Amendment 0001 - 2nd Page_11SEP2024_1240LP24Q0100.pdf
PDF 136 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 1240LP24Q0100
- Issued by
-
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
About this file
This document is an amendment to a Request for Quotes (RFQ) for the Mountain Springs Potable Water Well Construction project in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Nevada. The amendment provides responses to prospective offeror questions, makes changes to the plans and specifications, and updates the technical proposal evaluation criteria.
Key details include: no pump is included in the scope, the project location coordinates have been updated, and there will be two separate Notices to Proceed issued - one for administrative work and one for onsite construction. The technical proposal evaluation has been simplified, removing requirements for the proposed Safety Manager and Site Superintendent qualifications. The lowest price technically acceptable procurement method will be used to award a single firm-fixed-price contract, with an estimated construction value between $100,000 and $250,000. Proposals are due by 5:00 pm CT on September 23, 2024, and questions are due by September 17, 2024.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFQ 1240LP24Q0100
Amendment 0001
a. The following are prospective offeror questions and the Government’s response to those questions:
Q1 – Is there a pump included in the scope of work?
A1 – No.
Q2 – If yes to #1, what type of pump/pump system?
A2 – No pump for this project scope.
b. The following are changes to the Plans and Specifications:
(1) Attachment 2 – Plans, Cover Sheet – Delete in its entirety the location coordinates at the bottom of this Cover Sheet.
(2) Replace the coordinates in the Cover Sheet with the following: Project will be within 5 miles of Mountain Springs summit.
(3) Sheet G2, Line 6 – Delete in its entirety ‘from Pinon Drive.’
(4) Delete Sheet G3 in its entirety.
(5) Attachment 1 – Specification, Para 1.2A, last sentence – Replace ‘and Pinon Drive’ with ‘and
Forest Service roads.’
(6) Attachment 1 – Specification, Para 1.8A changed to the following: There will be two (2) separate
Notices to Proceed (NTPs) issued for this project – the 1st NTP will be Administrative to obtain permits and other preparatory documentation, as necessary, and the 2nd NTP will be for the actual onsite construction work. Project start shall be from issuance of the 2nd NTP through sixty
(60) days thereafter.
c. The following is deleted in its entirety from the solicitation’s Section L – Instructions to Offerors, Technical Proposal, Factor 3 – Technical Approach to Performing the Work: ‘the proposed Safety Manager’s and Site Superintendent’s name, qualifications and years of experience (dual roles are acceptable);’
d. The following are changes to the solicitation’s Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award:
M.3 – The following paragraph is deleted in its entirety from Factor 1 – Quality Control Manager Qualifications:
The Government will contact references to assess the quality of the contractor’s work, timely completion, project management, and compliance with regulatory requirements. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data and general trends in contractor performance. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror’s past performance.
RFQ 1240LP24Q0100
Amendment 0001
M.4 – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY RATING TABLE
Technical acceptability of Technical Proposal submittals will be evaluated using the below Technical Acceptability Rating table:
Technical Acceptability
Rating Definition Acceptable Submittal in response to the Technical Evaluation Factor meets the requirements of the solicitation.
Unacceptable Submittal in response to the Technical Evaluation Factor does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.
One Technical Evaluation Factor submittal that receives an Unacceptable rating, may deem the entire Technical Proposal Unacceptable.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .