Maryland Portal Home
Click here for Accessible Site Navigation
Business Center
Projects & Studies
Commuter & Travel
Safety Programs
Environment & Community
Info Center

Contractors Information Center

Welcome to the MDOT State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) Contractors Information Center (CIC) Web Site. MDOT SHA advertises and awards construction and maintenance contracts for the state highway system. This web site is designed to provide contractors with information on highway construction projects, it is not to be used as a substitute for the current bidding process. If you would like to find out more about the bidding process see the How to Bid section of the site. If you require additional information related to advertised contracts, bids or proposals please contact us at call 410-545-8840 or email us at for questions regarding MDOT’s implementation of the Bid Express system.  If you require assistance related to other topics, please consult Contact Us for the appropriate contact email addresses.



CONTRACTORS....Update your company's vendor information for MDOT SHA'S Engineer's Estimate and Construction Contract System AASHTO'S TRNS*PORT!

New! You can now view MDOT SHA Bid Openings digitally.



E-Bid Update (December 29, 2017): In accordance with the joint agreement between American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) about the implementation of the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) has revised few standards listed in the Book of Standards for Highway and Incidental Structures. The following standards are revised: MD 605.23, MD 605.26, MD 605.27, MD 605.28, MD 605.28-01, MD 605.31 and MD 605.32. These revised standards pertain to w-beam traffic barriers and are available online. These standards apply to all projects that are let (i.e., bid open) after December 31, 2017. Prospective bidders are to take notice of this revision.

E-Bid Update (December 08, 2017): There are three situations when a bidder MUST re-attach ALL the attachment files when resubmitting a bid:

  • MDOT SHA postpones a proposal to a different letting date;
  • MDOT SHA postpones a proposal and then re-uploads the proposal to the same letting where it was originally uploaded; or
  • MDOT SHA withdraws a proposal and then reposts that proposal to the same letting where it was originally uploaded.
Re-attaching attachments means navigating to EVERY attachment location in the ".ebsx file" and re-selecting the attachment using the 'Browse' button, prior to re-submission.

E-Bid Update (August 29, 2017): For all highway improvement and highway maintenance projects advertised henceforth the Maryland Department of Transportation's State Highway Administration will accept only electronic bids. The bid needs to be submitted at Paper bids will not be accepted. Instructions on electronic bidding are available here.

eMaryland Marketplace

Since August 4, 2015, MDOT SHA has been posting project links for eMaryland Marketplace (eMM) on the Contractors Information Center (CIC) project page. This option makes it easier for contractors to find the project information on eMM. As of March 15, 2016 MDOT SHA will not post the actual pre-bid documents for the advertisements, addenda and project quantities on the CIC. These documents will be found on eMM for each project link provided. The last addendum with revised quantities will have the all-inclusive list of items in the contract, if applicable.


Click to view eMM - MDOT SHA Contracts and Bids' Plan Holders List (log in required)


For additional information on Contract Number (AW8965170) Click here

Contractor's Inquiry Responses

Contract No.AW8965170

Inq. 14Post Date:   11/10/2015Inquiry Date:   11/9/2015
 Q. By eliminating the $4,000,000 life cycle cost difference, competition will be extremely limited on this project. Would the department consider any sort of alternate criteria to even the playing field between concrete vs. asphalt?
 A. The prospective Design-Builder Teams may utilize the concrete or asphalt pavement sections to be provided by the Administration or may propose an alternative section that is equal to or better than the proposed sections. It is highly recommended, but not required, that an alternative section be submitted as Alternative Technical Concept for review and approval prior to submission of Price Proposals.
Inq. 13Post Date:   11/10/2015Inquiry Date:   11/9/2015
 Q. As a follow up question to the Q&A posted on 11/5/2015, there is a significant life cycle savings to utilize concrete vs. asphalt paving, and past experience has proven that a fast paced project can be successfully completed with concrete paving. Would the Administration consider adjusting the proposal scoring criteria, pricing criteria, or any other consideration for the use of concrete paving?
 A. No, the Administration will not be including a technical evaluation factor or any price adjustment specifically for concrete pavement.
Inq. 12Post Date:   11/10/2015Inquiry Date:   11/9/2015
 Q. Will the list of contractors who submitted a Letter of Interest (LOI) be made public prior to Statement of Qualification (SOQ) submission?
 A. No. COMAR G(2) does not allow the Administration to disclose the identity of an offeror before the procurement officer makes a determination recommending the award of the contract.
Inq. 11Post Date:   11/10/2015Inquiry Date:   11/9/2015
 Q. In Maryland procurements, certain express "preferences" are allowed related to disadvantaged individuals, small businesses, minority businesses, veteran-owned businesses, and other specific purchasing preferences. On page 5 of the RFQ it states: "The total aggregate amount of the price proposal will be increased by $4,000,000 if asphalt pavement is utilize for the new roadway. No increase will be applied to the price proposal if concrete pavement is utilized for the new roadway." "Concrete pavement" does not appear to be a "preference" identified in Maryland. In addition, COMAR states that, "It is the policy of the State that specifications be written so as to permit maximum practicable competition without modifying the State's requirements. Specifications may not be drawn in such a manner as to favor a single vendor over other vendors…." Please confirm that this disadvantage to asphalt paving is allowable under Maryland Procurement Law and does not create an unbalanced competition or favor concrete paving. The project schedule is aggressive and cannot afford a bid protest.
 A. Refer to Response 2.
Inq. 10Post Date:   11/6/2015Inquiry Date:   11/6/2015
 Q. Page 13, 2nd to last paragraph that begins with The term 'Weakness', the last sentence is incomplete. Please provide the completed sentence. See below. The term "Weakness," as used herein, means any flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant Weakness in the Proposal is a flaw that appreciably
 A. A significant Weakness is defined as follows: "A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance."
Inq. 9Post Date:   11/5/2015Inquiry Date:   11/4/2015
 Q. If PCC pavement is elected for use by the Design-Build Team, does the existing lanes of 404 (Future Eastbound lanes) need to be removed and replaced with PCC pavement?
 A. No. The existing roadway (future eastbound lanes) is not required to be reconstructed, only rehabilitated. The Design-Builder may use the pavement section provided by the Administration or provide an equal to or better solution in conformance with the contract requirements.
Inq. 8Post Date:   11/5/2015Inquiry Date:   11/4/2015
 Q. Time is of the essence on this project. As such, using concrete pavement instead of HMA will cost contractors 30 days of cure time before traffic can use the new pavement. This procurement will only allow 18 months of construction from NTP to Substantial completion in November of 2017. Of that time, several months will be mired in design with no construction activities. Losing a month due to cure time at the back end of the project is unduly burdensome to the contract based on the expectations of the administration. The $4,000,000 LCCD for using HMA needs to be revisited for the sake of allowing contractors all the necessary tools to meet the project's aggressive time schedule
 A. Refer to Response 2.
Inq. 7Post Date:   11/5/2015Inquiry Date:   11/4/2015
 Q. All previous sections of 404 dualized from MD 16 to Phases 1A and 1B were large enough to trigger a life cycle cost analysis, and each section prior to this Procurement were built using HMA. Per the September 2013 version of the Pavement Type Selection Process, "If a larger project is broken into smaller projects, the PTSP may be revisited if the smaller project still triggers the process". In other words, SHA does not need to do a new PTSP for each project in a corridor, but can use existing PTSPs. As such, why is SHA including a $4,000,000.00 LCCD for using Hot Mix Asphalt on this Procurement when phase 1A and 1B use HMA?
 A. Refer to Response 2.
Inq. 6Post Date:   11/5/2015Inquiry Date:   11/4/2015
 Q. Will SHA provide the Pavement Type Selection Process report used to determine the $4,00,000.00 Life Cycle Cost Difference (LCCD) between HMA and Concrete Pavement?
 A. Refer to Response 2.
Inq. 5Post Date:   11/5/2015Inquiry Date:   11/2/2015
 Q. To react to the resource requirements to achieve the aggressive schedule established in the RFQ, we have created a construction joint venture with a design joint venture in support. If our partners participated on the same project corridor, can we submit that project corridor as one project? This shows collaboration and coordination.
 A. A project would be a single contract not a combination of contracts or a corridor. For example, if the Intercounty Connector (ICC) were to be submitted, then a single project would be ICC Contract A.
Inq. 4Post Date:   11/5/2015Inquiry Date:   11/2/2015
 Q. Would it be acceptable to utilize 10 point font for the org chart and other graphics/illustrative elements of the SOQ?
 A. Narrative text shall be 12 point font. The font may be reduced to 10 point for the organizational chart and other graphics or illustrations as long as it is legible.
Inq. 3Post Date:   11/5/2015Inquiry Date:   11/2/2015
 Q. Section XVIII. SOQ Submission Requirements states that "The Design-Build Proposal shall be on 8½" x 11" pages using a minimum font size of 12 Point". For the design and construction past performance, would it be acceptable to submit three relevant projects one each on one 11x17 sheet in lieu of two 8.5x11 sheets?
 A. Yes, it would be acceptable to submit one project on a single 11" x 17" sheet in lieu of two 8.5" x 11" sheets. If the projects are provided this way, each 11" x 17" sheet will count as two pages. Note the organizational chart required under Section XVII.C.ii. will still only count as a single page if submitted on 11" x 17" paper.
Inq. 2Post Date:   11/5/2015Inquiry Date:   10/27/2015
 Q. Can we obtain the Life Cycle Analysis for the paving sections (Concrete vs. Asphalt)? We typically do not see the level of advantage/disadvantage between the two options that SHA has included in the RFQ. We would like industry to provide input into the $4,000,000.00 disadvantage to asphalt paving considering the previous MD 404 projects were asphalt paving, not concrete and concrete paving does not appear to be practical for price, schedule or mobility along the corridor during construction. Please provide information if available.
 A. The Administration has determined that no adjustment will be provided for the usage of asphalt pavement for the new roadway. No provisions for the price adjustment will be provided with the issuance of the Request for Proposals. However, both concrete and asphalt are still allowable materials for this project.
Inq. 1Post Date:   11/5/2015Inquiry Date:   10/27/2015
 Q. The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation goal is 18% which is greater than the last 4 major projects on the Eastern Shore: a. 1) AW896 - MD 404 12% b. 2) QA265 MD 301&304 16% c. 3) TA392 331(Dover Bridge) 15% d. 4) WO636 MD 113 15% Please review and consider reducing the overall DBE participation goal of 18%. It appears to be very high for a roadway project on the eastern shore. In addition, the 30% for design services may be difficult to obtain especially if SHA continues with Geotechnical Borings. That is a very common DBE effort on design-build and design contracts. Please review and consider adjusting the professional services DBE goal accordingly
 A. The Administration has reevaluated the DBE goal on this project and it will be reduced to 13%. The design services will also be reduced to 22%. These changes will be reflected with the issuance of the Request for Proposals.


707 North Calvert Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202