Contractor's System Project Question and Answer Forum

-1-
Submitted: Friday 08-MAY-2026 02:39 PM
Company: Morrison-Maierle
Contact: Luke Carlson
Can the table that defines which Phase 1 Documents are Bridging Documents and which are provided for informational purposes only be provided now, so firms can assess the required design effort, the relative value of the stipend, and the ability to meet the project completion date?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 12-MAY-2026 03:41PM
The table that defines which Phase 1 Documents are Bridging Documents is being developed and not available. The following is a preliminary list of Bridging Documents that will be provided with the RFP: Preliminary Geotechnical Field Investigation Report, Categorical Exclusion, Scope of Work Report, SHARES Reports and Hydraulic Models, Control Survey, Cadastral Survey, Engineering Survey, and Structure Type, Size and Location Report. The contractual Bridging Documents will be identified and provided with the RFP and will supersede the preliminary list provided within this response.

-2-
Submitted: Friday 08-MAY-2026 02:36 PM
Company: Morrison-Maierle
Contact: Luke Carlson
Will MDT entertain Alternative Technical Concepts to allow teams to best meet MDT design requirements and project goals?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 12-MAY-2026 03:55PM
Alternative Technical Concepts are not allowed on this project. Proposed deviations from the Contract requirements must be submitted as questions through the Q&A Forum.

-3-
Submitted: Friday 08-MAY-2026 03:41 PM
Company: Frontier West LLC
Contact: Kris Anderson
Would MDT consider extending the duration between the release of the RFP and the technical proposal due date timeline if the Phase 1 work does not include roadway or bridge design or plans?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 12-MAY-2026 04:02PM
The Phase 1 Documents will include a preliminary road plan and profile sheet for each site. The associated electronic CAD files will be provided with the Phase 1 Documents attached to the RFP.  The draft RFP requires the Firm to only submit a road plan and profile sheet for each site with the Technical Proposal.  The Tentative Schedule of Events within the RFQ is unchanged.

-4-
Submitted: Friday 08-MAY-2026 03:41 PM
Company: Frontier West LLC
Contact: Kris Anderson
The preliminary drawings provided with the RFQ do not appear to provide any bridge or roadway design information. Will MDT increase the stipend if the Phase 1 work does not include roadway and bridge plans and design?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 12-MAY-2026 04:05PM
The Phase 1 Documents will include a preliminary road plan and profile sheet for each site and the associated electronic CAD files. The stipend will not be increased.

-5-
Submitted: Friday 15-MAY-2026 12:01 PM
Company: Forsgren Associates
Contact: Nathan Haddick
Section VI. A. 1. g. of the RFQ states: "The prime contractor, design professional, and key personnel (including the individual’s employer) are exclusive to the Firm and cannot team with another Firm to submit more than one SOQ per Project." Does this restriction preclude a subconsultant or subcontractor from being included on multiple teams submitting SOQ's for this project if they are not listed as Key Personnel?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 20-MAY-2026 08:25 AM
Individuals assigned as Key Personnel and their employer are exclusive to the Firm and cannot be associated with multiple Firms.  All other companies, besides those assigned with Key Personnel, may team with multiple Firms.

-6-
Submitted: Friday 19-JUN-2026 10:29 AM
Company: Morrison-Maierle
Contact: Luke Carlson
The response to Question 1 in the Q&A states that the Scope of Work Report will be provided. However, we were unable to locate this report in the provided RFP materials. Please guide us on where to find the report or provide it.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 26-JUN-2026 10:48 AM
The response to Question #1 provided a preliminary list of Bridging Documents which included the Scope of Work Report for the Project.  The Scope of Work Report was reviewed by MDT and does not provide any additional design or construction requirements due to the limited design; therefore, it will not be provided to the short-listed Firms.

-7-
Submitted: Friday 19-JUN-2026 02:23 PM
Company: Frontier West LLC
Contact: Kris Anderson
The response to Question 3 states that the plan and profile sheets for each site will be provided with the Phase 1 documents. We are unable to locate the plan and profile sheets in the provided RFP materials. Please provide the plan and profile sheets or let us know where we can find this data within the material provided.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 26-JUN-2026 10:50 AM
The plan and profile sheets for each site are included in pdf format as the last page(s) of the SHARES Reports.  The corresponding CAD files can be found within the following OneDrive folder path: 10661 Greycliff Area Bridges – RFP and Attachments > Attachments > F-Phase 1 Documents > HY > 10661000HYEXZ01.zip.

-8-
Submitted: Friday 17-JUL-2026 03:28 PM
Company: Forsgren Associates
Contact: Nathan Haddick
The provided Type, Size, and Location report recommends specific structure types for the two bridge sites (04536 and 04541). Are alternative bridge types allowed at these locations, or are the proposals limited to the exact bridge types recommended in the TS&L report?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 24-JUL-2026 11:00 AM
The Firm’s final design is not limited to the bridge types recommended in the TS&L report.  The structures recommended within the TS&L report are the "pre-proposed alternative".  In accordance with section IV.G.2 of the RFP, "Final structure type, size, and location may differ from the pre-proposed alternative but must still meet all design and construction requirements for the Project."

-9-
Submitted: Friday 17-JUL-2026 03:23 PM
Company: Forsgren Associates
Contact: Nathan Haddick
Does the 26 page limit for the Technical Proposal include a cover page?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 24-JUL-2026 10:50 AM
A cover page in the Technical Proposal will not be counted in the 26 total page limit.  If a cover page is included, it will not be scored by the Technical Review Committee.

-10-
Submitted: Friday 17-JUL-2026 03:35 PM
Company: Forsgren Associates
Contact: Nathan Haddick
Page 21, Section P.2.g. of the RFP specifies MDT will pay for Right-of-Way compensation costs. If one technical proposal avoids Right-of-Way acquisition and another requires it, will any benefit be given in the technical and/or bid price proposal scoring to account for the cost savings of avoiding Right-of-Way acquisition?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 24-JUL-2026 11:25 AM
Scoring of the Technical Proposal, including any elements related to potential Right-of-Way (ROW) acquisition, depends on multiple factors and associated risks. Due to these factors and risks, we cannot guarantee that avoidance or procurement of Right-of-Way will result in any credit or deduction within the Technical Proposal evaluation.  A credit or deduction will not be given within the Bid Price Proposal for Proposals requiring or not requiring Right-of-Way acquisition.

-11-
Submitted: Monday 27-JUL-2026 04:50 PM
Company: Morrison-Maierle
Contact: Luke Carlson
RFP Section IV.E.12 requires each stockpass structure to provide vertical clearance equal to or greater than the existing clearance. If existing clearance is measured from the low chord to the stream thalweg, the proposed stockpass structure designs in the SHARES reports appear inconsistent with this requirement. Please confirm whether the proposed clearance, RCB culvert rise minus embedment, shown in the SHARES reports, is acceptable for each stockpass structure.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 31-JULY-2026 12:07PM
RFP Section IV.E.12 is hereby rescinded from the Contract. Provide a minimum 6-feet of vertical clearance from the top of the infill material to the top of the hydraulic opening for stock passage at structures 04537 and 04539. Structure 04538 should not be designed to accommodate stock passage.  The vertical clearances provided in the SHARES reports for structures 04537, 04538, and 04539 are acceptable.  Provide positive drainage at all structures.

At structure 04538 and 04539, increase the elevation of the bottom of the culvert to eliminate existing ponding issues caused by irrigation on the north side of the road while maintaining positive drainage through the sites.

-12-
Submitted: Monday 27-JUL-2026 04:51 PM
Company: Morrison-Maierle
Contact: Luke Carlson
RFP Section IV.F.4 requires avoiding placement of new scour countermeasures between Ordinary High Water Marks (OHWM). The 04541 SHARES report bridging document proposed design is inconsistent with the RFP requirement, showing buried riprap between the OHWM delineation. Please clarify that riprap placed below the existing/proposed ground surface between the OHWM delineation is acceptable, consistent with MDT standard practice on other recent projects.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 31-JULY-2026 12:10PM
Buried scour countermeasures placed between the OHWM delineation is acceptable; however, the placement between the OHWM delineation must be justified in the SHARES Report that will be provided to the Resource Agencies during the permanent facilities permitting processes.  Early coordination with FWP shortly after award is encouraged when placing buried scour countermeasures between the OHWM delineation.

-13-
Submitted: Monday 27-JUL-2026 04:39 PM
Company: Morrison-Maierle
Contact: Luke Carlson
RFP Section IV.E.5 requires minimizing roadway reconstruction limits whenever practical, and design in accordance with the Baseline Engineering Criteria. As a local paved roadway, said Criteria indicates the normal design speed for this classification of road and level terrain is 50 mph. Following the Baseline Criteria Practitioner’s Guide is consistent with previous similar bridge projects. The 70 mph design speed set in the RFP (Section IV.E.6) creates significant roadway cost implications for the project. Can MDT confirm the preferred design speed and clarify the project goals if the 70 mph design speed is required?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 31-JULY-2026 12:11PM
The design speed for the Project has been modified to 50-mph based on classification as a local paved road in level terrain.  MDT’s goal for the Project is to follow the Baseline Criteria Practitioner’s Guide and meet or exceed existing configurations in regard to design criteria.
 

-1-
Submitted: Monday 08-JUN-2026 11:00 AM
Company: Morrison-Maierle
Contact: Bryan Vanderloos
Can MDT confirm the guardrail type for the project?  The RFP calls out Box-Beam, but the Phase 1 plans show MGS guardrail.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 11-JUN-2026 07:10 AM
Provide Box Beam Guardrail in accordance with the RFP.

-2-
Submitted: Thursday 06-AUG-2026 08:28 AM
Company: KLJ
Contact: Dan Richardson
Can MDT confirm that a subgrade resilient modulus of 7,000 psi is acceptable for final pavement design?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 7-AUG-2026 12:34PM
The preliminary plans and typical sections were developed based on the use of 7,000 psi for the subgrade resilient modulus.  The use of this subgrade resilient modulus was accepted by MDT as a part of the Phase 1 Analysis.  If additional geotechnical investigations suggest that a different subgrade resilient modulus is appropriate based on the Geotechnical Engineer’s analysis, then the Firm may modify the subgrade resilient modulus and typical sections based on those results.

-3-
Submitted: Thursday 06-AUG-2026 08:28 AM
Company: KLJ
Contact: Dan Richardson
Can MDT clarify the maximum ratio of CAC/FDR thickness to PMS thickness that will be acceptable for final design?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 7-AUG-2026 12:37PM
Refer to Section 6.3.1 Pavement Pulverization in the Surfacing Design Manual.

-4-
Submitted: Thursday 06-AUG-2026 08:29 AM
Company: KLJ
Contact: Dan Richardson
Can MDT specify the required structural layer coefficient for CTB Pulverized?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 7-AUG-2026 12:38PM
MDT is allowing the use of 0.21 as the maximum structural layer coefficient for design of Pulverized CTB based on the Geotechnical information and analysis provided for this Project.

-5-
Submitted: Thursday 06-AUG-2026 08:29 AM
Company: KLJ
Contact: Dan Richardson
Can MDT provide what is classified as “planned work” for the removal of hazardous material according to the RFP Section IV.L.24.c.iv?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 11-AUG-2026 12:25 PM
The "planned work" referenced in the RFP Section IV.L.24.c.iv, refers to any work associated with completing the Project in accordance with the Firm’s final design and all Contract requirements. The Superfund Program staff, in coordination with MDT’s Project Manager, may instruct the Firm to excavate and/or haul material that is beyond what is required to construct the Project in accordance with the Firm’s final design and all Contract requirements. This type of additional work, beyond the "planned work" for the Project, will be eligible for reimbursement by the ADLC Superfund Program.

-6-
Submitted: Thursday 06-AUG-2026 10:20 AM
Company: Morrison-Maierle
Contact: Megan Cail
Can MDT explain why the second section of special borrow recommended in the geotechnical report (347+00 to 350+00) is not included in the Phase 1 plans?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 11-AUG-2026 12:33 PM
The profile within the Phase 1 Documents from Station 347+00 to Station 350+00 was raised and as a result maintains the extrapolated groundwater table away from the proposed embankment and maintains at least 1-foot of vertical distance above the proposed new surfacing section. The special borrow section recommended from Station 347+00 to Station 350+00 in the Phase 1 Documents Geotechnical Report is no longer recommended for the Phase 1 Documents Preliminary Plans.

-7-
Submitted: Thursday 06-AUG-2026 04:02 PM
Company: Morrison-Maierle
Contact: Megan Cail
The updated traffic loading data supplied with clarification #5, shows considerably lower truck percentage and ESAL values. This change will have a significant impact on the surfacing design. Can MDT confirm that the new values are correct and are representative of the anticipated traffic on the newly reconstructed road?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 07:46 AM
The traffic data provided in Clarification #5 accurately reflects both current and estimated future traffic volumes and truck distributions.

-8-
Submitted: Thursday 06-AUG-2026 04:30 PM
Company: KLJ
Contact: Dan Richardson
Given the clarification provided regarding the reduced traffic loading data, if MDT approves an ATC for a revised pavement section, how will the Technical Review Committee evaluate this revision if the pavement section still meets MDT standards but may result in a thinner section than that of the Phase 1 design?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 14-AUG-2026 01:15PM
The TRC will evaluate each Firms Proposal based on the Firm’s demonstration of meeting or exceeding the Contract requirements for the Project.  Clarification #5 modified the Contract requirements for surfacing section design, and these modified requirements will be used as the basis for evaluation by the TRC.

-9-
Submitted: Tuesday 11-AUG-2026 10:19 AM
Company: Morrison Maierle
Contact: Megan Cail
The new information in clarification #5 significantly changes the design. How does MDT propose that firms move forward outside of the ATC process?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 14-AUG-2026 02:08PM
Clarification #5 modifies the surfacing design requirements for the Project; therefore, Firms do not need to have an approved ATC to modify the surfacing design from what was required in the Phase 1 Documents.  At a minimum, the Firms surfacing section must meet the design requirements of MDTs Surfacing Design Manual. Any surfacing design approaches that do not follow the design requirements of MDT’s Surfacing Design Manual must have an approved ATC.

-10-
Submitted: Monday 17-AUG-2026 02:59 PM
Company: Morrison-Maierle
Contact: Megan Cail
In the RFQ Phase 1 plans, typicals 1 and 2 utilize Base 1. In the RFP Phase 1 plans, typicals 1 and 2 utilize cement-treated base. However, the Basis of Plan Quantities incorrectly shows 0.0075 gal/SY (holdover from Base 1) and is missing Blotter and Portland Cement quantities. Also, the special provisions included in the Phase 1 documents reference Base 1 and not CTB. Can MDT clarify this discrepancy?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 20-AUG-2026 02:10 PM
The use of Base One was replaced with Cement Treated Pulverized Base with the same structural coefficient as Base One in the preliminary plans attached to the RFQ.  The use of Base One is not allowed unless the Firm has an approved ATC.  The plans attached to the RFP contain errors related to the Bid Items and Quantities necessary to construct Typical Sections 1 and 2 with the Cement Treated Pulverized Base.  Quantities and Bid items per Section 304 of the Standard Specifications should be reviewed for Cement Treated Pulverized Base and corrected accordingly depending on the Firms final surfacing design and any approved ATCs.

-11-
Submitted: Thursday 20-AUG-2026 10:30 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc.
Contact: Kyle Schellinger
Please confirm that the cover letter and table of contents are not included in the total page limit of 31 pages.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 25-AUG-2026 12:08PM
A cover page and table of contents page in the Technical Proposal will not be counted in the 31 total page limit.  If a cover page and table of contents page are included, the pages will not be scored by the Technical Review Committee.

-12-
Submitted: Monday 24-AUG-2026 07:28 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc.
Contact: Kyle Schellinger
The RFP states "The Fixed Completion Date established by the Firm must not extend past July 31, 2028. Ten additional working days will be provided after the Fixed Completion Date to allow for application of seed and fertilizer. No additional time will be given for any reason except an agreed-upon scope change." However, the Std. Spec. states that seal and cover efforts may not begin until after July 4th and the epoxy striping should be applied 30-45 days after seal coat operations. This does not allow the contractor to complete the epoxy striping within the Fixed Completion Date contract window. Will MDT extend the fixed completion date or remove epoxy striping from work to be completed within the Fixed Completion Date and grant working days to complete this work?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 27-AUG-2026 01:14PM
Standard Specification 409.03.3 allows seal coat operations to occur between May 1^st and August 31^st; therefore, epoxy striping can be applied prior to the Fixed Completion Date established in the RFP.  The Contract time provisions provided in the RFP are unchanged.

-13-
Submitted: Monday 24-AUG-2026 01:44 PM
Company: Montana Materials & Construction
Contact: Estimating
Can excess Cover Coat material be swept to the side of the road? Or, does it have to be picked up?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 27-AUG-2026 01:15PM
A “Protection of Aquatic Resources Special Provision” must be submitted with all applicable milestone Design submittals.  Excess cover material may be swept to the side of the roadway in accordance with the Standard Specifications; however, sweeping excess material to the side of the roadway must be avoided within 40 feet of potential aquatic resources.  Potential aquatic resources include, but are not limited to, wetlands, streams, ditches, and drainages.

-14-
Submitted: Monday 24-AUG-2026 01:40 PM
Company: Montana Materials & Construction
Contact: Estimsting
Will any temporary fence be required?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 27-AUG-2026 01:17PM
Construct temporary fencing to restrict livestock from entering the Right-of-Way and/or work area in accordance with Standard Specification 607.03.5.

-15-
Submitted: Monday 24-AUG-2026 01:42 PM
Company: Montana Materials & Construction
Contact: Loren Blossom
Would MDT reopen the Q & A Forum for a day or two in mid-September (after the Technical Proposals are submitted) to accommodate questions that arise during the bidding process?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 26-AUG-2026 01:04PM
The Q&A Forum will not reopen for the Project.  All questions must be submitted prior to the Q&A Forum closure date and time established in the RFP.

-16-
Submitted: Monday 24-AUG-2026 01:51 PM
Company: Montana Materials & Construction
Contact: Loren Blossom
Special Provision # 24 deals with hazardous waste. 1. If hazardous waste is encountered and requires additional handling or trucking will we be compensated for the extra costs? 2. Will all employees onsite be required to have 40 hour HAZWOPER? If so, does this include design people onsite? If so, will we be compensated for the training? 3. Will haul trucks be required to be tarped?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 28-AUG-2026 12:27PM
1. In accordance with the Answer to Question #5 on the Q&A Forum, any work associated with hazardous materials that is instructed to be completed by the Project Manager, in coordination with the Superfund Program staff, that is beyond what is required to construct the Project in accordance with the Firm’s final design and all Contract requirements will be eligible for reimbursement from either the ADLC Superfund Program or reimbursed in accordance with Standard Specification 109.04.2.
2.  Anyone who is in direct contact with material that is classified as hazardous material must have Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training.  Include the costs associated with training employees in the Lump Sum Bid for the Project.
3.  Trucks hauling material classified as hazardous material will be required to be covered.

-17-
Submitted: Monday 24-AUG-2026 01:59 PM
Company: Montana Materials & Construction
Contact: Loren Blossom
Regarding #16 of the special provisions....is the total time for T&E consultation with the USFWS 120 days? Or is it......120 days +14 days for MDT review + 14 days for MDT to coordinate with FHWA & USFWS + 7 days for FHWA to submit consultation to USFWS for a total of 155 days? Can any work be underway prior to completion of this consultation?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 27-AUG-2026 01:22PM
The Biological Assessment (BA) review and coordination durations provided in the RFP are in addition to and precede the 120 calendar days anticipated for the USFWS to develop a Biological Opinion for the Project.  Review Clarification #8 on the Q&A Forum for construction work that may occur prior to the anticipated formal T&E Consultation with USFWS.

-18-
Submitted: Monday 24-AUG-2026 02:03 PM
Company: Montana Materials & Construction
Contact: Loren Blossom
Regarding # 17 of the Special Provisions...How long will the Environmental Document reevaluation take? Can any onsite work be done prior to this?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 27-AUG-2026 01:24PM
See RFP Section IV.L.4 for Environmental Document revaluation duration.  Construction activities cannot begin until the Environmental Document has been re-evaluated and approved.  This requirement applies regardless of whether the construction work is divided into Component packages due to the T&E Consultation needs for the Project.

-19-
Submitted: Tuesday 25-AUG-2026 04:34 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc.
Contact: Kyle Schellinger
MDT's clarification #6 states in part "Provide the landowner at least 14 calendar days' notice before beginning the work outlined in the Updated Attachment P; complete this work prior to June 15." Is this work to be completed prior to June 15, 2027 or June 15, 2028?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 27-AUG-2026 01:26PM
If the landowner’s corrals are impacted in 2027 and/or the road work from Station 315+00 to Station 336+00 is completed in 2027, then complete the work described in clarification #6 by June 15, 2027; otherwise, complete the work described in clarification #6 by June 15, 2028.  The work described in clarification #6 cannot be completed after June 15th in either 2027 or 2028.

-20-
Submitted: Wednesday 26-AUG-2026 03:14 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc.
Contact: Kyle Schellinger
Please confirm that font size within the graphics that are placed as exhibits in the body of the technical proposal must meet the minimum font size of 5-point.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 28-AUG-2026 12:29PM
All narrative text and response-specific content shall be presented in a font size no smaller than 10-point.  All non-contextual text contained within graphics, images, or visual elements shall be rendered with sufficient clarity to ensure legibility when printed to paper.

-21-
Submitted: Wednesday 26-AUG-2026 03:39 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc.
Contact: Kyle Schellinger
Per RFP Sections IV.A.4.c and IV.G.2, teams are required to present bridging document inconsistencies to the Q&A forum, perform additional geotechnical investigations as needed to support design, and meet the requirements of MDT’s Geotechnical Manual. In reviewing the Phase 1 Geotechnical Report, the soil parameters used in the slope stability models do not appear to represent how the proposed 1.5H:1V slopes will behave over time. The cohesion value of 333 psf used in the Phase 1 calculations was based on a soil sample taken 22 feet below the surface elevation. By comparison, the near-surface soil sample has functionally zero cohesion. With a cohesion value of zero, the proposed 1.5H:1V slopes produce a factor of safety below 1.0 and are anticipated to be unstable and require ongoing maintenance. Is MDT willing to accept the risk of slope raveling resulting in ongoing maintenance, or should slope stabilization measures be pursued? If slope stabilization measures are warranted and slopes flatter than 1.5H:1V prove to be the most cost-effective approach, additional right-of-way acquisition is anticipated. In that case, can MDT confirm that a request for additional time will be considered where good faith efforts have been made to follow RFP Section IV.N.4 and the added time is needed for R/W acquisition and/or Section 4(f) consultation?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 1-SEPT-2026 08:01AM
Complete additional geotechnical site characterization activities in accordance with the RFP.  Any modifications to Right-of-Way limits must be approved through the ATC process.  Additional Proposal development time will not be provided.  MDT understands there is potential for long term raveling to occur on slopes steeper than 2:1.

-22-
Submitted: Thursday 27-AUG-2026 03:42 PM
Company: Montana Materials & Construction
Contact: Estimating
What criteria did MDT use to determine the shrink factor shown in the mass diagram? Was the same criteria used throughout the project?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 01-SEPT-2026 02:2PM
The Activity 130 Geotechnical Report provides shrink factor assumptions for the Project.  A shrink factor of 15% was used for the entire Project for quantity and cost estimating purposes.  The mass diagram provided in the Phase 1 Documents and this response are provided for informational purposes only.  In accordance with the RFP, Firms must develop their own final bid items and quantities based on their final design.

-23-
Submitted: Thursday 27-AUG-2026 03:52 PM
Company: Montana Materials & Construction
Contact: Estimating
There is very little topsoil containing organic material on the project excavation and fill areas. Are we to simply strip and replace the topsoil that is there...or is topsoil to be imported? If it is to be imported what is the estimated quantity?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 01-SEPT-2026 02:25PM
Salvage and place existing topsoil and import topsoil as necessary to satisfy the requirements of MDT’s Design Manuals, Guidelines, and Memoranda and SWPPP permitting requirements for the Project.  In accordance with the RFP, Firms must develop their own final bid items and quantities based on their final design.

-24-
Submitted: Thursday 27-AUG-2026 04:09 PM
Company: Montana Materials & Construction
Contact: Estimating
With many EXISTING fill slopes exceeding 3H:1V and currently not having guardrail, in accordance to MDT provision 618.03.8, will MDT require the installation of traffic control devices (including positive barrier ) once slope construction is underway?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 01-SEPT-2026 02:26PM
Install Traffic Control Devices in accordance with Standard Specification 618.03.8.

-25-
Submitted: Thursday 27-AUG-2026 04:20 PM
Company: KLJ
Contact: Dan Richardson
Does MDT have a standard detail for long span box beam guardrail?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 1-SEPT-2026 08:03AM
MDT does not have a long span option for box beam guardrail.