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.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Qualified Products List (QPL)

Please review the expiration dates on the Department’s QPL regarding metal guardrail and associated materials. Please contact Randy Boysen at rboysen@mt.gov with questions or concerns.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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Beginning with the November 13, 2025 letting, the manufactured products waiver within 23 CFR 635.410 will be rescinded.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
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

201 - WEST OF BROCKWAY-WEST - December 04, 2025

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Amendments

No Amendments available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday 14-NOV-2025 01:33 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


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Friday 07-NOV-2025 01:01 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: George Shick
Can MDT post the design files, mass diagram, dirt runs, and any additional geotechnical information.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 12-NOV-2025 09:15 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.

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 FILES

-2-
Submitted: Friday 07-NOV-2025 04:06 PM
Company: Montana Fence
Contact: Jacob Wutke
It appears that you are using 2 single panels to make a right of way break. With Metal Fence Posts there is not a fastening detail for attaching the 2x6 material- Would the state consider stretching the corresponding fence style across the gap as opposed to using treated lumber? Or on recent jobs, the department has used a corner brace offset one side or the other from the right of way monument. If this is acceptable, an adjustment to the single vs double panels would need to be calculated.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 18-NOV-2025 07:15 AM
Install steel double panels at R/W breaks offsetting the center post one foot to either side so that the property monument will not be disturbed. There are approximately 129 R/W breaks on this project.

-3-
Submitted: Monday 10-NOV-2025 02:45 PM
Company: ECP
Contact: Beau Summers
On bid item #603012777 RCP 78 IN, would you accept 84 IN RCP in place of the 78IN RCP?
On bid item #603012793 RCP 90 IN, would you accept a 7X7 RCB in place of the RCP?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 13-NOV-2025 08:12 AM
An 84 IN RCP is an acceptable alternate for the 78 IN RCP at Sta 2396+99. Bid the 90 IN RCP as-is at Sta 2327+87.  Pay quantities will be based off the basic bid items and sizes and will not reflect quantities required for alternate sized culverts.

-4-
Submitted: Wednesday 19-NOV-2025 10:09 AM
Company: ECP
Contact: Beau Summers
Will you accept 96" RCP in place of the 90" RCP?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 20-NOV-2025 01:20 PM
A 96 IN RCP is an acceptable alternate for the 90 IN RCP specified in the contract.  Pay quantities will be based off the basic bid items and sizes and will not reflect quantities required for alternate sized culverts.  The detailed drawings only show FETS for culverts up to 90 IN RCP so the contractor will need to submit drawings/designs for review and approval by MDT for the larger pipe.

-5-
Submitted: Monday 24-NOV-2025 11:00 AM
Company: True North Steel
Contact: Amanda McCulloch
For pipe stations: 2241+41 (48"), 2251+94 (42"), 2372+69(48"), 2392+34 (60"), 2407+32(66") , and 2430+21 (48") would 14ga Aluminized T2 CSP be an allowable pipe option? With the 42" & 48" being STD (2 2/3" x 1/2") corrugation and 60" & 66" 5x1 Corrugation.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 25-NOV-2025 08:42 AM
No, those options are not allowable alternatives.  Due to the soil conditions and fill height, bid what is in the advertised plans.

-6-
Submitted: Sunday 30-NOV-2025 09:23 AM
Company: Battle Ridge Builders
Contact: Cody Ham
It appears the new bridge is at a much higher elevation than the existing road, and the new bridge protrudes into the existing road prism but there is no detour plan and no temporary shoring item. What is the expectation here?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 08:11 AM
Staged construction of the wingwalls along with steepened fill slopes and reduced width of the PTW was anticipated as necessary to complete the construction of the new bridge while maintaining traffic. Include temporary measures necessary to complete the work detailed in the plans in the cost of other items included in the plans. Alternative methods may be proposed at no additional expense to MDT.

-7-
Submitted: Monday 01-DEC-2025 09:26 AM
Company: True North Steel
Contact: Amanda McCulloch
Could you please provide clarification of the height of cover requirements in regard to the answer in question number 5? According to the ASTM/AASHTO manual & design guides the height of cover listed in the plans does not exceed the design of corrugated steel pipe. Could corrugated steel pipe that is poly coated be added to the acceptable pipe for those stations listed in question 5?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 01-DEC-2025 10:06 AM
The sites in question 5 are considered deep fill sites and require a longer service life, which can’t be achieved with T2 aluminized or polymeric coated CSP. Bid the options in the advertised plans.

202 - SWAN LAKE-N&S - December 04, 2025

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Amendments

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 02:40 PM
An Amendment has been posted for this project: AMENDMENT
To download the amendment bid files: Bid Express™ Secure Internet Bidding


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday 14-NOV-2025 01:36 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

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 03-DEC-2025 11:06 AM
The Paving Geotextile special provision is hereby replaced by the following special provision: PAVING GEOTEXTILE


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 25-NOV-2025 12:05 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Co., Inc.
Contact: Grant Roberts
It appears there is existing concrete pads within the area shown on plans for the Remove Bituminous Pavement item. Would the concrete pads need to be removed or would they stay in place?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 10:17 AM
The concrete pads will need to be removed.  Payment for the removal will be handled in accordance with 109.04. 15,000 units of MISCELLANEOUS WORK have been hereby added to the contract. The following bid item quantity has been changed:
104 030 010   MISCELLANEOUS WORK has been increased to 35,000 units.  An amendment will be issued.

-2-
Submitted: Monday 01-DEC-2025 09:33 AM
Company: LHC
Contact: Sam Weyers
The typical paving detail shows paving fabric width of 28.0 ft or 14.0 ft per lane. It appears that suppliers only have roll in 12.5 ft widths. Is 12.5 ft an acceptable width per lane?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 10:16 AM
14’ per lane of paving fabric will be required.  Longitudinal joint overlap of the fabric should be installed per the manufacturer recommendations.

203 - SANDSTONE CREEK BRIDGE-BAKER - December 04, 2025

Notifications

No Notices available for this project.


Amendments

No Amendments available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday 14-NOV-2025 01:38 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


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 18-NOV-2025 10:07 AM
Company: Teton Prestress Concrete
Contact: Beren Colby
Being that the thick topping slab will have entrained air, has that eliminated the need for air entrainment in the bridge girders?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 20-NOV-2025 10:29 AM
Due to air entrained concrete being specified for the structural concrete overlay, the use of air entraining in the flat slab concrete beams is not required.  Non-air entrained concrete meeting the requirements Concrete – Class Pre is allowed to be used for the Prestressed Girder-Slab beams.

-2-
Submitted: Friday 21-NOV-2025 12:42 PM
Company: Knife River Prestress Inc.
Contact: James Moss
The overall slab LF shown of 1,221 seems to have not taken into account the 9" overhang from center of bearing to end of slab at the abutments. Can this be clarified or updated to show total LF of slab?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 26-NOV-2025 09:28 AM
Per Montana Standard Specification 553.04, the Method of Measurement for prestressed concrete members is from centerline of bearing to centerline of bearing, which does not include overhangs.  The estimated bridge plan quantity of 1221.0 Ln.Ft. as called out is correct.

-3-
Submitted: Tuesday 25-NOV-2025 02:58 PM
Company: COP Construction
Contact: Olivia Adolph
Can MDT provide the Geotechnical Report for this project?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 26-NOV-2025 09:29 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:
Link 1
Link 2

UPDATE
Submitted: Tuesday 02-DEC-2025 02:01 AM
This answer has been updated to show the GeoTech Report.
Link 3

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.

-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.

-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.

301 - GF DISTRICT ADA UPGRADES & OFF SYSTEM SIDEWALKS - GF - November 12, 2025

Notifications

-1-
Submitted: Monday 30-JUN-2025 02:45 PM
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) is soliciting design and construction services for the tied Design-Build project identified below. The advertisement for the Requests for Qualifications has been opened and contractor and consultant teams (Firms) are encouraged to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) response electronically by 11:00 a.m., local time on July 21, 2025.

Project Name:           GF District ADA Upgrades
Project No.:               CM 57-1(14)0
Control No.:              10589000

The Great Falls District ADA Upgrades project is intended to improve accessibility and mobility within the City of Great Falls.  Existing facilities do not meet current ADA standards, and upgrades to the existing infrastructure are warranted, and have been previously identified as a part of MDT’s ADA transition plan.  Possible treatments to remove accessibility barriers include replacement of non-compliant ADA curb ramps, installing pedestrian actuated pushbuttons, eliminating tripping hazards, deteriorated sections, and non-compliant cross slopes. Locations include 1st Avenue North, 2nd Avenue North, 14th Street, and 15th Street.

Tied with:
Project Name:            Off System Sidewalks - GF
Project No.:                CMGF STWD(977)
Control No.:               10190000

The Off System Sidewalks – Great Falls project is intended to improve sidewalk connectivity through construction of new sidewalk facilities where existing pedestrian routes have only intermittent sidewalks. This project is located primarily in the northwest quadrant of the City of Great Falls.  Major improvements include the construction of new sidewalks and ADA-compliant curb ramps

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

-2-
Submitted: Tuesday 05-AUG-2025 08:08 AM
Notification 1:
Short-listed Firms (in alphabetical order)

  • Century-Stahly
  • Montana Materials & Construction-KLJ
  • United Materials-DOWL

Notification 2:
MDT will delay issue of the Request for Proposals for the subject tied projects. MDT will provide an updated procurement schedule when it becomes available.

-3-
Submitted: Tuesday 12-AUG-2025 12:04 PM
The revised procurement schedule has not yet been determined.  As such, the Pre-proposal Meeting scheduled for August 14, 2025, will not take place as originally planned.  The Pre-proposal Meeting will be rescheduled to occur after issuance of the RFP.

-4-
Submitted: Tuesday 26-AUG-2025 09:20 AM
The revised procurement schedule for the tied Great Falls sidewalk design-build project (UPNs 10589 and 10190) is as follows:

DATE EVENT
August 5, 2025 Short List posted on Q&A Forum
September 17, 2025 Request for Proposal Issue
September 24, 2025 Pre-Proposal Meeting – 11:00AM MDT
October 22, 2025 Q&A Forum Closes – 5:00PM MDT
October 29, 2025 Technical Proposal Due Date – 11:00AM MDT
November 12, 2025 Bid Price Proposal Due Date – 11:00AM MDT MST
December 16, 2025 Award Date
December 30, 2025 Notice to Proceed (*Approximate)

UPDATE:
Submitted: Friday 03-OCT-2025 12:37 PM
November 12, 2025 - Bid Price Proposal Due Date time corrected to 11:00 AM MST

-5-
Submitted: Wednesday 15-OCT-2025 10:30 AM
Linked below is the Pre-proposal Meeting Agenda.  Questions and other discussion topics from the meeting are documented in the Clarifications and Questions sections of this Q&A Forum.
PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING AGENDA

-6-
Submitted Wednesday 15-OCT-2025 3:09 PM
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 14.4% for this project is removed and revised to a DBE aspirational goal of 0%.
 

-7-
Submitted: Wednesday 12-NOV-2025 01:40 PM
The Bid Price Proposal opening is rescheduled for November 12, 2025 at 3:00 pm MST.


Amendments

No Amendments available for this project.


Clarifications

-1-
Submitted: Friday 03-OCT-2025 12:08 PM
The intent of the signal upgrades outlined in the project scope is to enhance pedestrian accessibility and safety through the installation of new pedestrian push buttons and countdown signals, which provide both visual and audible cues to users. The project does not include changes to the existing traffic signal timing or overall intersection operations.

-2-
Submitted: Monday 06-OCT-2025 03:57 PM
Construct new concrete sidewalk sections with reinforcement in accordance with the City of Great Falls standard details. Include all costs associated with reinforced concrete sidewalk sections in the lump sum Bid Price Proposal.


Questions

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday 08-JUL-2025 10:52 AM
Company: Stahly Engineering & Associates
Contact: Alisa Etzel
Regarding the Public Involvement portion of the RFQ. Section VII.A.1. states that we are to include qualified public involvement personnel on our team. Does this requirement mean we must use a firm from the MDT term roster, or can we utilize our own qualified in-house staff?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 10-JUL-2025 12:39 PM
Proposing Firms may, but are not required, to utilize a public involvement consultant from MDT’s term contract roster.  Firms may assign the Public Relations Coordinator role to any qualified individual.

-2-
Submitted: Wednesday 24-SEP-2025 03:05 PM
Company: DOWL
Contact: Marissa Madsen
If an existing ramp is a "parallel" ramp, does we have to maintain a "parallel" ramp? This question is also pertinent to other ramp types and if they are intended to be the same type upon completion of the project.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 29-SEP-2025 11:10 AM
The Firm is responsible for determining the final ramp configuration for crossing locations throughout the project. The final design must comply with all applicable design and accessibility standards, while also fulfilling with the project intent to construct permanent improvements within existing right-of-way.

-3-
Submitted: Thursday 25-SEP-2025 03:43 PM
Company: KLJ
Contact: Dan Richardson
If the existing curb and gutter is determined to be in good condition in a location where the RFP states it to be replaced, can the curb and gutter remain in place?
Answer
Submitted: Monday 29-SEP-2025 11:05 AM
MDT identified locations where curb and gutter replacement may be necessary to address existing curb condition, enhance drainage, improve sidewalk constructability, and achieve PROWAG compliant facilities. However, it is the responsibility of the Firm to evaluate all project locations and determine the final limits of curb and gutter replacement based on the Firm’s final sidewalk design, and construction means and methods.

-4-
Submitted: Wednesday 01-OCT-2025 09:21 AM
Company: Montana Lines, Inc.
Contact: Estimating
Please provide electrical as-builts for all intersections that involve electrical work.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 08-OCT-2025 02:18 PM

Some as-built plan information, including documentation of existing electrical components, is provided in RFP Attachment H. Additional available as-built information can be accessed at the following link: AS BUILT INFO
The accuracy and completeness of the as-built information cannot be guaranteed and should be independently verified by the Firm as needed for design, bidding, and construction purposes.

-5-
Submitted: Monday 06-OCT-2025 10:54 AM
Company: DOWL
Contact: Marissa Madsen
If an existing ramp is 4’ wide and the City of Great Falls design standard is 5’ minimum width, does the new ramp width need to comply with City of Great Fall Standards?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 08-OCT-2025 09:37 AM
Design and construct all new curb ramps in accordance with the City of Great Falls Standard Details. Ensure full compliance with the Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) to meet federal accessibility requirements. When PROWAG standards exceed local requirements, PROWAG governs.

-6-
Submitted: Monday 06-OCT-2025 10:55 AM
Company: DOWL
Contact: Marissa Madsen
Installing push buttons on several existing poles isn’t going to result in an ADA compliant facility. Does MDT want teams to bid the project per the scope if it results in non-ADA compliant facilities?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 08-OCT-2025 09:33 AM
Quantities provided in the RFP are for informational purposes only and should not be used for bidding purposes. The RFP is not prescriptive; an additional separated pole, or a suitable innovation may be required at some locations to provide an ADA / PROWAG compliant facility. Per RFP section V.B.3.a.iii, the Firm should identify locations where standard sidewalk design details may not be suitable, or where it may be technically infeasible to implement improvements that are compliant with ADA / PROWAG requirements.

-7-
Submitted: Thursday 09-OCT-2025 01:42 PM
Company: Century Companies, Inc.
Contact: Estimating
Section R Paragraph 8 of the RFP provides unit prices for incentives and deductions. 6" and 8" sidewalk prices are provided but 4" sidewalk is not shown. It appears that both City of Great Falls and MDT design standards would allow for 4" sidewalk at mid-block areas. Is it the intention of MDT that all sidewalk including mid-block be at least 6" thick?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 14-OCT-2025 9:07 AM
The unit price for establishing material incentives and deductions for 4-inch sidewalk was inadvertently omitted from the RFP. Sidewalk thickness should be determined in accordance with the applicable standard design details. The RFP is hereby revised to include the following unit prices for use in evaluating incentives and deductions:
    a.  Sidewalk Concrete, 4-inch - $151 per sqyd
    b.  Sidewalk Concrete, 6-inch - $199 per sqyd
    c.  Sidewalk Concrete, 8-inch - $225 per sqyd

-8-
Submitted: Monday 13-OCT-2025 02:20 PM
Company: DOWL
Contact: Marissa Madsen
Will the City of Great Falls have any approval authority of final plans and/or final acceptance of construction in addition to MDT for off-system work?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 15-OCT-2025 12:22 PM
In accordance with applicable agreements and the MDT Standard Specifications, MDT holds primary responsibility for preconstruction project development oversight, construction contract administration, and final project acceptance. The City of Great Falls will maintain an active advisory role throughout the duration of the project, providing input and coordination support as needed.

-9-
Submitted: Thursday 16-OCT-2025 04:19 PM
Company: KLJ
Contact: Dan Richardson
What are the expectations for pavement markings? If they do not exist and we are adding a new crossing, do we need to add cross walk pavement markings with signage?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 24-OCT-2025 07:50 AM
Install new pavement markings for pedestrian crossings in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Evaluate all existing pavement markings for compliance with MUTCD standards, and replace, remove, or update them as necessary to ensure full compliance.

When transverse lines are used to delineate a pedestrian crossing, where permitted under MUTCD guidelines, the City of Great Falls prefers the following specifications:
    -     The minimum gap between transverse lines should be at least 8-feet.
    -     The white boundary striping of the crosswalk should be at least 8-inches wide.

-10-
Submitted: Wednesday 22-OCT-2025 04:22 PM
Company: DOWL
Contact: Erin Karlin
Adding pedestrian-guiding poles to the corners of this project will require wire to them from each existing traffic signal controller cabinet. This requires cabling to cross under the street(s) of the intersection. Conduit and cabling currently exist for street crossings under these intersections, but the size, condition, and fill-capacity of existing street crossings is unknown. Further, it is not known if the existing cable is free to move or has been locked up over the years, especially in long-buried steel conduit present throughout these corridors. If the existing cabling cannot move within the conduit, more cabling cannot be added. Whether the cabling is free or not cannot be determined from simple inspection. One solution is to install all new conduit street crossings at each instance throughout the project, which would add a significant amount to our proposal. Please provide direction as to what assumptions to make about using existing conduit street crossings. Would the Department consider adding a per LF bid/pay item for instances where new conduit crossings are required?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 24-OCT-2025 02:51 PM
For bidding purposes, assume the existing conduit is in usable condition. Any necessary adjustments due to differing field conditions will be addressed through miscellaneous work or a change order.

-11-
Submitted: Wednesday 22-OCT-2025 04:55 PM
Company: DOWL
Contact: Erin Karlin
We understand that signs impacted by the project need to be relocated or replaced. Some signs along the project corridors appear to be MDT-maintained signs, and others are Great Falls-maintained signs. For signs that are impacted and need replacement, what standard should be used? If the Great Falls standards are to be followed, please provide the necessary information.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 24-OCT-2025 03:46 PM
All signs impacted by the project must be relocated or replaced in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 11th Edition. This includes compliance with MUTCD standards for sign face design, location, color, font, size, and type, etc.  Where installation of new sign supports is required, all support structures must conform to the applicable MDT Detailed Drawings.

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

No Clarifications available for this project.


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?

-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)?

-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.

-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.