Montana Department of Transportation

Malcolm “Mack” Long, Director

COVID-19

View the Governor’s Coronavirus Task Force site for more information.

Contractor's System Project Question & Answer Forum

Contractor's System Current Questions and Answers

Ask a Question | Read Archives

Bid Letting Dates:

May 5, 2021

May 13, 2021

Watch - Public Bid Opening - Live Stream: ZOOM MEETING INFORMATION 
________________________________________________
Please view MDT's updated CM/GC Guidance Document. The purpose of the CM/GC Guidance Document is to outline MDT’s general process for procuring and administering transportation projects through utilization of the Construction Manager / General Contractor project delivery method. 

  ________________________________________________

Notice: Internet Browser Issue - Please use Internet Explorer. 
Using MDT FTP Site with Chrome and Edge


 


401 - MT-200 BRIDGES - LEWISTOWN AREA - May 5, 2021

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday  24-FEB-2021 07:24AM
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) is accepting Statement of Qualifications (SOQs) from entities (Proposers) interested in providing Construction Manager / General Contractor (CM/GC) services for the project identified below. Proposers are encouraged to submit an electronic copy of their Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) no later than 11:00 a.m., local time on March 17, 2021.

Project Name: MT-200 Bridges - Lewistown Area
Project No.: NHPB STWD(787)
Control No.: 9884000

 
This project includes preconstruction services, and the option for construction services, for replacement of ten structures in the Lewistown area on routes N-57 and N-61 through a CM/GC contract.  The project purpose is to replace aging and deteriorating structures in fair and poor condition with new bridges or culverts.  Rehabilitation is not practical due to the advanced deterioration of the structures and load posting restrictions. Work will include road and approach construction to tie the new structures into the existing alignment.
Structure Descriptions & Locations:
Route / RP / Feature Intersected
            N-57 / 95.57 / Drainage
            N-57 / 99.67 / Stockpass - Drainage
            N-57 / 100.88 / Drainage
            N-57 / 103.85 / Drainage
            N-57 / 105.38 / N. Fork McDonald Creek
            N-57 / 106.70 / Drainage
            N-57 / 107.46 / Drainage
            N-57 / 107.83 / Irrigation Reservoir
            N-57 / 120.01 / Briggs Coulee
            N-61 / 38.45 / Elk Creek
The project RFQ and attachments can be found at the following link: 9884000 RFQ

-2-
Submitted: Friday  02-APR-2021  11:37AM
SOQ Short List:
1.     Dick Anderson Construction
2.     Sletten / LHC Joint Venture
3.     Kiewit Infrastructure
4.     Graham Contracting
5.     Malcolm International
6.     COP Construction

-3-
Submitted: Tuesday  13-APR-2021  11:00AM
Pre-Preposal Meeting Minutes: LINK

-4-
Submitted: Monday  19-APR-2021  10:02AM
Preconstruction Services Hourly Rates Form: LINK


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Thursday  25-FEB-2021  12:53PM
For Proposers considering a Joint Venture, the following language will be included in the future RFP.  The joint venture form described below does not have to be submitted with the SOQ, only the Technical Proposal.
 
If the Proposer is a Joint Venture, the individual empowered by a properly executed Declaration of Joint Venture and Power of Attorney form will execute the proposal.  The proposal will clearly identify who will be responsible for the construction management, general contracting, and specialty contracting portions of the work.  Short-listed Firms must include an executed Declaration of Joint Venture and Power of Attorney form with their Proposal.  Non-inclusion of this form will be cause for disqualification.  Proposers are not required to form a Joint Venture.

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday  05-MAY-2021 10:56AM
The RFP states "A maximum of six (6) individuals will be allowed to participate in the interview stage".  If a team requires technical assistance from an IT technician during the web-based interview, that individual will not count against the team's limit.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Monday    01-MAR-2021 10:40 AM
Company: Pivotal Marketing Partners
Contact: Mara Prendergast
Will MDT accept 11x17 size pages if they are needed to present charts, graphs, tables, or other graphics that do not fit on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet?

Answer
Submitted: Monday 08-MAR-2021  02:41PM
No, 11 x 17 sheets are not allowed in the SOQ.

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday   02-MAR-2021 05:24 PM  
Company: Malcolm International  
Contact: Erin Querio
With Reference to Item 3.(a)(iv) Owner performance evaluation, can we attach letters of recommendation, CPARS, etc in the Appendix?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 08-MAR-2021  02:44PM

Owner performance evaluation forms, as mentioned in the RFQ, will be allowed in an Appendix, and will not count against the total page count of the SOQ.  Letters of recommendation may be allowed but will be included in your page count.

-3-
Submitted: Thursday  11-MAR-2021 11:17 AM  
Company: MALCOLM INTERNATIONAL  
Contact: QUERIO
There is a lot of data requested for Section 2. Can we get 5 pages for this section?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 12-MAR-2021 09:25 AM
The page limit specified in the RFQ is adequate for the information being requested.

-4-
Submitted: Friday    12-MAR-2021 11:48 AM
Company: Razz Construction Inc.
Contact: Janessa Murphy
Is there an estimated project duration?
Answer
Submitted: Monday  15-MAR-2021  09:51AM

The letting date for this project is tentatively set for November 2023, and it is anticipated that the majority of the construction will take place over the span of the two construction seasons in 2024 and 2025.

-5-
Submitted: Tuesday   06-APR-2021 07:14 AM
Company: Dick Anderson Construction
Contact: Estimating
Will MDT permit the inclusion of a Transmittal Letter with this Statement of Proposal (not to be included in page count)?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 06-APR-2021 07:43 AM
A one page transmittal letter can be included with the Technical Proposal, and will not be included in the page count.

-6-
Submitted: Tuesday   06-APR-2021 07:15 AM
Company: Dick Anderson Construction
Contact: Estimating
From the RFQ to the RFP it seems that MDT has dropped the requirement of a Preconstruction Manager. Is it the intent of MDT that this position is no longer pertinent to the project?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 06-APR-2021  08:02AM
Section III.G.1.b will be modified to read as follows:
b.         A description of the qualifications for the following individuals:

            i.          Project Manager

            ii.         Construction Superintendent

            iii.         Project Estimator

            iv.        Environmental Manager

            v.         Quality Manager

            vi.        Preconstruction Manager

            vii.        Other project personnel as the Proposer deems helpful

*Note that Key Personnel identified in the SOQ may not be changed without prior MDT approval

-7-
Submitted: Tuesday   06-APR-2021 07:16 AM
Company: Dick Anderson Construction
Contact: Estimating
Can MDT please let the shortlisted proposers know if the scoring committee will be consistent between the SOQ and SOP?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 06-APR-2021 08:02 AM
Yes, MDT's Technical Review Committee for the SOQ will be the same group to score the Technical Proposals and the Oral Interviews.

-8-
Submitted: Tuesday   06-APR-2021 07:40 AM
Company: Dick Anderson Construction
Contact: Estimating
Will MDT please provide the definition of "design plan sheets"? Was this hold over language from a Design-Build procurement and is not relevant in this context?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 06-APR-2021
Design plan sheets can be used by a Proposer to illustrate a possible design solution that might be difficult to explain in a written narrative.

-9-
Submitted: Tuesday   13-APR-2021 09:34 AM
Company: Malcolm International LLC
Contact: Carter Masterson
Can the SOQ evaluations be provided prior to the RFP due date to allow bidders to address any perceived weaknesses and strengths from the SOQ in our Proposal?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday  14-APR-2021  07:31AM
Please refer to Preproposal Meeting Minutes posted to the Q&A Forum for the answer to that question.

-10-
Submitted: Tuesday   13-APR-2021 09:37 AM
Company: Malcolm International LLC
Contact: Carter Masterson
Do the SOQ rankings have any effects on the RFP evaluation criteria?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday  13-APR-2021 11:14AM
No.

-11-
Submitted: Tuesday   13-APR-2021 09:42 AM
Company: Malcolm International LLC
Contact: Carter Masterson
Many RFP requirements are similar to the SOQ requirements. Will re-use of this materials be acceptable in the Technical Proposal?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday  14-APR-2021 07:21AM
It is up to each Proposer to determine the contents of their Technical Proposal, but it is not a violation of the RFP requirements to include information previously included in the SOQ.

-12-
Submitted: Tuesday   13-APR-2021 09:44 AM
Company: Malcolm International LLC
Contact: Carter Masterson
The RFP Schedule section states the letting date is November 2023, 2.5 years from now. We assume this is meant to be the contract date for the GC portion of the contract leaving between June 2021 and November 2023 to develop the design. Please verify? It also states the construction seasons are 2024 and 2025. Is this accurate?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 14-APR-2021  07:25AM
For a CM/GC project, the term "letting" is used to define the point at which the agreed upon Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) has been finalized.  So, yes this will be the point where the Construction Contract is entered into by MDT and the Contractor.
 
Yes, construction is tentatively planned for 2024 and 2025.

-13-
Submitted: Tuesday   13-APR-2021 09:47 AM
Company: Malcolm International LLC
Contact: Carter Masterson
The Preconstruction Manager position has been removed and is not listed in the RFP. Is this position no longer a key personnel position for the project as was itemized in the SOQ?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday  13-APR-2021  11:17AM

Please refer to Q & A Forum question no. 6.

-14-
Submitted: Tuesday   13-APR-2021 06:19 PM
Company: Pivotal Marketing Partners
Contact: Mara Renee Prendergast
On previous MDT proposals, the page size requirement read “schedules, design plan sheets, charts, graphs, tables, or other large graphics can be formatted to print on 11x17 paper and count as one page.” Is this still the case under the “design plan sheets” element?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday  14-APR-2021 07:29AM
Yes.

-15-
Submitted: Friday    16-APR-2021 12:17 PM
Company: Malcolm International LLC
Contact: Carter Masterson
RFP Section II, P. Compensation for Preconstruction Services. Are the preconstruction rates required to be submitted with the proposal? If so, do these get included with the technical proposal, with the Phase Multiplier envelope, or another section?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday  20-APR-2021 07:44AM
Using the Preconstruction Services Hourly Rates Form posted under Notification No. 4, submit the summary of key personnel hourly rates in hard copy along with the Proposed CM/GC Construction Phase Multiplier (Price Proposal).

101 - JCT SEC 250 - NORTH - May 13, 2021

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   20-APR-2021 09:28 AM
Company: Knife River - Yellowstone
Contact: Van Hildreth
Please post any electronic design information including .GPK, .DGN, and .XML files.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday  20-APR-2021 11:08AM

The design files for the requested project are posted on the MDT FTP site for your use at: GEOPAK

The requested files do not represent the staked project, but are only design files.  The Department cannot guarantee the accuracy of the electronic data, particularly as it may be called up by your computer, nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents.

In addition, the Department will not make any revisions to the electronic files pertaining to the staked project, change ordered work, or changes that are made during construction to fit field conditions.

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday   20-APR-2021 12:47 PM
Company: Knife River - Yellowstone
Contact: Van Hildreth
The MOU included in the proposal was approved on Feb 3, 2016 and automatically terminated 5 years later (2/3/2021). The PSA specifies the associated MOU as the 2/3/16 dated document. Are there updated MOU and PSA agreements or extensions available?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 21-APR-2021 02:47 PM
When a project is performed pursuant to a PSA that was signed when the MOU was effective, the project is performed under the terms of that MOU.

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 21-APR-2021 10:04 AM
Company: Knife River - Yellowstone
Contact: Van Hildreth
1. Please provide the dirt run corresponding to the mass diagram.
2. Provided cross sections for mainline go to sheet 473 and sta 1337+00. Please provide x-sec from 1337+00 to 1339+60 please? (there is a missing gap in x-sec sheets from 473 to 501)
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 21-APR-2021 03:10 PM
The Dirt Runs and additional Cross Sections can be found at the following links:

DIRT RUNS     CROSS SECTION SHEETS
The mainline X-sections run page numbers 101-477. The gap in numbering is intentional.

-4-
Submitted: Monday    26-APR-2021 02:01 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Cale Fisher
Regarding the gpk and dgn files posted, we are unable to get the required cross section dated to import into Agtek for performing takeoffs. Can MDT please provide a cross section report file in either an .xsr or .gen format?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 05-MAY-2021 08:15 AM
The linked cross section *.xsr output files are provided as information only.   These reports are broken into existing and proposed grade for the three project segments Z01, Z02, and Z03 (south, middle, north).
 
The requested files do not represent the staked project,  but are only design files.  The Department cannot guarantee the accuracy of the electronic data, particularly as it may be called up by your computer, nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents.  In addition, the Department will not make any revisions to the electronic files pertaining to the staked project, change ordered work, or changes that are made during construction to fit field conditions.
JCT SEC 250 NORTH GEOPAK

-5-
Submitted: Thursday  29-APR-2021 08:21 AM  
Company: True North Steel  
Contact: Amanda McCulloch
For Bid item 603 01 0066 Drainage Pipe 36in - The Schedule of Items lists a quantity of 976 LNFT but the Culvert Summary total comes up with 1086 LNFT. Is there a misprint in the plan lengths or incorrect quantity listed in the Schedule of Items?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 04-MAY-2021  07:41AM
The Culvert Summary Recap frame has been updated to show the correct total of 1076 feet.  An Addendum will be issued.  Attached is the updated plan sheet 19.  LINK

Revised Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 05-MAY-2021 03:01PM
The Culvert Summary Recap frame has been updated to show the correct total of 1086 feet.  An Addendum will be issued.  Attached is the updated plan sheet 19.  LINK

-6-
Submitted: Monday    03-MAY-2021 09:00 AM
Company: Oftedal Construction, Inc.
Contact: Cameron Lundby
It appears Proposal Line No. 0170 is a duplicate of the Special Backfill items for Alternative A1 and B1.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 04-MAY-2021 07:30 AM
The Special Backfill quantity (Line 0170) is indeed a duplicate of the Special Backfill for Alternate Bids A1 and B1. There are no items in the base bid that require Special Backfill material.  Line 0170 will be removed from the contract.  An addendum will be issued.

-7-
Submitted: Monday    03-MAY-2021 03:17 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Estimating
Please post any additional geotechnical information that is available for the project.
Answer
Submittal: Tuesday 04-MAY-2021 07:35 AM

Attached are PDF Files of the available project alignment and/or structures geotechnical report(s), geotechnical report supplements, and geotechnical laboratory summaries.  There is remaining geotechnical information that is voluminous and very difficult to compile in a concise manner.

 

Contractors are welcome to come to MDT Headquarters to inspect rock samples taken for the project that are stored here or to look through the complete set of Geotechnical field investigation notes, laboratory testing, analytical, or other data in our project files.

 

It should be noted that the project may have undergone significant changes during the design process after the original geotechnical report and supplements were issued.  Thus, some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project. Some of the changes include, but are not limited to: Project splits (for funding, ROW issues, etc.); alignment and grade changes; and changes due to environmental factors (sensitive areas, etc.).

The documents can be found at JCT SEC 250 NORTH GEOTECH

-8-
Submitted: Tuesday   04-MAY-2021 09:10 AM  
Company: True North Steel  
Contact: Amanda McCulloch  
For bid items 603 010 076 & 603 010 080, would 14ga Poly 5x1 corrugation be allowed?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 05-MAY-2021 03:41PM

MDT will allow the use of 5x1 corrugations for the 14ga poly coated steel pipe for line items 603 010 076 & 603 010 080.  Plastic poly pipe is not allowed.

-9-
Submitted: Tuesday   04-MAY-2021 02:42 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Cale Fisher
Will MDT please provide the subgrade data in xsr file format, similar to the proposed and existing grade data previously provided?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday  05-MAY-2021 10:07AM
The linked cross section *SG.xsr output files are provided as information only.   These reports are broken into existing and proposed grade for the three project segments Z01, Z02, and Z03 (south, middle, north).

The requested files do not represent the staked project,  but are only design files.  The Department cannot guarantee the accuracy of the electronic data, particularly as it may be called up by your computer, nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents.  In addition, the Department will not make any revisions to the electronic files pertaining to the staked project, change ordered work, or changes that are made during construction to fit field conditions.

JCT_SEC_250_NORTH_GEOPAK

102 - SE OF HAMMOND - SE / ALZADA - NORTH / ALZADA - SOUTH - May 13, 2021

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

103 - NEVADA LAKE - HELMVILLE / HELMVILLE - JCT MT-200 - May 13, 2021

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 21-APR-2021 08:45 AM
Bid item# 411011140 Transverse Rumble Strips 1.0 LSum is hereby added to the contract.  Attached are the 2 Revised Plan Sheets and Special Provision.  9710 SHEET 3   9710 SHEET 6   RUMBLE STRIPS SPECIAL

An Addendum will be issued.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday   27-APR-2021 10:29 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Cale Fisher
Will MDT consider a delayed flex time NTP of September 13 to account for gravel permitting, crushing, mix design development and MDT review times?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday  29-APR-2021  08:18AM

Special Provision #2 Contract Time is hereby replaced by the following Special Provision Contract Time - Flex Time Proceed Date.
 1. CONTRACT TIME – FLEX TIME PROCEED DATE [108] (REVISED 1-21-16)
                A. General.  This provision modifies Subsection 108.02 of the Specifications.
                B. Notice to Proceed.  The notice to proceed will be issued with an effective date of August 16th, 2021.  The Contractor may change the notice to proceed date to an earlier date if written notification is received at least ten calendar days in advance of the date selected and the selected date is approved by the Project Manager.  Include an updated schedule with the notification.
                C. Contract Time.  Contract time assessment will begin on the notice to proceed date issued by the Department or as changed by the Contractor, whichever is earlier.  Work is to be completed in 50 working days.

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 28-APR-2021 10:21 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Cale Fisher
Please clarify the intent of Item 210 020 000, Motor Grader. Is this for work preparing the shoulders to place the PMS surface wedge?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 28-APR-2021 01:55 PM
Yes, the intent of the motor grader hours are for preparing the shoulders to place the PMS surfacing wedge.

-3-
Submitted: Monday    03-MAY-2021 10:15 AM
Company: Wharton Asphalt LLC
Contact: Ed
On the crack detail page it has a mastic option for cracks larger than 1.5". There is not bid item for this, do you not anticipate any mastic on this project? Or are you going to add a bid item?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 04-MAY-2021 10:30 AM
MDT does not foresee any cracks 1" wide that would require Mastic. This bid item will not be added. 

The Mastic detail is now part of the standard crack seal detail.

-4-
Submitted: Friday    07-MAY-2021 10:32 AM
Company: Jim Gilman Excavating, Inc.
Contact: Paul Thompson
This project includes a bid item for BMP Administration and a different bid item for PAR BMP Administration. There appears to be some conflict and overlap between the two items. Special Provision #19 says to include the cost of erosion control, devices, and inspections in the BMP Administration item. Special provisions #22 and #23 say to include the costs to install, maintain, monitor, and remove BMP's in the PAR BMP Admin bid item.
1. Are both of these bid items needed?
2. please describe how the contractor should split up the costs and responsibilities between these 2 items.
3.The only soil disturbance apparent from the plans is construction of 18 guardrail end widening areas, Under normal circumstances, some of these may require BMP's, depending upon distance to streams or wetlands, slopes, soils, vegetative buffers, etc. Under special provision #21, item 5, it says the Aquatic Resource Monitor would determine final location and orientation of BMP's. Can or will the ARM require BMP's in areas with no soil disturbance? If so, we would need to know the additional areas where BMP's will be required in order to bid the PAR BMP Admin item.

104 - DEER LODGE - SOUTH / WARM SPRINGS - SW (MT-48) - May 13, 2021

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Addendums

No Addendums available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

105 - LOWER AIRPORT ROAD - LEWISTOWN - May 13, 2021

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    07-MAY-2021 01:28 PM  
Company: Mountain West Holding Co  
Contact: Chris Connors  
The details for this project on plan page 8 are calling out 4 sections of radius rail as a IRT as is the bid item. What is shown does not make up an MGS Intersecting Roadway Term Section (IRT). Please clarify what is intended at this site.