DOCSLIB.ORG

Layout 060610.Indd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Layout 060610.Indd Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Specication No. PW10-0128F June 8, 2010 June 8, 2010 Purchasing Division City of Tacoma Tacoma Public Utilities Administration Building Main Floor 3628 South 35th Street Tacoma, WA 98409 RE: Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Bid No PW10-0128F Dear Ms. Johnson: PCL Constructions Services, Inc. (PCL) with our design team of Hardesty & Hanover, LLP (H&H) and Exeltech Consulting, Inc. (ECI) are pleased to submit our Statement of Qualifi cations for the Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project. The project scope entails the design-build rehabilitation of a vertical lift bridge and approaches. Rehabilitative elements include (but are not limited to): structural steel repairs, mechanical system repairs/replacement, electrical and controls system replacement, deck repairs and replacement, bridge pier repairs and painting. PCL’s past and current experiences with similar projects includes: • Four vertical lift bridge construction and repair projects • Fifteen design-build and CM@Risk projects; seven movable structure design-builds and one CM@Risk movable bridge project • Twenty fi ve similar bridge repair or construction projects within the past ten years with nineteen of these representing movable bridge projects The scope and nature of these projects incorporate most if not all the of the design and construction elements identifi ed on Murray Morgan. Furthermore, our proposed Project Director/Manger, Ankur Talwar and Construction Manager, Alan Dale were involved in similar roles on the majority of these projects. As lead design engineer, Hardesty & Hanover, LLP is a 120 year old company that specializes in movable bridge designs. They maintain the nation’s largest movable bridge staff with approximately 70 movable structural, 15 mechanical and 15 electrical spe- cialty engineers on staff. In addition to their work on the recent Murray Morgan wire replacement contract for WSDOT, H&H’s prede- cessor fi rm (Waddell & Harrington) designed the original Murray Morgan bridge over 100 years ago. Additionally, H&H has provided designs for construction and repair of 25 vertical lift and over 200 movable bridges in the past ten years. In addition to successfully completing fi ve prior movable bridge design-builds together, PCL and H&H have also successfully completed 17 movable bridge projects together. H&H’s design team will be lead by Frank Marzella, PE, Design Project Manager. Frank has maintained a positive work history the with the City of Tacoma and your engineer, DEA, by virtue of his prior efforts on Murray Morgan, beginning in 1994. An important member to the design team is Exeltech Consulting, Inc., a local DBE fi rm. Their efforts will be lead by Santosh Ku- ruvilla, PE, SE. ECI brings to the team, a solid working relationship with the City plus local structural design, peer review, seismic analysis support, drainage, environmental and permitting lead, railroad coordination and support. We have also added several other key team members including: • O’Neill Environmental Service (DBE) – Construction QA/QC and Environmental Compliance Lead • GeoEngineers – Geotechnical (as necessary) • Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc. – Historic Preservation and Coordination PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. 15405 SE 37th Street Suite 200, Bellevue, WA, 98006 Telephone: (425) 454-8020 Fax: (425) 454-5924 (AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER) Page 2 • Electro Hydraulic Machinery – Controls subcontractor • Valley Electric, Inc. – Electrical subcontractor All team members are exclusive to the PCL team. Addition of a controls and electrical subcontractor at this early phase of the project is critical since both trades will be able to work in collaboration with the design team to improve the overall electrical and controls design. The PCL team has a solid history of designing and constructing similar projects: vertical lift bridges, movable bridges, design-build delivery (on movables) and bridge repairs. Our team has the available staff and knowledge of project issues to insure successful completion of the Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project. We trust that our Statement of Qualifi cations for the Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project meets or exceeds your expectations. We look forward to partnering with the City of Tacoma and developing the project together. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us at (425) 454-8020. Sincerely, Fred G. Auch Regional Vice President Tab 1 General Company Information and Team Structure Tab 1Tab Company PCL is a 103-year-old general contracting compa- ny that provides full general contracting, design- build, and construction management services. Today, PCL is ranked as the 8th largest General Contractor in North America with a construction volume of over $6 billion (USD) per year. Of- fi ces are strategically located in 27 major North American centers to support work across the 1 continental United States, Alaska, the Hawaiian Islands, Canada and the Caribbean. As a 100% employee-owned company, we are passionate about maintaining our reputation as a construction leader. The PCL family of compa- nies employs over 3,400 salaried personnel and more than 6,000 hourly/trades personnel. PCL Construction Services, Inc., which began in the Pacifi c Northwest in 1993, currently employs 127 salaried employees. One of the greatest benefi ts PCL brings to a client is our capacity to self-perform critical work activities. PCL uses proven building techniques to do everything from erecting structural steel to forming and placing concrete. PCL’s construction professionals are able to complement our knowledge of current projects and market conditions with historical data from past projects across the United States to deliver a custom construction program. On ev- ery project site, PCL integrates our safety programs into the construction planning cycle by addressing Murray Morgan Bridge safety as part of every task performed. This inte- grated approach is important, whether working over The Murray Morgan Bridge carries 11th Street over the Thea Foss water, at heights, in confined spaces, or in close Waterway. The bridge has a total length of approximately 1760 feet, proximity to the traveling public. Our focus on zero and comprises three segments – the south approach, a multi-span incidents has allowed us to achieve an industry steel girder structure built in 1913; the north approach, a multi-span leading EMR of .55! We are not satisfied with this concrete girder structure built in 1954 as a replacement to the original approach structure; and a three-span, steel through-truss main river number and continue to strive for zero. section with a vertical-lift center span built in 1913. The Murray Morgan Bridge, designed by Hardesty & Hanover’s predecessor firm Waddell & PCL has a vast portfolio of governmental work, Harrington, was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in consisting of large bridge and roadway projects, 1982. Hardesty & Hanover has since performed engineering work in ports, naval air stations, airport tarmac and de- order to help keep the nearly 100 year old structure safe for both the velopment projects, educational and health care traveling public and waterway users. facilities, and high-tech construction facilities. A specialty area of civil construction in which PCL excels is movable and bridge structure repairs. PCL has constructed or performed repairs on Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Bid No. P10-0128F H&H designed their fi rst vertical lift bridge over 120 years ago and today are one of the premier complex and movable bridge designers in the US. H&H’s predecessor fi rm, Wad- dell Harrington, is the original designer of the Murray Morgan over 33 movable bridges valued at $247 million in the Bridge and we maintain records of the original design draw- past fi fteen years. As a company, we have performed ings and shop plans. H&H has been delivering movable Tab 1Tab over 207 design-build Company projects valued over $2.5 billion bridge expertise in Washington since the 1998 with signifi cant in the United States. It is important to note that project success. Specializing in bridge design, H&H offers PCL has past and current experience with national expertise in supporting disciplines such as mechani- vertical lift bridge construction and repair. cal and electrical engineering, geotechnical investigations, PCL’s similar project history includes 15 and hydraulics analysis. With over 70 movable struc- design-build and CM@Risk projects; seven tural, 15 mechanical and 15 electrical specialty movable structure design-builds and one engineers on staff H&H maintains the largest CM@Risk movable bridge project. Further- movable bridge staff in the United States and is more, we have completed 25 similar bridge committed to providing the Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilita- repair or construction projects within the tion Design-Build project exceptional service by using their 2 past ten years, 19 of these representing movable bridge expertise. H&H will lead and manage all movable bridge projects. Murray Morgan design efforts from their local offi ce in Lacey, Washington. Our offi ce in nearby Bellevue, Washington, is thirty minutes from the Murray Morgan Bridge and the City As a premier movable bridge designer, H&H has provided of Tacoma and fully available to support our project designs for construction and repair of 25 vertical lift and over offi ce, which will be located at or near the bridge. 200 movable bridges in the past ten years. H&H has also pro- vided design services on the Murray Morgan Bridge, including Team Structure the recently completed cable replacement project for WSDOT. PCL will be the lead contracting entity with the City of PCL and H&H have been collaborating for the past ten years Tacoma. Fulfi lling the role of lead engineer and Engi- on movable bridge projects and have incredibly completed 17 neer of Record is Hardesty & Hanover, LLP (H&H).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Bicentennial Speeches (2)” of the Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 2, folder “Bicentennial Speeches (2)” of the Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Ron Nessen donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 2 of The Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON June 28, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR ROBERT ORBEN VIA: GWEN ANDERSON FROM: CHARLES MC CALL SUBJECT: PRE-ADVANCE REPORT ON THE PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES Attached is some background information regarding the speech the President will make on July 2, 1976 at the National Archives. ***************************************************************** TAB A The Event and the Site TAB B Statement by President Truman dedicating the Shrine for the Delcaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, December 15, 1952. r' / ' ' ' • THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON June 28, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR BOB ORBEN VIA: GWEN ANDERSON FROM: CHARLES MC CALL SUBJECT: NATIONAL ARCHIVES ADDENDUM Since the pre-advance visit to the National Archives, the arrangements have been changed so that the principal speakers will make their addresses inside the building .
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 1 Forecast of Contracts to Be Advertised and Proposals to Be Solicited
    Welcome to the latest MTA "Eye on the Future," in which we present currently funded capital projects that are planned to be advertised from September 2017 through August 2018. The "Eye" is hosted along with other information and resources about the MTA Capital Program in one convenient location. It is part of our commitment to improve business practices and we hope that it is useful to you. The MTA Capital Program is very important for the safety and reliability of the MTA transportation system and is vital for the regional economy. As described in this issue of the "Eye," the MTA is preparing to undertake 145 projects valued at approximately $4.71 billion in capital work. This work spans many areas, including civil, structural, and electrical, as well as new technologies. These projects are crucial for the reliability, growth and resiliency of the system and contribute to the regional economy. This amount of investment is projected to generate approximately $8.29 billion in economic activity for the New York region. We want to make sure you’re aware of our recently-launched web-portal: MyMTA.info. This portal enables suppliers and bidders to the MTA to search procurement opportunities and information across all MTA agencies, respond to sourcing events online, select categories for the goods and services your sell and more. Contractors and suppliers have a critical stake in the success of the Capital Program. We appreciate your interest in and support of the projects included in this issue of the "Eye," and we look forward to your participation.
    [Show full text]
  • Tunnel from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia This Article Is About Underground Passages
    Tunnel From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about underground passages. For other uses, see Tunnel (disambiguation). "Underpass" redirects here. For the John Foxx song, see Underpass (song). Entrance to a road tunnel inGuanajuato, Mexico. Utility tunnel for heating pipes between Rigshospitalet and Amagerværket in Copenhagen,Denmark Tunnel on the Taipei Metro inTaiwan Southern portal of the 421 m long (1,381 ft) Chirk canal tunnel A tunnel is an underground or underwater passageway, dug through the surrounding soil/earth/rock and enclosed except for entrance and exit, commonly at each end. A pipeline is not a tunnel, though some recent tunnels have used immersed tube construction techniques rather than traditional tunnel boring methods. A tunnel may be for foot or vehicular road traffic, for rail traffic, or for a canal. The central portions of a rapid transit network are usually in tunnel. Some tunnels are aqueducts to supply water for consumption or for hydroelectric stations or are sewers. Utility tunnels are used for routing steam, chilled water, electrical power or telecommunication cables, as well as connecting buildings for convenient passage of people and equipment. Secret tunnels are built for military purposes, or by civilians for smuggling of weapons, contraband, or people. Special tunnels, such aswildlife crossings, are built to allow wildlife to cross human-made barriers safely. Contents [hide] 1 Terminology 2 History o 2.1 Clay-kicking 3 Geotechnical investigation and design o 3.1 Choice of tunnels vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project
    Submitted by: Kiewit Pacific Co. Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Specification No. PW10-0128F Submitted to: Purchasing Office, Tacoma Public Utilities 3628 South 35th Street, Tacoma, WA 98409 June 8, 2010 Tab No. 1 - General Company Information & Team Structure Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Project TAB NO.1 - GENERAL COMPANY INFORMATION AND TEAM STRUCTURE Kiewit Pacific Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kiewit Infrastructure Group, Inc., will be the contracting party for this project, as indicated on Forms 3 and 4 in Tab No. 4 - Appendix C. As a wholly-owned subsidiary, none of the officers of Kiewit Pacific Co. (Kiewit) own stock. Incorporated on May 18, 1982, we can trace our history back to 1884, when Peter and Andrew Kiewit formed Kiewit Brothers, an Omaha masonry contracting partnership. Today, we are part of one of North America's largest and most respected construction and mining organizations. We take our place in the corporate structure of our parent company, Kiewit Infrastructure Group Inc., alongside Kiewit Construction Company and Kiewit Southern Co. Our affiliates and subsidiaries, as well as those of our parent company, operate from a network of offices throughout North America. We draw upon the Kiewit Corporation’s collective experience and personnel to assemble the strongest team possible for a given project. Therefore, work experience of such affiliates and subsidiaries is relevant in demonstrating our capabilities. For the Murray Morgan Bridge, we are supplementing our local talent with extensive moveable bridge expertise from our east coast operations, Kiewit Constructors, Inc. We are also utilizing our local subsidiary, General Construction Company (General), for mechanical and electrical expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Checklist
    Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project Seattle, Washington SEPA Checklist December 8, 2020 Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project SEPA Checklist Page 2 of 24 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project 2. Name of applicant: Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Sara Zora, Project Manager Seattle Department of Transportation Project Development Division 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3800 P.O. Box 34996 Seattle, WA 98124 206-733-9973 4. Date checklist prepared: December 12, 2020 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Access restrictions on the Spokane St Swing Bridge began in April 2020, shortly after the West Seattle High-Rise Bridge was closed due to safety concerns on March 23, 2020. These access restrictions were enforced by the Seattle Police Department until January 11, 2021, and since then by an automated photo enforcement system. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are concurrent project activities to strengthen the Spokane St Swing Bridge, construct a new telecommunications system, and replace the control systems. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A capacity analysis and traffic study were completed for the project in December 2020. Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project SEPA Checklist Page 3 of 24 9.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Goals and Objectives Ii. Land Use Plan
    I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOALS ........................................................................................................................................................ I-2 OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................. I-3 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. I-3 Housing.................................................................................................................................................... I-7 Circulation ................................................................................................................................................ I-8 Economic Development ......................................................................................................................... I-10 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................... I-11 Conservation ......................................................................................................................................... I-12 Community Facilities ............................................................................................................................. I-13 Parks and Recreation ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS
    New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS Table of CONTENTS Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the Author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration. New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN Page left blank intentionally. Table of CONTENTS Acknowledgements The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Division of Multimodal Services thanks the many organizations and individuals for their time and contribution in making this document possible. New Jersey Department of Transportation Nicole Minutoli Paul Truban Genevieve Clifton Himanshu Patel Andrew Ludasi New Jersey Freight Advisory Committee Calvin Edghill, FHWA Keith Skilton, FHWA Anne Strauss-Wieder, NJTPA Jakub Rowinski, NJTPA Ted Dahlburg, DVRPC Mike Ruane, DVRPC Bill Schiavi, SJTPO David Heller, SJTPO Steve Brown, PANYNJ Victoria Farr, PANYNJ Stephanie Molden, PANYNJ Alan Kearns, NJ TRANSIT Steve Mazur, SJTA Rodney Oglesby, CSX Rick Crawford, Norfolk Southern Michael Fesen, Norfolk Southern Jocelyn Hill, Conrail Adam Baginski, Conrail Kelvin MacKavanagh, New Jersey Short Line Railroad Association Brian Hare, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation David Rosenberg, New York State Department of Transportation Consultant Team Jennifer Grenier, WSP Stephen Chiaramonte, WSP Alan Meyers, WSP Carlos Bastida, WSP Joseph Bryan, WSP Sebastian Guerrero, WSP Debbie Hartman, WSP Ruchi Shrivastava, WSP Reed Sibley, WSP Scudder Smith, WSP Scott Parker, Jacobs Engineering Jayne Yost, Jacobs Engineering
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Study on the Longitudinal Response Characteristics of Utility Tunnel Under Strong Earthquake: a Case Study
    Hindawi Advances in Civil Engineering Volume 2020, Article ID 8813303, 12 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8813303 Research Article Numerical Study on the Longitudinal Response Characteristics of Utility Tunnel under Strong Earthquake: A Case Study Guoyi Tang,1 Yumei Fang,1 Yi Zhong,2 Jie Yuan ,3 Bin Ruan,2 Yi Fang,3 and Qi Wu4 1 e 1st Geological Brigade of Jiangsu Geology and Mineral Exploration Bureau, Nanjing 210009, China 2School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China 3Institute of Crustal Dynamics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing 100085, China 4Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 210009, China Correspondence should be addressed to Jie Yuan; [email protected] Received 24 May 2020; Revised 23 July 2020; Accepted 31 July 2020; Published 20 August 2020 Academic Editor: Peixin Shi Copyright © 2020 Guoyi Tang et al. +is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In this paper, the longitudinal seismic response characteristics of utility tunnel subjected to strong earthquake was investigated based on a practical utility tunnel project and numerical method. Firstly, the generalized response displacement method (GRDM) that was used to conduct this study was reviewed briefly. Secondly, the information of the referenced engineering and the finite element model was introduced in detail, where a novel method to model the joints between utility tunnel segments was presented. +irdly, a series of seismic response of the utility tunnel were provided, including inner force and intersegment opening width.
    [Show full text]
  • WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE Transit Action Plan FINAL
    WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE Transit Action Plan FINAL July 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Transit Action Plan .................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction/Problem Statement ................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose of Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Mobility Planning for 2021 and Beyond ................................................................................................... 6 Goals & Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Challenges/Opportunities ......................................................................................................................... 7 Travel Markets .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Data Analytics ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Funds for Disabled Students Misused
    - PAR N DAILY 9; Nu 64 Published for San lose State University since 1934 Wednesday, December 4, 1991 Funds for disabled students misused By Nicholas D. Smith campuses) allocated," said Kurt needed services, according to Sjoberg. Schutter said that it can take two There are 770 disabled students in Sjoberg said he had visited four of Daily staff svnter Sjoberg, acting state auditor general. Upon hearing about the review, months or longer to get disability test- the department currently, Schutter the 20 CSU campuses to determine the The use of the money by the cam- CSU officials said that CSU would ing at SJSU. said. Last year there were 689, and extent of the needs. More than half a million dollars puses was found to be inappropriate follow the review's recommended At another campus, despite a direc- 526 two years ago. "There were unmet needs at all the destined for California State because the needs of the CSU's 8,000 action to initiate a better monitoring tive from the CSU not to cut funding, The number of people who read for locations we visited," he said. Sjoberg University disabled student services disabled students were not satisfied system, according Boyd Home, CSU the budget for disabled students was disabled students has been cut to a did not visit SJSU. was spent inappropriately on other before using the money on other assistant vice chancellor of manage- reduced by S50,000. minimum, Tamer said. He also said he While federal and state law states items, according to a government audit things.
    [Show full text]
  • USFWS Bridge Inspection Handbook
    A guide to the proper safety inspection and evaluation of vehicular bridges on USFWS facilities U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BRIDGE Division of Engineering INSPECTION HANDBOOK USFWS Bridge Inspection Handbook BMO/DEN/DBSS/RRB 10/17/2014 Bridge Inspection Handbook Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 SCOPE OF HANDBOOK ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 USFWS RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 BRIDGE INSPECTION TEAM ............................................................................................................... 2 2.3 TYPES OF INSPECTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.3.1 Initial Inspection .................................................................................................................... 3 2.3.2 Routine Inspection ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying and Preserving Historic Bridges
    Appendix B—State Departments of Transportation Alabama Department of Transportation Florida Department of Transportation 1409 Coliseum Boulevard 605 Suwannee Street Montgomery, AL 36130 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 (334) 242-6311 (850) 488-8541 (334) 262-8041 (fax) (850) 277-3403 (fax) Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Georgia Department of Transportation 3132 Channel Drive 2 Capital Square Juneau, AK 99801-7898 Atlanta, GA 30334 (907) 465-3900 (404) 656-5206 (907) 586-8365 (fax) (404) 657-8389 (fax) Internet address: [email protected] Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. 17th Avenue Hawaii Department of Transportation Phoenix, AZ 85007 869 Punchbowl Street (602) 255-7011 Honolulu, HI 96813-5097 (602) 256-7659 (fax) (808) 587-2150 (808) 587-2167 (fax) Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department State Highway Department Building Idaho Transportation Department P.O. Box 2261, 10324 Interstate 30 3311 W. State Street Little Rock, AR 72203 P.O. Box 7129 (501) 569-2000 Boise, ID 83707 (501) 569-2400 (fax) (208) 334-8000 (208) 334-3858 (fax) California Department of Transportation 1120 N Street Illinois Department of Transportation P.O. Box 942673 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Springfield, IL 62764 (916) 654-5266 (217) 782-5597 (217) 782-6828 (fax) Colorado Department of Transportation 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Indiana Department of Transportation Denver, CO 80222 Indiana Government Center North (303) 757-9201 100 North Senate Avenue (303) 757-9149 (fax) Indianapolis, IN 46204-2249 (317) 232-5533 Connecticut Department of Transportation (317) 232-0238 (fax) P.O. Box 317546 / 2800 Berlin Turnpike Newington, CT 06131-7546 Iowa Department of Transportation (860) 594-3000 800 Lincoln Way Ames, IA 50010 Delaware Department of Transportation (515) 239-1101 Bay Road, Route 113, P.O.
    [Show full text]