1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Preliminary Design
1.11 Environmental Documentation—Class I
1.12 Environmental Documentation—Class II
1.13 Environmental Documentation—Class III
1.21 Geometric Layouts—Level 1
1.22 Geometric Layouts—Level 2
1.23 Geometric Layouts—Level 3
Highway Design
2.1 Highway Design—Level 1
2.2 Highway Design—Level 2
2.3 Highway Design—Level 3
Bridge Design
3.1 Bridge Design—Level 1
3.2 Bridge Design—Level 2
3.3 Bridge Design—Level 3
3.4 Bridge Design—Level 4
Bridge Inspection
4.1 Structural Metals Inspection
4.4 High Mast Light Towers
Environmental Studies
5.2 Air Quality Analysis
5.3 Noise Analysis & Abatement
5.41 Contaminated Property Investigation–Level I
5.42 Contaminated Property Investigation–Level II
5.51 Wetland Services–Level 1
5.52 Wetland Services–Level 2
5.53 Wetland Services–Level 3
5.6 Rare, Endangered & Threatened Species
_____Mammals _____Birds _____Fish
_____Reptiles
_____Insects _____Mollusks
_____Plants
Materials Testing
6.1 Geotechnical Studies
6.2 Highway Materials Testing
6.31 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing–Level 1
6.32 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing–Level 2
6.4 Vibration Analysis and Monitoring
6.5 Pile Load Testing
6.6 Standard Penetration Test & Rock Coring
6.7 Cone Penetration Test
6.8 Solid Stem Auger Drilling
6.9 Soils Analysis and Recommendations
6.10 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey
Transportation Planning
7.11 Planning–Class I (Statewide)
7.12 Planning–Class II (Regional & Corridor)
7.13 Planning–Class III (Transportation Data & Stats)
Right of Way Assistance
8.1 Direct Purchase
8.2 Relocation Assistance
8.3 Field Title Investigation
8.4 Title Services
8.51 R/W Appraisals–Level 1
8.52 R/W Appraisals–Level 2
8.53 R/W Appraisals–Level 3
8.54 R/W Appraisals–Level 4
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
-1–
(CSS/CM Reviewed 3/4/2011)
Land Surveys
9.11 Geodetic Surveying–Level 1
9.12 Geodetic Surveying–Level 2
9.13 Geodetic Surveying–Level 3
9.14 Geodetic Surveying–Level 4
9.2 Legal Descriptions
9.3 Right of Way Plats
9.4 Design/Location Surveys
9.5 Right-of-Way Surveys
9.6 Land Surveys
Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing
10.1 Photogrammetric Mapping
10.21 Aerial Photography–Level 1
10.22 Aerial Photography–Level 2
10.23 Remote Sensing–Level 1
10.24 Remote Sensing–Level 2
CEI/Contract Administration
11.1 CI–Grading & Base, Bituminous & Concrete
11.2 Construction Inspection–Bridge Construction
11.3 Construction Surveying
11.4 Materials Sampling & Testing–Field Sampling
11.5 Materials Samp. & Test – Plant Insp./Bituminous
11.6 Materials Samp. & Test – Plant Insp./Concrete
11.7 Construction Contract Administration & Mgmt.
11.8 Construction Project Scheduling
Cultural Resources
12.11 Archaeology Studies – Level I
12.12 Archaeology Studies – Level II
12.3 Geomorphology Studies
12.4 Architectural/History Studies
12.5 Historic Architect Services
Storm Water System Inspection
13.1 Storm Water System Inspection–Level 1
13.2 Storm Water System Inspection–Level 2
13.3 Storm Water System Inspection–Level 3
Traffic Engineering
14.1 Traffic Signal Design
14.2 Traffic Signal Operations
14.3 Roadway Lighting Design
14.4 Temporary Traffic Control Plan Design
14.61 Signing Plan Design & SP–Level 1
14.62 Signing Plan Design & SP–Level 2
14.63 Signing Plan Design & SP–Level 3
14.7 Traffic Engineering Special Studies
14.81 Freeway Modeling–Level 1
14.82 Freeway Modeling–Level 2
14.83 Freeway Modeling–Level 3
14.84 Freeway Modeling–Level 4
Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE)
15.0 Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE)
Value Engineering (VE) Study/Workshop
16.1 Value Engineering (VE) Study/Workshop
Roundabouts
17.11 Low Demand–Level 1
17.12 Low Demand–Level 2
17.21 High Demand–Level 1
17.22 High Demand–Level 2
Transportation Landscape Architecture
18.1 Transportation Landscape Architecture
PRE-QUALIFICATION ANNOUNCEMENT
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
1955-1970 Additional Historic Bridge Evaluations
Project Description:
This project will build off MnDOT’s previously completed 1955-1970 Historic Bridge studies and consist of completing
the evaluation of selected bridges from the era. The study will include:
- An evaluation of approximately 102 bridges that were inadvertently missed in the original study pool (identified as
“not evaluated” on the attached list). These bridges will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria established in the
report Final Evaluation Report and Historic Context, Minnesota Bridges, 1955-1970, by Mead and Hunt 2011.
- An expansion of the context on the development of the state highway system in Minnesota during this era and
development of criteria for registration criteria and integrity requirements for state highways. The successful
responder will conduct research, write a historic narrative and a perform a preliminary evaluation (including
identification of potential features and corridor termini) of the following highway corridors and associated bridges:
o Highway 5/100 and Highway 55 near Fort Snelling in Hennepin County
o Highway 10 from the Twin Cities to the North Dakota border
o Highway 52 from St. Paul to Rochester
o Highway 61 from Duluth to Two Harbors
o Highway 61 from St. Paul south to the Iowa border
o Highway 62 (Crosstown) in Hennepin County from Hwy 494 in Eden Prairie to Highway 55 near the
metropolitan airport
o Highway 169 from the Iowa border to Virginia.
The successful responder will expand the existing context on the state highway system to incorporate the trends and
developments identified during the research on these individual segments. If any of the corridors meet the initial
integrity assessment, the successful responder will apply the criteria for eligibility to one of the corridors, unless none
are found to be potentially significant or have sufficient integrity to warrant further work.
-
Evaluation of five bridges identified in the previous study as requiring further research. These include:
o Association with Crane Creek Watershed Project in Steele County – Bridges 74549, 74547 and 74546 carrying
field entrance roads over Crane Creek (Judicial Ditch #24)
o Association with Middle Fork Two Rivers Watershed Project in Kittson County – Bridge 92841 carrying
Township Road 267 over the Middle Branch Two Rivers
o Association with Hoyt Lake Taconite Plant in St. Louis County – Bridge 7771 carrying CSAH 110 over a channel
Meetings with MnDOT’s Cultural Resources Unit (CRU), the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the
MnDOT Bridge Office and others will be required. The final product will include a final report, inventory forms for all
evaluated properties, and GIS data.
Project Overview:
MnDOT is requesting responses for completion of select bridges built from 1955-1970, in order to effectively manage the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-delegated reviews of projects. The first phase of the 1955-1970 bridge study,
completed in June 2008, included preparation of a historic context report for bridges constructed in this era and the
development of evaluation criteria and integrity considerations to be applied to bridges. MnDOT identified 2,335 bridges
from the subject period, and during second phase, hired a consultant to evaluate the eligibility of those structures
(completed 2011). The 1,076 culverts built during this period have already been determined as not eligible for listing in
the National Register. The study found that 32 bridges were eligible and that 35 required additional work for their possible
association with highway corridor development. In addition, during the previous study, it was determined that 102 bridges
were inadvertently missed from the study pool, so this current project will include evaluation of those missed structures.
Project Goal:
The project outcome is to provide recommendations of eligibility for bridges not previously studied from the 1955-1970
era.
-2(CSS/CM Reviewed 8/2/2011)
Scope of Work and Deliverables:
Task 1: Project Management and Kick-off Meeting
Correspondence and communication for this project will be directed to State’s Project Manager. The successful responder
will communicate with MnDOT, as needed, to obtain information, address concerns, respond to inquiries, review project
status or discuss recommendations. The successful responder will submit monthly progress reports and invoices to
MnDOT. The successful responder will develop a Project Specific Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan
and submit it to MnDOT within two days of contract authorization. The successful responder and MnDOT will
participate in periodic conference calls and meetings, as needed to review progress, share information and coordinate
activities and deliverables. During this task, the successful responder will participate in a kick-off meeting with the
Minnesota SHPO, MnDOT and others, as needed. It is assumed that five in-person meetings will be required.
Task 2: Evaluation of 102 Bridges
During the previous evaluation study, 102 bridges were inadvertently missed from the study pool. The successful
responder will prepare a determination of eligibility for these 102 bridges, which are included as “not evaluated” on the
attached table. Many of the bridges in this group are skyways or pedestrian bridges over trunk highways or interstates.
The successful responder will perform additional research as needed to expand the existing context to help in the
evaluation of these types of bridges.
Information on each structure will be entered into MnDOT’s Historic Bridge Access Database, which MnDOT will
provide to the successful responder, and an inventory form will be completed for each bridge. The successful responder
will update the existing Final Evaluation Report and Historic Context, Minnesota Bridges, 1955-1970, by Mead and Hunt
2011 to reflect the results of their study. The successful responder will coordinate with the Minnesota SHPO to obtain
inventory numbers for each property. The draft inventory forms will be submitted to MnDOT’s CRU for review and
approval, and CRU will submit to the Minnesota SHPO for their review and concurrence. Once MnDOT’s CRU has made
a determination regarding the eligibility of the bridges and the Minnesota SHPO has concurred, the successful responder
can update the report.
The work for this task must be completed by June 30, 2012. The successful responder will complete a Geographic
Information System (GIS) shape file and attribute table for these bridges.
Task 3: Evaluation of 5 Bridges – Components of a Project or Development
During the previously completed study, five bridges were identified that had the potential to be associated with a larger
component of a development or project. These bridges are not individually eligible for their engineering under Criterion
C. The bridges are:
- Association with Crane Creek Watershed Project in Steele County – Bridges 74549, 74547, and 74546 carrying field
entrance roads over Crane Creek (Judicial Ditch #24)
- Association with Middle Fork Two Rivers Watershed Project in Kittson County – Bridge 92841 carrying Township
Road 267 over the Middle Branch Two Rivers
- Association with Hoyt Lake Taconite Plant in St. Louis County – Bridge 7771 carrying CSAH 110 over a channel
The successful responder will perform a full Phase II evaluation of eligibility on each of these potential districts. Work
will include archival research, context development, field investigation and evaluation of eligibility using National
Register Criteria. The successful responder will identify preliminary boundaries, major contributing elements, and if the
study bridges are contributing elements. An inventory form will be completed for each district and for the study bridges
listed above.
Information on each structure will be entered into MnDOT’s Historic Bridge Access Database, an inventory form will be
completed for each bridge and the successful responder will update the existing Final Evaluation Report and Historic
Context, Minnesota Bridges, 1955-1970, by Mead and Hunt 2011 to reflect the results of their study. The successful
responder will coordinate with the Minnesota SHPO to obtain inventory numbers for each property. The draft inventory
forms will be submitted to MnDOT’s CRU for review and approval and CRU will submit it to the Minnesota SHPO for
their review and concurrence. Once MnDOT’s CRU has made a determination regarding the eligibility of the bridges and
the Minnesota SHPO has concurred, the successful responder can update the report.
-3(CSS/CM Reviewed 8/2/2011)
The successful responder will complete a GIS shape file and attribute table for these bridges and/or the larger district.
Task 4: Highway Corridors
The successful responder will expand the historic context on the development of the state highway system in Minnesota
during this era and develop registration criteria and integrity requirements for highways developed during this era.
The successful responder will conduct research, write a historic narrative and a perform a preliminary evaluation
(including identification of potential features and corridor termini) of the following highway corridors and associated
bridges:
o Highway 5/100 and Highway 55 near Fort Snelling in Hennepin County
o Highway 10 from the Twin Cities to the North Dakota border
o Highway 52 from St. Paul to Rochester
o Highway 61 from Duluth to Two Harbors
o Highway 61 from St. Paul south to the Iowa border
o Highway 62 (Crosstown) in Hennepin County from Hwy 494 in Eden Prairie to Highway 55 near the metropolitan
airport
o Highway 169 from the Iowa border to Virginia.
The successful responder will expand the existing context on the state highway system to incorporate the trends and
developments identified during the research on these individual segments. The expanded context and narratives, draft
criteria and integrity requirements will be submitted to MnDOT’s CRU for review and approval, and MnDOT’s CRU will
forward it to the Minnesota SHPO for their review and concurrence. The successful responder will incorporate any
changes or comments from MnDOT’s CRU or the Minnesota SHPO.
If any of the corridors meet the initial integrity assessment, the successful respondent will apply the criteria for eligibility
to one of the corridors, unless none are found to be potentially significant or have sufficient integrity to warrant further
work.
Information on each bridge structure evaluated within these corridors will be entered into MnDOT’s Historic Bridge
Access Database, an inventory form will be completed for each bridge and the successful responder will update the
existing Final Evaluation Report and Historic Context, Minnesota Bridges, 1955-1970, by Mead and Hunt 2011 to reflect
the results of their study. The successful responder will coordinate with the Minnesota SHPO to obtain inventory numbers
for each property. The draft inventory forms will be submitted to MnDOT’s CRU for review and approval, and CRU will
submit it to the Minnesota SHPO for their review and concurrence. Once MnDOT’s CRU has made a determination
regarding the eligibility of the bridges and the Minnesota SHPO has concurred, the successful responder can update the
report.
The successful responder will complete a GIS shape file and attribute table for the corridor and each bridge.
Task 5: Updating Historic Context
Based on the research and context and criteria development performed under Tasks 2, 3 and 4, The successful responder
will update the existing Final Evaluation Report and Historic Context, Minnesota Bridges, 1955-1970, by Mead and Hunt
2011 to include the expanded narrative context and criteria. A draft of the updated context will be submitted to MnDOT’s
CRU for review and approval. MnDOT’s CRU will submit to the Minnesota SHPO for their review and concurrence.
The successful responder will incorporate MnDOT’s CRU and the Minnesota SHPO’s concerns in the final report.
Task 6: Completion of Not Eligible Bridge Forms from Previous Survey
The successful responder will print out MnDOT’s Bridge Office’s Structure Inventory Forms for bridges determine not
eligible in the previous study. These forms will be labeled with the Minnesota SHPO inventory number (to be provided by
the MnDOT), the words “Not Eligible” and the citation to the study report. One set of forms will be submitted to
MnDOT’s CRU, who will forward it on to the Minnesota SHPO.
This task must be completed by February 28, 2012.
-4(CSS/CM Reviewed 8/2/2011)
Task 7: Draft and Final Evaluation Report
The report will include the evaluation of bridges identified in Tasks 2, 3 and 4. The successful responder will update
Final Evaluation Report and Historic Context, Minnesota Bridges, 1955-1970, by Mead and Hunt 2011 to include
updated historic contexts and results, including the table of eligibility results. The successful responder will submit two
copies of the draft report, along with a Word file of the report, to MnDOT’s CRU, who will forward a copy to the
Minnesota SHPO for their review and concurrence. MnDOT and the Minnesota SHPO will provide comments within 30
days of receipt. MnDOT and the Minnesota SHPO comments will be addressed in the final report. Up to 20 copies of the
final report will be prepared and submitted to MnDOT, along with the Word file and the PDF of the final report. The
Access Database and GIS data will also be submitted.
Desired Skills:
Responder’s must be on MnDOT’s prequalified list for architecture/history and must be able to demonstrate experience
researching, evaluating and applying National Register criteria to bridges.
Selection Criteria:
Representatives of the MnDOT will evaluate all Letters of Interest received by the deadline. In some instances, an
interview may be part of the evaluation process. A 100-point scale will be used to create the final evaluation
recommendation.
The factors and weighting on which Letters of Interest will be judged are:
Expressed understanding of project objective and capability to meet project schedule
Work plan outline and Project Approach
Qualification and Experience of personnel working on the project
Qualifications and Experience of company
25%
30%
35%
10%
Interested Responders:
In order to submit a Letter of Interest, responders must be pre-qualified at the time this Announcement is made available.
This project has its own “Official Pre-Qualified Consultant List” that indicates the responders that are eligible to submit
for this specific project.**
**Please note: If responders are not pre-qualified for all work types needed for a project, they must make arrangements to
subcontract with firms that are pre-qualified for those work types. If applicable, the responder must identify, in the letter
of interest, their subcontractor and which work type the subcontractor will be completing.
If there are no firms listed on the “Official Pre-Qualified Consultant List” for an identified work type(s), the responder
may provide the work themselves or they may subcontract with any firm they choose.
All Letters of Interest must be mailed (United States Postal Service), expressed (UPS, FedEx or other similar express
carrier) or dropped off to the attention of:
Ashley Duran, Contract Administrator
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Consultant Services Section, Mail Stop 680
395 John Ireland Boulevard
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1800
All responses must be received no later 2:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time on Monday, October 24, 2011. Please note that
MnDOT Offices do not allow non-MnDOT employees to have access to the elevators or the stairs. You should plan
enough time and follow these instructions for drop-off:
 Enter through the Rice Street side of the Central Office building (1st Floor).
 Once you enter through the doors, you should walk straight ahead to the Information Desk.
 Letters of Interest are accepted at the Information Desk only. The receptionist will call the Contract Administrator
to come down and to time stamp the response.
-5(CSS/CM Reviewed 8/2/2011)
Questions
Pre-qualified prospective responders who have any questions regarding this request for Letter of Interest must submit
questions by e-mail to:
Ashley Duran, Contract Administrator
ashley.duran@state.mn.us
All questions and answers will be posted on MnDOT’s Consultant Services Web Page at www.dot.state.mn.us/consult
under the “P/T Notices” Section. All pre-qualified responders are responsible for checking the web page for any
addendums to this Announcement and any questions that have been answered.
Questions regarding this Announcement must be received by MnDOT no later than 2:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time on
Tuesday, October 18, 2011.
MnDOT anticipates posting answers to all questions received by 2:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time on Wednesday,
October 19, 2011.
No other MnDOT personnel are allowed to discuss this Announcement, before the Letter of Interest submission deadline.
Contact regarding this Announcement with any personnel not listed above could result in disqualification.
Late Letters of Interest will not be considered. Fax and e-mail responses will not be considered. Responses to this
Announcement will be open for public review only in accordance with Minnesota Statutes §13.591.
MnDOT Not Obligated To Complete Project
This request for Letters of Interest does not obligate MnDOT to award a Contract or complete the project, and MnDOT
reserves the right to cancel the solicitation if it is considered to be in its best interest.
Disposition of Responses
The Letter of Interest will become property of MnDOT and will become public record after the evaluation process is
completed and the Contract is executed.
Organizational Conflicts of Interest
Responders must complete the attached “Conflict of Interest Checklist and Disclosure Form” and submit it along with the
response.
Soliciting proposals by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)
The MnDOT Office of Civil Rights has assigned a Race/Gender Neutral Goal to this project. Responders are directed to
read the DBE Special Provisions, as posted along with this announcement at www.dot.state.mn.us/consult/ under the “P/T
Notices” section. The DBE Special Provisions explains how to comply with the DBE requirements. In particular, see
pages one and two regarding documents that a responder must submit with its response. The form required in the response
can be found on page 3 of the Special Provisions. To view a listing of certified DBE’s, please contact the MnDOT Office
of Civil Rights at 651-366-3073, TTY 651-282-5799, or visit their website at www.dot.state.mn.us/eeocm.
E-Verify Certification (In accordance with Minn. Stat. §16C.075)
By submission of a proposal for services in excess of $50,000, The successful responder certifies that as of the date of
services performed on behalf of the State, The successful responder and all its subcontractors will have implemented or be
in the process of implementing the federal E-Verify program for all newly hired employees in the United States who will
perform work on behalf of the State. In the event of contract award, The successful responder shall be responsible for
collecting all subcontractor certifications and may do so utilizing the E-Verify Subcontractor Certification Form available
at http://www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us/doc/EverifySubCertForm.doc. All subcontractor certifications must be kept on file
with The successful responder and made available to the State upon request.
-6(CSS/CM Reviewed 8/2/2011)
Early Retirement Incentive Reemployment Prohibition
Laws of Minnesota 2010, Chapter 337, Subdivision 5, provided an early retirement incentive to some State of
Minnesota employees. The law provides that an individual who received an early retirement incentive payment may
not be hired as a consultant by any agency or entity that participates in the State Employee Group Insurance
Program for a period of three years after termination of service. By submitting a response under this announcement,
the responder certifies that it will not utilize any former state employee in the performance of a contract who
received an retirement incentive payment under Laws of Minnesota 2010, Chapter 337, unless three years have
passed from the date of the employee’s separation from state service.
Letter of Interest Format
The Letter of Interest must follow the format below and must not exceed five, single-sided pages, with no smaller than 11
point font. If a responders Letter of Interest exceeds five pages, any pages following the fifth (regardless of what content
those pages include) will be removed from the Letter of Interest (Note: the “Location of Service Disclosure and
Certification Form”, the “Conflict of Interest Checklist and Disclosure Form” and the “Immigration Status Certification
Form” will not be included as part of the five page limit):
1. Responder’s company name, business address, the contact person’s name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail
address.
2. Confirm that the responder, and if applicable, its subcontractors are pre-qualified for the above listed work type(s).
3. List the key personnel that would be assigned to the project and what roles and responsibilities they will have.
4. List the current projects/workload for the proposed key personnel and the expected completion dates of those projects.
For each key personnel, indicate the percentage of their time allocated to those current projects and the percentage of
their time available to work on this project.
5. Provide a statement that demonstrates responders understanding of project.
6. Provide a work plan outline and Project Approach and affirm the responder’s ability to provide the services within the
identified time frame.
7. Provide any other information, not included in the submitted Pre-Qualification Packet, which would be relevant to this
project and assist MnDOT in making a selection.
8. Submit all required forms.
9. Provide the following statement and signature:
I hereby certify that I am a duly authorized representative of the Company and that the information contained within this
Letter of Interest is current, true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I hereby authorize and request any person,
agency or firm to furnish any pertinent information requested by MnDOT deemed necessary to verify the statements made
in this application.
(Signature)
(Title)
(Date)
-7(CSS/CM Reviewed 8/2/2011)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECKLIST AND DISCLOSURE FORM
Purpose of this Checklist. This checklist is provided to assist proposers in screening for potential organizational conflicts
of interest. The checklist is for the internal use of proposers and does not need to be submitted to MnDOT, however, the
Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest form should be submitted in a separate envelope along with your response.
Definition of “Proposer”. As used herein, the word “Proposer” includes both the prime the successful responder and all
proposed subcontractors.
Checklist is Not Exclusive. Please note that this checklist serves as a guide only, and that there may be additional
potential conflict situations not covered by this checklist. If a proposer determines a potential conflict of interest exists
that is not covered by this checklist, that potential conflict must still be disclosed.
Use of the Disclosure Form. A proposer must complete the attached disclosure form and submit it with their Response
(or separately as directed by MnDOT for projects not awarded through a competitive solicitation). If a proposer
determines a potential conflict of interest exists, it must disclose the potential conflict to MnDOT; however, such a
disclosure will not necessarily disqualify a proposer from being awarded a Contract. To avoid any unfair “taint” of the
selection process, the disclosure form should be provided separate from the bound response, and it will not be provided to
selection committee members. MnDOT Contract Management personnel will review the disclosure and the
appropriateness of the proposed mitigation measures to determine if the proposer may be awarded the contract
notwithstanding the potential conflict. MnDOT Contract Management personnel may consult with MnDOT’s Project
Manager and Department of Administration personnel. By statute, resolution of conflict of interest issues is ultimately at
the sole discretion of the Commissioner of Administration.
Material Representation. The proposer is required to submit the attached disclosure form either declaring, to the best of
its knowledge and belief, either that no potential conflict exists, or identifying potential conflicts and proposing remedial
measures to ameliorate such conflict. The proposer must also update conflict information if such information changes
after the submission of the response. Information provided on the form will constitute a material representation as to the
award of this Contract. MnDOT reserves the right to cancel or amend the resulting contract if the successful proposer
failed to disclose a potential conflict, which it knew or should have known about, or if the proposer provided information
on the disclosure form that is materially false or misleading.
Approach to Reviewing Potential Conflicts. MnDOT recognizes that proposer’s must maintain business relations with
other public and private sector entities in order to continue as viable businesses. MnDOT will take this reality into account
as it evaluates the appropriateness of proposed measures to mitigate potential conflicts. It is not MnDOT’s intent to
disqualify proposers based merely on the existence of a business relationship with another entity, but rather only when
such relationship causes a conflict that potentially impairs the proposer’s ability to provide objective advice to MnDOT.
MnDOT would seek to disqualify proposers only in those cases where a potential conflict cannot be adequately mitigated.
Nevertheless, MnDOT must follow statutory guidance on Organizational Conflicts of Interest.
Statutory Guidance. Minnesota Statutes §16C.02, subd. 10 (a) places limits on state agencies ability to contract with
entities having an “Organizational Conflict of Interest”. For purposes of this checklist and disclosure requirement, the
term “Vendor” includes “Proposer” as defined above. Pursuant to such statute, “Organizational Conflict of Interest”
means that because of existing or planned activities or because of relationships with other persons: (1) the vendor is
unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the state; (2) the vendor’s objectivity in performing
the contract work is or might otherwise be impaired; or (3) the vendor has an unfair advantage.
Additional Guidance for Professionals Licensed by the Minnesota Board of Engineering. The Minnesota Board of
Engineering has established conflict of interest rules applicable to those professionals licensed by the Board (see
Minnesota Rules part 1805.0300) Subpart 1 of the rule provides “A licensee shall avoid accepting a commission where
duty to the client or the public would conflict with the personal interest of the licensee or the interest of another client.
Prior to accepting such employment the licensee shall disclose to a prospective client such facts as may give rise to a
conflict of interest”.
-8(CSS/CM Reviewed 8/2/2011)
An organizational conflict of interest may exist in any of the following cases:

The proposer, or its principals, own real property in a location where there may be a positive or adverse impact on the
value of such property based on the recommendations, designs, appraisals, or other deliverables required by this
Contract.

The proposer is providing services to another governmental or private entity and the proposer knows or has reason to
believe, that entity’s interests are, or may be, adverse to the state’s interests with respect to the specific project
covered by this contract. Comment: the mere existence of a business relationship with another entity would not
ordinarily need to be disclosed. Rather, this focuses on the nature of services commissioned by the other entity. For
example, it would not be appropriate to propose on a MnDOT project if a local government has also retained the
proposer for the purpose of persuading MnDOT to stop or alter the project plans.

The Contract is for right-of-way acquisition services or related services (e.g. geotechnical exploration) and the
proposer has an existing business relationship with a governmental or private entity that owns property to be acquired
pursuant to the Contract.

The proposer is providing real estate or design services to a private entity, including but not limited to developers,
whom the proposer knows or has good reason to believe, own or are planning to purchase property affected by the
project covered by this Contract, when the value or potential uses of such property may be affected by the proposer’s
performance of work pursuant to this Contract. “Property affected by the project” includes property that is in, adjacent
to, or in reasonable proximity to current or potential right-of-way for the project. The value or potential uses of the
private entity’s property may be affected by the proposer’s work pursuant to the Contract when such work involves
providing recommendations for right-of-way acquisition, access control, and the design or location of frontage roads
and interchanges. Comment: this provision does not presume proposers know or have a duty to inquire as to all of the
business objectives of their clients. Rather, it seeks the disclosure of information regarding cases where the proposer
has reason to believe that its performance of work under this contract may materially affect the value or viability of a
project it is performing for the other entity.

The proposer has a business arrangement with a current MnDOT employee or immediate family member of such
employee, including promised future employment of such person, or a subcontracting arrangement with such person,
when such arrangement is contingent on the proposer being awarded this Contract. This item does not apply to preexisting employment of current or former MnDOT employees, or their immediate family members. Comment: this
provision is not intended to supercede any MnDOT policies applicable to its own employees accepting outside
employment. This provision is intended to focus on identifying situations where promises of employment have been
made contingent on the outcome of this particular procurement. It is intended to avoid a situation where a proposer
may have unfair access to “inside” information.

The proposer has, in previous work for the state, been given access to “data” relevant to this procurement or this
project that is classified as “private” or “nonpublic” under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and such
data potentially provides the proposer with an unfair advantage in preparing a response for this project. Comment:
this provision will not, for example, necessarily disqualify a proposer who performed some preliminary work from
obtaining a final design Contract, especially when the results of such previous work are public data available to all
other proposers. Rather, it attempts to avoid an “unfair advantage” when such information cannot be provided to other
potential proposers. Definitions of “government data”, “public data”, “non-public data” and “private data” can be
found in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.

The proposer has, in previous work for the state, helped create the “ground rules” for this solicitation by performing
work such as: writing this solicitation, or preparing evaluation criteria or evaluation guides for this solicitation.

The proposer, or any of its principals, because of any current or planned business arrangement, investment interest, or
ownership interest in any other business, may be unable to provide objective advice to the state.
-9(CSS/CM Reviewed 8/2/2011)
DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Having had the opportunity to review the Organizational Conflict of Interest Checklist, the proposer hereby indicates that
it has, to the best of its knowledge and belief:
____
Determined that no potential organizational conflict of interest exists.
____
Determined a potential organizational conflict of interest as follows:
Describe nature of potential conflict:
Describe measures proposed to mitigate the potential conflict:
______________
Date
Signature
If a potential conflict has been identified, please provide name and phone number for a contact person authorized to
discuss this disclosure form with MnDOT contract personnel.
______________
Phone
Name
- 10 (CSS/CM Reviewed 8/2/2011)