Contract Information
Notifications
Amendments
Clarifications
| -1- Submitted: Tue, 23-Jun-2015 11:39 MDT The attached Special Provision, STREAM PROTECTION ACT 124 is hereby made part of this contract. This special provision contains further FWP SPA 124 Permit requirements in addition to those contained in Special Provision No. 29, STREAM PROTECTION ACT SPECIAL PROVISION. STREAM PROTECTION ACT 124 SPECIAL PROVISION |
| -2- Submitted: Wed, 15-Jul-2015 2:10 PM Special Provision #23 - Increase in Turbidity is hereby revised as follows: 23. A. 1) the new Application Revision date is 6/5/2015. The new link can be found at the following: REVISED SPECIAL PROVISION #23 |
| -3- Submitted: Tuesday, 21-JUL-2015 08:15 AM Section N of the Montana Prevailing Wage Rates for Highway Construction Services is rescinded. State employment preferences do not apply to this contract. |
Questions
| -1- Submitted: Wed, 24-Jun-2015 10:05 MDT Company: Wadsworth Brothers Construction Contact: Mark Miller The current bid schedule does not have an bid item for temporary construction access for constructing the piers and other items of work on or over the reservoir. Would the department consider providing an new bid item for this work? Submitted: Fri, 10-Jul-2015 13:16 MDT A Lump Sum bid item for temporary construction access will be added to the contract by addendum. Please continue to check the Q & A Forum for further information. A special provision is being drafted outlining the requirements and will be posted prior to the issuance of the addendum, which is tentatively scheduled to be issued on July 16. Updated: Thu, 16-Jul-2015 11:00 MDT Special Provision #14 - Contractor Work Access Roads is hereby replaced with Contractor Access Facilities and can be found at the following link: CONTRACTOR ACCESS FACILITIES A bid item for Miscellaneous Items - LS will be added by addenda. We will also be adding a bid item for a Test Trailer by addenda. |
| -2- Submitted: Thu, 25-Jun-2015 08:40 MDT Company: Dick Anderson Construction, Inc. Contact: Allan Frankl Could you provide all information used for de-rating the traffic capacity of the existing bridge? Submitted: Mon, 29-Jun-2015 14:15 MST The information requested is available in the reports posted on the MDT Contractors' FTP site as referenced in Special Provision No. 56, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ON STRUCTURES. The information can be accessed through the following link: CABINET GORGE 1 MILE WEST HERON |
| -3- Submitted: Fri, 26-Jun-2015 17:56 MDT Company: Ralph L. Wadsworth Contact: Cole Frost Item 20, Part A of the project special provisions states "The CWA authorization received for this project does not apply to any temporary work bridges, work pads, cofferdams, diversions, or other temporary facilities associated with project construction. Acquire an additional CWA Section 404 Permit and 401 Certification for temporary facilities involving placement of fill in waters of the US." but Part B.1.C states " The permit for this project authorizes the following project work to be performed within waters of the US.....The temporary work bridge spurs will be located downstream of the existing bridge and extend from each bank approximately 250’ into the water." Please clarify responsibility? Submitted: Mon, 06-Jul-2015 10:33 MDT Special Provision #20, Part B.1.c continues on to clarify this matter in sentence 2: "Detailed construction plans for installing and removing the temporary work bridge will be submitted in a separate application prior to commencement of work." A separate CWA 404 is required for this work. Also, please note that the reference to temporary work bridge spurs with an approximate length of 250' are not required to be built, but rather were discussed with the resource agencies as being a possible method of access. The actual method of access required is to be determined by the contractor based on the methods and equipment used for construction. Whatever method is used will be required to be properly permitted. |
| -4- Submitted: Thu, 02-Jul-2015 16:29 MDT Company: Ralph L. Wadsworth Contact: Cole Frost Please provide PDF files of the roadway cross sections for the temporary access roads. If cross sections are unavailable, can you provide electronic files of the existing and proposed surfaces in LandXML format? Submitted: Monday, 20-JUL-2015 12:29 PM No access road profiles, proposed contours, or cross sections are available for the temporary access roads. Access requirements are solely dependent on the Contractor's selected equipment, means, and methods of construction. The temporary access roads shown in the plans were developed only to illustrate potential land impacts and to assure feasibility of access. No LandXML format files exist. The original DTM is made available at the link in question 21 so their alignment and profile and quantities can be determined. 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. |
-5-
Submitted: Tue, 07-Jul-2015 08:39 MDT |
| -6- Submitted: Tue, 07-Jul-2015 10:11 MDT Company: Hamilton Construction Co. Contact: Randy Burg Pier 2 drilled shafts require TIP testing. Pier 2 bridge plans as well as standard spec for drilled shafts also make reference to CSL testing. Will agency require both TIP testing and CSL testing for Pier 2 shafts, or will CSL be eliminated at this location? Submitted: Tue, 07-Jul-2015 15:25 MDT Yes, both TIP and CSL testing is required for Pier 2 drilled shafts. |
| -7- Submitted: Tue, 07-Jul-2015 10:19 MDT Company: Hamilton Construction Co. Contact: Randy Burg I assume that the as built drawings for the existing bridge are not utilizing the same level datum as the current construction plans. Can you provide the elevational difference between the two? Submitted: Wed, 08-Jul-2015 14:00 MDT The project datum is not the same as the as-built drawing datum. The correlation is not known. It appears the as-built may be on a datum similar to the Avista forebay elevations which would require increasing as-built elevation by approximately 3.87' to get to the project datum. |
-8- Core obtained by MDT is available to be viewed at the MDT Geotechnical Section. Also, the core will be brought to the Mandatory Pre-bid Conference in Missoula this Thursday for anyone who wants to look at it. 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.). |
| -9- Submitted: Tue, 07-Jul-2015 11:18 MDT Company: Ralph L. Wadsworth Contact: Cole Frost Special Provision line 23. INCREASE IN TURBIDITY [107] (REVISED 7-26-12), requires the cost to obtain the permit the responsibility of the contractor. Is turbidity monitoring the responsibility of the contractor or is the going to be provided by MDT? Submitted: Fri, 10-Jul-2015 12:25 MDT Contact DEQ to determine narrative conditions required to meet short-term (318 Authorization) water quality standards and protect aquatic biota. If turbidity monitoring is one of the conditions required by DEQ, it will be the responsibility of the contractor to meet all the permit requirements. |
| -10- Submitted: Thu, 09-Jul-2015 09:37 MDT Company: Sletten Construction Contact: Chad Mares Is it possible to lower the water elevation in the reservoir during the pier removal process of piers 9 and 10? Specifically to an elevation of 2 to 3 feet below elevation 2153. Please advise. Submitted: Mon, 13-Jul-2015 09:20 MDT Avista's operation of the reservoir is governed by a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and limits any drawdown to no more than seven feet below the maximum operating pool elevation. Also note that due to operation constraints, Avista will not be able to maintain water level elevations at a set point for any extended period of time. |
| -11- Submitted: Thu, 09-Jul-2015 10:40 MDT Company: ATS Drilling Inc. Contact: Dave Hoag 1. Would it be possible to get an attendance list from yesterday's pre-bid meeting? 2. Is there a cut-off for questions? 3. Is there an anticipated award and NTP Date? 4. Are all COE 404 Permits in place for construction? Submitted: Friday, 10-JUL-2015 11:34 AM |
| -12- Submitted: Friday 10-JUL-2015 03:07 PM Company: Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc Contact: Eric Dybevik Request that the ID of the Permanent Casing be allowed to be as small as 7.8'. This is the inside diameter of sectional casing used with Oscillator / Rotator equipment. Submitted: Tuesday 21-JUL-2015 10:02 AM For the drilled shafts on Pier No. 2 and Pier No. 3, the minimum casing outside diameter is 8’ – 1½”. The minimum sectional casing inside diameter is 7.8-feet. Ensure permanent casing meets the requirements of subsection 106.09. Provide sealed joints. Reducing the shaft diameter below the permanent casing to less than 8’-0” will require additional analysis and may not be allowed. |
| -13- Submitted: Monday 13-JUL-2015 03:45 PM Company: Case Foundation Contact: Joe Jannuzzi Can you pease make available the underwater video investigation Brian Williams with Terracon spoke of at the Pre Bid meeting? Submitted: Thursday, 16-Jul-15 2:20 PM There are four files of the videos that can be found at the following link at the following link: VIDEOS |
| -14- Submitted: Monday, 13-JUL-2015 04:23 PM Company: PCL Civil Constructors Contact: Ken Horton Please provide detailed information regarding the historical marker for installation purposes. Submitted: Tuesay, 21-JUL-2015 10:59 AM A 4’ high x 8’ wide historical marker plaque/ sign hung vertically from a support frame is expected. Provide sign support frame consisting of one horizontal and two vertical steel 10.75” Round HSS x 5/16” (10.75” diameter X 5/16” wall) members. Ensure support frame meets the requirements of subsection 106.09. Alternate similar support frame structural steel member size may be submitted for approval. Provide chain and chain attachments. Powder coat paint support frame black. Submit paint system manufacture data sheets for approval. Embed vertical steel members into ground 4-foot and provide a 4.5 foot deep x 2-foot diameter concrete foundation. Coordinate final sign and support frame design with MDT and Sanders County. Submit support frame shop drawings for approval prior to ordering materials. See historical marker plaque detail. County will provide sign. Include all costs of foundation, support frame, sign and frame installation, and incidentals in Historical Marker bid item. HISTORICAL MARKER DETAIL |
-15- |
-16- |
| -17- Submitted: Thursday 16-JUL-2015 09:14 AM Company: Case Foundation Contact: Joe Jannuzzi If during permanent casing advancment, casing refusal is encountered at an elevation higher than Elevation B in the approved plans, will it be permissible for the drilled shaft contractor to continue the excavation without continuing to advance the casing? Submitted: Tuesday 21-JUL-2015 10:04 AM It is anticipated that with proper equipment and techniques, the permanent casing will be advanced to the required depth. See question #5 for information on obstructions. |
| -18- Submitted: Thursday 16-JUL-2015 09:28 AM Company: Case Foundation Contact: Joe Jannuzzi Will it be permissible for the permanent casing to arrive to the jobsite with all 3 coats of paint applied at the mill with the knowledge that any damage to the paint caused by transportation would be repaired with touchups onsite? Submitted: Tuesady 21-JUL-2015 10:06 AM Yes. |
| -19- Submitted: Thursday 16-JUL-2015 10:09 AM Company: Case Foundation Contact: Joe Jannuzzi Please confirm that CSL testing in the drilled shafts will be performed by MDT and that the test will be performed between 3 and 7 days after concrete placement in accordance with ASTM 6760? Testing should be completed as soon as practical to prevent loss of data caused by debonding of the concrete from the tube. If MDT waits 12 days noted in the standard specification it should be noted that debonding is very likely. Submitted: Tuesday 21-JUL-2015 10:15 AM The CSL testing will be performed in accordance with the specifications. MDT will perform the test in as an expedient manner as possible. |
| -20- Submitted: Friday 17-JUL-2015 09:35 AM Company: Hamilton Construction Contact: Randy Burg In question #3, MDT makes reference to contractor having to obtain Section 404 permit for whatever method of access is selected. We are concerned over the amount of time it may take to obtain 404 permit, as we have no control over this item. Will agency consider extending time or not charging workdays until the 404 permit is obtained? Submitted: Tuesday 21-JUL-2015 09:54 AM Contract Time will not be extended or suspended in order to secure necessary permits. Refer to Standard Specification 107.11 for permitting issues and 108.07 for Contract Time. |
| -21- Submitted: Monday, 20-JUL-2015 07:52 AM Company: Noble Excavating Inc. Contact: Jason Simmons Will Cad or Microstation drawing be made available for the final grading design, existing ground contours or the temporary road? Submitted: Tuesday, 21-JUL-2015 10:40 AM See response to question 4. |
| -22- Submitted: Monday, 20-JUL-2015 09:45 AM Company: Case Foundation Contact: Joe Jannuzzi Please confirm that it will be acceptable to use 2'' SCH. 80 PVC for CSL inspection tubes. Submitted: Tuesday, 21-JUL-2015 10:13 AM Yes. |