12445125R0002 Questions Asked 06062025 REV2.doc

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR USDA-FS ISSUANCES: 12445125R0002 GWJ VCT Design-Build Rehab PHASE I (Please read instructions on back before completing form.)

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 01, Schedule B – Please confirm, or otherwise clarify, that the work must be broken down into four (4) ‘segments’ (mm 00 to 05, mm 5 to 10, mm 10 to 15, and mm 15 to 20) and five (5) main components (debris/cleanup/demolition – bridge and trails, design of bridges, design of trails, construction of bridges, construction of trails) as identified or if the perspective DB Team can propose alternative ‘segments’ and main components.

Resolution: Schedule B is not utilized in Phase 1. In Phase 2, page 27 of the RFP, Section K, FAR 52.204 – 22 allows for alternative line-item proposals.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 01, Schedule B – While a clarifying note is provided below the tables, it does not indicate which of the five (5) main components shall contain environmental permitting activities. Please clarify which of the five (5) main components shall contain environmental permitting activities.

Resolution: Cost of permitting will be allocated to the component that it supports. Permitting will span multiple line items and should be initiated during the early phases of design, for bridges and trail, 30%. For debris removal - when the conceptual of what needs to occur is drafted.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 01, Schedule B – Please confirm, or otherwise clarify, that environmental permits are not required to conduct debris cleanup and demolition.

Resolution: Permits may be required depending on the contractor’s proposal to include temporary access, structures or the need for ground disturbance or in stream work to convey debris removal / demolition.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Objective, Background and Location – Please identify the relevant Forest Service Handbook series that provides the specific processes to determine the final trail alignment.

Resolution: Forest Service Handbook 2309.18 Trails Management Handbook has been provided in the Technical Library.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Objective, Background and Location – In order to evaluate to overall program, please confirm, or otherwise clarify, that the DB Team, following the processes outlined in the Forest Service Handbook as well as the established design criteria, will determine the final trail alignment.

Resolution: Yes – the DB team will provide forward the final trail alignment in accordance with Forest Service design parameters, contract sideboards and within easement parameters.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Objective, Background and Location – In order to evaluate the overall program, please confirm, or otherwise clarify, that boundary surveys and railroad corridor locations are to be mark in the field only (e.g. they shall not be incorporated into the submissions). If they are to be incorporated into the submissions, please clarify which submission (30%, 85%, 100%) shall contain the information.

Resolution: Must be marked in the field and shown on the appropriate plan sheet at the 85% and 100% submissions.

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Objective, Design-Build Scope of Objectives – In order to evaluate the overall program, please clarify which existing trees (size, type, etc.) shall be surveyed for type, size, condition, and location within the entire limits of disturbance. Specifically, the perspective DB Team is trying to ascertain if all trees or only certain trees within the entire limits of disturbance need to be surveyed.

Resolution: The DB team will need to quantify the number of trees that need to be removed within the alignment to facilitate demolition, construction and new trail locations. All trees within the limits of disturbance that are proposed for removal need to be documented, regardless of size or species.

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Objective, Design-Build Scope of Objectives – Please clarify which submission (30%, 85%, 100%) shall contain the tree survey.

Resolution: This should be provided between the 85% - 100% submittals as the construction limits will be defined on the plan sets by that stage.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Objective, Design-Build Scope of Objectives – Geotechnical Requirements indicate to provide supplemental subsurface investigation and characterization, does the Government possess any preliminary geotechnical information and if so, can that be provided?

Resolution: At this time no geotechnical data has been collected, although previous bridge inspection reports may have useful data for the DB team to utilize. These will be provided with the Supplemental Information documents as part of the appendices.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Part B, Trail Design Parameters – Please clarify the process to be utilized to determine that a particular structure does/does not meet a 25-year design life.

Resolution: Creation of a specific plan for cataloguing and Inspecting Drainage Pipes on the Virginia Creeper Trail will be the responsibility of the contractor. A list of the known culverts (pre-storm) is listed in Section C. Other culverts that may have not been previously catalogued may exist. An example program for cataloguing, inspecting and rating drainage pipes on the Virginia Creeper Trail will be supplied on the project. The contractor’s plan should be of similar scope to that document. The contractor shall submit findings of those investigations to the USFS contracting officer for final determination of acceptance by the project team.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Part B, Trail Design Parameters – In order to evaluate the overall program, please clarify what entity, the Government or the DB Team, will determine that a particular structure does/does not meet a 25-year design life.

Resolution: An example scope that could be referenced to outline how the design life of each culvert or drainage structure has been provided as supplemental information in the technical library. This is not an exact requirement and is for reference only.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Part C, Hydraulic Design Parameters – Please clarify the process to be utilized to determine that a particular hydrologic analysis is/is not required.

Resolution: There only hydrologic analysis necessary will be the computation of the design flood flow for each bridge location. Each bridge design shall pass a flood flow with an annual exceedance probability of 1% (i.e., a 100-year recurrence interval flood). This may be different for each bridge if there is tributary inflow between subsequent bridge locations.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Part C, Hydraulic Design Parameters – In order to evaluate the overall program, please clarify what entity, the Government or the DB Team, will determine that a particular hydrologic analysis is/is not required.

Resolution: Hydrologic analysis of design flood flow is required for each bridge location. The DB Team will determine if additional hydrologic analyses are necessary to support hydraulic analyses.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Objective, 210.1 Designs – Please confirm, or otherwise clarify, that bridge type, size, and location (TS&L) plans are required, which appears to be described in Attachment 02, Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Objective, 210.3 Preliminary Designs.

Resolution: 30% design submittals to include the bridge type, size and location plans.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: attachment 02, Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Objective, 210.2 Project Formatting – Please confirm, or otherwise clarify, that Microstation OpenRoads, and more generally *.dgn file format, is an acceptable design software.

Resolution: The use of industry-standard design software is acceptable. However, submittals and deliverables are required to be in *.dwg file format so that the files are accessible for use by Forest Service personnel.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 02, Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Objective, 210.5 Submittals – In order to evaluate the overall program, please provide the government review durations for 30%, 85%, and 100% submittals.

Resolution: The Forest Service will require 10 business days to review each of the 30%, 85%, and 100% submittals. Batched submittals of each design phase will be required.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 07, Section 2.0, Procurement Overview, Part B.2 Phase II Request for Proposal (RFP) – In order to evaluate the overall program, given the available timeframe during Phase II as well as the investigation, survey, analysis, and design processes potentially needed for a “complete design solution,” please describe/list in detail what is necessary to address the statement “The technical proposal requires a complete design solution to satisfy the requirement of the RFP.”. Specifically, the perspective DB Team is trying to understand the exact elements that constitute a “complete design solution”.

Resolution: A ‘complete design solution’ includes all of the elements described in Attachment 02, Section C.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 07, L.1 Provisions, Bid Guarantee – Please clarify when the bid guarantee is to be submitted (with Phase 1 or Phase 2).

Resolution: Guarantee is required in PHASE II.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 07, Section 2.0, Procurement Overview – Please clarify when the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted (with Phase 1 or Phase 2)

Resolution: Phase II; Factor 5

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 07, Section 2.4, Part F – Please consider removing the Section 508 compliance for the Phase I Call for Qualifications Resolution: This requirement cannot be removed. Section 508 compliance is required for all public facing documents, including PDFs, that are posted to a site, distributed across the agency, or used as a sole means of information. To ensure that a PDF is accessible, both the content and the backend structure must be free from issues that would alter or block information to users with disabilities. More information can be found here: https://www.section508.gov/create/pdfs/

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 08, multiple sections – In order to evaluate the overall program, please describe how the Government established that the completion of field investigations, survey, analysis, design, permitting, and construction of $200M-$300M worth of infrastructure can be completed within the Period of Performance (10/01/2025 to 09/30/2026). The anticipated timeframe results in a productivity rate of approximately $650K per day and more importantly does not appear to account for appropriate timeframes necessary to complete the stated scope of work. For example, upon debris removal and obtaining access, survey, investigations, establishment of the trail alignment, geotechnical exploration, testing, reporting, and engineering; hydraulic analysis; 30%, 85%, and 100% design preparation; submission; and review along with necessary permitting will utilize most, if not all, of the Period of Performance. Certain initial construction efforts could potentially occur during this period, after debris clean-up; however, major infrastructure construction could not begin until after plan approval and permit acquisition, even while considering advanced construction packages. Please consider extending the Period of Performance from 12 months to 36 months, which provides a more realistic timeframe to complete the stated scope of work, or relax/reduce/modify the stated scope of work to ensure the project can be completed within the currently identified Period of Performance.

Resolution: Period for performance is stated in Section M and L. The Forest Service requires completion by 09/30/2026, as stated in the RFQ. The Forest Service will consider proposals with alternative schedules meeting this requirement.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 08, Section IV, Part 2 Contractor Subfactor Submittal – Experience – The contractor requirement for five (5) relevant construction projects valued at $200M or more within the past seven (7) years as this requirement is onerous and limiting in terms of smaller qualified contractors. Please consider adjusting the contractor requirement to construction projects valued at $35M or more within the past ten (10) years, inclusive of active projects.

Resolution: PENDING

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 08, Phase II, Part 4 Contractor Submittal Evaluation Factor 4 Project Management – Typically the Design-Build Project Manager (DBPM) is an employee of the Contractor, not the Architect-Engineering Group. Please consider adjusting the DBPM to be an employee of the Contractor.

Email 6/2/2025

Bidder Comment: DB Solicitation Summary – Please consider extending the Phase I Call for Qualification deadline to July 18, 2025.

Resolution: Not at this time.

Pre-Proposal Conference #1 06/02/2025

Bidder Comment: Our team is very concerned about the short duration of Phase II; approximately six weeks to prepare our design and bid with the limited site information that has been provided. Will survey and geotechnical information be provided to the shortlisted proposers? Without this information there will be considerable quantity risk that could prevent our team from participating in the pursuit unless the USFS shares in this risk or more time is given to account for the collection of this information during the pursuit.

Resolution: There is no survey and geotechnical information available, aside from minor information available in past bridge inspections which is now provided in the supplemental information documents. All surveying will be the responsibility of the Design-Build Contractor and will be conducted as required by Forest Service regulations and state requirements (Attachment 02, Section C, page 30). The Contractor will be required to conduct subsurface explorations and prepare a report of geotechnical recommendations (Attachment 02, Section C, page 31).

Pre-Proposal Conference #1 06/02/2025

Bidder Comment: One year to design, fabricate, and deliver a $200-$300 million project is not possible. Time will be needed on the front end for the Lidar surveys and geotechnical investigations. Conventional surveys will be required to create the HEC-RAS models for most of the bridge replacement sites. Structural evaluations along with reports and mitigation plans will need to be approved by the USFS before plans can be fully developed. Each structure will require the preparation of three plan submittals (30%, 85% and 100%) and review and comment resolution for each submittal. Time will be needed for the fabrication of beams/trusses after plan approval. All of these activities could easily take a year to complete leaving no time for construction. Although the RFP does allow the contractor the ability to submit an alternate schedule it also states that this schedule could be grounds for rejection of the contractor’s Phase II submittal Resolution: Period for performance is stated in Section M and L.

Pre-Proposal Conference #1 06/02/2025

Bidder Comment: Are you able to provide the LIDAR data and the 1-D HEC-RAS models for Whitetop Laurel Creek, Green Cove Creek and Burgess Creek referenced in Attachment 2 so we can assess how much more effort it will take to develop the technical proposal and cost? The current stipend is not enough to cover the cost to collect the necessary data to prepare our proposal and perform the preliminary design needed to develop quantities for the project.

Resolution: Existing, pre-Helene LiDAR data is available in the technical library per request. The reference to the 1-D HEC-RAS models has been struck from Attachment 2.

Pre-Proposal Conference #1 06/02/2025

Bidder Comment: Will any additional mapping, survey, or digital base files (e.g., LiDAR, alignment shapefiles) be made available to shortlisted teams in Phase II?

Resolution: Existing, pre-Helene LiDAR data is available in the technical library per request.

Pre-Proposal Conference #1 06/02/2025

Bidder Comment: Will permitting be handled through emergency procedures? The traditional permitting process alone introduces significant risk to the project.

Resolution: Yes – as much as legally possible and under the authority provided by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and the Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) during the required Joint Permit Application (JPA) process to obtain Section 404 permitting.

Email 06/04/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 07, Section 2.2 Notice to Offerors, Pre-Proposal Conference Number Two – Please consider the participation of Government technical personnel in Pre-Proposal Conference 2 based on the number of potential Offeror(s) technical questions that need to be resolved as part of the Offeror’s decision-making process, and the remaining timeframe to submit. The participation of Government technical personnel in Pre-Proposal Conference Number Two can ensure that critical items affecting an Offeror’s ability to submit can be addressed in the pre-proposal conference.

Resolution: USFS will be available if required. Questions entered into the Teams meeting Chat are reflected in this Q&A distributed to all potential bidders.

Email 06/04/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 07, Section 2.2, Part K.2.b - Indicates that for an unsuccessful Offeror to be eligible to receive the full stipend, the Phase I Call for Qualification proposal shall conform to all RFP requirements and contain no material deficiencies or omissions. Attachment 08, Section IV, Part 1 – Indicates that, among other things, the Offeror shall describe the rationale for proposing the arrangement to meet the 30 September 2026 deadline and the screening criteria indicates that the Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated subjectively. Please confirm, or otherwise clarify, that if the 30 September 2026 deadline is not proposed in the Offeror’s Phase I Call for Qualification proposal, the Offeror’s proposal will not contain a material deficiency or omission. Please clarify if the Offeror’s technical approach subjective scoring may be rated lower if the 30 September 2026 deadline is not proposed and the Offeror’s proposal will not be considered to contain a material deficiency or omission. If the Offeror’s subjective scoring will be rated lower if the 30 September 2026 deadline is not proposed, please describe in detail how the subjective scoring will be rated Resolution: Unchanged. Per Section M, Page 6 of 18 Phase I: - Submissions that demonstrate an ability to meet the completion date of 30 Sep 2026, may be considered more favorably than those that reflect an alternative date of completion.

Page 11 of 18 Phase II: A design and technical solution that supports a delivery date of 30 SEP 2026 is most the important Evaluation Factor. The government required completion date is 30 SEP 2026. The contractor’s draft schedule may reflect an alternative date for consideration by the government, but that schedule “may” impact overall Phase I consideration

Page 12 of 18: A technical solution that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and the opportunities to achieve the 30 Sep 2026 deadline through innovation means and methods

Email 06/04/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 07, Section 2.0, Part B.1 – Indicates that the Phase I Call for Qualifications shall only involve non-price criteria and shall not include either design or pricing information. Attachment 07, Section 2.3, Part E – Indicates that Offeror’s shall not include assumptions with any part of their submission. Attachment 08, Section IV, Part 3 – indicates that the Offeror’s proposal shall provide a concept overview that addresses, among other things, an overarching schedule that demonstrates executing the overall requirements in the draft RFP where the project completion end date is 30 September 2026.

While it is understood that the Offeror’s proposal shall only contain/provide non-price criteria and shall not include design or price information, please describe how the Offeror’s schedule will be considered valid in terms of capability and capacity and not be considered an assumption, given that the Offeror’s schedule would be prepared without advancing design or pricing as part of the Phase I Call for Qualifications. A project schedule is built from informed activities, logic, and durations related to design, permitting processes, and construction as developed during Phase II Request for Proposal Response. Please consider removing the schedule as a screening criteria and/or evaluation factor with the Phase I Call for Qualifications proposal as the Offeror’s schedule will not have been properly examined/prepared with respect to relevant/necessary design, permitting, and construction processes and would include various assumptions across numerous project elements Resolution: Unchanged. See Section M, page 6 of 18

Phase I:

The Design-Build firm will be able to successfully integrate Design with Construction to meet a deadline of 30 Sep 2026. The DB firm should provide a concept overview for the execution of the VCT RFP should it be awarded to them. The concept overview should address:

- Provide a layout Overview of Project: schedule; personnel; Control costs; Finance work; Estimate jobs; Schedule the work; Manage cash flow; Manage an effective safety program; Maintain an effective quality control system

- Submittal of overarching schedule/Gantt chart or equivalent that demonstrates executing the overall requirements in the draft RFP. The project completion end date is 30 Sep 2026.

Email 06/04/2025

Bidder Comment: FAR 52.211-12 Liquidate Damages – Indicates that if the Contractor fails to complete the work within the time specified in the contract, liquidated damages in the amount of $1,000 for each calendar day will be paid to the government. Please consider that $1,000 for each calendar day, relevant to the size of the overall project, may not be sufficient to deter an Offeror ‘absorbing’ the liquidated damages as part of their overall proposal. Past experience indicates that the liquidated damage amount should be 5 to 10 times higher than the $1,000 per day for a project of this magnitude.

Resolution: Liquidated damages (LD) are not a punitive measure and are a means to reimburse the government for direct loss due to completion delays. In 12445125R0002, that amount is $1,000 per day.

Email 06/05/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 08 - Section M – IV.2 “Contractors Experience” – This section requests projects valued at $200M or more involving new construction or renovation of bridges and trails completed in the past 7 years. Trail projects that exceed $200M are extremely rare. Additionally, the 7-year timeframe is extremely short for this type of qualification request. Can this requirement be modified to include both projects with relevant work elements that exceed $200M as well as projects that are specific to trail and bridge reconstruction that exceed $10M and the time requirement be modified to projects that are at least 50% complete within the last 15 years to better showcase the offerors experience?

Email 06/05/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 08 - Section M – IV.2 “Design Experience” – This section requests designer experience on projects valued at $35M or more. Please confirm that this $35M is the construction value of a project and not the design value.

Email 06/05/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 08 - Section M – IV.2 “Government Standard Screening Criteria” – The fourth bullet in this section states “Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with laboratory construction and/or renovation experience may be considered more favorable than those that do not have laboratory construction experience.” It is unclear why laboratory experience would be relevant to this project. Please clarify.

Email 06/05/2025

Bidder Comment: Attachment 08 – Section M – Phase II General Submission Requirements #4 – This section lists key roles that will be required to be shown during the proposal stage. The “Design-Build Project Manager (DBPM)” is listed under the “Architect-Engineer Group.” Typically this position would fall under the construction group as they are part of the contractors organization and not the designers organization. Please revise this section to show the DBPM under the Construction Group.

Email 06/05/2025

Bidder Comment: Subcontracting goals: Our team strongly supports small business participation and has consistently partnered with reliable small business firms across numerous projects. However, the proposed 40% subcontracting requirement is not practical for a project of this size, complexity, and aggressive schedule. We recommend adjusting the subcontracting goal to 20%. Similarly, the 58% small business (SB) procurement target appears overly ambitious; a revised target of 43% would be more attainable while still ensuring meaningful small business engagement.

Resolution: No changes to the contractor requirements at this time.

Email 06/05/2025

Bidder Comment: Procurement timeline: We recognize the urgency associated with this fast-tracked project, but respectfully recommend extending the procurement timeline to allow for more comprehensive proposals and reduced risk premiums. Specifically, we suggest extending Phase 1 to August 9 and Phase 2 to December 29. Additional time would improve proposal quality by allowing teams to better understand design details, permitting requirements, and procurement constraints.

Resolution: No changes to the contractor requirements at this time.

Email 06/05/2025

Bidder Comment: Project timeline: Completing design, permitting, and full construction within a single year is not feasible for a project of this scope—particularly given the absence of bridging documents and existing survey data. To ensure a realistic and achievable delivery schedule, we recommend incorporating a phased approach with clear milestones for design, permitting, and procurement. We encourage the USFS to either adopt a progressive design-build procurement method or extend the project completion date to September 30, 2027. This would allow for a more deliberate process while still enabling early delivery through performance incentives. To support accountability, we also recommend implementing early completion incentives and increasing LDs so they are proportionate to the project’s total installed cost, ensuring meaningful alignment between risk and schedule performance.

Resolution: Period for performance is stated in Section M and L. The Forest Service requires completion by 09/30/2026, as stated in the RFQ. The Forest Service will consider proposals with alternative schedules meeting this requirement. LDs are not a punitive measure and are a means to reimburse the government for direct loss due to completion delays. In 12445125R0002, that amount is $1,000 per day.

Email 06/05/2025

Bidder Comment: Request relief on the past performance requirements: Given the highly unique nature of this project—a large-scale reconstruction of a recreational trail unlike most efforts in recent history—we respectfully request flexibility in the interpretation of past performance criteria. While our team brings deep experience with recreational trail projects, USFS work, and alternative delivery methods, it may be difficult to align specific personnel with projects exceeding $100 million in contract value, especially if the qualifications are interpreted narrowly. To ensure the best-fit team can be assembled, we recommend that the minimum past performance thresholds for key personnel be reduced. This would provide greater flexibility in staffing while still maintaining the intent of ensuring experienced leadership and technical capability.

Resolution: Unchanged. Per Section M, Page 6 of 18 Phase I: - Submissions that demonstrate an ability to meet the completion date of 30 Sep 2026, may be considered more favorably than those that reflect an alternative date of completion.

Page 11 of 18 Phase II: A design and technical solution that supports a delivery date of 30 SEP 2026 is most the important Evaluation Factor. The government required completion date is 30 SEP 2026. The contractor’s draft schedule may reflect an alternative date for consideration by the government, but that schedule “may” impact overall Phase I consideration

Page 12 of 18: A technical solution that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and the opportunities to achieve the 30 Sep 2026 deadline through innovation means and methods

Email 06/05/2025

Bidder Comment: Project stipend: Our team agrees with limiting the shortlisted firms to no more than three. To help improve technical responses, allow for advanced design work during the solicitation, and reduce overall project risks our team would respectfully request the stipend amount be increased somewhere between $300,000 to $500,000. We feel that this is a reasonable range given the size, complexity, and lack of bridging documents available.

Email 06/05/2025

Bidder Comment: Phasing and Early Opening Options: To support innovation and maximize value during design development, we respectfully request that the USFS identify specific segments of the trail that are of highest priority for early reopening. Clarifying these critical areas would allow design-build teams to thoughtfully explore construction phasing strategies that could accelerate access to key portions of the trail while final work continues elsewhere. This input would enable proposers to tailor their innovation and design presentations around phased delivery options, balancing early public access with efficient construction sequencing.

Resolution: Period for performance is stated in Section M and L. The Forest Service requires completion by 09/30/2026, as stated in the RFQ. The Forest Service will consider all proposals with alternative schedules including phase delivery options meeting this requirement.

Email 06/05/2025

Bidder Comment: Right of Way: To support accurate planning, risk assessment, and innovative design solutions, we respectfully request that the USFS provide any available right-of-way (ROW) information for the project area. Access to existing ROW data—including easements, ownership boundaries, and any known constraints—would allow teams to better evaluate constructability, permitting pathways, and potential access issues early in the design process.

Resolution: George Washington and Jefferson national Forests spatial data can be accessed here - https://www.fs.usda.gov/r08/gwj/gis USDA Forest Service Geodata Clearinghouse - An online collection of digital data related to forest resources. The clearinghouse includes boundaries and ownership, natural resources, roads and trails. You can also find downloadable map products, raster data, and links to other sources of forest resource information.

USDA Forest Service Open Data - A single point of access for data collected and managed by the Agency. This website allows access to data about individual forests or grasslands or about an area of interest that you specify on the national map. You can find and download datasets by topic area or theme or find and use map services published by the Agency.

USGS National Map - A collaborative effort among the United States Geological Survey and other Federal, State, and local partners to improve and deliver topographic information for the Nation. This source provides additional data covering National Forest lands.

Bidder Comment:

Resolution:

Bidder Comment:

Bidder Comment:

Bidder Comment:

Bidder Comment:

Bidder Comment:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SD FORM 818

Coordinating OSD Component: Use this form to provide consolidated critical and substantive comments to the OSD Component that originated the issuance. Complete the classification header and footer, columns 1 through 5, and the first two entries in column 6. REVIEW THE COMMENTS, resolve any conflicting views, AND CONFIRM THAT THE COMPLETED MATRIX ACCURATELY REPRESENTS YOUR COMPONENT’S POSITIOn. Upload the form to the DoD Directives Program Portal in microsoft word format, with a scanned copy of the sign SD Form 106, “DoD Directives Program Coordination Record,” or coordination memorandum.

Originating OSD Component: Use this form to consolidate comments from all coordinators and to record adjudication of the comments. (To add comments from an SD 818 submitted by a coordinator, use the “Copy” and “Paste” tools on the Microsoft Word Standard Toolbar.) When consolidating comments, place them in the order of the pages/paragraphs they apply to (e.g., all comments from all coordinators that apply to page 1, paragraph 1.a., should be grouped together as the initial entries; all comments that apply to page 1, paragraph 1.b., should be grouped together next, and so on). Complete column 7 and the third entry in column 6. Adjust the classification header and footer and columns 1 and 2 as appropriate.

Classification – Enter the highest classification of the comments. If all are unclassified, mark the header and footer accordingly and ignore the column.

Column 1 – Enter the number of the comment. Enter comments in the order of the pages/paragraphs they apply to.

Column 2 – Enter the classification of the comment. If all comments are unclassified, mark the header and footer accordingly and ignore the column.

Column 3 – Enter the appropriate information.

Column 4 – Enter the appropriate information.

Column 5 – Enter the appropriate information.

Column 6 – Enter the comment type. Place only one comment per row. Do not include administrative comments concerning non-substantive aspects of an issuance, such as dates of references, organizational symbols, and/or grammatical errors.

(C) Critical: When a Component has one or more critical comments, that Component’s coordination shall reflect a nonconcur. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CRITICAL COMMENTS MUST IDENTIFY:

– Violations of the law or contradictions of Executive Branch policy or of policy established in DoD issuances. The GC, DoD, or his or her representative shall identify legal objections as critical comments.

– Unnecessary risks to safety, life, limb, or DoD materiel; waste or abuse of DoD appropriations; or imposition of an unreasonable burden on a Component’s resources.

(S) Substantive: Substantive comments are made when a section in the issuance appears to be or is potentially unnecessary, incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other sections, or when a Component disagrees with the proposed responsibilities, requirements, and/or procedures. A substantive comment is usually not sufficient justification for a Component to nonconcur on an issuance. Several substantive comments when taken together may be grounds for a nonconcurrence.

Column 7 – Coordinating Component: Enter the comment in the area provided. Enter your justification for the comment and your requested or recommended changes in the area provided. YOU MUST PROVIDE CONVINCING SUPPORT FOR CRITICAL COMMENTS IN THE JUSTIFICATION.

– Originating Component: Enter your justification for disposition of the comment in the area provided. Include any related communications with the coordinating Component. You must provide convincing support for rejecting critical comments.

Column 8 – Enter whether you accepted (A), rejected (R), or partially accepted (P) the comment. Your justification for disposition of the comment in column 6 must be consistent with this entry.

PAGE

SD FORM 818, JAN 09

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE