-1-
Submitted: Friday    04-MAY-2018 01:45 PM
An Addendum has been posted for this project: ADDENDUM
To download the addendum bid files, click here: BID FILES

-1-
Submitted: Thursday  03-MAY-2018 12:55 PM
Due to a forthcoming addendum, and numerous updated plan sheets; below is a list of revised plan sheets with a brief explanation for the change. 
The revised plan sheets can be found at the following link: ZIMMERMAN REVISED PLANS 

Zimmerman Trail - Billings [6040003]

Sheet 2 - Table of Contents - Removed the Fencing summary, added the Concrete Barrier Rail End Connection Detail and the Electrical sheets addressing the Road Closure gate.

Sheet 13 - Added a note to the Grading frame.

Sheet 17 - Removed the Fencing frame. Farm Gate-Metal-G-3 Gates removed.  Will be corrected by addendum.

Sheet 23 - Added a detail for the Concrete Barrier Rail End Connection.

Sheets 18,39,40,46 - Cadd issues fixing line styles for utilities and existing features.

Sheets S1-S3, S5-S6 - Revise Sign-Alum Refl Sheet (IV) and Reset Sign quantities. Will be corrected by addendum.

Sheet E1 - E17 - Add Road Closure gate quantities and 3 sheets for Gate Details.  Revise sheet numbers. Will be corrected by addendum.

MT-3 Zimmerman Trail Int Imp [8888000]

Sheet 23 - Revision to Storm Drain & Fencing frames. Will be corrected by addendum

Sheets 28-38, 40-48,64, 66-68 - Cadd issues fixing line styles for utilities and existing features.

-1-
Submitted: Tuesday   17-APR-2018 10:12 AM
Company: Western Systems
Contact: Kevin Hanson
I would like clarification on the Chevron Specs.  We offer an alternative product and would like to discuss the possibility of using these with the project manager.
Answer
Submitted: Thursday   19-APR-2018 02:18 PM
The TAPCO BlinkerBeam & BlinkSync dynamic LED curve warning system has been approved as a formal FHWA experimental feature.  Alternatives will not be considered for this project.  Please bid the project per the Contract specifications.

-3-
Submitted: Wednesday 18-APR-2018 10:07 AM 
Company: Midland Electric & Contracting, Inc. 
Contact: Bob Bouley 
Can you please detail what electrical items consist of for Section No. 0003, Electrical Additive Alternate - AB2 Bid Item - Miscellaneous Items - Each, Qty. (3) each
Answer
Submitted: Thursday 19-APR-2018 19:18 AM 
Special Provision #56 - Cellular Remote Control 5-year Plan (Additive Alternative AB2) describes the item to be bid as Miscellaneous Items-Each. 

-5-
Submitted: Friday    20-APR-2018 02:40 PM
Company: COP Construction
Contact: Neil McKeehan
On Summary Table Sheet 23, RCP IRR Class 3 18". How does STA 118+76.96 to 119+35.13 and 119+35.13 to 121.33.11 correlate to page 34 pipe lengths?
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 02-MAY-2018 10:24 AM
The lengths in the table on sheet 34 are correct and the summary frame is incorrect for the pipe lengths.  Summary frame on sheet 23 has been revised to correct the pipe and associated quantities.
An addenda will be issued to address this and any other quantity changes.  Revised sheets will be posted as part of a clarification addressing other plan sheet changes.

-7-
Submitted: Monday    23-APR-2018 11:43 AM  
Company: Western Municipal Construction  
Contact: Jock Clause  
Has MDT conducted an inspection of the Rims this spring? If not do they plan to? Who is responsible for any falling rock/boulders and damage resulting from falls?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday    26-APR-2018 01:20 PM
A formal rockfall study/mitigation has not been performed since the 2014 rockfall mitigation project was completed and none is planned prior to construction of this project.  Please refer to Section 107 of the Standard Specifications regarding Legal Relations and Responsibilities to the Public.

-9-
Submitted: Thursday  26-APR-2018 01:35 PM
Company: Forterra Pipe and Precast
Contact: Duane Loken
Will post applied stain be an acceptable alternative to the integral colored concrete? This method has been accepted in the past by MDT for big block concrete retaining walls in the Billings area.
Answer
Submitted: Friday  27-APR-2018 08:14 AM
Post applied stain is not an acceptable alternative to integral colored concrete.

-11-
Submitted: Tuesday   01-MAY-2018 09:47 AM  
Company: Riverside Contracting, Inc.  
Contact: Estimating  
Are there cross sections available for the MT-3 – ZIMMERMAN TR INTRSCT IMPRV project?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday   01-MAY-2018 11:00 AM
Cross-sections are not available for the MT 3 - Zimmerman Tr INTRSCT IMPRV project.

-13-
Submitted: Wednesday 02-MAY-2018 11:39 AM
Company: Condon-Johnson
Contact: Ty Jahn
Drawing Sheet 28 General Mesh Detail shows a maximum nail spacing of 6.5-ft and Drawing Sheet 30 shows an 8.5-ft spacing.  What is the maximum nail horizontal and vertical spacing?  Can Montana DOT provide a plan view of the soil nail locations instead of just a spacing since the Contractor is not designing the system?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday  03-MAY-2018 01:07 PM
The nail spacing plan view is shown on Sheet 28 as designed (General Mesh Detail). General plan view location/limits are shown on Sheet 25. A section view of the slope is shown on Sheet 30 with on-slope nail spacing dimensioned at 8.5 feet consistent with Sheet 28. Vertical spacing (along slope) is 8.5 feet. Horizontal spacing is 6.5 feet.

-15-
Submitted: Wednesday 02-MAY-2018 12:33 PM 
Company: Condon-Johnson 
Contact: Ty Jahn  
What is the design load for the micropiles?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday  03-MAY-2018 01:35 PM  
The design load for the micropiles is 22,000 lbs.

-17-
Submitted: Wednesday 02-MAY-2018 05:19 PM 
Company: Condon-Johnson 
Contact: Ty Jahn 
How far in from the edge of the footing does the first micropile start?
Answer
Submitted: Thursday  03-MAY-2018 01:33 PM  
The micropile is located 1 foot from the edge of the footing.

-19-
Submitted: Thursday  03-MAY-2018 09:54 AM
Company: Knife River
Contact: Todd McKeever
What is the driving reasons behind the Sp 27-B - staging details that are detailed on page 53 of the roundabout plan sheets? Please clarify.
SP 35#2 - The native aggregate to the area is gray and black. Will MDT require a brown aggregate? If so what source?
SP 35 #3 - Please clarify "Color aggregate to match PCCP" with pigment color of "Adobe Tan"
Can the rebar be doweled 4 inches into the Mountable Truck Apron Curb and the Roll Curb and Gutter Joint instead of run continuous as shown on page 52?
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 08-MAY-2018 11:44 AM
The details on sheet 53 are staging details for placement of P.C.C.P. Special Provision 27-B requires the grading and base course be completed prior to placing P.C.C.P.

Brown aggregate is not required.

Concrete aggregate is not required to match the integral color.

Doweled rebar 4" into the curb does not provide enough length to develop the rebar.  Install steel reinforcement in accordance with the detail shown in the plans.

-21-
Submitted: Friday    04-MAY-2018 10:51 AM
Company: Forterra
Contact: Brian Anderson
The provided soils information states the friction angle (phi) is 30 degrees with 70 psf cohesion. The existing slope is steeper than a 1.5H:1V (33.7 degrees). A few of the slopes on the section drawings are nearly 40 degrees. The slope angles exceed the friction angle of the provided foundation material. To meet a 1.3 safety factor for Global Stability, the geogrids would need to be in excess of 20' in length. Even with grids that long, the bearing capacity (1,100 psf) exceeds the allowable 1,000 psf. Are there new soil parameters available given that the friction angle of the foundation soil is less than the slope angle and the bearing capacity of the wall is greater than the allowable?
The details also show a minimum 8 to 10' grid length. For areas with micro pile foundations, global stability won’t be an issue. Please provide guidance on the grid reinforcement area without micro pile foundations since the grids are at least twice the minimum length shown in the project plans. I am unsure of if grids this long were anticipated during the design phase.
Answer
Submitted: Tuesday 08-MAY-2018 08:29 AM
The questions are largely addressed in the Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Report for the project dated July 20, 2017.  The slope face materials comprised of loose silty to clayey sand were modeled with the given shear strength parameters based on the results a conservative backcalculation at limiting equilibrium for the selected, existing slope section considering only these fine-grained sands; the additional positive effects of the considerable oversize material portions of the existing slopes were not considered.  As discussed in the report, the geotechnical investigation did not note deep-seated slope problems, and with the modest wall and surcharge loads programmed for the slope crest, the analysis concentrated on shoulder stability and limited the downslope progression of potential failure surfaces.  In this regard, the stability analysis and bearing capacity considerations were confined to the upper portion of the slope within the approximate base width of the MSE section as shown.  For final design of the walls, this rationale is also considered valid, and downslope generation of potential failure surfaces with the given parameters can be limited to a vertical projection of approximately 10' below the wall base as can be seen in the report analysis output.  With these assumptions, the preliminary reinforcing analysis shows geogrid lengths and resulting maximum base contact pressure for the MSE section to be reasonable as provided.  It is up to the designer to make more conservative assumptions to be included in the design and related submittals as they may deem necessary.

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 Geotechnical Report can be found at:  GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

-23-
Submitted: Tuesday    08-MAY-2018 09:23 AM  
Company: Condon-Johnson  
Contact: Ty Jahn
There is a quantity bust in the micropile length on the Zimmerman Trail project. The bid quantity is 400LF which is the lineal feet of micropile wall but the specifications state the micropiles are being paid per the lineal foot installed and I come up with a quantity of 1,750 lineal feet of micropiles. Also, the specifications state that testing will be paid for on the per each but there isn’t a bid quantity for proof or performance testing.
The soil nails say they will be paid for per the lineal foot of soil nail but there isn’t a soil nail bid item and I’m assuming payment for them will be under the wire mesh stabilization.
Answer
Submitted: Wednesday 09-MAY-2018 08:41 AM
Updated: Wednesday 09-MAY-2018 09:35 AM
The bid quantity for Item 203 030 115 – Micropiles will be revised from 400 LNFT to 1700 LNFT by addenda.
Payment for 3 micropile tests and 1 soil nail test is covered in bid item 559 040 040 – Performance Tests.
Payment for soil nails is covered in bid item 614 010 030 – Production of Soil Nails. The revised plan sheet #16 can be found at the following link:  REVISED PLAN SHEET 16