Contractor's System Project Question and Answer Forum

-1-
Submitted: Thursday 16-JUL-2026 12:36 PM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Joe Padon
Can the Geotech/Soil Survey/Surfacing Reports be made available along with the electronic files for the project.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 21-JUL-2026 10:20 AM
Linked 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 Thus, some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project.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 the following link: GEOTECH REPORTS

-2-
Submitted: Friday 17-JUL-2026 10:42 AM
Company: Sundt
Contact: Joe Padon
Can the as-built drawings for the existing structures be made available
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 21-JUL-2026 11:05 AM
The files linked below represent the as-built drawings for the structures.  MDT provides them for informational purposes only. They do not include drawings for modifications to the structures, such as joint replacements and guardrail revisions and may not completely represent current conditions.  Thus, some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project.  The contractor should not rely solely on the as-built drawings provided for bidding purposes nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents. AS-BUILTS

-3-
Submitted: Friday 17-JUL-2026 03:31 PM
Company: Knife River Billings
Contact: Brandon Brown
Can you please provide the design files (CAD, XML, TIN) for the project.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 21-JUL-2026 11:00 AM
The design files for the requested project are posted here: DESIGN FILES
The requested files do not represent the staked project, but are only design files.  The Department cannot guarantee the accuracy of the electronic data, particularly as it may be called up by your computer, nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents.
In addition, the Department will not make any revisions to the electronic files pertaining to the staked project, change ordered work, or changes that are made during construction to fit field conditions.

-4-
Submitted: Friday 17-JUL-2026 05:25 PM
Company: SolarMax LED Inc.
Contact: Odalis Oliva
Can you please confirm if there would be an opportunity to submit lighting fixtures for review and pre-approval? Or will proposed fixtures be evaluated and approved after bid opening?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 23-JUL-2026 12:43PM
Submittals for materials will not be reviewed or pre-approved prior to Contract award.  Ensure all lighting materials meet MDT’s Standard Specifications, Special Provision #16 DOMESTIC MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS, Special Provision #68 HIGH EFFICACY LUMINAIRE LED, and Special Provision #69 UNDERPASS LUMINAIRE LED.
UPDATED: Tuesday 28-JUL-2026 03:45 PM

-5-
Submitted: Monday 20-JUL-2026 03:15 PM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Joe PADON
For the crossovers the job specs call out 3 pay items, Traffic Control Crossover, Traffic Control Two-Way Traffic and Traffic control. There is not a bid item for the Two-Way Traffic by the mile.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 23-JUL-2026 02:12PM
The following Special Provision hereby replaces Special Provision #76 in the contract: CROSSOVER TRAFFIC CONTROL
The 2 bid items below are hereby added to the contract.
Bid Item #618030180 – TRAFFIC CONTROL-CROSSOVER – 4.0 EACH
Bid Item #618030190 – TRAFFIC CONTROL-TWO WAY TRAF – 2.0 MILES
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.
Traffic Control outside of the crossovers will be included in the Traffic Control – LS bid item except for the signalized intersections detailed in Special Provision #79.  Payment for temporary traffic signals at the Johnson Lane/Old Hardin Road intersection and the Johnson Lane/Eastbound I90 Ramps intersection will be made at the contract unit price bid for MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS B-LS

-6-
Submitted: Wednesday 22-JUL-2026 07:50 AM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Joe PADON
Is there an electronic SUE file for the project limits?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 24-JUL-2026 02:50 PM
The requested file represents utility locations prior to relocation efforts that are currently taking place.  Please see Special Provision #17 (Status of Utilities) for more information on Utility relocation work.
The design files for the requested project are posted here: SUE FILES
The requested files do not represent the staked project, but are only design files.  The Department cannot guarantee the accuracy of the electronic data, particularly as it may be called up by your computer, nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents.
In addition, the Department will not make any revisions to the electronic files pertaining to the staked project, change ordered work, or changes that are made during construction to fit field conditions.

-7-
Submitted: Friday 24-JUL-2026 02:47 PM
Company: The Lighting Agency North
Contact: Frank Dugas
On item 619 010 525 OVERHEAD CANTILEVER STRUCTURES are the wind dampeners actually sign blanks? Or are you looking for a true damper system similar to the Valmont TR1 system?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 29-JUL-2026 02:55 PM
The plans call for blank signs to be used for Wind Dampener devices.  See plan sheet notes for more information.  Alternative wind dampening systems would need to be submitted for review after Contract award.

-8-
Submitted: Friday 24-JUL-2026 03:02 PM
Company: The Lighting Agency North
Contact: Frank Dugas
Item #617 183 050 10-A-500-0 is shown as a simple pole with a single traffic signal mounted to it. Can you tell us what height the signal should be mounted at (and thus how tall the pole must be)?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 27-JUL-2026 03:26 PM
There are three items mounted on the 10-A-500-0 poles (presence radar detection, signal indication, and pedestrian push button/pedestrian signal indication). Radar detection is the controlling factor for mounting height. The project proposal includes 40' pole heights.

-9-
Submitted: Friday 24-JUL-2026 03:17 PM
Company: The Lighting Agency North
Contact: Frank Dugas
We are unable to locate the Typical Section information for sta. 203+07 or 115+67 where the OH Metal Sign Bridges are being installed. It is not listed on the Typical Section Guide or Summary or any of the actual Sections. Am I just missing it, or is it not listed on the plans? This affects the sizing of the sign bridge items.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 30-JULY-2026 12:13PM 
Plan sheets S22 & S23 have been revised to include cross-section data for Johnson Lane Sta 203+07 NB and 115+67 SB: LINK

-10-
Submitted: Tuesday 28-JUL-2026 04:10 PM
Company: Knife River Billings
Contact: Brandon Brown
Could we get the .tin file from the design files converted to a .xml file?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 30-JUL-2026 1:55 PM
The link in the response to Question #3 has been updated to include the file in the requested format.

-11-
Submitted: Thursday 30-JUL-2026 11:48 AM
Company: Hamilton Construction Co.
Contact: Casey Shaw
Drawings B8, B9, and B12 show elastomeric bearings at each bent and reference Drawing B16 for more details. B16 also calls out elastomeric bearings, but references Detail A for end bents and Detail B for intermediate bents. Where are Details A and B provided? Also, Standard Drawing MTS shows details for fixed bearings, but fixed bearings aren't referenced anywhere else in the drawings or specs. Are the details on Standard Drawing MTS relevant for end bents at the bridges on this project?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 31-JUL-2026 10:07 AM
Details for bearings on Standard Drawing MTS do not apply to these bridges. All bearings at end bents and intermediate bents are the elastomeric bearings shown on Sheet No. B16. Detail A and Detail B called out in the erection plan on Sheet No. B16 are located on Sheet No. B17 showing the beam clip and other beam end details.

-12-
Submitted: Thursday 30-JUL-2026 04:34 PM
Company: Hamilton Construction Co.
Contact: Casey Shaw
What are the finish requirements for the Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall (Bid Item 1760), shown on Drawing Sheet 141?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 3-AUG-2026 10:36AM
Provide a finish for the referenced retaining wall in accordance with Standard Specifications 552.03.10 and 552.03.11 D.

-13-
Submitted: Thursday 30-JUL-2026 04:27 PM
Company: CEI
Contact: Wade Smith
Is there going to be a IMSA signal installer certificate requirement to install signals on this project?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 03-AUG-2026 03:10 PM
IMSA signal installer certification is not required on this project.

-14-
Submitted: Friday 31-JUL-2026 08:54 AM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Joe PADON
Bid Item 1750 614010046 DSGN & CNST MSE-Wall-Modular Block SY of 289 does not match the qty in the plan pages 149-151
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 6-AUG-2026 03:32PM
Please refer to Clarification #2.

-15-
Submitted: Friday 31-JUL-2026 04:58 PM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Joe PADON
Will speed limits on Johnson Lane, Old Hardin RD and the North Frontage Rd be allowed to be lowered 10MPH in the work zone limits during construction for worker and public safety>
Answer
Submitted: Monday 3-AUG-2026 12:39PM
Establish work zone speed limits in accordance with Standard Specification 618.03.13 and Table 618-05.

-16-
Submitted: Wednesday 05-AUG-2026 07:41 AM
Company: Montana Fence Co.
Contact: Eric Wutke
Bid item #607100008 Fence Special Design. Note calls out vinyl coated black chainlink.
Question 1. Do you want just the fabric to be black? Or do you want a powder coated A.S.T.M. F1043 Group I.C. Black framework compliant with AASHTO M181 Type 1,Grade 2,RR-F-191/3, Class 1, Grade B,?

Question 2. There are many different choices. Of vinyl coated black chainlink. Do you want ASTM A 668, Class 2a? 11 gauge core 8 gauge finish extruded bonded? Or ASTM A 668 class 2a, 9 gauge core/6 gauge finish? Or class 1 11 gauge core 8 gauge finish with no ASTM designation. Or ASTM F668 Class 2b. Fused and adhered with a 10 gauge core 9 gauge finish? Or the same in a 9 gauge core 8 gauge finish?

3. If the framework is powder coated black can we assume all fasteners and accessories will also be powder coated black?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 11-AUG-2026 02:40 PM
Furnish and install black chain link fence in accordance with Standard Specifications 607 and 712.01, and Detailed Drawing 607-25.

Use 9-gauge galvanized core/6-gauge finish extruded & adhered PVC vinyl coated black strand wire meeting ASTM F668 Class 2a on all chain link fabric.

Apply extruded & adhered black PVC vinyl coating, black powder coating, or black paint in accordance with manufacturers recommendations on all posts, brace bands, tension bands, loop caps, post caps, sleeves, rails, rail ends, stretcher bars, truss rods, tension wire, top cable, turnbuckles, ring fasteners, and all tie wire.  Use the same coating method for framework, fasteners, and accessories.  Touch up nicks and gouges in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations.

-17-
Submitted: Wednesday 05-AUG-2026 10:06 AM
Company: Hamilton Construction Co.
Contact: Casey Shaw
Traditionally, substructure elements are removed 3' below grade. Is this the requirement for existing substructure elements? Where existing footings/pile are in conflict with new substructure, are existing elements to be removed in their entirety?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 01:08 PM
Remove substructure elements that are not in conflict at least 3 feet below the finished grade or existing ground surface elevation, whichever is lower, or according to plans. Where footings/pile, storm drain, or any other new construction elements are in conflict, remove them 3 feet below the conflict or remove them entirely. Provide temporary shoring if required.

-18-
Submitted: Wednesday 05-AUG-2026 09:50 AM
Company: Hamilton Construction Co.
Contact: Casey Shaw
A total of four closures (5 days/each) are allowed for both lanes of Johnson for demolishing each existing bridge and setting new girders, however there are no closures allotted for driving pile at bents 2 and 3. These pile are long and require sizable cranes to drive. This is very dangerous work to allow directly adjacent to the traveling public. Would MDT please allow an additional closure at each bridge for driving these pile to prevent safety issues?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 09:18AM
No additional closures will be granted at this time.  Any variations to Special Provision #4 JOHNSON LANE CLOSURES will require a full submittal detailing the need for each change, the full impacts caused by each change, and the benefits of each change.  Each submittal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptance.

-19-
Submitted: Wednesday 05-AUG-2026 04:57 PM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: joseph boaz padon
Can the as-builts for the existing structures in Pond 1 be made available
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 11-AUG-2026 09:36 AM
The files linked below represent the as-built drawings for the structures.  MDT provides them for informational purposes only. They do not include drawings for modifications to the structures, such as joint replacements and guardrail revisions and may not completely represent current conditions.  Thus, some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project.  The contractor should not rely solely on the as-built drawings provided for bidding purposes nor does any data in these files supersede the data in the contract documents. DRAINAGE AS-BUILTS

-20-
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 10:24 AM
Company: Montana Fence co.
Contact: Eric Wutke
The fencing plans on plan page 183 show where the fence alignment is along the North frontage road. Left. Would the department give us the same clarity for the interstate fencing RT? as well as Johnson Lane, Ramp J2 and J4? Those station numbers are on the plans, but I am not able to find any reference to the fence.
Question 2. Are we to assume that the fencing on Johnson Lane and Ramp J2 and J4 is set behind the retaining wall? If so is it acceptable to cut out any necessary geo fabric? Or is the fence on the retaining wall? If so, could we get a detailed drawing of that?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 13-AUG-2026 10:53 AM
All station ranges of fencing designated as Interstate RT should be replaced along the new right-of-way alignment with one exception.  Replace the chain link fence from 1122+80 to 1124+59.17 along the existing right-of-way alignment.  Plan sheet 65 has been revised and can be viewed here: UPDATED SHEET 65

Set the fencing on Johnson Lane and Ramp J2 and J4 behind the retaining walls. The location and foundation configuration of the fence behind the retaining walls depend on the retaining wall design. Include the fence design with the wall design.

-21-
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 11:37 AM
Company: White Resources Group, Inc.
Contact: Estimation
Sheets 159/164 - Decorative 11" PCCP - Are the areas that are solid gray in the stamped field to be stamped or treated differently?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 8-AUG-2026 04:01PM
The solid gray areas shown on Sheets 159, 163, and 164 in the Decorative 11" PCCP are pedestrian pathways.  These areas are to be colored but not stamped. 

-22-
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 01:53 PM
Company: Mountain West Holding Co
Contact: Chris Connors
The bid quantity for Remove Concrete Barrier is listed as 32 each and is shown in the summary on plan page 57 the same way. Only a portion of the barrier in these two areas is precast 10ft sections whereas the remainder is cast in place barrier. Is it the intent that Each represents 10 lineal feet or should this work be separated in to two different bid items?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 04:00PM
The quantity for the following bid item is hereby revised as follows:
Bid Item # 605000070 – REMOVE CONCRETE BARRIER RAIL – 14.0 EACH

Revised plan sheets can be viewed here:  SHEET 57

All other concrete barrier rail removal is included in the cost of either Street Excavation or Remove Structure.

-23-
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 02:19 PM
Company: Harrison Western
Contact: Andrew Ferguson
Sheet 6 of the Special Provisions lists a soil nail wall quantity of 1,386 square yards. Does this quantity include the portion of the wall embedded below the finished grade at the toe of the wall?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 8-AUG-2026 04:09PM
The quantity is for the exposed wall and does not include the wall embedded below the finished grade.

-24-
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 02:16 PM
Company: Harrison Western
Contact: Andrew Ferguson
Sheets 142 through 144 of the BBP-Johnson Lane Interchange advertised drawing set provide a typical retaining wall section showing the bottom of the wall embedded below the finished grade at the toe of the wall. No minimum embedment depth is indicated. Is the minimum wall embedment depth to be determined by the Soil Nail Wall Design Engineer, or does MDT have a minimum embedment requirement that must be satisfied?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 09:48AM
MDT does not have a minimum embedment depth. The soil-nail wall designer will determine the wall embedment.
 

-25-
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 02:17 PM
Company: Harrison Western
Contact: Andrew Ferguson
Sheets 142 through 144 of the BBP-Johnson Lane Interchange advertised drawing set show a typical soil nail length of 25.0 feet. Please clarify whether these nail lengths are intended to be a minimum requirement or if the soil nail wall design engineer may increase and/or decrease the soil nail lengths as required by the final design?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 09:38AM
The soil nail lengths shown in the drawings are conceptual. The soil-nail wall designer will determine nail length as part of their design.

-26-
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 02:18 PM
Company: Harrison Western
Contact: Andrew Ferguson
Sheets 142 through 144 of the BBP-Johnson Lane Interchange advertised drawing set show a 5-inch diameter soil nail drillhole. Please clarify whether this is intended to be a minimum requirement or if the soil nail wall design engineer may adjust the drillhole diameter, either larger or smaller, as required by the final design?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 09:30 AM
The nail diameters shown in the drawings are conceptual. The soil-nail wall designer will determine nail diameter as part of their design.

-27-
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 02:32 PM
Company: HighMark Traffic Services
Contact: Brad Meyer
The Special Provisions do not cover the Stripe Groove Specifications. Can you please post the latest Stripe Groove Specifications.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 11:10 AM 
The following special provision is hereby incorporated into the contract: PAVEMENT MARKINGS GROOVING

-28-
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 02:50 PM
Company: Harrison Western
Contact: Andrew Ferguson
Can the soil nail wall design engineer assume that no lateral loads from the abutment support piles will be resisted to the soil nail wall? If this assumption is not valid, please provide the lateral loads imparted to the soil nail wall by the HP piles so that they can be incorporated into the soil nail wall design.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 14-AUG-2026 11:54AM
The wall does not need to resist any lateral load from the structures. However, longitudinal temperature movement at the pile cap is approximately 3/4 inch, perpendicular to the wall face. Design the wall to accommodate this movement.
 

-29-
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 02:49 PM
Company: Harrison Western
Contact: Andrew Ferguson
Drawing No. 28658 through 28660 of the BBP-Johnson Lane Interchange advertised drawing set indicates that HP 14×89 piles will be installed to support the integral abutments. Can the soil nail wall design engineer assume that all bridge loads will be supported by the HP piles, such that all axial and lateral loading by the bridge will be resisted by the HP piles?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 14-AUG-2026 12:00PM
The wall does not need to resist any lateral or vertical loads from the structures. However, longitudinal temperature movement at the pile cap is approximately 3/4 inch, perpendicular to the wall face. Design the wall to accommodate this movement.
 

-30-
Submitted: Monday 10-AUG-2026 03:38 PM
Company: Mountain West Holding Co
Contact: Chris Connors
The guardrail summary on plan page 56 includes 4 locations of removal under the Johnson Lane section. The quantities do not match up with the existing guardrails on the east side of the roadway. The removals on the west side of the roadway should be changed to Remove Impact Attenuator(s) to match existing conditions.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 17-AUG-2026 01:55 PM
The quantity for the following bid item is hereby revised as follows:
Bid Item # 606010385 – REMOVE GUARDRAIL – 2939.0 LNFT

The following bid item is hereby added to the contract:
Bid Item # 606011510 – REMOVE IMPACT ATTENUATOR – 2.0 EACH

An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

Revised plan sheet 56 can be viewed here: REVISED SHEET 56

-31-
Submitted: Tuesday 11-AUG-2026 06:29 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Co
Contact: Chris Connors
Should a temporary bridge approach and temporary terminal section be added to the westbound driving lane departure of the I-90 structure for two way traffic?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 17-AUG-2026 01:46PM
Quantities for the following bid items are hereby revised as follows:
Bid Item # 606010021 – TEMP GD RAIL-STL/BR APPR-TY 1 – 2.0 EACH
Bid Item # 606010024 – TEMP OPTIONAL TERM SECT – 2.0 EACH
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.
Revised plan sheet 56 can be viewed at the link provided in the response for Question #30.

-32-
Submitted: Tuesday 11-AUG-2026 06:44 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Co
Contact: Chris Connors
Will the new guardrail installations on the departure ends of the new eastbound structure be long enough to provide protection for the existing overhead sign bridge at station 1109+19 EB during two way traffic in the eastbound lanes?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 14-AUG-2026 07:05 AM
Yes, the new installed guardrail at this location will provide adequate coverage for the sign bridge at station 1109+19 in the two-way traffic configuration.

-33-
Submitted: Tuesday 11-AUG-2026 05:38 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Co
Contact: Chris Connors
Please clarify the payment of temporary signals and temporary signal options. Is payment under the bid item Miscellaneous Items B-LS only for the temporary signal options necessary at the Old Hardin Rd/Johnson Ln and eastbound ramps/Johnson Lane intersections, and the use of temporary signals for any other reason on the project included in the Traffic Control - LS item?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 8-AUG-2026 04:06PM
Yes. Payment under Bid Item Miscellaneous Items B-LS covers only the temporary signal options required at the Old Hardin Rd/Johnson Ln intersection and the eastbound ramps/Johnson Lane intersection.

If the contractor’s traffic control plan requires temporary signals at additional locations, those signals should be included under the Traffic Control – Lump Sum bid item. Any temporary signals used beyond the two specified intersections must meet the Type 2 level of service requirements outlined in Special Provision #80.

-34-
Submitted: Tuesday 11-AUG-2026 05:05 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Co
Contact: Chris Connors
Special provision 79 provides options for temporary signalization of two intersections, including temporary signals. Special provision 80 provides additional requirements of a remote operator who watches live video streaming if temporary signals are used for these two intersections. Please confirm that the same requirement of a remote operator will be necessary for any of the options listed in sprecial provision 79.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 09:27 AM
Type II level service is not required for temporary signalization at Johnson Lane/Old Hardin Road intersection and the Johnson Lane/Eastbound I90 Ramps intersection.  If Temporary Signals are used at any other locations, Type II level service is required per Special Provision #80.

-35-
Submitted: Tuesday 11-AUG-2026 06:12 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Co
Contact: Chris Connors
The project includes bid items High-Tension Cable Rail and High Tension Cable Rail-Terminals. Three areas of work are identified in the guardrail summary on plan page 56 including cable rail and terminals at both ends of the new I-90 bridges, and a terminal near the east end crossover. All three listed areas of work would be necessary to re-establish the existing cable guardrail runs that must be partially removed for work on the project. Should High Tension Cable Rail - Terminals be added on both sides of the west crossover? Should there be Remove Guardrail at the west end crossover to remove the cable rail through the crossover section? Is the Remove Guardrail shown at Sta 1128+08.4 to 1134+33.13 removal of the cable rail at the east end crossover or is it for removal of wbeam guardrail that interfers with the east crossover (It appears that removal of both would be necessary)? If existing Wbeam guardrail in the passing lane of eastbound I-90 on the east side of the east crossover must be removed, a temporary terminal section would be necessary. How is payment for the new cable rail necessary to close the east and west end crossovers paid? Does the cable rail that will close the crossovers need to be the same High Tension system that is in use through the median or can the system that is used to close other existing crossovers in the Billings area be used?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 17-AUG-2026 01:52PM
1.            High Tension Cable Rail Terminals - Two additional high tension cable rail terminals have been added to terminate the existing cable rail on both sides of the West crossover (RP 454.75).
2.            Cable Rail Removal for Crossovers - The removal of existing cable rail associated with the crossovers is included in the Crossover – Construct, Maintain & Close bid item.
3.            Guardrail Removal – Guardrail removal quantities for the East crossover (RP 455.88) have been revised.
4.            East Crossover Shift - The East crossover location has been shifted slightly.
5.            New Cable Rail for Crossover Closure - Installation of new cable rail required to close the crossovers is included in the Crossover – Construct, Maintain & Close bid item.
6.            Cable Rail System Requirements - The cable rail used to close the crossovers does not need to match the adjacent high tension cable system.  Furnish NCHRP 350 approved cable rail in accordance with Standard Specifications.

Revised plan sheet 56 can be viewed at the link provided in the response for Question #30.

Revised plan sheet 115 can be viewed here: REVISED PLAN SHEET
 

-36-
Submitted: Tuesday 11-AUG-2026 02:53 PM
Company: White Resources Group, Inc.
Contact: estimation
1. Sheet L3/B3 (A/B3)- What is the distance between the decorative shotcrete facing on the nail wall and the Single Slope Concrete Barrier – Vertical Back?
2. Sheets 142-144 – What happens with the weep holes in the nail wall regarding the Single Slope Concrete Barrier – Vertical Back? (the weep holes appear to drain into the barrier)
3. Sheet 187 - Single Slope Concrete Barrier – Dual Faced – Would installing vertical rebar (either in first lift PMS or Concrete path) be allowed for the slip-forming of this Barrier? (would prevent the reinforcement moving during installation)
4. Sheet 189 - Single Slope Concrete Barrier – Vertical Back– Would installing vertical rebar (either in first lift PMS or Concrete path) be allowed for the slip-forming of this Barrier? (would prevent the reinforcement moving during installation)
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 13-AUG-2026 03:06PM
1.  The Single Slope Concrete Barrier (Vertical Back) is intended to be placed directly against the soil nail wall with no gap between them.
2.  The soil nail wall designer must address weep hole design and placement. If any concrete barrier sections coincide with weep holes in the soil nail wall, those weep holes must extend through the concrete barrier itself.
3.  Vertical rebar embedded into the underlying surface is permitted wherever needed.
4.  Vertical rebar embedded into the underlying surface is permitted wherever needed.

-37-
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 07:21 AM
Company: Montana Fence Co
Contact: Eric Wutke
The fence special design is black p.v.c. coated wire and black frame work. Would the state separate the 3 single panels and 4 double panels into a single and double special design bid item for accurate pricing? They are not the same as normal singles and doubles.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 13-AUG-2026 12:05PM
The following bid Items are hereby added to the contract:
607 100 390 – FENCE-PANEL/SNGL-SPECIAL DESIGN – 1.0 EACH
607 100 395 – FENCE-PANEL/DBL-SPECIAL DESIGN – 8.0 EACH
An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.
Revised plan sheet #65 can be viewed at the link provided in the response for Question #20.

-38-
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 09:19 AM
Company: Harrison Western
Contact: Andrew Ferguson
Sheets 142 through 144 of the BBP-Johnson Lane Interchange advertised drawing set include a Soil Nail Detail showing a 1"2-inch TYP shotcrete facing". We interpret this detail as indicating a temporary construction facing independent of the final "permanent" shotcrete facing. Is the 12-inch facing thickness required for the temporary construction facing, or may the Soil Nail Wall Design Engineer adjust the construction facing thickness based on final design calculations?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 11:25 AM
The soil nail facing thickness in the drawings is conceptual. The soil-nail wall designer will determine facing depth as part of their design.

-39-
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 03:12 PM
Company: MT Consulting
Contact: Mike Tonn
Can you please post the proposed alignment data preferably in .xml format or at least the gpk files. Can you also please post the proposed surfaces and break lines/feature lines preferably in .xml format or at least in .tin or .dwg format. Thank You

-40-
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 03:33 PM
Company: Montana Fence Co.
Contact: Eric Wutke
Question. The Chain link Fence special design all black. The State has indicated that they want a 3/8" black top cable. This is the only component not available in black. Will the department accept a galvanized 3/8" cable as per detailed drawings? Or would the department allow the substitution of a 6 gauge finish top tension wire that would match the bottom tension wire in black? This would be just as structurally functional as well as satisfy the safety of having a top cable or wire vs. a top rail.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 14-AUG-2026 01:44PM
Yes — using a black 6-gauge tension wire as the top wire on the Chain Link Fence Special Design item is acceptable.
 

-41-
Submitted: Thursday 13-AUG-2026 05:04 PM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Joe PADON
There was no ROW linework in the electronic design files supplied by MDT. Can the electronic file for new and existing ROW be made available

-42-
Submitted: Friday 14-AUG-2026 08:27 AM
Company: Condon-Johnson & Associates
Contact: Sophia Daly
Can you please provide the CAD files for the soil nail wall design and details?

-43-
Submitted: Monday 17-AUG-2026 10:03 AM
Company: Harrison Western construction
Contact: andrew ferguson
According to the Billings Bypass – Johnson Lane Interchange Geotechnical Report (November 2020), Table 40 indicates that borings 4199-20-10, 4199-20-11, and 4199-20-16 exhibit soil conditions that are corrosive to very corrosive to steel. However, these borings are not located within or immediately adjacent to the proposed permanent soil nail wall alignments. Corrosivity testing was not performed in the immediate vicinity of the proposed soil nail walls.
Please clarify whether the soil nail wall designer should assume that corrosive soil conditions exist within the extents of the permanent soil nail walls.

-44-
Submitted: Monday 17-AUG-2026 01:19 PM
Company: FERGUSON WATERWORKS
Contact: JORDAN NIVEN
16" HDC Couplings: For the 16" water main line, the 16" Romac Alpha XL HDC couplings that are called for and, in the specs, do not exist. The engineers at Romac and the only Alpha fittings available in 16" are straight couplings and end caps. Would C153 MJ fittings be acceptable replacements? Water Services: Plan Pages: W-1, W-2, W-4: PG W-1: Water Services at Sta: 20+35.77 and Sta: 20+44.41: what size are these services? What is the service pipe type? Are the new service saddles to be a single band? Stainless Steel Saddle? IPS or CTS? PG W-2: Water Service at Sta: 74+00: what size is this service? What is the service pipe type? Are the new service saddles to be a single band? Stainless Steel Saddles? IPS or CTS? PG W-4: Water Services at Sta: 302+67.03 and Sta: 305+05.60: What size are these services? What is the service pipe type? Are the new service saddles to be a single band? Stainless Steel Saddle? IPS or CTS? Storm Drainpipe vs Drainage Pipe: Acceptable Pipe Material type (PVC, ADS, A2000, RCP, CMP, Etc.) Prop Line Items 0700 - 0740: call for drainage pipe. When reviewing the pipe summaries and plan pages, some of the areas call/accept RCP, PVC, and CMP pipe. The question we are getting is, which one is it? Some areas and spots are calling for RCP and CMP is the same spot; other spots state that PVC or CMP is acceptable. We are wanting to clarify this, so we quote the correct pipe for the correct bid item prop line and location. Prop Line Items 1010 - 1060: Call for Storm Drainage pipe. When reviewing the pipe summaries and plan pages, some of the areas call/accept RCP, PVC, and CMP pipe. We are running into the same issues in this spot as prop line items 0700 - 0740 with some spots calling for PVC and CMP pipe. We are wondering what the PVC pipe type is (C900 DR25, DR14, SDR35, ADS N-12, CMP, etc.) What type/class of PVC pipe is accepted for the storm lines? SDR35? ADS N-12? Could the bury depth for the hydrants be determined?

-45-
Submitted: Monday 17-AUG-2026 01:47 PM
Company: White Resources Group, Inc.
Contact: Estimation
1. Typical sheets 52 and 53 – Is the PCCP to be 11” or 0.95’ as shown in the typical sheets?
2. Sheet 122 Details – Should we assume #5 x 24” long epoxy-coated tie bars spaced at 30” centers are required for the Special Design Curb & Gutter Joint (PCCP) and the Special Design Median Curb – Mountable Joint (PCCP)?
3. Sheets 160,161 – Are the valley gutter/fillets to be 11” thick along Old Hardin Road in the PCCP Areas?
4. Sheet 159 – What type of curb is associated with the ADA ramp island at approx. STA 16+00 on Johnson Lane at the intersection of Old Hardin Road and Johnson Lane?

-46-
Submitted: Monday 17-AUG-2026 04:20 PM
Company: Condon-Johnson & Associates
Contact: Sophia Daly
1. For Sheets 142–144, please clarify whether a permanent facing is required in addition to the 12-inch temporary shotcrete facing shown, and if so, provide the applicable requirements. Would a single top-down facing with construction joints be acceptable?
2. Please provide the CAD files for the soil nail wall plans and details shown on Sheets 142–144.
3. The plan views and wall elevations for Sheets 142–144 do not appear to show existing piles, bridge foundations, utilities, existing grades/topography, or other features behind the walls. Please provide the available existing conditions information or clarify what conditions should be assumed for design.
4. For Sheets 192, 203, and 209, please clarify the limits and extent of the proposed soil nail walls and whether these walls are intended to be temporary or permanent. The referenced stationing is shown, but the plan views do not clearly identify the wall limits or extent of shoring, and wall elevations are not provided. Please provide additional information or clarification regarding the intended wall configuration and design requirements.   5. Please clarify the required soil nail wall design submittal and deliverables, including whether the soil nail wall designer is expected to provide site information and details outside of the soil nail wall design, such as ROW/easement information, boring locations, civil site data, fencing, guardrails, and slopes not directly associated with the soil nail walls.

-47-
Submitted: Tuesday 18-AUG-2026 08:16 AM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Joe PADON
The plans place one Remove Obstructions LS quantity within the water-line work. The water/sewer summary identifies water-line construction in four principal areas:
North Frontage Road: Sta. 1102+67.58 to 1108+80.18 Old Hardin Road West: Sta. 29+51.98 to 3+82.56 Old Hardin Road East: beginning Sta. 3+82.56 Johnson Lane: Sta. 7+20.21 to 14+36.21

Can the as built for this structure be made available

-48-
Submitted: Tuesday 18-AUG-2026 09:02 AM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Van Hildreth
1. Plan Sheet 55 - Curb Summary. Concrete Valley Gutter Quantity for Retaining Wall. Totals for retaining wall is 296.7. The soil nail wall total length is 1113' with valley gutter shown full length per plan sheets 142-144 . 1113' x 3 = 3339sf = 371 sy. Which quantity is correct?
2. Is any gravel required under the valley gutter at soil nail wall?
3. Plan Sheet 145-146. Please provide a typical detail on thickness and what types of materials are required for the landscape rock and fabric.
4. Plan Sheet 50. Surfacing Summary. Johnson Lane. summary line: Stations 13+37 - 35+06. A., There is not a PCCP typical section shown for the intersection Johnson Lane Sta 13+37.5 to 16+87.50/Old Hardin Road Sta 34+66 to 4+55. and section is not shown on sheets 116 - 121. Is it the same as Typical Section 53? B. Please check quantity of CAC and Select on this line based on a typical section of PCCP.
5. Special Provision 2. - Last line. Should read as "...for completing this work in 2028"
6. Special Provision 5. Please provide information on what type of work, where, and when LWSD will be performing work within project limits.

-49-
Submitted: Tuesday 18-AUG-2026 01:34 PM
Company: Whitaker Construction
Contact: Kolten Watterson
The project includes an approximately 84-inch storm drain segment containing a bend that may present constructability challenges for installation of a single continuous CIPP liner. Would MDT consider alternative rehabilitation approaches for this location if a continuous installation through the bend is determined to be impractical? Potential alternatives could include installing liners from each side of the bend with an engineer-approved connection, rehabilitating the bend section separately, or incorporating an access structure to facilitate rehabilitation of the upstream and downstream segments independently. If alternative approaches may be considered, please provide guidance regarding submittal requirements and approval procedures.

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 04-AUG-2026 09:39 AM
Company: Wickens Construction, Inc.
Contact: Casey Durbin
Can MDT provide a mass diagram and geotechnical information, if anymore is available, for the project?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 5-AUG-2026 09:19AM
Linked 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 the following link: GEOTECH REPORTS

The mass diagram is provided for informational purposes only and represents plan quantities.  The Contractor remains responsible for selecting the best means and methods to complete the project within project guidelines. MASS DIAGRAM

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 05-AUG-2026 10:58 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: George Shick
Can MDT post the design files?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 13-AUG-2026 10:54AM
The design files for the requested project are posted here:  DESIGN FILES

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

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

-3-
Submitted: Thursday 13-AUG-2026 01:20 PM
Company: True North Steel
Contact: Dawn Pascal Sheen
Is 5x1 corrugation allowable for the following CSP items: Thank you.
603010072 - 54"
603010076 - 60"
603010080 - 66"
603010088 - 78"
603011290 - 102"
Answer
Submitted: Friday 14-AUG-2026 08:41AM
5x1 corrugations are an allowable substitution for all steel culverts shown as 3x1 corrugations in the plans.
 

-4-
Submitted: Monday 17-AUG-2026 08:01 AM
Company: Montana Fence
Contact: Jacob Wutke
There appears to be Some temp fencing needed on certain approaches doing a drive by- Will the state include this on the proposal or will we handle after the fact.

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 18-AUG-2026 08:26 AM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Tom Etchart
Can MDT post the design files?

No Questions available for this project.

No Questions available for this project.

No Questions available for this project.

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 12-AUG-2026 03:21 PM
Company: Condon-Johnson & Associates
Contact: Sophia Daly
Can the drilled shaft casing outside diameter be reduced from 10’-2" diameter to 10’-0” outside diameter while still maintaining a 1-inch minimum thick casing wall thickness? 10’-2" outside diameter is not a common outside diameter for a drilled shaft casing. This would require one off oscillator inserts to be purchased. A 10’ outside diameter casing is more typical for standard industry equipment. There would be a significant cost savings if the outside diameter of the drilled shaft casing was reduced to a 10’-0" outside diameter while still maintain a 9’-6" diameter rock socket. Is it allowable to reduce the casing outside diameter to 10’-2"?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 17-AUG-2026 08:48AM
9’-10” inside diameter by 1” wall-thickness permanent steel casing is acceptable. Minimum rock socket diameter is 9’-6”.
 

-2-
Submitted: Saturday 15-AUG-2026 01:04 PM
Company: Frontier West LLC
Contact: Kris Anderson
Bid Item 618030310 CROSSOVER-MEDIAN BARRIER RAIL unit of measure is 1 EACH. Plan sheet 16 details quantities for this item at 45 EACH for removal and resetting. Will MDT pay for Each barrier rail removed and reset? Or should this be a LS item?