-1-
Submitted: Thursday 26-APR-2018 01:20 PM
MDT will be providing opportunity for exploratory excavation on the project. Please submit a list detailing locations of interest to Bob Vosen for review. All emails must be received by 5:00 pm on Tuesday, May 1st. MDT will review all sites requested to ensure the roadside slope integrity is maintained. Multiple locations in single areas will be combined. The excavation will begin at 10:00 am on May 3rd. All interested parties are invited to attend. Plan to meet at the end of the project near milepost 53.

-1-
Submitted: Wednesday 18-APR-2018 11:42 AM
The following special provision is hereby made a part of this contract:
UTILITY INSTALLATIONS
Utilities relocation work is not complete and will not be complete as of the letting date and contract award date. Project work must be coordinated with the utility company relocation activities until the utilities relocation work is complete. Under no circumstances will a delay in relocating utility facilities be considered justification for additional compensation.
Should unforeseen conditions arise which substantially delay the utilities relocation work, and this directly results in a delay to the project work, make a written request to the department for a time extension (see sub-section 108.07.4).
Coordinate with utilities to accomplish the relocations concurrently with road construction.
Utility company contacts:
Frontier telecommunications: Michelle Morris (208) 263-8432
HEIM Cable: Jeremy Holm (406) 274-8013
Flathead Electric Stan Pluid, (406) 751-4461

-1-
Submitted: Friday    13-APR-2018 08:28 AM  
Company: Macon Supply  
Contact: Jeff Monaco  
Clarification on quantities. Example, the estimated plan quantity for Geofoam is 5,460 M3. Special provision 46 states EPS Geofoam Blocks are measured by the Cubic yard (M3). Is the estimated quantity 5,460 cubic meters or cubic yards?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 17-APR-2018 01:44 PM
All quantities are in metric units.

-3-
Submitted: Thursday  19-APR-2018 05:15 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Stacy Hill
Is there an SPA 124 permit for this project?  The 318 Special Provision indicates FWP input and the 404 Special Provision references Bull Trout, so we would like to know if there are also Stream Protection Act requirements to consider.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday  25-APR-2018 09:06 AM
Please see clarification #2.

-5-
Submitted: Friday    27-APR-2018 02:36 PM  
Company: Condon-Johnson  
Contact: Ty Jahn
Please post the final Geotechnical Reprot, Swamp Creek East, Libby, Montana dated July 28, 2015 by Shannon and Wilson which is referenced in the specifications.
Answer
Submitted: Monday    30-APR-2018 08:44 AM  
The requested final geotechnical report can be found at the following link.
Attached are PDF Files of the available project alignment and/or structures geotechnical report(s), geotechnical report supplements, and geotechnical laboratory summaries.  There is remaining geotechnical information that is voluminous and very difficult to compile in a concise manner.  Contractors are welcome to come to MDT Headquarters to inspect rock samples taken for the project that are stored here or to look through the complete set of Geotechnical field investigation notes, laboratory testing, analytical, or other data in our project files.  It should be noted that the project may have undergone significant changes during the design process after the original geotechnical report and supplements were issued.  Thus, some of the information contained in these documents may be out of date or not applicable with regard to the advertised project. Some of the changes include, but are not limited to: Project splits (for funding, ROW issues, etc.); alignment and grade changes; and changes due to environmental factors (sensitive areas, etc.).  The documents can be found at: GEOTECH REPORT 

-7-
Submitted: Tuesday   01-MAY-2018 06:15 PM  
Company: Condon-Johnson  
Contact: Ty Jahn
Is there a profile view of geology (either talus or bedrock) at increments along the proposed soil nail walls (say every 25-ft) so the Contractor can anticipate in what materials the wall will be in for construction and design purposes? If not, does the State intend to publish cross-sections of the geology at the soil nail wall locations so each soil nail wall contractor is bidding off the same assumptions?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 02-MAY-2018 10:28 AM
A profile view of geology does not exist at the proposed soil nail walls and MDT does not intend to generate this information.

-9-
Submitted: Wednesday 02-MAY-2018 01:33 PM
Company: Gabions West, Inc.
Contact: Erv Niehaus
The bid quantity sheet shows the amount of of gabion mattress to be 186.8 cubic meters. The Special Provisions state that the quantity to be paid for by the square yard or square meter. I believe the later to be correct. Please clarify.
Answer
Submitted: Monday 07-MAY-2018 09:18 AM
The Rock-Filled Wire Mesh Mattress is to be paid for by the square meter.  This will be changed by addenda.

-11-
Submitted: Wednesday 02-MAY-2018 04:43 PM
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.
Contact: Missoula
1)  S.P. No.17.E. states that temporary pipe will be paid for under the 1800mm Temporary Pipes bid item, there is no such item.
2)  S.P. 27 refers to a structure for the detour, S.P. 55.B.3) talks about a bridge or pipe being acceptable. The detour plan sheets do not specify a pipe or a structure. What is the requirement for the crossing? Please specify type, size, and/or length.
3)  S.P. 28.F. states that Clearing and Grubbing in sensitive areas will be paid for by Lump Sum, there is no such item.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 09-MAY-2018 12:24 PM
Updated:  Wednesday 09-MAY-2018 02:22 PM
1)  Bid items for 1200mm Temporary Pipe and 900mm Temporary Pipe will be added by addendum.
1)  Modify Special Provision 17.E to state include the cost of excavation, installation, backfill and removal of all piped diversions in the Excavation - Unclass Channel bid item.
2)  The detour for this crossing is not designed.  The design is the responsibility of the contractor to allow for a variety of means and methods as best suited to individual contractors.  The design must meet all of the requirements of Special Provision 55, as well as the Standard Specifications and Supplementals, including but not limited to Section 206.
3)  The work detailed in Special Provision 28 is to be included in the cost of Excavation - Unclassified Channel.

-13-
Submitted: Thursday  03-MAY-2018 12:07 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Company, Inc.
Contact: Grant Roberts
1)  With the weight restrictions on the stabilization berms a crane to set the detour bridge would be restricted to setup on the existing PTW. Would MDT allow 1 hour closure time with same specifications as “SP 49 Road Closures for Blasting” for setting the detour bridge?
2)  Would a Precast Spread Footing set on the existing stabilization berm material be an acceptable detour bridge end foundation?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday  08-MAY-2018 02:49 PM
1)  The design of the detour is up to the contractor.  The equipment required for the construction of the detour is dependent on the design of the detour - specifically the choice of bridge or pipes, and further the size of the beams or pipes utilized.  Depending on the size of the equipment and the ground pressure it develops, equipment may be allowed on the berm, or may be required to remain on the PTW.  If the contractor desires to utilize the PTW, a traffic control plan detailing the utilization of the roadway and how traffic will be handled must be submitted for review.  A maximum closure for this work will be 1 hour.  The roadway must remain open to a minimum of one lane one way traffic between 7 and 9 am, and between 3:30 and 6 pm. 
2)  A precast spread footing set on the existing stabilization berm material might be an acceptable detour bridge end foundation, depending on the dimensions and weight of the temporary end foundation and structure.  The contractor is responsible for the design, which must be signed and stamped by a professional engineer.  The detour design must comply with Standard Specification 206 as supplemented.  The exact dimensions and weights would need to be submitted to the MDT Project Manager 20 business days in advance for review.

-15-
Submitted: Thursday  03-MAY-2018 12:09 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Company, Inc.
Contact: Grant Roberts
It appears the geofoam fill area at the 73+58.5 & 73+75.5 bridge ends will have to be constructed while traffic is on the detour. This full width section of geofoam fill may conflict with the detour surfacing/embankment. Per the lightweight fill installation specifications the contractor would have to install the geofoam blocks and geotextile-high strength in a single phase due to the wrapping/overlap requirements of the geotextile-high strength. Please provide cross sections for the Detour @ 72+60 to verify if the geofoam fill will conflict with the detour.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday  08-MAY-2018 03:04 PM
As the design of the detour is the responsibility of the contractor, MDT cannot provide cross sections.  The fill height will vary depending on the length and type of bridge or pipe the contractor uses to convey Swamp Creek.

-17-
Submitted: Thursday  03-MAY-2018 12:12 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Company, Inc.
Contact: Grant Roberts
Plans show a 2:1 cut/fill slope to be temporarily constructed at the light weight fill areas along the existing PTW shoulder. During lightweight fill construction traffic will have to be on existing PTW. Will MDT require temporary positive barrier for these planned temporary slopes? If temporary positive barrier is required will MDT provide a pay item for temporary positive barrier?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday  08-MAY-2018 2:51 PM
MDT does not anticipate needing temporary positive barrier.  Slopes will be delineated in accordance with the contract documents.  If during construction the decision is made to utilize positive barrier it will be paid for under Miscellaneous Work.

-19-
Submitted: Thursday  03-MAY-2018 12:15 PM
Company: Schellinger Construction Company, Inc.
Contact: Grant Roberts
Per SP 29. provide CAC-HF meeting requirements of Section 301, which requires 8” maximum compacted lifts and compact to 98% of target density. NCHRP Report 529 Guideline and Recommended Standard for Geofoam Applications in Highway Embankments states in Section 12 paragraph 12.3, a minimum of 12” of soil or aggregate shall cover the top of the EPS blocks or separation layer before compaction commences. Please clarify the requirements for the 8,242 cubic meters of CAC-HF to be placed as Light Weight Fill.
Answer
Submitted: Monday  07-MAY-2018 03:15 PM
A 12" (300 mm) lift of material will be placed over the geofoam with minimal compaction before compaction efforts are increased.  Additional lifts with reduced compaction may be placed as directed by the EPM based on field conditions.

-21-
Submitted: Friday    04-MAY-2018 10:57 AM
Company: Schellinger Construction Company, Inc.
Contact: Grant Roberts
After reviewing the dirt runs it appears no adjustments were made for the Light Weight Fill CAC-HF, Special Backfill, or Geofoam and there’s no excavation quantities shown for 69+00 to 69+80. Will MDT please verify the Dirt Run quantities and provide a Dirt Run with the adjustments?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday    09-MAY-2018 12:27 PM
Incorrect.  Adjustments were made for the light weight fill material, CAC HF, Special Backfill and Geofoam in the dirt runs.  New dirt runs are not needed for these adjustments.  Excavation for the existing surfacing from 69+00 to 69+80 have not been captured in the summary frames.

-23-
Submitted: Saturday  05-MAY-2018 07:35 PM  
Company: MWHC  
Contact: Chris Connors
1) Plan page B8 shows a barrier end detail that accepts a MASH style bridge approach guardrail as shown in standard drawing 606-23A/B. The guardrail summary on sheet 12 however calls out for Type 1 Bridge Approaches for the four corners of that same structure. Is the Type 1 to be installed or the MASH style?
2) Special provision #67 requests a 36" wide impact attenuator. The plans indicate that both attenuators are mounting to standard MDOT precast barrier per 605-00 which normally only takes a 24" wide attenuator. Should this provision be changed to a 24" wide?
3) The summary for guardrail on sheet 12 shows the runs at station 118+88.20 to 121+07.28 and 119+54 to 124+85.54 includes a Optional Terminal at each end but also shows two Type 1 Bridge Approaches in the same runs. Can you please explain the layout of these runs?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 09-MAY-2018 12:59 PM
1)  MASH style is correct.  The summary quantity for the Bridge Approach Section Type 1 will be revised to 4 and replaced with MGS Thrie Beam Approach Section by addenda.  The corrected plan sheet #12 can be found at the following link:
REVISED PLAN SHEET 12
2)  No, install a 36 inch wide impact attenuator meeting the special provision requirements.
3)  Eliminate the 2 bridge approach sections from guardrail station callout 118+88.20 to 121+07.28 and 119+54 to 124+85.54.         

The summary quantity for the Bridge Approach Section Type 1 will be revised to 4 and replaced with MGS Thrie Beam Approach Section by addenda.  The corrected plan sheet #12 can be found at the following link:  REVISED PLAN SHEET 12

-25-
Submitted: Monday    07-MAY-2018 08:57 AM  
Company: LHC, Inc  
Contact: David Steely
Due to the difference in material manufacturing, cost, and placement differences, would the State please consider breaking up Bid Item 301 270 000 for "Crushed Aggregate Course" into two separate bid items?  One for "Crushed Aggregate Course" and one for "High Fracture Crushed Aggregate Course"?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday    08-MAY-2018 12:46 PM  
Updated: Wednesday    09-MAY-2018 09:50 AM  
A bid item will be added for Crushed Aggregate Course - High Fracture and quantities for Crushed Aggregate Course will be revised by addenda. The revised plan sheets #11 and #14 can be found at the following link:  REVISED PLAN SHEETS 11 & 14

-27-
Submitted: Monday    07-MAY-2018 09:20 AM  
Company: L.H.C., Inc  
Contact: David Steely  
In locations where we will be excavating from the existing "berm" previously placed that is being utilized in part to construct the new roadway template, will topsoil have to be replaced and spread in these "berm" areas outside of the "new roadway templet" that material was removed from?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 08-MAY-2018 11:52 AM
Yes.

-29-
Submitted: Monday    07-MAY-2018 09:41 AM  
Company: L.H.C., Inc  
Contact: David Steely  
When reviewing the MDT supplied "Dirt Runs", has any consideration been given by MDT to account for "Rock Swell" factors? Also, the State's "shrink factor of 40%" seems excessive. Where did the basis for this % come from? Was it a combination of normal settlement shrink factor, initial penetration settlement at embankment placement or secondary consolidation settlement after initial embankment placement? If secondary consolidation settlement was a consideration, at what point should the Contractor anticipate "buy-off" by MDT of the subgrade? At time of placement and finishing, or a different parameter?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 09-MAY-2018 11:54 AM
Much of the large shrink value is due to the significant ongoing settlement that is occurring on the project.  It is likely that in many areas where fill is to be placed, the actual ground surface will be below the elevation shown on the plans.

The subgrade will be accepted in accordance with the standard specifications as supplemented.

-31-
Submitted: Monday    07-MAY-2018 10:04 AM  
Company: L.H.C., Inc  
Contact: David Steely
SP 69 for the "Stream Restoration Specialist", states that MDT "has contracted with a pre-qualified, SRS". Can you please confirm that the Contractor will not have to account for any costs associated with the SRS on this project?
Answer
Submitted: Monday    07-MAY-2018 03:04 PM  
MDT will hire an SRS under a separate contract.  The contractor will not have to account for any costs associated with the SRS on the project.