|
-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 31-JAN-2018 03:33 PM
Company: Macon Supply
Contact: Jeff Monaco
1) What is the required reinforcing for where the curb and gutter meets the PCCP?
2) Where the Full Depth PCCP (15") meets the 9" PCCP what height is the reinforcing to be placed? Center of the 9" PCCP?Answer
Submitted: Monday 05-FEB-2018 09:58 PM
1) Treat it as a PCCP to PCCP Longitudinal Construction Joint, as shown in Dt. Dwg 501-00 except the #5 epoxy coated bar only needs to be 24" long for the curb and gutter to PCCP joint.
2) Yes.
|
|
-2-
Submitted: Monday 05-FEB-2018 04:52 PM
Company: NORTHERN ROCKIES AGENCY
Contact: KIT
Please clarify what length mast arm is required on the 2 cantilevers overhead structures. Sheet E6 has a 35' mast arm but sheet E10 has a 25' mast arm.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 09-FEB-2018 11:04 AM
The detail on sheet E6 showing a mast arm length of 35' is not correct. The required mast arm length is 25' for pole 7 and pole 22 as correctly indicated in the Pole Schedule on sheet E10.
|
|
-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 07-FEB-2018 08:35 AM
Company: Glacier Preacast
Contact: Doug Hammerberg
Item 614 010 052 Noise barrier wall Special Provision #58 Line B Materials: Reinforcing Steel
Question: Can the rebar be galvanized instead of epoxy coated? It has been used in high-salt states such as Colorado and Utah. It can be readily available through our supplier and is more durable and less expensive.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 09-FEB-2018 12:37 PM
No.
|
|
-4-
Submitted: Thursday 08-FEB-2018 10:59 AM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Mike Eichner
Will the City of Missoula permits for curb and gutter, sidewalk, and asphalt be required for this project? If so, how will these be paid for? I do understand that the SWPPP MS4 will be required for this project per past work within this MS4 district, and this cost will be included in the Temp Eros Control LS item.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 09-FEB-2018 12:39 PM
The contractor is responsible for all permits and fees as detailed under Standard Specification 107.02. MDT will pay Miscellaneous Work (Standard Specification 104.04) only for permits required by the City of Missoula for permanent work incorporated into the project.
|
|
-5-
Submitted: Friday 09-FEB-2018 09:19 AM
Company: White Resources Group, Inc.
Contact: estimating
Would you provide the csv file for the roundabout?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 09-FEB-2018 02:10 PM
The design files for the requested project are posted on the MDT FTP site for your use at: 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.
|
|
-6-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 10:54 AM
Company: TrueNorth Steel
Contact: Juel Berg
The rail drawing calls out for galvanized pipe, but then in the notes it calls for the rail to be primed and finish painted. Please clarify if this rail is one of the following?
• Galvanized
• Primed and Finish Painted (Black)
• Galvanized, Primed and Finish Painted. (Black)
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 20-FEB-2018 11:27 AM
They are to be primed and finished painted (black).
|
|
-7-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 02:03 PM
Company: Missoula Concrete Construction
Contact: Dale Clouse
Standard specifications call for a siloxane based anti graffiti coating. We have used the product that is listed on the QPL and have found it to leave a rubbery texture on panels that is very prone to collect dust. We have been using an acrylic micro-emulsion anti-graffiti coating that is approved by MT FWP and have been pleased with the results. Would it be possible to get MDT approval for an alternate anti-graffiti coating?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 15-FEB-2018 11:19 AM
Bid the anti-graffiti coating as specified.
|
|
-8-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 04:37 PM
Company: Superior Transparent Noise Barriers
Contact: Eric Humphries
Under item 61 section A in the specification, “Acrylite Soundstop TL4 Noise Barrier System”, it states, “….lightweight transparent noise barrier system designed, tested and accepted to meet Test Level 4 criteria specified in NCHRP Report No. 350…” In the 7th Ed AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual with interim updates, section 15.8.4 allows for use of a non-crash tested noise barrier in the clear zone if a controlled failure scenario is utilized in lieu of crash testing. Will MTDOT allow use of a non-crash tested noise barrier if it meets the requirements of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge manual section 15 and more specifically section 15.8.4?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 09:11 AM
No.
|
|
-9-
Submitted: Wednesday 14-FEB-2018 04:43 PM
Company: Frontier West, LLC
Contact: Craig Lien
Having Trouble matching project cross sections to either stationing for walls or what appears to be main line stationing. Could you provide an equation or further guidance? Also, It appears that the footing for the walls that are in close proximity to the on /off ramps and the mainline of the interstate will undermine the interstate without shoring. Please verify that most near road sections of wall will require 6 to 8 ft of shoring to construct without undermining adjacent roadbed. If the footing excavation can not be laid at a safe slope without undermining the roadbed, how will this shoring be paid for?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 11:00 AM
Response to Question 1:
The wall stationing is equated to the adjacent ramp and/or I-90 mainline stationing at the begin/end of each wall and at PI stations along each wall. See Sheets NB-1, NB-2, NB-3, NB-4, and NB-5.
Response to Question 2:
Temporary shoring may be required along the WB entrance ramp to maintain enough road width for traffic. Excavation work associated with SP#28 - Spread Footings - and the spread footings is considered to be structure excavation Type 1 and in accordance with Section 209, temporary shoring is not measured for payment.
|
|
-10-
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 09:47 AM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Mike Eichner
Sound barrier wall "C" shows an existing power line that parallels and crosses the proposed alignment of the new wall. Is this power line outside the construction limits for the foundation of this wall. If not how will issues be addressed and paid for?
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 11:48 AM
The existing powerline shown is underground power for the existing irrigation system. Segments that conflict with noise wall footing excavation can be removed.
Coordinate location of conduit openings in the base of the noise wall (as shown on Sheet NB-9) for the new irrigation systems with the irrigation contractor.
|
|
-11-
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 10:16 AM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Mike Eichner
Sound barrier wall "A" alignment parallels the west bound on ramp and is close enough to edge of pavement that the 8' +/- deep excavation of the foundation will require shoring of this excavation. How will this shoring be paid for? Also in order to install/remove shoring and wall erection the equipment will need to be placed on the westbound on ramp resulting in its closure. What phase will the time and closure of 30 +/- working days be charged to for the construction of this sound wall.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 11:02 AM
See response to question #9 above. Reference SP #2 - Contract Time and Incentive/Disincentive - in regards to which stage time will be charged to the work in question.
|
|
-12-
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 11:08 AM
Company: Mountain West Holding Company
Contact: Devan Blake
This project has a 2 separate bid items for impact attenuators. Material requirements for the Impact Attenuator (#606-011-520) at station 219+41.79 to 219+86.56 LT are detailed in Special provision 48, which specifies use of a 58" WideTRACC I.A. with a 10-Bay double flare wing extension structures to be placed in the WB Exit ramp Gore. Per manufacture drawings SS1018 & SS497, the combined overall LON of the I.A. & the transition is 44.42' long, which loosely aligns with the station limits specified for this unit. The bid item for the other I.A. (606-011-549 - Impact Attenuator - 4 Bay) is not covered anywhere in the special provisions that I can see. The stationing for this 4-bay I.A. are within the EB Exit Ramp station limits, from 106+23.52 to 106+39.60. This calculates to a 16.08' allowance for the 4-Bay I.A. The only I.A. I can find that matches these parameters is a 4-bay Quadguard as seen on MDT Detailed. Dwg.606-30A (chart in lower left corner), however, the maximum design speed for this unit is only 50 MPH, which does not meet TL3 criteria. Is this the desired unit for this application? Can a standard TRACC attenuator that meets TL3 criteria (per MDT Dwg. 606-30B) be used here? The TRACC has a LON of 21'-3". Please advise.
Answer
Submitted: Friday 16-FEB-2018 02:28 PM
Install a Test Level 3, 24-inch (610 mm) wide impact attenuator at the location shown in the plans. The device must be rated for 60 mph (100 kph) and conform to the detail drawings. An impact attenuator that has six or more bays may be needed to meet this requirement.
|