Contractor's System Project Question and Answer Forum

BULLETIN BOARD                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
UPDATED BIDDER'S LIST

The Bidder's List was updated based on an Interim Final Rule issued by USDOT on 10/3/2025 to remove the requirement to report race and gender:  BIDDER’S LIST

You may need to clear the cache in the web browser, if the new version is not downloading.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manufactured Products Waiver Notification
Beginning with the November 13, 2025 letting, the manufactured products waiver within 23 CFR 635.410 will be rescinded. Effectively, this means that the final manufacture of all materials defined as manufactured products in Section MT 601 of the MDT Materials Manual must meet domestic origin requirements. The Department is in the process of updating contract documents. Please contact Randy Boysen at rboysen@mt.gov with questions or concerns.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2nd Tier Subcontractors
For contractors that intend to use 2nd tier subcontractors in an effort to meet an SBE/DBE goal, please ensure that the specific dollar amount for the work they will be performing is indicated in the Bidders List.  If you have any questions about 2nd tier subcontractors on projects with DBE/SBE goals or how to enter that information in the bid file or on the bidders list, please email 
mdtsbeprogram@mt.gov

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Watch - Public Bid Opening - Live Stream: ZOOM MEETING INFORMATION

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Advertised Projects: If you would like to receive the Invitation for Bids PDF document when projects are advertised, please send an email request to mdtcps@mt.gov. Follow the link for more information: EMAIL DISTRIBUTION
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

101 - LOOKOUT PASS-EAST - January 15, 2026

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Amendments

No Amendments available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday 07-NOV-2025 01:18 PM
The project number for Lookout Pass - East is SSS-NHFP-IM-NHPB 90-1(251)0. This is reflected correctly on the Advertised Proposal and bid file. The Advertised Plans have the project number SSS-NHFP-IM 90-1(251)0. The project number will be updated to SSS-NHFP-IM-NHPB 90-1(251)0 on the Awarded Plans.

-2-
Submitted: Friday 14-NOV-2025 01:40 PM
The MDT Nondiscrimination and Disability Accommodation Notice has been updated. The linked notice is hereby incorporated into this contract:
MDT NONDISCRIMINATION AND DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION NOTICE

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 19-NOV-2025 02:30 PM
The following special provision is hereby added to the contract: CLASS PAVE CONCRETE

-4-
Submitted: Monday 01-DEC-2025 09:57 AM
Special Provision #40 Crushed Aggregate Course – Special is hereby replaced with the following special provision: LINK


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Friday 14-NOV-2025 03:24 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: George Shick
Can MDT post the design files for the project
Answer
Submitted: Monday 24-NOV-2025 08:49 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.

-2-
Submitted: Monday 17-NOV-2025 07:03 PM
Company: Insituform Technologies, LLC
Contact: Brad Conder
On plan Sheet No. RD-56, a pipe dissipator detail is provided. Note 4 states to install dissipator rings for culvert liners at Stations 139+15, 180+54, and 428+71. However, plan Sheet No. RD-55 shows CIPP liners being installed at Stations 180+54 and 428+71. Are you intending that the 48" CIPP liner be installed first, and that the 44" steel pipe with dissipator rings then be installed through the finished CIPP liner? How do you propose that this work could be completed without damaging the newly installed CIPP liners? Please provide further clarification.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 21-NOV-2025 10:31 AM
The contractor has the option to install steel pipe with internal dissipation rings or to use a CIPP method with appropriate internal dissipation rings that must be installed accordingly to CIPP manufacturer recommendations and standards. Only one rehabilitation method may be used at each crossing location, a CIPP liner should not be installed in addition to a steel liner.

-3-
Submitted: Monday 17-NOV-2025 06:31 PM
Company: Insituform Technologies, LLC
Contact: Brad Conder
Can you provide clarification on the Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) bid quantities? In the file "9487001ADV_PLANS”, Sheet No. RD-55 on PDF pg. 55, CIPP lining is described at Stations 180+54 and 428+71 (total 534 LF of 48"). However, in the file "“9487001ADV_PROPOSAL”, the bid Schedule of Items does not include any CIPP bid items.
Furthermore, in the file "“9487001ADV_PROPOSAL”, Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) Drainage Structures, Article 42.E.2.c (PDF pg. 39) states to remove the existing baffle before installing the CIPP liner in the 108" pipe at Station 267+82, which contradicts Sheet No. RD-55 which calls out a new steel pipe being inserted not CIPP lining. In the next paragraph, Article 42.E.2.d (PDF pg. 39) it states to install internal energy dissipation rings at Stations 139+15, 180+54 and 428+71 as part of CIPP lining. Again, this contradicts Sheet No. RD-55 for the pipe at Station 139+15 which calls out a new steel pipe being inserted.
If we go by the culvert lining detail on Sheet No. RD-55, we’re only CIPP lining at Stations 180+54 and 428+71. If we go by the CIPP lining specification in “9487001ADV_PROPOSAL”, PDF pg. 39, we should be CIPP lining at Stations 139+15, 180+54, 267+82 and 428+71. If we go by the bid schedule, there’s no CIPP lining at all.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 09-DEC-2025 01:50 PM
The proposed culvert rehabilitation provides two options for bidding.  These options are shown on revised plan sheet RD-55.  Only one option should be included in the contractor’s bid, for the respective bid item.

The following bid items are hereby added to the contract:
104 030 100 – MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A-LS – 1.0 LS
104 030 101 – MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS B-LS – 1.0 LS
104 030 102 – MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS C-LS – 1.0 LS
104 030 103 – MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS D-LS – 1.0 LS

The following bid items are hereby deleted from the contract:
104 030 065 – MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A – LNFT – 1,062.0 LNFT
603 016 054 – STEEL CASING 48 IN – 178.0 LNFT

The following plan sheets have been revised for further clarification.
Plan Sheet RD-18 has been revised: RD-18
Plan Sheet RD-55 has been revised: RD-55

The following special provisions have been revised and hereby replace the ones found in the contract.
Special Provision 42. Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) Drainage Structures has been revised: SP 42
Special Provision 43. Concrete Invert Lining has been revised: SP 43
Special Provision 44. Slip Lining Culverts has been revised: SP 44

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

-4-
Submitted: Monday 17-NOV-2025 06:49 PM
Company: Insituform Technologies, LLC
Contact: Brad Conder
In the bid Schedule of Items, Prop Line No. 0420, Item Number 603016054, Steel Casing 48", a bid quantity of 178 LF is provided. In the bid document "9487001ADV_PROPOSAL", in Article 41.A (PDF pg. 29), a table is provided that gives a bid quantity of 178 LF of 48" at Station 139+15, which seems to correspond to the bid item referenced above. However, on plan Sheet No. RD-55, the culvert lining detail gives a quantity of 166 LF of 48" at Station 139+15. Please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 09-DEC-2025 02:06 PM
Please refer to the response to question #3.

-5-
Submitted: Friday 21-NOV-2025 03:09 PM
Company: Insituform Technologies, LLC
Contact: Brad Conder
We previously asked a question about internal dissipation rings and CIPP. The response provided was that the "appropriate internal dissipation rings must be installed according to CIPP manufacturer recommendations and standards". When a steel pipe liner is used, the detail on plan Sheet No. RD-55 shows the dissipation rings being welded to the steel pipe. By contrast, no detail is provided how to install and secure the internal dissipation rings when CIPP is used, since dissipation rings cannot be welded to the CIPP liner. There are also no CIPP manufacturer recommendations and standards for this work. Please provide additional details on how this work is supposed to be completed so all contractors can provide pricing on equal grounds.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 02:05 PM
Plan sheet RD-56 has been updated to show the section for both CIPP and the steel liner as the dissipator rings are needed for both options: SHEET RD-56
Work with CIPP manufacturers to price this work based on the spacing and dimensions shown in the plans and the updated detail.

-6-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:15 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please clarify the intent of the "Concrete Barrier Rail" note on Plan Sheet RD-2. Specifically, does the term "reused" refer to use in temporary configurations only, or is the intent to incorporate existing Standard Concrete Barrier into the permanent configuration and therefore reduce the quantity required under the "Concrete Barrier Rail" bid item? Additionally, in either scenario, there is no pay method identified for sorting, loading, hauling, or other handling of existing barrier for reuse. Should this work be assumed to be paid under Force Account, or will MDT designate a bid item?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 16-DEC-2025 03:30 PM
Existing barrier should only be reused in a temporary configuration. Please refer to the Temporary Guardrail summary frame on RD-16. The effort associated with this work shall be included in the unit bid price for 618 190 110 RESET TEMP BARRIER RAIL.

-7-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:21 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please clarify the intent of Special Provision #60 – Temporary Barrier Rail. Sections B and C imply that the existing centerline two-loop barrier may be reused as Temporary Barrier Rail for the Phase 1 and 2 construction traffic control configurations. Section D.1 states that this work will be measured and paid by the foot as Temporary Barrier Rail. However, the Contract does not include a bid item for Temporary Barrier Rail. The only related item is "Reset Temporary Barrier Rail," with a quantity of 36,000 LF, which is only sufficient to account for two full project-length resets of the existing 18,000 LF of barrier. Given the construction phasing, it appears that three project-length barrier installations will be required (Phase 1, Winter configuration, Phase 2). Please review and clarify. We suggest either adding a dedicated bid item for Temporary Barrier Rail with a quantity of 18,000 LF to align with the work described in SP #60 – or add 18,000 LF to the "Reset Temporary Barrier Rail" item and clarify the measurement and payment method.

-8-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:19 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please clarify the work included under the "Crossover-Median Barrier Rail" bid item. Special Provision #5 lists removal of median barrier, temporary paving, temporary impact attenuators, signing/striping, and surfacing/stripe maintenance as included in this item. Several of these activities are already covered under separate bid items (e.g., Temporary Impact Attenuators, Traffic Control–Crossover). In addition, SP #5 and SP #56 both appear to describe overlapping work for their respective items. Please clarify which work elements are intended to be paid under each item so bidders can price the work accurately.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 11:03 AM
Special Provision #5 Temporary Closed Median Crossover is hereby replaced with the following special provision: LINK

The following items are to be paid for separately and not included in unit price bid for CROSSOVER-MEDIAN BARRIER RAIL or TRAFFIC CONTROL-CROSSOVER bid items:

  • Remove Concrete Barrier Rail (See Concrete Barrier Rail Summary Frame)
  • Reset Concrete Barrier Rail (See Concrete Barrier Rail Summary Frame)
  • Temporary Impact Attenuator (See Temporary Guardrail Summary Frame)
The following items are included in CROSSOVER-MEDIAN BARRIER RAIL as stated in the updated SP #5.
  • Temporary paving
  • Maintenance of surfacing, drainage, concrete barrier rail, attenuators, and erosion control.
The following items are included in TRAFFIC CONTROL-CROSSOVER as stated in SP #56:
  • Setup and removal of signing, striping and traffic control devices
  • Maintenance of striping, signing, and traffic control devices.

-9-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:22 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Plan Sheet RD-68 includes a note directing the Contractor to backfill the temporary median between Phase 1 and Phase 2 with pavement millings during the winter shutdown, and states that this work will be paid under "Traffic Gravel." However, there is no bid item for Traffic Gravel included in the Contract. Please clarify how this work is to be paid, and provide an appropriate bid item and quantity.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 16-DEC-2025 03:46 PM
Bid Item 301 020 268  TRAFFIC GRAVEL is hereby added to the contract with a quantity of 1,090 CUYD as shown on sheet RD-14.  An amendment will be issued, updated bid files will be posted.

-10-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:18 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please provide a specification and applicable detail(s) for the "Ramp Crossover" bid item. Our assumption is that this item covers the temporary ramp crossover work at RP 0.0 in the general locations shown on Plan Sheet RD-67; however, the Contract currently does not contain enough information to accurately price this work. Are temporary attenuators required for these openings? Additionally, Sheet RD-67 includes labels for "RP 0.2 Closed Median Ramp Crossover," but this does not appear to relate to any existing or temporary feature. Please clarify the intent of these labels.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 03:23 PM
As shown in the Traffic Control Summary Frame on RD-13 and the detail on RD-67, the RAMP CROSSOVER bid item refers to the WB and EB ramps at the Lookout Pass Interchange. The detail on Sheet RD-67 provides a concept showing work zones to maintain full ramp access during construction. The contractor will need to determine the signing, striping, and traffic control devices to accommodate this work.  Alternative options for ramp construction work and maintenance of traffic can be submitted for consideration after project award.  Special Provision RAMP CROSSOVER is hereby added to the contract: LINK

-11-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:18 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Special Provision #3 states that the eastbound direction will be constructed in Phase 1. Please confirm whether this sequencing is mandatory, or if the successful bidder may choose which direction to construct in the first season, provided all other contract requirements are met.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 16-DEC-2025 03:44 PM
Eastbound construction was chosen for Phase 1 to provide newly constructed outfalls for the storm drain system and culvert replacements after the first construction season. The contractor can present alternative traffic control and sequence of operations for consideration after project award.

-12-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:17 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
All Concrete Barrier Rail in this Contract is located on shoulders and appears to require anchoring in accordance with Standard Drawing 605-05, Type 1 Anchor, Option 2 (asphalt substrate). Should all new Concrete Barrier Rail be cast with four pinning holes (two on each side), or are only two pinning holes required on the traffic-side face, given that anchoring is only performed on the traffic side under the referenced standard?

-13-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:16 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Plan Sheet RD-60 shows project-specific modifications to MDT Standard Barrier details, including elimination of scuppers at the bottom of both Standard and Tall barrier types. The adjacent Taft-West project included scuppers in its final barrier design. Does MDT intend for this Contract to incorporate the same scupper detail for consistency across the corridor? If so, please issue a revised project-specific detail.

-14-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:16 PM
Company: Acme Concrete Paving, Inc
Contact: Kevin Schneider
Please confirm that the Tall Concrete Barrier Rail is not required to be anchored.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 16-DEC-2025 03:32 PM
Tall Concrete Barrier Rail is not required to be anchored.

-15-
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 10:39 AM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Cale Fisher
With regards to the four pipe rehab culverts, are there any clearing and grubbing restrictions to either access the inlets/outlets or to provide enough work area to perform the specified rehab options? What, if any, additional permitting may be required to either access the inlets/outlets or provide a clear working area at these locations? A note was added under the Culvert summary on the amended sheet RD-18, "See Special Provisions for work that may take place outside of Right of Way". To which special provision is this note referring as it is not clear in any of the special provisions nor is it clearly stated in the amended special provisions provided in the MDT response to question 3.

-16-
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 02:16 PM
Company: The Lighting Agency North
Contact: Frank Dugas
In the special provisions item 50 ...HIGH EFFICACY LUMINAIRE LED [617] (ADDED 4-03-25) ..B14 calls out "Furnish LEDs rated to produce a minimum of 90% intensity at 100,000 hours of life based on IES TM-21 (L90). " After an extensive search, we believe there are no commercially available roadway luminaires on the US market that meet L90 @100,000. The best we have been able to locate is L70 @ 100,000. Please advise the name of the manufacturer you are basing the L90 @ 100,000 specification on.

-17-
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 03:47 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Cale Fisher
Will MDT allow the contractor to use the MDT area at the Taft Interchange for staging and stockpiling?

-18-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 03:42 PM
Company: Corridor Contractors
Contact: Joe Chidiac
The installation of the 24" embankment protector and 30" CSP will require tree removal on the slopes for the pipe to be installed. Are the trees to be removed and disposed offsite? Can access to the embankment runs come from the low end of the pipe "outlet"? What bid item is tree removal paid under?

102 - CHOTEAU - SOUTH - January 15, 2026

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Amendments

No Amendments available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 04:53 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: George Shick
Can MDT post the design files, dirt runs, and any additional geotechnical information?

103 - WYOMING LINE - NORTH - January 15, 2026

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Amendments

No Amendments available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 03:30 PM
MANDATORY PRE-BID CONFERENCE – Special Provision #5
A pre-bid conference will be held at the following time and location:
Monday, January 05, 2026 at 10:00 AM

Montana Department of Transportation
Billings District Conference Room
424 Morey St.
Billings, MT 59101
406-252-4138

Join Zoom Meeting
https://mt-gov.zoom.us/j/4065401202?pwd=d1VJWW9vZXpyVWVTTVdQVDlkWklVdz09
Meeting ID: 406 540 1202
Passcode: 5401202
Dial by Telephone
+1 646 558 8656
Meeting ID: 406 540 1202
Passcode: 5401202
Find your local number: https://mt-gov.zoom.us/u/aec1u5BJ9V

Join by SIP
mdtcnfvmr202@mt.gov
Join by H.323 (Polycom)
162.255.37.11##4065401202#5401202
Join by Skype for Business
https://mt-gov.zoom.us/skype/4065401202


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

104 - VAIL CREEK - 2M N JORDAN - January 15, 2026

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Amendments

No Amendments available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

105 - SIDEWALKS PHASE II - WHITEHALL - January 15, 2026

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Amendments

No Amendments available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

106 - SF 179 CURVES S OF ROSCOE - January 15, 2026

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Amendments

No Amendments available for this project.


Clarifications

No Clarifications available for this project.


Questions

No Questions available for this project.

302 - KAGY BLVD - S 19TH TO WILLSON - April 15, 2026

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 01-OCT-2025 10:00 AM
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 by
11:00 a.m., local time on October 29, 2025.

Project Name: KAGY BLVD – S 19TH TO WILLSON
Project No: STPU-SSS 1212(8)
Control No: 8931000

This project is located within the City of Bozeman on Kagy Boulevard from S. 19th Avenue to S. Willson Avenue. The scope of work for this project includes widening and reconstruction of Kagy Boulevard from S. 19th Avenue to S. Willson Avenue with intersection improvements. This includes two travel lanes in each direction, new curb and gutter, boulevard, multi-use path on both sides of the roadway, lighting, landscaping, storm drain, pedestrian crossing facilities via grade separation and/or at-grade solutions and raised median/turn lanes. Intersection improvements include two multi-lane roundabouts: one at the S. 11th Avenue intersection and another at the S. 7th Avenue intersection and signal improvements and protected intersection components at the S. Willson Avenue intersection.

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

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday 07-OCT-2025 07:27 AM
The draft Preliminary Plans, referred to on page 3 of the Request for Qualifications, can be found here: 8931-Kagy-Prelminary-Plans.  The Preliminary Plans that will be provided with the RFP transmittal may differ from the draft Plans provided in the link.

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 19-NOV-2025 02:02 PM
Short-listed Firms (in alphabetical order)

  • CK May Excavating, Inc. and DJ&A
  • Riverside Contracting, Inc. and KLJ
  • Sundt Construction Inc., Knife River-Belgrade, Jacobs and WGM Group

Amendments

No Amendments available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 08:45 AM
Revise section IV. E.4. of the RFP to state:
Utilize a WB-50 control vehicle for the design of the project.  For the Roundabout utilize a WB-67 control vehicle allowing deviation from lanes on the approach and through the roundabouts without requiring backing, stopping to turn, and maintain at least a one-foot inside clearance from exterior face of curb or edge of pavement.  Phase 1 documents indicate that a pair of WB-50’s are using the roundabout at the same time making a through/left movement and a right turn movement.  One of the WB-50’s may be substituted with a passenger car the remaining WB-50 is not allowed to deviate from the lane within the circulating roadway a one foot inside clearance from the exterior face of curb or edge of pavement or edge of lane if modeled on the inside lane is required on the remaining WB-50.  Alternatively, a Bus-40 (motorcoach) and passenger car may be substituted for the WB-50 for the roundabout design vehicle, the bus and car are to be modeled side by side in the two-lane section of the roundabouts.  Provide a one foot inside clearance from the exterior face of curb or lane line, no clearance is required on the interior side of the vehicle.  Provide turning movements and fastest path analysis of the roundabouts if geometry is changed from the phase 1 documents.  Utilize a Bozeman fire engine for the control vehicle for southbound movement only at the Kagy Boulevard and S. Wilson Avenue Intersection. 

-2-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 08:47 AM
The City of Bozeman requires contractors to guarantee all work related to public infrastructure improvements, including utilities, for a period of two years from the date of acceptance by the City. For city owned utilities, the date of will be the Conditional Final Acceptance. The Warranty shall remain in full force for the two-year period following the acceptance date. Prior to acceptance of utilities, the contractor shall post a maintenance bond with the City equal to 20% of the actual cost of the utility improvements to correct any deficiencies in workmanship which are found within the warranty period. The City reserves the right to draft the maintenance bond for repairs not completed by the contractor within the agreed upon calendar days of being advised that repairs are required.

-3-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 08:49 AM
Normal Traffic Flow is defined as: Two lanes, all movements free flowing and unimpeded by traffic control measures.

-4-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 08:51 AM

  1. Finalize project storm drain design with Storm and Sanitary Analysis (SSA), StormCAD, or a storm drain modeling software capable of routing.  Use NRCS as the accepted Hydrology method.
  2. Finalization of the storm drain is anticipated to change the number of inlets needed, inlet types, locations, orientations, pipe sizes, pipe slopes, underground piping network, infiltration/detention chamber locations, and outfalls.  A formal ATC is not required for these refinements.
  3. Infiltration/detention chambers relocations that impact ROW will require an ATC.
  4. Storm drain inlets should incorporate 9” or greater sumps for sediment control and maintenance.

-5-
Submitted: Friday 19-DEC-2025 08:54 AM
MSU closures were modified from those stated in the RFQ to the RFP. As stated in the RFP, MSU will deny requests for major events at the MSU Football Stadium during the full Kagy Boulevard closure in only 2027. Use of Bobcat Stadium for standard MSU operations will continue throughout construction.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Thursday 16-OCT-2025 05:56 AM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Ben Becker
The RFQ states: Firms must attach a notarized statement from an admitted surety insurer authorized to issue bonds in the State of Montana that states: a. Firm's current bonding capacity is sufficient for the project and referenced payment and performance bonds; and b. Firm's current available bonding capacity. Is this required to be included in the SOQ or is this only to be included in the RFP? This isn't mentioned in the SOQ submittal requirements and want to confirm it should be included and if so that it won't count as a page in the page count.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 21-OCT-2025 07:15 AM
The RFP Section VIII applies only to the short-listed Design-Build firms. The bonding requirements listed in VIII.E.  will be included as a proposal submittal requirement.

-2-
Submitted: Thursday 16-OCT-2025 05:51 AM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Ben Becker
Based on the recent DBE developments and guidance, will those requirements be removed from the RFP? If so, will it switch to just SBE requirements?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 21-OCT-2025 07:03 AM
Pursuant to an interim final rule issued by the US Department of Transportation (see 90 Fed. Reg. 47969 (Oct. 3, 2025), the previously published DBE aspirational goal of 10.3% for this project is removed and revised to a DBE aspirational goal of 0%. The requirement of 10.3% SBE participation will remain as outlined in the RFQ.

-3-
Submitted: Thursday 16-OCT-2025 05:49 AM
Company: Sundt Construction
Contact: Ben Becker
For the requirement to provide Proof of Professional Liability Insurance, is it acceptable to have that provided by the just the Prime Firm (Contractor) or is it also needed from the Lead Design Firm on the team.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 20-OCT-2025 07:05 AM
Proof of Professional Liability Insurance for the Lead Design Firm is required.

-4-
Submitted: Wednesday 26-NOV-2025 04:11 PM
Company: Jacobs
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
At what time on 12/2/2025 are questions to be discussed in the Pre-Proposal Meeting due to MDT?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 01-DEC-2025 12:25 PM
Submit questions to MDT for the pre-proposal meeting no later than 1:00 PM MST on 12/2/25.

-5-
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 12:11 PM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
Can an ATC be introduced for the first time at the second ATC meeting?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 03-DEC-2025 01:58 PM
Yes, an ATC may be introduced for the first time at the second ATC meeting.

-6-
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 12:33 PM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
Who is responsible for the cost of MSU utility relocations caused by the project?
Answer
Submitted: 08-DEC-2025 08:28 PM
MSU Utilities relocation payment will be the responsibility of MSU. Design, coordination, and relocation of MSU utilities will be the responsibility of the Firm.
Efforts associated with design and relocation of MSU utilities should not be included in the lump sum bid price and will be invoiced to MDT separately.

-7-
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 12:46 PM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
Can strip map / roll plots be used for the Preliminary Plans section of the Technical Proposal? If allowed, how are they quantified with regards to the overall sheet count?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 03-DEC-2025 02:00 PM
No strip map / roll plots will be allowed for the Preliminary Plans section. Provide page sizing as outlined in the RFP.

-8-
Submitted: Wednesday 03-DEC-2025 01:37 PM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
1. The retaining walls are currently shown as Cast-in Place Concrete Cantilever walls. Would we need to submit an ATC to change walls or are they only conceptual and we do not need an ATC to propose a different wall type.

2. Referring to the Preliminary Plans provided, SOW Report, RW plans, and Section IV.A.3.d.i (ATCs) of RFP, are there certain typical section elements that are “set in stone” and not subject to the ATC process since they are tied to the very constrained RW? (e.g. path widths, boulevard width, lane width, and median widths)

3. Can the DB teams coordinate directly with the utility companies (both private and public)?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 08-DEC-2025 08:30 AM
1. Wall sections were agreed upon between MDT and City of Bozeman. Any deviations must be submitted as an ATC for approval.
2. Elements defined in the Typical Sections were agreed upon between MDT and City of Bozeman. Any deviations must be submitted as an ATC for approval
3. Yes, coordination with utility companies is allowable.

-9-
Submitted: Wednesday 03-DEC-2025 01:39 PM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
1. Since preliminary plans have already been prepared, can you expand on the expectations of MDT in regard to Section VI.B.c.i (pg 45 of RFP)? Is it to advance the particular sections of the AGR plans listed below to 50%?
    • Plan and profile sheets?
    • Roundabout grading?
    • Path, tunnels, and landscaping?
2. Has SOW Report been approved, and therefore the proposed design variances, etc. that were presented in the draft SOW Report be considered approved as well?
    • If “yes”, can a signed copy of the SOW Report be provided?
    • If “no”, should we assume the SOW Report information is accurate to proceed with for our Technical proposal?
    • Note, in the “Major Design Features” subsection “L” of the SOW Report, the discussion on PHB appears outdated based on information in RFP.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 08-DEC-2025 08:25 AM
1. Plans shall be developed to a level which demonstrates the Firm’s understanding of and approach to of the project and supports development of the lump sum bid price.
2. The SOW Report is complete and is currently in final review. The SOW Approval Memo will be posted to the Q&A when final signatures have been received. The SOW information provided in Attachment P is for information only as indicated in Attachment Q.
Any deviations in requirements from the Phase 1 documents dictated in the RFP shall be adhered to.

-10-
Submitted: Wednesday 03-DEC-2025 01:40 PM
Company: CK May
Contact: Josh McKenzie
1. Please describe the A/V capabilities and physical capacity of the ATC meeting room.

2. Please provide, if applicable, the limit to the number of attendees each team can bring to the ATC meetings.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 08-DEC-2025 08:38 PM
1. MDT commission room will have availability to display content via screen share.
2. The Firms may bring who is needed to appropriately address the ATC’s presented, the room capacity after MDT staff is 20 people.

-11-
Submitted: Friday 05-DEC-2025 07:54 AM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
Follow up on the Preliminary Plan Sheets. With 11x17 being specified in RFP and clarified in the Q/A response. Is there a maximum/minimum scale that should be followed? Would these scales follow standard MDT criteria based on sheet type?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 09-DEC-2025 08:43 AM
Follow standard MDT scales for the sheet type.

-12-
Submitted: Tuesday 09-DEC-2025 10:17 AM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
Section VI.B of the RFP states that 55 total pages are allowed with the Technical Proposal. In the sheet breakdown "twenty" is spelled out but (22) is also stated. Please clarify if up to (20) or (22) 11x17 sheets are allowed in the total 55 sheet page limit.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 09-DEC-2025 11:50 AM
Twenty-two (22), 11x17 sheets are allowed in the Preliminary Plans sub-section.

-13-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:34 PM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
In reviewing the design files that were included with the Phase 1 Bridging Documents, it appears the following files are missing:
RDALNZ01.dwg -We have the XML files to get these alignments but the DWG was not provided
RDALNZ02.dwg - We have the XML files to get these alignments but the DWG was not provided
RDETRZ01.dwg - Existing Terrain Surface
RDCRRZ99.dwg - Combined Proposed Surface
RDUMAZ01.dwg - Storm Drain Pipe Network
RDUMAZ02.dwg - Sanitary Sewer Pipe Network
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 07:44 AM
The requested design files are here:
DESIGN FILES

-14-
Submitted: Wednesday 10-DEC-2025 03:45 PM
Company: Jacobs Engineering
Contact: Andrew Ledbetter
It appears the landscaping base file RDLAZ01.dwg was not provided. Can this be posted to the Q/A forum?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 18-DEC-2025 07:57 AM
The requested file is here:
RDLAZ01