Montana Department of Transportation

Contractor's System Project Question & Answer Forum

Contractor's System Current Questions and Answers

Ask a Question | Read Archives

Bid Letting Dates:

April 23, 2020

June 11, 2020

Letting Schedule Update (3/26/20):  The current schedule for Advertisement and Letting Dates will be maintained with no plan to alter dates based on the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak at the present time.  Schedule updates will be posted in the Announcements and via Q & A Forum Notifications if circumstances change.  Future project advertisement dates may be adjusted based on factors that normally affect project delivery.  Current advertisement and letting dates are located at this link:  https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/contractplans/reports/future_projects_schedule.pdf

 

Electronic bid submission is encouraged, however paper bids will still be accepted at the present time.   In order to promote social distancing, MDT encourages contractors and the public to attend the openings remotely.  Bid openings will be accessible using Skype, a web browser or by telephone.   Skype Meeting information will be provided here for public bid openings.  As Read information will be posted shortly after the Bid Opening.”
____________________________________________

STPB 8113(9) Higgins Ave Bridge Rehab – Missoula: (Updated 3/20/20) MDT intends to re-advertise in the spring of 2020 with the following tentative dates:

1.  Advertisement - April 16, 2020; Letting Date - May 14, 2020; Construction - Fall 2020
2.  Pre-bid Meeting: February 20, 10:00 A.M. at the Missoula District Construction Conference Room. The meeting is not mandatory, and minutes will be posted on the Question & Answer Forum.
PRE_BID_MEETING_SIGN_IN
PRE_BID_MEETING_MINUTES 
PRE_BID_MEETING_RECORDING
3.  Preliminary Plans and Specifications:The Special Provisions will be revised based on discussions with stakeholders and the Pre-bid meeting. Changes to the plans are not anticipated at this time.
Questions/Comments may be directed to John Schmidt, the Missoula District Construction Engineer

 Phone: 406-751-2020
__________________________________________
MCA, FHWA, and MDT met October 21st and 22nd for a Partnering Training Workshop. This two day workshop was led by Jacques and Associates from Utah who has been working with multiple organizations for 25 years helping to improve their projects through the Partnering process. The participants were excited to work together to create a plan to implement Partnering in Montana. Click Here for more information.  To register, Click Here .


201 - I-15/I-90 - BUTTE - April 23, 2020

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.

202 - RESERVE ST-MISSOULA/I-90 RAMPS-GRANT CK RD TIED PROJECTS - April 23, 2020

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday   31-MARCH-2020   7:30 AM
The Title Sheet for tied project I-90 Ramps-Grant Ck Rd (Msla), IM-CMDP 90-2(145)101, 9034000 is hereby replaced.  The Title Sheet now contains the signature of the MDT Highways Engineer.  9034000_REVISED_TITLE_SHEET


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 08-APR-2020 10:41 AM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Estimating
Could the department verify the depth of the existing PCCP. I do not see it listed anywhere.

-2-
Submitted: Thursday  09-APR-2020 11:35 AM
Company: Diamond Road
Contact: Estimating
Recently, new diamond grinding technology has been proposed to the department and has been used in other states such as Utah and Arizona. This new technology utilizes a machine that, in place of diamond blades, uses diamond teeth. It has proven to be more accurate and provide a nearly identical product in comparison to diamond blades. However special provision 39 calls out specifically for diamond blades, thus eliminating the possibility of utilizing this technology. This technology meets all other specifications set in place by the special provisions. Would the department be willing to adjust the current language in special provision 39 to allow for a machine containing a minimum of 600 diamond teeth and averaging arms a minimum of 30ft long with a cut capability NO deeper than 1 inch?

203 - OLD MT-200 EROSION REPAIR - April 23, 2020

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Thursday  09-APR-2020 12:49 PM  
Company: GeoStabilization  
Contact: Bryan Wavra  
Please provide a link to the geotechnical report for the project.

204 - FOX FARM ROAD-W(I-315)/ULM-GT FALLS TIED PROJECTS - April 23, 2020

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 - JCT S-44-EAST(US-2)/SUMMIT-NORTHEAST TIED PROJECTS - April 23, 2020

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.

302 - KBP - FOYS LAKE ROAD INTERCHANGE - June 11, 2020

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 29-JAN-2020 04:40 PM
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) is soliciting design and construction 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 addresses provided in the RFQ.  Responses are due to the Montana Department of Transportation – Engineering Division, Engineering Construction Contracting Bureau, Room 101, 2701 Prospect, Helena, Montana by 11:00 a.m., local time on February 14, 2020.  Design-Build Firms interested in proposing on the project are invited to attend a public Open House on Thursday, January 30, 2020.  Additional meeting information can be found at the project webpage:
KALISPELL BYPASS.

Project Name:  KBP – Foys Lake Rd Interchange

Project No.:      NH 15(132)

Control No.:     2038022

Contract No.:   DB620

 

This project includes design and construction of a new grade separated interchange at the Foys Lake Road and US 93 Alternate (Kalispell Bypass) intersection and widening approximately 1.9 miles of the Kalispell Bypass from the existing two-lane roadway to the “full-build” four-lane facility.  The project scope also includes providing bioengineered streambank stabilization along the southerly bank of Ashley Creek, immediately upstream of the US 93 Alternate bridge crossing, between the intersections of Foys Lake Road and US Highway 2.  The Kalispell Bypass is designated as a Principal Arterial, Non-Interstate.  The project limits begin north of the Airport Road intersection at RP 1.7 (Station 30+00 on Project No. ARRA 15(91)) and extends to RP 3.6 (Station 58+35.17 on Project No. ARRA 15(92)).
 

 The project RFQ and attachments can be found at the following link: 2038022 RFQ

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 19-FEB-2020 02:58 PM
Short-listed Design-Build Firms will be invited to attend a public listening session regarding the KBP – Foys Lake Road Interchange project in Kalispell on March 10, 2020 from 10 am to noon.  Please check the project webpage for additional meeting details as they become available.

-3-
Submitted: Monday   02-MAR-2020   7:20 AM
SOQ RANKED SHORT LIST:

  1. Schellinger Construction / Frontier West, LLC / Morrison-Maierle  
  2. Graham Contracting Ltd. / AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
  3. Kiewit Infrastructure Co.
  4. LHC, Incorporated / KLJ, Inc.

-4-
Submitted: Monday 03-MAR-20 04:15 PM
As indicated on the 3/2/20 Q&A posting for the subject project, the four design-build teams have been short listed and ranked based on their total composite scores for all four SOQ sections – 1) Transmittal and Letter of Commitment, 2) Staffing and Coordination Plan, 3) Design-Build Experience, and 4) Other Experience.  In accordance with the RFQ, only the Staffing and Coordination Plan scores will be carried forward to be included with the Technical Proposal score.  For your information, following is the corresponding Staffing and Coordination Plan ranking for the four firms:

                1st           Graham Construction/AECOM
                2nd          LHC/KLJ
                3rd           Schellinger/Frontier West/MMI
                4th           Kiewit Infrastructure Co.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Thursday 30-JAN-2020 02:47 PM
 ATTACHMENT A: SOQ Evaluation Criteria has been corrected and a the new version is now available.

-2-
Submitted: Thursday   12-MARCH-2020   10:55 AM
Preproposal Meeting information associated with this project can be found at the following links:
Preproposal Meeting Agenda
Preproposal Meeting Sign-In
Preproposal Meeting Minutes

-3-
Submitted: Thursday   19-MARCH-2020   1:20 PM
The ATC submittal timing requirements described in the RFP are as revised as follows:
Firms will only be permitted to submit ATC proposals for ATC presented at a Proprietary Meeting and are limited to formally submit no more than ten ATC.  Formal ATC submissions can be submitted any date between Proprietary Meeting #1 and the ATC submittal cutoff date.

-4-
Submitted: Wednesday    25-MAR-2020 01:50 PM
Paragraph 7 on page 11 of the RFP is revised as follows:
The Firm is responsible for re-evaluating traffic noise prior to construction to assess if the noise environment has changed between the completion of the noise analysis and the Date of Public Knowledge. This includes evaluating changes in design and determining if any additional noise sensitive developments were later platted/permitted and were not part of the original analysis. This includes a need to re-evaluate based on the change in design from when the initial noise analysis was conducted for an at grade interchange.

-5-
Submitted: Friday 27-MAR-20 11:40 AM
The ATC Submittal requirements noted in the RFP are revised as follows:  ATC submittals are limited to 4 pages.  The narrative describing the ATC must not exceed 3 pages.  If necessary, the fourth page may be utilized for figures, tables or other supporting design data

-6-
Submitted: Friday 27-MAR-2020 11:45 AM
Design speed information noted in the RFP is revised as follows:  Foys Lake Road is classified as a Minor Arterial east of the Kalispell Bypass and Foys Lake Road Intersection, and classified as a Major Collector west of the intersection.  The DB Firm should use the “Urban Minor Arterial” geometric design criteria east of the intersection; therefore, the design speed should be 35 mph (or as appropriate for the intersection control).  The Firm should use the “Rural Collector, Rolling Terrain” geometric design criteria for Foys Lake Road west of the intersection, which has a design speed of 50 mph (or as appropriate for the intersection control).

-7-
Submitted: Friday 27-MAR-2020 12:00 PM
Proposed wall features should match the mountainous aesthetic design of other existing walls adjacent to the Bypass. 

-8-
Submitted: Monday 30-MAR-2020 03:05 PM
Design and construct pedestrian facilities on both sides of Foys Lake Road (perpetuating current access), similar to the access provided at roadways intersecting the existing Kalispell Bypass full-build facilities.

-9-
Submittted: Wednesday 08-APRIL-2020 01:22 PM
Regarding bridge rail, Firms are required to incorporate the MDT 36” single slope concrete barrier (standard details linked below), with a relief pattern on the back of the barrier that matches other bridges crossing the Kalispell Bypass.  A guard fence attached to the top of the barrier system is also required (similar to other bridges crossing the Kalispell Bypass).  MDT does not currently have a standard detail for the 36” single slope barrier-fence system, but is in the process of developing a standard and will provide that information to proposers when available.
Standard Bridge Rail Type Single Slope 36”


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Thursday  30-JAN-2020 02:46 PM
Company: Kiewit Infrastructure Co.
Contact: Lindsey Wollen
RFQ submittal requirements state that the SOQ is not to exceed thirty 8 ½” by 11”pages. Will MDT allow 11x17 pages to be used to present graphics such as the required organization chart, and when used to submit graphics, will the 11x17 count as 1 page?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 31-JAN-2020 01:31 PM

Statement of Qualifications submittals should be formatted to print on 8 1/2" x 11" pages.  If pages that measure 11" x 17" are included in the SOQ submittal, they will count as two pages.

-2-
Submitted: Thursday  30-JAN-2020 02:47 PM
Company: Kiewit Infrastructure Co.
Contact: Lindsey Wollen
Request for Qualifications document Criteria 2 Staffing and Coordination Plan instruction include the following: “Describe the proposed coordination plan. Credit will be given to Firms proposing well-developed coordination plans that define communication procedures between members of the Firm’s team, MDT, and other relevant stakeholders.” Attachment A SOQ Evaluation Criteria does not provide any mention or evaluation instructions for the proposed coordination plan. Please provide more details of the requirements and evaluation of the coordination plan.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 31-JAN-2020 08:21 AM
See the corrected Attachment A for clarification.

-3-
Submitted: Thursday  30-JAN-2020 02:48 PM
Company: Kiewit Infrastructure Co.
Contact: Lindsey Wollen
Will MDT consider a 1 week extension for the SOQ Response Due Date, with a new due date of February 21, 2020? This will allow time to fully address MDT responses and requirements related to scoring, and provide a well detailed response to Criteria 2 Coordination Plan and Criteria 5 Approach and Understanding.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 31-JAN-2020 01:34 PM

Statement of Qualifications submittals are due by 11:00 a.m., local time on February 14, 2020.

-4-
Submitted: Thursday  30-JAN-2020 03:46 PM
Company: Kiewit Infrastructure Co.
Contact: Lindsey Wollen
Attachment A SOQ Evaluation Criteria provides a description and scoring weight for Evaluation Criterion No 5 to “Provide the Firms approach to and understanding of the project” However, the Request for Qualifications does not address Criterion 5 in SOQ Submittal Requirements. Please confirm that Criterion 5 is required in the SOQ submittal and confirm/clarify in instructions that the section is 5 pages of the total 30 page submittal.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 31-JAN-2020 08:23 AM
See the corrected Attachment A for clarification.

-5-
Submitted: Thursday  30-JAN-2020 03:47 PM
Company: Kiewit Infrastructure Co.
Contact: Lindsey Wollen
Request for Qualifications document states that Criterion 4 Other Experience Scoring weight = 200 points whereas Attachment A SOQ Evaluation Criteria states Criterion 5 Scoring weight = 250 points. Please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 31-JAN-2020 09:23 AM
See the corrected Attachment A for clarification.

-6-
Submitted: Thursday  30-JAN-2020 03:47 PM
Company: Kiewit Infrastructure Co.
Contact: Lindsey Wollen
Request for Qualifications document states that Criterion 3 Design-Build Experience Scoring weight = 300 points whereas Attachment A SOQ Evaluation Criteria states Criterion 3 Scoring weight = 150 points. Please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 31-JAN-20 08:31 AM

See the corrected Attachment A for clarification.

-7-
Submitted: Thursday  30-JAN-2020 03:47 PM
Company: Kiewit Infrastructure Co.
Contact: Lindsey Wollen
Request for Qualifications document states that Criterion 2 Staffing and Coordination Plan has Maximum Pages = 20 and Scoring weight = 450 point. Attachment A SOQ Evaluation Criteria states that Criterion 2 has Maximum Pages = 15 and Scoring weight = 350 points. Please confirm that Criterion 2 is Maximum of 15 pages od the total page count of 30 for the SOQ document and please clarify scoring weight.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 31-JAN-2020 08:25 AM
See the corrected Attachment A for clarification.

-8-
Submitted: Monday    03-FEB-2020 03:13 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Company, Inc.
Contact: Mark Cyr
Regarding INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, do all members of the design team have to provide evidence of Professional Liability Insurance in the SOQ, or just the primary Design Professional firm?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 04-FEB-2020 11:56 AM
MDT requires that only the primary design firm provide evidence of Professional Liability Insurance.

-9-
Submitted: Tuesday   04-FEB-2020 09:04 AM
Company: Graham Contracting Ltd.
Contact: Thrall Hershberger
The SOQ Staffing and Coordination Plan requires an Environmental Manager as one of the key personnel for the project. Please clarify if the position of Environmental Manager is required for onsite environmental coordination and compliance during the construction or for Project design and permitting.
Answer
Submitted: 04-FEB-2020 04:35 PM
The Environmental Manager is responsible for ensuring compliance with all environmental commitments, regulations, and permitting requirements through both the design and construction phases of the project.

-10-
Submitted: Tuesday   04-FEB-2020 09:12 AM
Company: Graham Contracting Ltd.
Contact: Thrall Hershberger
The Staffing and Coordination Plan in the RFQ requires a Construction Phasing/ Workzone Safety & Mobility Planner as a key personnel position on the project. Please clarify MDT's expectation for the function or duties associated with this position.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 04-FEB-2020 04:04 PM
The Construction Phasing / Work Zone Safety & Mobility Planner is the Firm's subject matter expert designated to manage and coordinate traffic control planning and phasing to ensure the safety of both the workers and traveling public.  This individual will provide input on and ensure MDT’s work zone safety and mobility process, procedures, and goals are executed through both the design and construction phases of the project.

-11-
Submitted: Thursday  06-FEB-2020 03:17 PM
Company: Kiewit Infrastructure Co.
Contact: Lindsey Wollen
In section 2 of the RFQ, it states to “Provide a summary (in the format of one-page resumes) of the project duties and qualifications of the assigned key personnel and other critical support staff.” Typically one page resumes are not required for value added, non-critical project personnel, please confirm if one page resumes are required for personnel other than key personnel.
Answer
Submitted: Friday   07-FEB-2020   1:41 PM
Proposing Firms are required to provide resumes for key personnel identified in the RFQ.  Firms have the option to provide resume information for additional personnel, as deemed helpful by the proposer.

-12-
Submitted: Friday    07-FEB-2020 02:33 PM  
Company: LHC Team  
Contact: Jeff Wilson  
Please clarify under the Insurance Requirements that the Professional Liability E&O insurance is not required to be project specific, but if a project specific E&O policy is obtained, it is required only for this project.
Answer
Submitted: Monday   10-FEB-2020   10:57 AM
The Insurance Requirements for this project are revised as follows:
The Firm contracting with MDT, or the Design Professional members of the Firm’s team, must provide evidence in the SOQ of their ability to obtain Professional Liability Insurance covering errors and omissions in the amount of $1,000,000.00. Evidence will be in the form of a signed certificate of insurance from an insurer, or a Montana Resident Agent for an insurer, indicating ability to provide such insurance. The insurer must be licensed to do business in the State of Montana.

-13-
Submitted: Wednesday 18-MAR-2020 09:11 AM
Company: Morrison-Maierle
Contact: Scott Fanning
Please provide the following information from the KBP - US 93 to Airport Road project: - Activity 106 Preliminary Geotech Report - Information compiled from the public open house held January 30, 2020 - Activity 112 Preliminary Traffic Report
Answer
Submitted: Friday   20-MARCH-2020  1:40 PM
The requested information can be found at the following links:

- Activity 106 Preliminary Geotech Report
- January 30, 2020 Public Open House Summary

Updated/Link Added: Tuesday 24-MAR-2020 09:37 AM
- Activity 112 Preliminary Traffic Report

-14-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 07:50 AM  
Company: Graham  
Contact: Shawn Plichta
Current .dgn/CAD files in "Attachment N - Preliminary Interchange Design" do not include the Foys Lake Road Roundabout project improvements and associated as-built final topo and grades. Can MDT provide digital .dgn or CAD files for the Foys Lake Road Roundabout Interchange Project?
Answer
Submitted: Friday    27-MAR-2020 02:40 PM
The requested information can be found at the following link:

Additional Attachment N Information

-15-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 07:52 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
Due to the large amount of proposed fill for the bridge abutments of the grade separation crossing of Foys Lake Rd. over US 93 the team would like to see if MDT has additional field data from the original interchange construction. Does MDT have any construction records for the roundabout cut/fill earthwork? Of specific interest are uses of settlement plates, pre-construction estimate of fill volume versus actual and construction observed settlement values.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday    25-MAR-2020 01:52 PM
The requested information is not available.

-16-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 07:54 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
The RFP documents in "Attachment N - Preliminary Interchange Design and Attachment L - KBP Airport Rd to Foys Lake Rd As-Built Drawings" are provided with metric units. However, the RFP clearly states in multiple sections that the design documents for this project be in English units. Is the intent of MDT to have the bidding teams convert the existing metric units to English during the bid phase? Does MDT have any preferential conversion rates for updating the previous metric files to English?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 24-MAR-2020 10:43 AM

Attachment L and N are provided for information only. Firms are responsible for any additional data conversion.  As noted in the RFP, plans for the KBP - Foys Lake Road Interchange project must be completed in U.S. customary units (English).

-17-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 07:55 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
The RFP does not explicitly state the required vertical datum for the project. However, the as-builts in "Attachment L - KBP Airport Rd to Foys Lake Rd As-Built Drawings" list NAD-83 as the horizontal and NAVD-88 as the vertical datums used for the previously constructed projects. What is MDT's preference on vertical Datum? Can we assume that the datums listed on the as-builts are what is expected?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 24-MAR-2020 10:55 AM

Firms should utilize NAD83/2011 Montana Zone 2500 State Plane coordinates for the horizontal datum and NAVD88 for the vertical datum.

-18-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 07:56 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
Does MDT have additional topo information from past projects?
Answer
Submitted: Friday    27-MAR-2020 03:08 PM
The most current topographic information within the project limits for the KBP - Foys Lake Road Interchange project is provided in the response to question 14 as "Additional Attachment N Information."

-19-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 07:57 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
OpenRoads/Microstation is required per the RFP documents as the deliverable format to MDT. Will MDT allow the design team to provide the digital data in InRoads as part of the final design efforts?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 24-MAR-2020  10:40 AM
Firms are permitted to utilize InRoads format for providing project data.

-20-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 07:59 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
There is no scope discussion in the RFP on whether the trail crossing is required to be at-grade or grade separated. Can MDT provide clarification?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday   07-APR-2020   11:41 AM
The crossing should be similar to the intersection of Highway 2 and the Bypass or Three Mile Drive and the Bypass for signalized intersections.  Intersections with other control need to provide pedestrian access following applicable design standards.  An at-grade trail crossing of the Kalispell Bypass mainline is not acceptable.

-21-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 08:00 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
There is no scope discussion in the RFP for crossing beacons, flashers, signage, etc. for an at-grade crossing. If an at-grade crossing is used for the trail crossing of Foys Lake Rd. are there special crossing beacons, flashers, signage, etc.?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday   07-APR-2020    11:44 AM
Design and install crossing beacons, flashers, signage, etc. per the requirements of the MUTCD and the Montana Traffic Engineering Manual.

-22-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 08:03 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
There are some reevaluation reports that were not included in the supplemental environmental information provided by MDT. These reports may or may not be relevant, but a review is needed to verify impact to current project. Can MDT supply copies of the following environmental documents that are referenced in the reevaluation? 1) REIS dated Oct. 7, 2009 2) REIS dated Dec. 29, 2009 3) REIS dated Dec. 20, 2010 4) REIS dated April 24, 2012
Answer
Submittted: Monday   06-APRIL-2020   1:57 PM
The requested information can be found at the following links:

1) REIS dated Oct. 7, 2009 - 2038ENEISR02.pdf
2) REIS dated Dec. 23, 2009 - 2038ENEISR03.pdf
3) REIS dated Dec. 20, 2010 - 2038ENEISR04.pdf
4) REIS dated April 13, 2012 - 2038ENEISR05.pdf

-23-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 08:04 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
Currently missing from the environmental documents is the 2006 cultural resources report, and there are permits that are tied to the cultural resources of our project site. Can MDT provide a copy of the 2006 cultural resources report for review?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday    25-MAR-2020 12:07 PM
The requested file can be found at the following link:

Kalispell Bypass Cultural Resource Supplemental Report

-24-
Monday  30-MARCH-2020  6:12 AM
Question was submitted to the incorrect project. Question has been removed.

-25-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 03:48 PM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
In order to evaluate what level of drainage infrastructure improvements are required for this project further evaluation of drainage reports are needed. Within the RFP and associated Attachments there are three projects of interest that do not have the drainage reports provided. Can MDT provide the drainage reports associated with Federal Aid Projects 15(91), 15(92), and 15(108)?
Answer
Submitted: Friday    27-MAR-2020 02:30 PM
The requested information can be found at the following link:

Final Hydraulics Report

-26-
Submitted: Monday    23-MAR-2020 03:50 PM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
Within the 2019 Utility Engineering Report in "Attachment P" under section "Submittal Information" on page 16 there are four .dgn files and two .pdf files that represent the digital data for the 2019 utility evaluation. Can MDT provide the following files from the "Oct. 2019 Utility Engineering Report provided in Attachment P", so the evaluation of the existing utilities can use the most up to date digital data? The following is a summary of the file names provided on page 16 of subject report.
File Names from
1) 2038017utsuez01.dgn 
2) 2038017utstlz01.dgn
3) 2038017utspnz01.dgn
4) 2038017utspnz04.dgn
5) 2038017utcspz01.pdf
6) 2038017utcspz02.pdf
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday    25-MAR-2020 12:25 PM
The requested files can be found at the following link:

Additional Attachment P Information

-27-
Submitted: Tuesday   24-MAR-2020 03:45 PM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
Can MDT provide the following plans and drawings which are needed in order to advance the streambank restoration design? The January 16, 2013 USACE letter states “A copy of the revised mitigation plan and drawings are enclosed with this letter.” Can MDT provide copies of the revised mitigation plan and drawings referenced in the USACE letter?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday  02-APR-2020   6:29 AM
This letter is referencing the revised plans for repairs to the culvert area on the north bank of Ashley Creek. No stream work is being done on the north bank of Ashley Creek under this contract.
MDT’s Foys Bend Mitigation Site located northeast of Kalispell. Please disregard.

 MDT understands the desire to review past plans for the streambank restoration on Ashley Creek; however, the streambank restoration using that original design has failed and MDT prefers a new bio-engineered streambank restoration design be completed for this project that would ideally avoid future failure at this site.
UPDATED Wednesday 08-APR-2020 12:38 PM

 

-28-
Submitted: Tuesday   24-MAR-2020 03:46 PM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
The as-built drawings provided from MDT in Attachment L are missing the "Electrical-Traffic Signal & Lighting Plans" which are listed as sheet numbers E1 to E6. In order to evaluate the existing as-built information for the roundabout these sheets are needed for review. Can MDT provide the "Electrical-Traffic Signal & Lighting Plans" sheet numbers E1 to E6 from Federal Aid Project No. 15(92)?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 01-APRIL-2020 10:44 AM
The requested information can be found at the following link:
2038010 Electrical-Traffic Signal & Lighting Plans

-29-
Submitted: Tuesday   24-MAR-2020 03:51 PM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
We are looking for clarification to understand the as-built conditions and future requirements for the streambank restoration of Ashley Creek. Can MDT provide clarification on these three items: 1) Does Sheet V4 (Ashley Creek North & Spring Creek Vegetation Plan) dated October 6, 2009 in Appendix H in the Mitigation Monitoring Report #5 represent the As Built vegetation plan OR is there another more recent plan representing the As Built vegetation condition? 2) What plans are being referred to in the January 16, 2013 letter from the USACE to MDT in the following sentence: “The revised plans submitted January 14, 2013, proposed restoration of 6,050 linear feet of riparian buffer and 1,350 linear feet of streambank stabilization utilizing a soil lift and conifer fascine.” As it is written the team cannot verify what plan set or sheets are being referenced. 3) Was the January 16, 2013 letter an “after the fact” authorization by the USACE for stream mitigation work completed in 2010 that was different from the work authorized on November 6, 2009 in Individual Permit number NOW-2009-01808-MTM?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday   02-APR-2020   6:33 AM
1)  For reference, use the plan sheets in the Appendix of the 2019 monitoring report (linked below and on page 10 of the RFP).

https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/planning/STREAM-MITIGATION/2019_REPORTS/2019-FINAL-ASHLEY-CREEK.PDF
 
2)  This refers to Spring Creek, not Ashley Creek.
MDT’s Foys Bend Mitigation Site located northeast of Kalispell Please disregard.
 
3)  This letter is referencing the revised plans for repairs to the culvert on the north bank of Ashley Creek. No stream work is being done on the north bank of Ashley Creek under this contract.
MDT’s Foys Bend Mitigation Site located northeast of Kalispell. Please disregard.
 
MDT understands the desire to review past plans for the streambank restoration on Ashley Creek; however, the streambank restoration using that original design has failed and MDT prefers a new bio-engineered streambank restoration design be completed for this project that would ideally avoid future failure at this site.

UPDATED: Tuesday 07-APR-2020 04:30 PM

-30-
Submitted: Friday    27-MAR-2020 07:17 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
Our team is looking for information on the current surface condition of the pavement within the project corridor. We do not have access to MDT's Pavement Management System. Can MDT grant access to the PvMS site to retrieve the visual pavement assessment information for the project corridor? Or can MDT provide the reports electronically?
Answer
Submitted: Monday   06-APRIL_2020   12:16 AM
The requested information can be found at the following link:

Pavement Report

-31-
Submitted: Friday    27-MAR-2020 11:20 AM  
Company: LHC Team  
Contact: Jeff Wilson  
In the RFP, page 11, bullet 5 requires an addendum to the Environmental Engineering analysis Report (EER). Please provide a copy of the current EER. Additionally, page 10, bullet 4 under Environmental references USACE permit NWO-2009-01808-MTM. Please provide a copy of the permit.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 02-APRIL-2020 03:41 PM

The current EER for the project is the SEIS.  The required EER addendum is outlined in the Consultant Design Activity 111 description, which can be accessed at the following link:  CDB/ACTIVITY_DESCRIPTIONS/CONSULTANT_DESIGN
The requested permit can be found at the following link:   NWO-2009-01808-MTM

-32-
Submitted: Wednesday 01-APR-2020 07:12 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
In order to evaluate the ramp terminals, the team would like to review the traffic data and/or traffic study used during the design of the roundabout intersection of Foys Lk. Road and US-93 as currently constructed. In addition to the ADT provided in the RFP, can MDT provide the historic traffic count information for the intersection of Foys Lk. Road and US-93?

-33-
Submitted: Monday    06-APR-2020 10:12 AM
Company: Graham
Contact: Shawn Plichta
To prevent the potential failure of the streambank mitigation on the south bank of Ashley Creek, can MDT provide the following plans and drawings from the north bank so teams can propose a different approach to the streambank restoration design? The January 16, 2013 USACE letter states “A copy of the revised mitigation plan and drawings are enclosed with this letter.” Can MDT provide copies of the revised mitigation plan and drawings referenced in the USACE letter?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday   08-APR-2020   6:33 AM
The requested information can be found at the following links.  These documents relate to MDT’s Foys Bend Mitigation Site located northeast of Kalispell.  This information is not applicable to the Kalispell Bypass.

January 16, 2013 USACE Letter 
2038013 Foys Bend Mitigation Plans