2027-2030-Bridge Studies Term Contract

2701 Prospect PO Box 201001
Larry Flynn, Director Helena MT 59620-1001
Date: October 6, 2026
Subject: Request for Proposals
Bridge Studies Term Contract (2027-2030)
To Whom It May Concern:
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) is accepting proposals from consulting firms
interested in a term contract for performing bridge studies, vehicle weight analysis (VWA), and
other vehicle analysis at various locations throughout Montana.
MDT intends to establish a term contract to utilize consultants on an "as-needed" basis for the
work described herein. At this time, the intention is to award one (1) agreement that will be
approximately $2,500,000 for a four-year period from January 2027 through December 2030.
MDT reserves the right to revise the number of term contracts, the contract values, or contract
timeframes, depending on the responses received. Extension(s) of contracts, by mutual
agreement of both parties, may be made at one (1) year intervals, or any interval that is
advantageous to MDT. Contracts, including any renewals, may not exceed a total of five (5)
years.
Teams may be established as necessary; however, it is expected that the prime consultant will be
capable of completing the vast majority of the work. As a rule, the prime consultant must
complete at least 50% of the work for a specific task assignment unless written exception is
given.
Montana professional engineering licensure is required for this work and must be in-hand at the
time your proposal is submitted. If this requirement is not met and clearly identified in the
proposal, your proposal will be considered non-responsive.
If your firm is interested, please submit a proposal as described herein.
Consultant Design Bureau Engineering Division
Phone: (406) 444-6209 An Equal Opportunity Employer TTY: (800) 335-7592
Fax: (406) 444-6253 Web Page: www.mdt.mt.gov

SCOPE OF WORK
1. General
A. The consultant will provide the necessary personnel, software, equipment, and
expertise to perform load rating of bridges along designated routes for
overweight permit loads (bridge studies) within the Electronic Transportation
Routing and Intra/Interstate Permitting System (eTRIPS) using MDT's
existing load rating models and the latest version of the AASHTOWare
Bridge Rating (BrR) program.
B. Bridge studies are extremely time sensitive, requiring rapid evaluation,
concise communication, and appropriate consultant staff availability to
provide quick turnaround and excellent customer service to motor vehicle
haulers across the State of Montana.
C. The consultant will apply the necessary knowledge and engineering
judgement to appropriately adjust rating factors to accurately reflect the
vehicle configuration (axle width, number of tires, etc.), bridge conditions,
and the travel conditions issued in Montana for overweight permit loads (No
Condition, 10 MPH Remain in Travel Lane, and 10 MPH Solo Centerline
Bridge).
a. Additionally, the consultant, utilizing safe and conservative
assumptions, should be able to quickly identify if structures have
excess capacity to help expedite bridge study turnaround time.
D. The consultant will evaluate maximum statewide vehicle weights for various
axle configurations (VWAs) utilizing preexisting equations, rules, and
historical precedent in Montana, in addition to actual structure conditions.
a. The consultant should be able to identify the structures most likely to
be overloaded by a given VWA configuration for evaluation.
E. The consultant will work with MDT's Motor Carrier Services (MCS) Division
with the supervision of the MDT Bridge Department to complete any
additional structural reviews needed for MCS vehicle permitting.
F. The consultant may be asked to evaluate and create bridge study specific BrR
models for critical structures to determine maximum capacities under typical
overweight travel conditions to aid in future bridge studies.
G. Additional evaluations of vehicle loads under varying travel conditions may
be requested for structural review on an as-needed basis.
2. Personnel
All load rating activities will be completed under the direction of a professional
engineer licensed in the State of Montana.
3. Coordination and Scheduling
A. The timeline from each bridge study assignment to completion of
evaluation and response to MDT of approval or denial with all supporting
documentation is typically expected within 3-5 business days.
Page 2 of 10

B. If a bridge study is anticipated to require more than 5 business days, an
extension request is required to be submitted to the MDT term assignment
manager within 2 business days with a time estimate for completion.
C. VWAs are preferred to be completed within a 5-business day timeline but
take lower precedence than bridge studies.
D. The timeline for other evaluations will be determined at the time of
assignment.
4. Quality Control Plan
Provide a copy of the quality control plan to be used during analysis to ensure
consistent and accurate evaluations.
5. Bridge Load Rating
A. All bridges will be load rated in accordance with the most current version
of Chapter 8 - Load Rating and Posting of the MDT Bridge Inspection and
Rating Manual, the latest version of the AASHTO Manual for Bridge
Evaluation, the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges
17th Edition (2002), and the latest version of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications.
B. The types of bridges to be load rated are variable.
6. Software Provided by MDT
A. The AASHTOWare BrR bridge files will be made available to the
consultant.
B. Bridge Inspection Data will be available through AASHTOWare BrM.
C. ProMiles eTRIPS contains data for bridge studies and VWAs; consultants
will be given access to and accounts within ProMiles eTRIPS.
7. Documentation
For each analysis, the consultant will submit to MDT the following:
1) Approval or denial of the bridge study load is done through the
eTRIPS system.
a) For approvals, the appropriate travel restrictions must be
clearly denoted in eTRIPS.
b) For denials, a brief description of the controlling
structure/route must be noted.
2) Documentation supporting the analysis following MDT's 2026 (or
most current version) Permitting Documentation Guidance Memo
(attached).
3) Monthly submittal of documentation to MDT is required.
Information may be requested by MDT at any time.
Page 3 of 10

LOCATION
Various - Statewide
PROJECT/TASK SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES
The project schedule will be developed and negotiated separately for each individual term/task
assignment. At this time, it is anticipated that deliverables will generally follow those described
in MDT's Consultant Activity Descriptions (as applicable):
http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/cdb/ACTIVITY_DESCRIPTIONS/CONSULTA
NT_DESIGN_2500_MU.PDF
STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND POLICIES
Work is expected to follow MDT's various Manuals, Guides, and Policies. These items may be
found on MDT's Design Consulting web page at: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/business/consulting/.
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
Submit one (1) electronic version (Adobe(C) PDF format) of the proposal. Hard copy
proposals will not be accepted.
Submit the electronic version by uploading to the State of Montana File Transfer Service (FTS)
site, which can be accessed at this link: https://transfer.mt.gov. To upload to FTS, an account
must be created unless the person who is uploading already has an account. Uploading
instructions can be accessed at https://transfer.mt.gov/Home/Instructions. When your proposal
has been uploaded, the FTS system will prompt you for an email address to send to. Please send
this email of your uploaded proposal to the following individuals:
Sheryl Tangen: stangen@mt.gov
Kelly Williams: kwilliams@mt.gov
Shannon Gilskey: sgilskey@mt.gov
The Department must receive the proposals for this RFP no later than 3:00 PM MST,
November 4, 2026.
Regardless of cause, late proposals will not be accepted and will automatically be disqualified
from further consideration. It shall be solely the vendor's responsibility to assure delivery at the
specified office by the specified time. Offeror may request the State return late proposals at
vendor's expense or the State will dispose of late proposals if requested by the offeror. (See
Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 2.5.509.). If no request is made, late proposals become
the property of the Department. All proposals submitted on time become the property of the
Department.
The costs for developing and delivering responses to this solicitation are entirely the
responsibility of the offeror. The State is not liable for any expense incurred by the offeror in the
preparation and presentation of this submittal.
Page 4 of 10

TENTATIVE RFP/SELECTION SCHEDULE
The anticipated schedule for consultant solicitation and selection for this contract is as follows
(subject to change):
October 6, 2026: RFP released
November 4, 2026: Proposals due to be submitted to MDT Consultant Design
November 23, 2026: Proposals reviewed, rated, and ranked by the evaluation committee
December 2, 2026: Consultant Selection Board meeting to select consultant(s)
There are three (3) members on the evaluation committee for this RFP (subject to change):
1. MDT Bridge Bureau Inspection Quality Assurance Engineer
2. MDT Bridge Bureau Management Engineering Specialist
3. MDT Motor Carrier Services Division Project Coordinator
PROPOSAL CONTENTS
The proposal must contain the information listed in this section. The proposal is limited to ten
(10) pages, not including the required Appendices. A single cover jacket/title page is allowed if
desired and will not count in the page limit. Each page is defined as one side of a letter size sheet
(no larger than 8 12" x 11"), minimum font size of 10 (any information that is not font size 10 or
larger will not be evaluated or considered for scoring purposes, including tables, charts, etc.).
Evaluation of information will begin with the first page immediately following the cover
jacket/title page, and every page will be counted, in order, from that point forward, including any
table of contents or divider pages the firm wishes to include. Once the page limit is reached, any
information included thereafter will be removed and not considered or scored. Please organize
your proposal in the same order and numbering format as shown below, which will assist MDT
in reviewing your proposal:
Questions
1) Team Qualifications
Provide a discussion on how the team you propose to use for this contract (including
subconsultants, if used) is best qualified to respond to the requirements of this contract.
Discussion should focus on the requirements for this specific contract, particularly your
team's expertise and experience, as it relates to the work described in the "Scope of
Work" section above. Provide examples of previous related experience as it relates to
these services. Identify professional licensure of staff that satisfy the requirements for this
contract. Include an organization chart that indicates the staff identified for this contract,
their area of expertise, registration, and office location(s). Also briefly discuss your
compatibility of systems, software, and equipment (i.e. CADD software, word processing
software, etc.), and experience with these systems, software, and equipment. The
Department's standard design software is Autodesk(R) technology included in the
Architecture, Engineering & Construction (AEC) Collection. Describe any special
equipment or software you intend to use. Resumes may be considered as supporting
documentation to verify / supplement the qualifications described in the proposal.
However, scoring will be based solely on the narrative response included in the Team
Qualifications section of the proposal.
Page 5 of 10

2) Approach to Task Assignments
Transportation work has many challenging aspects, and the development and delivery of
a successful work product that addresses and mitigates specific challenges is of utmost
interest to MDT. Discuss the challenges you foresee as they relate to this type of work,
your strategy for addressing these challenges, and your specific experience in
implementing the strategies identified. Describe your quality assurance/quality control
process. Provide a discussion on your overall strategy for delivering work in a timely
manner, including fast-tracked or emergency tasks and changing priorities.
Appendix A: Resumes
Include brief resumes for the key personnel to be assigned to the contract. Resumes are
limited to one (1) page per person.
Appendix B: Cover Page Form
Include a completed version of MDT's standard cover page form, available at the following
location:
http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/cdb/MDT-CDB-002-Proposal-SOQ-Cover-Sheet.pdf
Information presented in the cover page form will not be considered in proposal scoring.
Appendix C: References
Submit references that includes a minimum of five (5) separate contracts from the past
three (3) years. If applicable, you may submit multiple contracts for a single client. Each
contract must pertain to work similar to the proposed scope of services. Include client
name, a currently employed primary contact person, an alternative contact person,
corresponding valid phone numbers and emails for both contacts, a range of contract value,
and a brief description of the work performed. If MDT needs to use these references for the
Past Performance Score (as described in the "Evaluation of Proposals" section below) and
is unable to contact the required number of references after a reasonable effort, the firm
will receive a zero for the missing reference(s).
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the following factors:
1) Team Qualifications (100 points possible)
2) Approach to Task Assignments (50 points possible)
3) Record of past performance (30 points possible)
a) If two (2) or more MDT evaluations specific to the discipline for this contract are
available for the consultant, the average score of these evaluations will be used.
Evaluations for Project Management & Overall Performance will also be included.
b) If fewer than two (2) MDT evaluations specific to the discipline for this contract are
available for the consultant, but there are two (2) or more MDT evaluations are
available for other work disciplines, the consultant's current overall past performance
score from MDT evaluations will be used.
c) If there is only one (1) MDT evaluation available for the consultant, the record of past
performance score will be an average of the MDT evaluation and one (1) reference
check from the references provided in the unbound attachment.
Page 6 of 10

d) If no MDT evaluations are available, the average score of two (2) reference checks
from the references provided in the unbound attachment will be used for this score.
Regardless of partnership/teaming relationships, the past performance of the prime
consultant will be the past performance scored that will be used for this score.
All Proposals will be evaluated using the following basic scoring methodology:
Outstanding/Exceptional response: 90-100% of the available points
o
Good response: 70-90% of the available points
o
Average response: 50-70% of the available points
o
Poor response: 30-50% of the available points
o
Qualifications not clearly met: 0-30% of the available points
o
Following the review, evaluation, and rating of all proposals, the final results will be presented to
the Consultant Selection Board (Board) at the MDT Headquarters Building. At this time, the
Board will select the most qualified firm(s) for TERM CONTRACT(S). The Board may consider
any proposal scoring within 2% of another proposal as equally qualified and take into account its
knowledge of the firms' workload, past performance, and familiarity with the specific work to be
performed in selecting the most-qualified consultant(s).
SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS FOR TASK ASSIGNMENTS
If multiple consultants are selected and multiple term contracts are awarded, task or work orders
(term assignments) will be awarded through an additional qualifications-based selection
procedure. This selection procedure will be comprised of selecting a firm in accordance with the
following weighted factors:
1) Qualifications for specific Task Assignment (60 points possible)
a) Using the proposals submitted in response to this RFP and work performed with
MDT since the submittal of this proposal: an evaluation of the consultant's
qualifications as related to the specific knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the
individual task assignment, including familiarity with the region in which the task
assignment is located. Firm office location is not the determining factor for this score.
(50 points possible)
b) As relating to this type of work, the firm's current workload and amount of recent
work with MDT. (10 points possible)
INDIRECT COST RATE REQUIREMENTS
Proof of the firm's Indirect Cost Rate (overhead rate) is not required with this proposal
submittal. However, an Indirect Cost Rate may be required prior to executing a contract
according to MDT's Indirect Cost Rate Requirements:
All submitted indirect cost rates must be calculated in accordance with 23 CFR 172 for the cost
principles of 48 CFR part 31 and include the required items identified in the MDT Indirect Cost
Rate Policy located in Appendix A of the Consultant Services Manual on the MDT Internet
website.
http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/cdb/consultant_manual/consultant-design-
manual_combined.pdf
Page 7 of 10

Do not show any actual numerical financial information such as the overhead rate or
personnel rates within your proposal. Specific cost information of the firm or team should not
be part of the proposal.
COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
This contract will be administered utilizing the specific rates of compensation payment method.
Upon selection, certain financial information from the selected consultant will be required as part
of the contract agreement, including the specific rates of compensation for each staff member
that will perform work for the term assignment. Rates may be developed by the individual or by
job classification. Each rate is built by assembling the known and documented actual elements
of Direct Salary + Indirect Cost Rate + Fee into an agreed upon hourly rate. Overtime is
compensable, so long as it is in accordance with consultant's policies, as well as state and federal
regulations.
The contract will have a negotiated cost ceiling to ensure cost control. The cost ceiling does not
ensure or imply that the consultant is entitled to that entire amount. Actual incurred hours at the
specific rates of compensation agreed to and allowable direct costs are compensable. All
individuals working on the specific assignment must be listed in the term assignment proposal
with an established specific rate of compensation; specific rates of compensation will be agreed
to at the term assignment level. If additional staff are proposed to work on the term assignment,
prior authorization of the individual, (submission of their resume and their requested specific rate
of compensation) is required. MDT approval of the addition of the consultant staff at an
established specific rate of compensation will be made to the consultant in writing.
Direct travel costs in accordance with GSA rates and rules are compensable.
All costs must be in accordance with 23 CFR 172, 48 CFR part 31, and other federal and state
regulations as applicable.
Do not show any actual numerical financial information such as personnel rates within your
proposal. Specific cost information of the firm or team should not be part of the proposal.
AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The contract agreement(s) will be administered on a specific rates of compensation basis. The
term contract and term assignments will have negotiated cost ceilings. If a consultant is selected
for a specific contract and a contract agreement is successfully negotiated, certain financial
information may be required as part of the contract agreement. As described in the Indirect Cost
Rate Requirements section above, Consultants and subconsultants may be asked to provide the
Department with an Indirect Cost Rate (as applicable) audited (when applicable) in accordance
with 23 CFR 172 for the cost principles of 48 CFR Part 31 and based on the firm's latest
completed fiscal year's costs. Personnel rates, profit, and direct expenses must be clearly
outlined and provided to the Department. The standard MDT agreement can be found at the
following address:
Page 8 of 10

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/cdb/forms/pdf/General-Terms-and-Conditions.pdf
Do not submit actual numerical financial information within this proposal.
STATE OPTION TO AWARD
While the State has every intention to award a contract resulting from this RFP, issuance of the
RFP in no way constitutes a commitment by the State to award and execute a contract. Upon a
determination such actions would be in its best interest, the State, in its sole discretion, reserves
the right to:
* Cancel or terminate this RFP (18-4-307, MCA);
* Reject any or all proposals received in response to this RFP (ARM 2.5.602);
* Waive any undesirable, inconsequential, or inconsistent provisions of this RFP that would
not have significant impact on any proposal (ARM 2.5.505);
* Not award a contract, if it is in the State's best interest not to proceed with contract
execution (ARM 2.5.602); or
* If awarded, terminate any contract if the State determines adequate funds are not available
(18-4-313, MCA).
SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT
From the date this solicitation is issued until the consultant selection is finalized by MDT at the
Consultant Selection Board meeting, offerors are not allowed to communicate with any state
staff or officials regarding this solicitation, except at the direction of the Consultant Design
Engineer. If unauthorized contact is made and the Consultant Design Engineer determines the
context of the contact gives the firm an unfair advantage, the firm will be disqualified from the
solicitation. Contact information for the single point of contact is as follows:
Kelly Williams
Consultant Design Engineer
Montana Department of Transportation
(406) 444-7964 (Direct Line)
kwilliams@mt.gov
DBE GOALS
There are no DBE goals for this work, but firms are strongly encouraged to utilize DBE firms if
applicable. A Montana certified DBE list is available and can be found on the MDT web page,
http://www.mdt.mt.gov/business/contracting/civil/dbe.shtml.
NONDISCRIMINATION COMPLIANCE
Consultants will be subject to Federal and Montana nondiscrimination laws and regulations (see
attached notice titled "MDT NONDISCRIMINATION AND DISABILITY
ACCOMMODATION NOTICE").
Page 9 of 10

If you have any questions, please contact me at (406) 444-7964, or by email at
kwilliams@mt.gov. I look forward to receiving your proposal.
Sincerely,
Kelly Williams
Kelly Williams, P.E.
Consultant Design Engineer
Attachment
e-copies:
Mary Erchul, ACEC Executive Director-MT Chapter David McKay, MDT Consultant Plans Engineer
Dustin Rouse, MDT Chief Engineer Roy Peterson, MDT TA Engineer
Ryan Dahlke, MDT Preconstruction Engineer MDT Consultant Design Bureau file
Dave Holien, MDT Highways Engineer Andy Cullison, MDT Bridge Engineering Manager
Erika Wimmer, MDT Civil Rights Bureau Chief Kaci Johnson, MDT Motor Carrier Services Project Coordinator
Page 10 of 10