Q&A_02-18-2020.pdf
PDF 100 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MT Phillips 364(1), Short Oil Road
- Solicitation number
- 69056720B000007
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to federal contract solicitation number 69056720B000007 for the MT Phillips 364(1), Short Oil Road project through the Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. The questions and answers provide clarification on specifications such as allowing alternative joint mix formulas that have not been approved by the Montana Department of Transportation but meet their specifications, confirming the required use of solventborne traffic paint type A per the solicitation, accepting recycling of existing asphalt and base materials to reduce subgrade exposure, considering alternate binder grades due to regional availability issues, clarifying topsoil stripping and replacement and seeding requirements, and confirming that a material transfer machine is not required for paving. Amendments A004 and A012 addressed questions on the joint mix formula and binder grade.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Bid Opening Summary_Short Oil.pdf | ||
| Amendment A004_R1.pdf | ||
| Amendment A004.pdf | ||
| Amendment A003.pdf | ||
| Q&A_02-07-2020.pdf | ||
| Amendment A002.pdf | ||
| Amendment A001.pdf | ||
| Q&A_01-30-2020.pdf | ||
| Q&A_01-29-2020.pdf | ||
| IFB_Short Oil Road.pdf | ||
| Plan Request form.pdf | ||
| Plans_mt-a2015013_StampedandSigned.pdf | ||
| mt-a2015013_PavementReport.pdf |
Show all 13
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
MT Phillips 364(1) (RESOL) Short Oil Road
# General Technical Question Answer Date
1 X
Under the Special contract requirements (403.02) it states: Submit a Montana Department of Transportation JMF approved within the past 12 months…….., Is it possible to submit a (new) JMF that has NOT been approved by MDOT but meets all of the their specifications. Since this is not one of their projects, they will not use resources to approve a JMF. Our closest mix design that MDOT has approved in the last 12 months would come from East of Lewistown MT. (145.0 miles away)
This will be addressed under a forthcoming amendment.
1/29/2020
2 X
It appears that they are calling for 634.04 Solventborne Traffic Paint (Type A). We haven't been able to procure this material for years. I think it’s been phased out of other federal projects and they have been using 634.05 Waterborne Traffic Paint Type B. Please verify.
Bid according to the solicitation documents. 1/29/2020
Check General or Technical
3 X
Pay item # 20303‐1600 – Removal of Pavement, Asphalt. Would the owner entertain recycling the existing asphalt and base? I’ve read the pavement report, but utilization of all the existing material that’s in place would help decrease the subgrades exposure pumping of clay soil due to wheel traffic.
Bid according to the solicitation documents. 1/29/2020
4 X
Per special contract requirement 403.01, the asphalt binder designated for this project is PG 58‐34. Would the owner entertain using a different grade of asphalt binder? The designated binder appears to be limited in regional availability. Most of the past projects that we’ve encountered in this tri‐county area from the MDOT contain PG 64‐28 asphalt binder. If the owner entertained at least an alternative pricing bid item, it might give some perspective for cost comparing.
Bid according to the solicitation documents. 1/30/2020
5 X Will the contractor be required to strip the topsoil off the edges of the roadway and replace it?
We’ve received your question and a response is forthcoming.
2/7/2020
6 X Is seeding required along the roadway edges?
We’ve received your question and a response is forthcoming.
2/7/2020
7 X Is a material transfer machine required for paving the project?
No. 2/7/2020
8 X Did you receive my questions sent on Friday (1/31/20)? Please let me know if a reply is forthcoming or not.
Yes, a response is forthcoming. 2/7/2020
9 X
A big concern that I have is with the MDOT mix that is spec’d. I am not familiar with the MDOT ever using a PG 58‐34 in their mixes. A passing Hamburg rut test is required as part of their mix design acceptance. With this softer oil, will a passing Hamburg rut test be possible?
Harder/stiffer asphalts fail on a regular basis.
Please clarify.
We’ve received your question and a response is forthcoming.
2/7/2020
10 X See Question #5 This has been addressed under Amendment A004.
2/18/2020
11 X See Question #6 This has been addressed under Amendment A004.
2/18/2020
12 X See Question #9 This has been addressed under Amendment A004.
2/18/2020
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .