge of pavement, end of bridge etc.  Is this information available?  The survey does not include control diagram or control abstract for the survey to allow us to match MDT survey control.  Is this additional information available?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday    12-SEP-2017 02:35 PM  
No, all available line work has been provided.  

There are additional survey files included in the attached link. The two .txt files explain the various .zip files.

SURVEY FILES

-7-
Submitted: Friday    15-SEP-2017 03:06 PM
Company: Kiewit
Contact: Kevin Rozendaal
The original Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks plans for the Milltown State Park showed lighting for the proposed trail that included lights at both edges of the I-90 Structures. During Milltown State Park bidding, addendum #1 deleted the lighting in the MDT right-of-way between Milltown State Park and the Railroad bridge.  Does MDT intent to provide trail lighting under the I-90 Bridges under the I-90 Bonner Bridges contract?  If so, will those lights be connected to the trail lighting circuit installed by the Milltown State Park project?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday    19-SEP-2017 09:34 AM

Yes, provide trail lighting under the I-90 bridges. Connect to the trail lighting circuit installed with the Milltown State Park project. Coordinate the design of the lighting and the circuit connection with Jon Maxwell, FWP Project Manager, at 406-841-4002.

-8-
Submitted: Tuesday   19-SEP-2017 11:44 AM
Company: Kiewit
Contact: Kevin Rozendaal
Has the US Army Corps of Engineers provided a Jurisdiction Determination (JD) and/or wetland boundary verification for the wetland delineation performed on September 8-9, 2014 as described in DOWL’s March 4, 2015 Biological Resources Report and Biological Assessment (Activity 182)? If so, will MDT provide a copy of that documentation?  If not, will MDT pursue the Corps of Engineers verification prior to Notice to Proceed to help expedite permitting?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 20-SEP-2017 10:33 AM
No, MDT and the DB Firms will assume the wetlands are jurisdictional and will not pursue a Jurisdictional Determination.

-9-
Submitted: Monday    02-OCT-2017 12:15 PM  
Company: Morrison-Maierle  
Contact: Jim Scoles  
Riprap revegetation requirements are unclear. Is riprap revegetation required above OHWM? If required, please provide an example special.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 10-OCT-2017 08:58 AM
Yes, provide riprap revegetation above the ordinary high water mark following the linked special provision and detail.  The riprap revegetation special and detail are examples only and the final product will be dependent upon the D-B teams design ensuring the revegetation that is installed does not negatively impact slope stability.

RIPRAP REVEGETATION
RIPRAP REVEGETATION DETAIL

-10-
Submitted: Monday    02-OCT-2017 12:17 PM  
Company: Morrison-Maierle  
Contact: Jim Scoles
Requesting additional technical proposal page limits was discussed in the pre-bid meeting. We are requesting 5 additional pages in section 2 (from 10 pages to 15 pages) and 20 additional pages in section 4 (from 60 pages to 80 pages). All content will be kept concise.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday    04-OCT-2017 09:23 AM  
The maximum allowed pages for Evaluation Criteria #2 is changed from 10 pages to 15 pages. The maximum allowed pages for Evaluation Criteria #4 is changed from 60 pages to 80 pages.

-11-
Submitted: Monday    02-OCT-2017 12:18 PM  
Company: Morrison-Maierle  
Contact: Jim Scoles  
What is the required top mat stainless steel deck reinforcing clear cover?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday    03-OCT-2017 09:44 AM
The required top mat stainless steel deck reinforcing clear cover is 2.5 inches.

-12-
Submitted: Tuesday   03-OCT-2017 02:11 PM  
Company: SK Geotechnical  
Contact: Cory Rice
The existing boring locations and depth of rock core do not satisfy the field investigation requirements of MDT's Geotechnical Manual.  To better meet the design schedule, can the encroachment permit process necessary for the required additional field investigation be waived by MDT, and are any other permits required?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday   04-OCT-2017 02:26 PM
The encroachment permit process cannot be waived. It is up to the Firm to determine necessary permitting requirements.

-13-
Submitted: Wednesday 04-OCT-2017 09:28 AM
Company: Kiewit
Contact: Kevin Rozendaal
Page 56 of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks plans for the new Milltown State Park show several sections of vinyl coated chain link fence within MDT right-of-way that are not included in the Milltown State Park contract.  Does MDT intend for the that fence to be included in the I-90 Bridges - Bonner contract?

Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 04-OCT-2017 04:31 PM
Yes, include fencing to match the new fence installed with the Milltown State Park project.

-14-
Submitted: Thursday  05-OCT-2017 09:17 AM  
Company: Morrison-Maierle  
Contact: Jim Scoles  
AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic Design is not listed in the governing regulations. Is use of the seismic code allowed or preferred?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 05-OCT-2017 11:49 AM
Yes.  The AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design governs MDT's seismic bridge design procedures.

-15-
Submitted: Thursday  05-OCT-2017 09:19 AM  
Company: Morrison-Maierle  
Contact: Jim Scoles  
RFP requires as-built materials list and material tracking. Since MDT is providing CE services in-house and MDT is providing QA and IA as detailed in MT-601, is an as-built material list, etc. required to be provided by the Design Build Firm or will MDT be developing this?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 05-OCT-2017 03:18 PM
An as-built materials list is not required to be provided by the DB Firm.

-16-
Submitted: Thursday  05-OCT-2017 06:16 PM
Company: Kiewit
Contact: Kevin Rozendaal
Section III of the Draft Design-Build Contract notes that liquidated damages will be charged for each calendar day of late completion.  Since crossed-over traffic will not be allowed during winter shutdown, the design-builder could be charged liquidated damages during the entire winter shutdown period if there are items that cannot be completed before winter shutdown and have to wait until spring.  Would MDT be willing to change the liquidated damage clause in the draft DB contract to be based on Working Days?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday  11-OCT-2017 02:52 AM
No.  Liquidated Damages will be assessed for days after the completion date.

302 - MISSOULA ADA UPGRADES - November 29, 2017

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Monday    28-AUG-2017 11:00 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 September 22, 2017.

Missoula ADA Upgrades
CMDO 8199(141)
This project includes design and construction of ADA compliant sidewalk and ramps along the following routes:  
Higgins Ave ADA – Brooks St to E Main
Broadway St ADA – Owen St to Van Buren St
Higgins Ave ADA – W Front St North side
Orange St ADA – N 2nd St W to Broadway St
Orange St ADA – S 1st St W to S 6th St W
5th & 6th St ADA – Higgins Ave to Arthur Ave on both streets
Stephens Ave ADA – S 6th St W to Mt Ave.

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 approaches will be developed for the RFP.

The project RFQ is at the following link:  RFQ

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday  03-OCT-2017 08:15 AM  
SOQ Ranked Short List

1     Knife Rive Corporation / WGM Group, Inc.
CMG Construction, LLC / Dowl, LLC


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Thursday  31-AUG-2017 09:11 AM  
Company: Construct Connect  
Contact: Stacey Mighton  
Are there any union requirements?
Answer
Submitted:  Fridayday  01-SEP-2017 08:27 AM  
MDT does not have any union requirements for this project.

-2-
Submitted: Friday    13-OCT-2017 08:46 AM
Company: WGM Group
Contact: Cody Thorson
Do areas of existing pavers and colored concrete requiring full removal for project upgrades need to replaced with the same materials?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 16-OCT-2017 08:12 AM
No.

-3-
Submitted: Friday    13-OCT-2017 09:26 AM
Company: WGM Group
Contact: Cody Thorson
Are the sidewalks within the medians along Stephens Ave. considered a pedestrian refuge?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 13-OCT-2017 01:44 PM
Refer to PROWAG R305.2.4 for information defining Pedestrian Refuge Islands.
R305.2.4 PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS

-4-
Submitted: Friday    13-OCT-2017 10:16 AM
Company: WGM Group
Contact: Cody Thorson
Page 7 of the RFP states that single lane closures will be permitted, and two-way traffic must be maintained overnight and during non-working hours.  Please clarify that single lane closures will be permitted overnight as long as two-way traffic is maintained. Additionally, please clarify the intent of Section F, page 29 of the RFP where it states temporary short-term lane closures of less than 4 hours will be permitted.  Specifically, that this provision does not limit lane closures to 4 hours?

-5-
Submitted: Friday    13-OCT-2017 10:49 AM
Company: WGM Group
Contact: Cody Thorson
The scope of work excel document (attachment R) includes ramps that have planned upgrades either under construction or scheduled for construction in the near term, with considerably different curb ramp designs versus what would be required for this project.  Please advise how to address these ramps.  Additionally, were ramps inventoried by MDT or an MDT consultant for ADA accessibility?  If so, can any information regarding this inventory be provided?

-6-
Submitted: Friday    13-OCT-2017 12:05 PM
Company: WGM Group
Contact: Cody Thorson
The project description in the SOQ stated to perpetuate crosswalks.  This statement is not included in the RFP. Is it MDT's intent to match curb ramps to the existing crosswalk striping?  If so, does matching the existing crosswalks take precedence over MDT's preferred ramp configurations within the detailed drawings?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 16-OCT-2017 08:16 AM
No.  Crosswalks should be perpetuated, but the exact placement is up to the Firm's design.

-7-
Submitted: Friday    13-OCT-2017 02:38 PM
Company: WGM Group
Contact: Cody Thorson
Please provide any requirements for the following:
1)  Minimum asphalt patch width.
2)  Transition lengths for curb/sidewalk outside of ramp improvement areas when connecting to damaged or non-ADA compliant conditions,or provide clarification of the project tie-in or transition limits to existing conditions.