C-1-2 Amendment 2 RFQ 1240BJ26Q0006.pdf

(x)

1240BJ26Q0006

x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

40BJ

PORTLAND OR 97204-2829

STE 310

1220 SW 3RD AVE

USDA-FS CSA NORTHWEST 7

04/14/20260002

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

04/14/2026

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to add FAR clause 52.223-2 - Reporting of Biobased Products Under Service and Construction Contracts (MAY 2024), replace attachments 3 & 4 with more current versions, and answer solicitation questions.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

Q&A

Farragut – New location lower on hillside

Fools – New Location Etolin – New larger pad outline

• Do you know on the new locations if they will be exceeding the 4ft height threshold for needing safety netting? Its hard to tell from the images, and between needing low slope legs or steep slope legs with netting around it's a pretty big quote difference from the supplier.

o The sites selected should accommodate a landing pad that does not need to be built over 4’ off the ground.

• What are the sizes of the existing pads? There are discrepancies between the statement of work and drawings.

o The existing pads at Etolin and Fools are 10’x12’. The existing pad at Farragut is 12’x12’.

• C-1 RFQ page 3 of 26 o Given there is a period of performance ending 9/30/2026 Is there a project timeline with milestones that detail the dates and time allowed for bid award, submittal and review process, material delivery, installation, etc.? No, just project completion by 9/30/2026.

• C-1 RFQ page 4 of 26 o Does the paragraph from the Statement of Work (SOW) shown in italics below relieve the requirements of the preceding paragraph in the SOW? Yes Alternatively, provide engineered stamped drawings for similar helipad design that would meet or exceed load requirements and end user requirements listed in the specifications, drawings, and any other document included in the contract.

o Would this allow for acceptance of the TDH helipad load substantiation test certified by a British Columbia Professional Engineer (PE) vs. drawings bearing an Alaska engineer’s stamp? No, an Alaska engineer PE stamp is still required.

• C-2 Attachment 1 - Supplemental Specifications. Section 01 23 00 Part 1.1.A o In an effort to contain cost will the USFS entertain a credit for any of the following suggestions:

In lieu of providing two sets of stairs per helipad as described in the

SOW

• provide one set of stairs per helipad

• provide one set of stairs and one ladder

• provide two sets of ladders and no stairs

USFS would entertain one set of stairs and one ladder in lieu of two sets of stairs if there were cost savings. The quote must be priced for two sets of stairs, or state clearly that it is an alternative quote price for one set of stairs and one ladder.

• C-2 Attachment 3 - AC 150/5390-2C o Page 1 of 196 bullet point 3 states “In general, use of this AC is not mandatory”

Can we agree to remove this document as a requirement for this solicitation? This is supplemental information. Only the applicable sections for Heliport Design shall be referenced in this solicitation. Please reference the most current Advisory Circular 150/5390-2D from 2023 which cancels AC150/5390-2C.

o These sites are not located at general aviation heliports, transport heliports, or hospitals. Yes o Flying to these locations will not involve instrument operations, or require lighting.

While I am arguing that little of the AC applies, the TDH design meets the requirement under 108.e.2 for dynamic load calculations for 150% of the maximum takeoff weight of helicopters using the helipad. Our helipads have undergone computerized load simulation analysis. Our helipads have undergone engineer-supervised physical load testing well in excess of 150% of the 8,000# max takeoff rating. The 150% of the maximum takeoff weight calculations of the helicopters using the helipad shall be reviewed during submittal process.

o It is assumed section 111.c requiring 45-day notice be given to the FAA would be the responsibility of the installing contractor were this to be enforced – This would be the government’s responsibility.

o Section 207.b describing the size of the touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF) is assumed to be superseded by the 15’ x 15’ size called out on the SOW on page 4 of

26. Please confirm. Yes.

o Figure 2-23 (page 47). Due to the non-standard TLOF size of the TDH helipad, we do not paint a typical ‘H’ on the decking as shown on figure 2-23. We paint directional arrow markings. We can paint an ‘H’ should the USFS prefer this. Directional arrow markings in lieu of typical ‘H’ is acceptable.

• C-2 Attachment 3 - AC 150/5390-2C Continued o Section 207.d (6) recommends a fall protection safety net if the deck is elevated 30” or more, and requires it if the deck is 48” or more. Fall protection safety net is not required.

• If the USFS opts to include AC 150/5390-2C or excludes it but requires fall protection above 48” this will be excluded by TDH and would need to be covered by others. Fall protection is not required.

o If section 212 Wind Cone is required under this solicitation, that will be by others.

TDH does not provide wind cones. Not required under this solicitation.

• C-2 Attachment 4 – NWCG Standards o A review of this document seems to indicate how the helipad facility would be utilized after being turned over to the USFS. Much like AC 150/5390-2C allowing for the requirements of this document will drive up cost. Can we either remove this document, or at least state what sections are required? This is supplemental information. Only the applicable sections for Helicopter landing areas shall be referenced unless stated elsewhere in the contract package. Please reference the most current NWCG Standards from 2023.

• C-2 Attachment 5 – DOL Wage Decision o Given that TDH is simply a vendor and will not perform any work on site, it is assumed we are not bound by this document. Please confirm. Correct. Workers on site are subject to this.

• C-2 Attachment 7 – Bid Bond o Given that TDH is simply a vendor and will not perform any work on site, it is assumed we are not bound by this document. Please confirm. Correct, this is for the prime contractor.

• Will any discipline other than structural be required to stamp the drawings, for example civil? No, just the governing discipline - Structural

• Bidding documents require a 60' X 60' "brushed area", please provide a definition for a finished "brushed area" completed scope. (For example, remove all bushes greater the 18" tall). Clear brush and trees below the level of the landing area.

• Will the contractor be responsible for removing all human excrement and waste from the site? Or will there be a facility provided by the owner for contractor use? Leave no trace principles apply. Disperse and bury all human excrement or remove off site if unable to bury. A camp plan shall be submitted and reviewed per spec 011413.

• Do the steel Telescopic jacks need to be galvanized? Yes, if available.

• Will weather delays be considered compensable and acceptable by the owner? If not, please define weather days to be incorporated into the proposal. We would only offer a time extension for unusual weather.

• Are there any landing restrictions or hovering constraints for helicopters on the mountains? For Farragut, there are potentially mountain goats in the area. The NEPA suggests for aircrafts flights to maintain a 1,500 ft vertical or horizontal clearance from traditional summer and kidding habitat. Where feasible flight paths should avoid mountain goat kidding areas from May 15th – June 15th. There is also a rare plant located approximately 110 feet ESE from the Farragut repeater, on a steep talus slope. Avoid disturbing this plant and its habitat.

• Is there a designated lay down locations in Petersburg and Wrangell for this project?

Or is the contractor responsible for securing a lay down area? If using local helicopter vendors – there is likely lay down locations available at the airports. The Forest Service has ware yard storage that could be designated for material storage as needed. Closer staging areas for sling operations on National Forest lands may be available.

• Please provide any and all special environmental requirements necessary for operations within a national park. For example does powered equipment require secondary containment during operation? It’s not a National Park, but a part of the Tongass National Forest. Provide spill containment/absorption for fueling equipment/tools protected from precipitation.

• Are there known flight approach hazards at each site, including towers, antennas, guy wires, steep terrain, ridgelines, downdrafts, fog banks, or rotor wash concerns? All sites have communication shelters and repeater antennae visible in the available photos and steep terrain. Farragut has updraft winds that are possible.

• Can the existing pads be used for landing during construction, or must temporary landing zones be established before demolition? Existing landing pads are still useable.

• What are the maximum allowable crew, material, and equipment footprints at each summit, including limits of disturbance and camp locations? There are no specific limits.

Maintain a limited disturbance for camps as much as feasible.

• Will Government personnel require access to the repeater equipment during construction, and how much advance notice will be given? No access should be required.

• Confirm the size of the Pads will be 16' X 16'. Minimum size shall be 15’x15’ pad per SOW. Drawings show 16’x16’.

• Regarding testing and inspections, please consider the following:

o Will the contractor be required to carry cost for testing and inspections? No o What testing and inspections will be required for this contract? Pre-engineered design mix and design calculations for structural elements that meets or exceeds our design would be acceptable. Government will perform a site inspection upon completion of the construction for acceptance.

o If the government is going to be performing their own testing and inspections, will the contractor be required to provide access in the form of helicopter ride from the staging area to the work site? No.

• Were the 90% drawings developed by a licensed structural engineer? Unknown Have the beams specified on the 90% drawings been verified for applicable snow and live loads? Assumingly, yes. However, we need that calculated and verified by a structural engineer.

• Will Autocad files of the 90% drawings be provided? No. AutoCAD files are unavailable.

• Will the contractor be provided site-specific ground snow load data for each location? No. If not, does the contracting officer have a procedure they want the EOR to use to determine the snow load? No. We have used a snow load of 250 psf (without helicopter) and 100 psf (with helicopter) at other helipads at high altitude in Southeast Alaska. Would this snow load calculation be acceptable to the Contracting Officer that will be performing review of the 95% drawings? There isn’t any snow depth data for the sites.

We would suggest considering other snow load data from other similar locations. For Sitka’s Harbor Mountain top at 2000’ elevation, they specified 400 psf and Dan Mollar cabin site, they used 333 psf at 1800’ elevation.

• Can the 21-day review period be reduced to 10 work days for all submissions? Yes, this can be accelerated to meet project timelines.

• For constructability and schedule purposes, will the contractor's EOR be able to modify the requirements for design review and increase/reduce the number of submissions to maintain schedule requirements? The time allowances for review can be adjusted/negotiated to meet scheduling constraints for timely completion of the work.

• Is the intent for off the shelf shoring jacks be used as noted in construction notes on sheet 02? Or a shop fabricated adjustable post per detail on sheet 06? The intent is commercial shoring jacks can be used, but it would likely need to be modified per detail on sheet 06 pending designers review unless another product is submitted for consideration.

• Prior to the start of the Contractor's design, who will be responsible for verifying the maximum concrete pier height and jack post will work for each location? Was this completed during previous site visits? A site visit was completed, and it was determined that there would not be greater than 4 foot height difference between each end of the pad.

• Please provide the contractor with a detailed list of all permits required to be included in this proposal. Owner is unaware of any required permits.

• Spec section 09 93 00 section 3.2 C specifies painting aluminum, but does not provide a specific product or performance requirement. Please clarify if painting aluminum is required? No, painting aluminum is not required.

• What site-specific geotechnical assumptions should be used for bedrock, overburden depth, rock bolt capacity, frost, uplift, and concrete pier bearing? No Geotechnical evaluation has been completed. Contractor should plan a footing for variable Geotech conditions ranging from weathered bedrock, angular cobbles and solid bedrock with up to a foot of duff in some places.

• Will the Government provide measured slopes, surface profiles, anchor locations, or survey data for the three pad locations, especially the alternate locations at Etolin and Farragut? No. None are available. The pad needs to be able to accommodate a variety of terrain, but not steeper than 4 feet off the ground.

• What tolerances are required for final pad levelness, elevation above terrain, stair alignment, and landing surface flatness? Pad needs to be level within 2%.

• Are guardrails, edge markings, tie-downs, non-slip surfacing, grounding/bonding, or visual landing markings required but not shown? No, refer to drawings for requirements.

• Please clarify what as-built documentation is required at each site. Provide updated drawing set with any modifications to the design and accurate location layouts referencing the other equipment on site.

• Are the two aluminum stairways per pad required at specific locations already marked on site, and can those locations be modified by the PE for safety or constructability? They should already be marked on site (paint may be faded from winter weather), but may be modified for safety or constructability with COR approval. Forest Service crews will attempt to make another site visit before work begins to reapply location markings as needed.