260304 Iargo Springs RFI log for Q and A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 1 MB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 12445526B0002
- Issued by
-
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
About this file
This is an RFI (Request for Information) log and Q&A document for Solicitation No. 12445526B0002, the GAOA Iargo Springs Interpretive Site Stair and Boardwalk Renovation project issued by the Department of Agriculture Forest Service. The log contains 51 answered inquiries from potential bidders as of February 19, 2027, addressing technical specifications, construction methodology, site conditions, and project requirements for replacing approximately 300 steps, decking, landing areas, and boardwalk sections at a steep forest site in Michigan near the AuSable River.
Key project details include: the site must remain open to the public except during active construction phases; contractors have discretion on construction methodology (equipment-based or hand labor) but must remediate all ground disturbance to restore the slope; the contract requires 545 consecutive days from Notice to Proceed for completion with expectation of continuous work; alternates to specified materials (concrete columns, lumber treatments, steel specifications, foundation systems) require PE-stamped submittals demonstrating compatibility with frost depth, soil conditions, and steep slope requirements; existing concrete footings may be cut below grade rather than fully removed to minimize soil disturbance; all materials must comply with Buy American Act requirements; and the site will be fully closed to public access with barricades and signage during construction. The Forest Service provided clarification on specification conflicts, acceptable alternative products including fiberglass and aluminum components, foundation options, railing details, and confirmed funding availability prior to solicitation issuance. All questions must be submitted with reasonable time prior to bid closing, with alternates requiring written notification at least seven days before bid opening.
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
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
Sheet1
| RFI log | As of 2/19/2027 | gov or FS = Forest Service | |
| Sol No. 12445526B0002 HMF Iargo Spring Stairs Replacement | |||
| No. | Inquiry | Answer | Posted Supporting Documents If Applicable) |
| 1 | Will you accept alternate offers? | !! The FS understands there have been a few alternate ideas in lieu of concrete columns (Sonotube was specifically called out). We will allow alternates however they MUST be submitted earlier in the bid process. |
ALTERNATES: A Bidder who wants to offer an alternate must notify the Contracting Office in writing (to Paul.boucher@usda.gov and cc debra.brinn@usda.gov), at least seven (7) days prior to the scheduled Bid opening, that the Bidder intends to offer an alternate in its Bid. An “alternate” is a product that deviates from the requirements of the specifications in its composition, qualities, performance, size dimension, etc. The written notification from the Bidder must include a complete description of the alternate and must identify the product’s deviations from the specifications. Upon receipt of the notification, the Issuing Office will determine whether the alternate is acceptable. If the Issuing Office, in its discretion, determines that the alternate is acceptable, the Issuing Office will issue a change notice to the invitation for bids that revises the specifications allowing for the alternate specifications. This will be labeled as alternate option leaving the original specifications as an option as well. If no change notice is issued revising the specification, a Bid offering the alternate will not be considered for award.
| 2 | We would like to confirm whether there are any preference programs applicable to this solicitation, such as HUBZone or other state‑recognized certifications. | This is Small Business set aside without socioeconimcal preferences | |
| 3 | On the trail leading up to the boardwalk/stairs what kind of equipment can be accommodated (what's the largest equipment that you can use) Is it able to be driven on? Will it accommodate equipment like a mini excavator or a larger size skid steer that could be used. Maybe pick up trucks or anything for transportation, or do we have to use smaller size stuff for the area. | ||
| If we use anything to bring stuff up there, are we responsible for the trail remediation or bringing it back to existing? And do how do we go about bringing the trail back to existing if the trails are not like kind of in disarray already? | The access to the stairs are very close to the parking lot. Theres a couple sidewalks that lead up to it, no trails. It is within roughly 100 feet of the parking lot where the project would start. There would be access for mini excavator or skid steer. | ||
| Damage done with the equipment would need to be remediated at the end of the project. | See attachment "Iargo Springs Google Maps.pdf" and/or "Iargo Springs Screenshot.jpg" | ||
| 4 | Could the FS just run through the project in generic form, what does it entail? | That's fairly well covered in the statement of work, which is in the beginning the section C document. FS is looking at replacement of the staircase that goes from the parking lot area down to the AuSable river. There's approximately 300 steps and then there's decking and landing areas between the two. Fixing some of the boardwalk at the bottom of the hill (there's a section of boardwalk that gets demolished, and then there's a new piece of railing to cut off where it was demolished) | |
| 5 | We would have to haul whatever is demo’d all out? Nothing is left behind. | Anything that is demoed needs to be legally disposed of and yes, that site is very steep. The design tried to take that into account and in how the gov thinks this can get built. | |
| 6 | Was the thought process or the intent of construction to use equipment to cut in a route or were you anticipating people doing this entirely by hand? | It's up to the contractor how they approach getting the work done. The slopes themselves are really steep. If contractors think that they can get equipment down to the bottom of the hill FS will try to work with them on that. The redesign on the project was to make it as easy as possible in the event the contractors have to lean towards hand work. That's why the design took the helical piles out of the project this time. | |
| 7a | Will we be able to cut a flat path underneath the stairwell so we'll be able to drive machinery down there, kind of traverse down that hill the same way stairs are going. And if we are allowed to do that, do we have to restore it? | ||
| (The stairway kind of traverses down the steep angle of the hill. Will we be able to cut a flat path underneath that stairway so we can use a piece of machinery to traverse up this hill. And if we are allowed to do that, do we have to restore it?) | The FS is unsure how that would work. (see below Q&A as well) |
Yes, you'll have to restore it.
| 7b | If a flat route is cut in for equipment access within the pathway of the stairs there's places on that hill that are probably roughly 45° | ||
| When you say restore it are you saying some topsoil and seed for restoration and leave it flat, or does that need to be restored to match the existing grade? | The gov wants to see it restored. If you're talking of cutting a road in, it's going to end up getting pretty wide to account for all that and the slope, FS does not want to see essentailly a aroad running down the hill. If there’s other options we want to hear them. If you’ve been down to the site, it's unique, it's, it's wooded, it's very popular. FS wants to maintain the integrity of that site. That's number one priority. FS doesn't envision building a road and feels that is what the cut would turn into. FS wants to see things remediated at the end. That would mean returning the slope to original. Also it is steep and additional disruption to the soil would add instability. | ||
| 8 | Did you do a full slope analysis? They are called breakaway or different terms, but it's a global slope analysis. Has that been done? | No | |
| 9 | It doesn't specifically say but is each column/footing going to be in the exact same place as the as the old one? | No, new one is wider than the existing one. All new footings will be outside of existing footings. | |
| 10 | If you had to remove existing footings, I wouldn't want to disturb the soil in those spots. I'd like to cut the poles off and leave footers there. | ||
| Rather than try to pull them out. Is that an option? I saw that removal is required, but for slope stability can they be cut off and the concrete left. | The FS likes the idea of cutting off below surface. That takes care of the aesthetics and having to fill the void of an empty hole / soil disturbance. The existing concrete should break off easy. | ||
| 11 | Is it possible to consider an alternative of helical piles instead of the concrete footings if they meet the same design load? | The first time this went out to bid, it was designed with helical piles. Technically yes helical piles could be considered. The FS discovered the first time was contractors weren't sure how the equipment could get in there to do helicals. (please see question answer #1 above for additional guidance on alternatives) | |
| 12 | When are RFIS due before the bid date? | The solicitation says when submitting questions: Allow reasonable time for response prior to solicitation closing date. We do not have a cut off date however we reserve the right to not consider questions that come in within the last 4 days before bid opening. |
Anyone intending on submitting an alternate offer MUST notify us in writing as soon as possible in advance of the bid date or the bid will be rejected. Intent to use an alternate that is received within 6 days or less of the bid opening may not be considered.
| 13 | Related to the timeline and the completion date. It says a completion date of sometime in 2027 but it also says 545 days after notice to proceed. It did say something about being able to adjust the notice to proceed. Is that 2027 date a hard deadline, or is that just an assumed deadline based on when you think the contract will be issued and then adding that 545 days? Is that flexible or is the 2027 date a hard deadline? | The gov procurement system requires specific date fields be completed and the 2027 date was unfortunately a mandatory field. FS is using 545 days after notice to proceed as the completion date. Part of the concern is having it shut down the site for two full peak seasons in a row (Memorial day to Labor day). Once contractor starts work, we want it to be worked until completed. FS doesn't want unnecessary downtime in the middle, especially during the summer. There is a little bit of leeway on when the notice to proceed is issued. FS would like to see a schedule and will try to work with the contractor on accomodating that. It’s the government’s belief that all of the work can be done in one construction season. There are also restrictions on the tree cutting. |
| 14 | Can we work in the winter time? Is that area shut down in the winter? | You could work in the winter if it can be done safely. |
| 15 | If the government shuts the site down in the summer, we can work throughout all the way up till the next season. When is the next season open up? When is the site shut down and when does it start? | The site does not shut down. It remains open 24/7, all year. It will only be shut down from public access for the purpose of this project. |
| 16 | Would we divert traffic and people that go there? Is there another route down to the bottom? If this is under construction, can the public get down some other way? (trying to scale down the side or along side of it or anything) We'd have to somehow just shut it down and post signage to stay out completely? | The site will be closed to the public. There's not really another way to access the area and it'll be "officially" and lawfully closed by the Forest Service to the public. The entire parking lot should be barricaded/closed off by the contractor to the public and from access by River Road traffic. The Forest Service will give notice to the public through our public affairs points of contacts, local paper and etc regarding the closures. The site is not really close enough to any other established area for anyone to scale over. They would have a long walk to get there. It'll be very clearly identified that it's closed. |
| 17 | Talking about the the pedestrian traffic and the site being closed during your busiest season, how will that impact us and the Forest Service for the season if we're shutting this down? Loss of money and everything. Would it make sense to do it in the fall season or the other seasons? That's why I was asking about working in winter. | It's not a fee site. It's just very popular. If you felt it was best to work through the fall and winter, that would be fine by FS as long as it can be done safely (Michigan winters taken into consideration) it would be better for the public but we're going to leave that to the contractor as contractor safety is also a priority. |
| 18 | Is there anything that you need us to do in addition to this boardwalk project as far as traffic control and safety? Do you want anything placed at all to close off specific things just in case somebody tries to hop over something? Does the government just use snow fencing or signs everywhere? Do we need to do anything in addition to that sign that you're going to post? | The FS doesn't believe snow fencing is needed around the site. Signage and temporary barricades at the parking lot entrances will be the big thing. If the public tries to enter the site the contractor will need to keep people off the site. Contractor may need to explain that the site is closed (send them down to Lumbermen's Monument which is only a couple miles away) and if things get persistently bad then let us know and we'll get some law enforcement in there to help keep people out. FS will be requesting “official” closure through the Forest Supervisor to make it a lawful closure. FS does not anticipate the public trying to access the site if it is clearly identified as closed. |
The contractor is responsible for closing the site and using some form of adequate temporary barricades closing off access to the parking lot and work site. 52.236-13(b) In addition, for contracts for construction or dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements, the Contractor shall—
(1) Provide appropriate safety barricades, signs, and signal lights;
The Forest Service may provide additional signage however it would only be in addition to the contractors responsibility.
Refer to Section 156 – Public Traffic of the FSSS on page 31 of Section C. The contractor is required to install and maintain temporary traffic control devices adjacent to and within the project.
| 19 | When you have a walkthrough later, if there's more questions that everybody's got at the site, will that come out in an addendum and such? | Yes. Those will be posted to SAM inclusive of the questions from this meeting. |
| 20 | If we can't make it out to the site today, can we reschedule it. | The site is open Year round. Contractors are more than welcome to look at any time without scheduling anything. Any questions should be sent to Paul Boucher and cc to Debra Brinn |
| 21 | How much tree clearing is needed? | Tree clearing should be in accordance with what is shown in the drawings and specs. If there is a benefit or need to removing additional trees, that would be a case by case basis and need to be coordinated and approved by Forest Service. |
| 22 | Clearing limits for cable ways | Removal of additional trees outside of limits shown in the drawings and specs would need to be coordinated and approved by Forest Service |
| 23 | Clarification on safety plan and OSHA jurisdiction | For contractor responsibilities regarding Health, Safety, & Accident Prevention please refer to Specifications FP-14 Section 107.08 and FAR Clause 52.236-13. Per reference in FAR 52.236-13; contractor shall … (2) Comply with the standards issued by the Secretary of Labor at 29 CFR Part 1926 and 29 CFR Part 1910... |
The Submittal Schedule on page 10 of the document 03 SOW and Specs (Section C) does not specifically ask for the Contractors safety plan, but it should have. Safety plan will be reqired post award as a submittal
| 24 | A request to use diamond pier in lieu of concrete | The Forest Service has concerns about frost depth and the steepness of the slope. The FS would require a PE review and stamp that this system would work in our combination of frost, slope and soils to be able to consider using this product. | |
| 25 | we were wondering if 3-inch pipe pile would be sufficient for the piers on that project…. say 7-8 ft embedment or there about? The piers would be driven with air hammer to the depth needed, with an L bracket bolted to the top which would support your posts and beams for the remainder of wood construction. | The FS would require a PE review and stamp that this system would work in our combination of frost, slope and soils to be able to consider using this method. | |
| 26 | Detail 5: connector CB88 is for 8x8 posts. I would really prefer to use post bases that connect by epoxying anchor bolts into the concrete (like Simpson RPBZ), rather than having to set the base into the concrete. That gives me some wiggle room, which can be critical when working on uneven terrain like this. Is that acceptable? | This would be acceptable as long as required thickness of concrete around anchor bolts can still be achieved. | |
| 27 | Detail 5: what is the minimum depth of the foundations? It looks like 1 ft, but that doesn’t make sense, please clarify. | Detail 5 shows 4' minimum depth. | |
| 28 | Detail 5: appears to call for (8) #4 vertical re-bars per foundation. Is this supposed to be 4? | This should be 4 vertical rebar. | |
| 29 | Can fiberglass grating be used in place of the specified galvanized steel? | The FS would require a PE stamped alternative submittal that meets all dimensions and load capacities. | |
| 30 | Copper naphthalene is the specified lumber treatment. Can other treatments be used if they are rated for ground contact? | No. Copper Napthenate, in heavy oil, cat UC4B minimum. | |
| 31 | Does steel handrails and grating need to be US steel? What about bolts and screws? | Yes. Must meet the requirements of the Buy American Act. | |
| 32 | 1.5-inch galv pipe is specified. The OD of 1.25-inch sch 40 pipe is 1.66-inch, the OD of 1.5-inch sch40 pipe is 1.9-inch; both are ADA compliant. Is the pipe supposed to be nominal 1.5-inch sch 40, or is it supposed to be as close to 1.5-inch OD as possible? | ||
| * I don’t see where specific brackets or joints are specified. Is there a specific fitting that is required? | Nominal 1.5" dimensions. Schedule 40 pipe with 1.9" O.D. Optional fittings would require require submittal for approval. | ||
| 33 | Many of the hangers specified aren’t compatible with the lumber specified. Do I just price it with the specified hangers, or price it with hangers that make sense, or do we request clarification then price it accordingly? | Simpson Strong Tie (or equivalent). | |
| 34 | Can helical piles or some other foundation system be utilized in place of the system specified, provided it achieves the design loads for the staircase? | The FS would require a PE review and stamp that this system would work in our combination of frost, slope and soils to be able to consider using this method. | |
| 35 | Can the schedule extend into Q1 of 2028, provided the total duration onsite does not exceed 545 days and only one summer season is disturbed at the site? | Yes, but the contract work must be completed within 545 consecutive days once the Notice to Proceed is issued. It is expected that once work begins it will progress continuously until completed. | |
| 36 | We have reviewed the RFI responses in Amendment 4 and still believe the only feasible method to install the designed foundations is to cut in a level work route; this can be kept within the construction limits shown on Sheet C-05. It will probably not be feasible to restore the slope to the original hill slope after the foundations are installed. It should be barely noticeable to visitors if it remains within the construction limits, because it's below the stairs. Would it be acceptable to keep the work route in place without restoring the hill to its original slope? | No | |
| 37 | Please clarify of the contractor can leave the existing foundations can be left in place, and posts be cut off at grade? | It would be acceptable to leave the existing foundations in place as long as the posts and concrete are cut off BELOW grade. | |
| 38 | Please confirm the on-site superintendent can be the QCM, and SSHO. | Yes | |
| 39 | The solicitation appears to require setting posts to an exact tolerance (approximately 1/8 inch to 1/4 inch) so they may function as railing posts in their current configuration. Based on site conditions, achieving this level of precision through conventional concrete placement may not be feasible. Unlike open field installations—where a continuous concrete pour can be performed with accurate alignment—the subject site appears to require transporting concrete by bucket or mixing at each individual hole location. This method would prevent a single continuous pour and may impact curing consistency and final alignment accuracy. | ||
| * As a potential alternative, will the government consider the use of helical-type “Stop Digging” post foundations. These systems can be installed using a portable torque device at each location and positioned approximately 6–10 inches from the edge to accommodate roots or subsurface obstructions. Once installed, the remaining construction sequence (including beams, framing, stairs, landings, and railings) could proceed in a conventional manner while maintaining straight-line alignment across the assembly. Please advise whether alternative foundation systems such as helical or “Stop Digging” posts would be acceptable under the contract requirements | The FS would require a PE review and stamp that this system would work in our combination of frost, slope and soils to be able to consider using this method. | ||
| 40 | The weight of the specified grated stair treads has become a potential concern. The supplier/fabricator consulted for this scope of work recommended consideration of aluminum treads, which are lighter in weight (approximately 75 pounds per tread) and may provide environmental benefits compared to steel or galvanized steel assemblies. The manufacturer consulted .... also provided the following technical observations and recommendations for Government consideration: |
* Recommends the OnGrip? spray-applied traction surface for 8-space gratings to improve slip resistance, as standard gratings may become slippery when wet. The OnGrip? surface meets ADA requirements and exceeds ANSI/NFSI B101.3-2012 high-traction criteria, as well as ANSI A137.1-2012 requirements.
* Drawing Section 10 indicates punched end bars; however, with bearing bars spaced at 1/2-inch centers, adequate clearance may not exist to install a bolt through the grating for attachment to the stringers.
* Drawing Section 3 on Sheet C-20 may interfere with fastening the treads using the specified 5/8-inch bolt at the stringer connection.
* The grating could alternatively be fabricated as an aluminum plank system (see referenced catalog cut sheets, pages 28–29), or fabricated from A606 Type 4 weathering steel in lieu of galvanized steel, if acceptable to the Government.
* Refer to catalog cut sheet page 35 for the manufacturer’s standard end-plate detail applicable to 1/2-inch spaced grating.
| Please advise whether the Government will consider alternative tread materials, traction coatings, or attachment details as described above | * Aluminum could be acceptable if designed by the manufacturer. The FS would require a PE stamped alternative submittal that meets all dimensions and load capacities. * Section 10 drawing is a conceptual drawing. Actual treads must be designed by manufacturer. * Bolt for post connection (Detail 3 C-20) may be counter sunk from inside of stringer to allow for tread/stringer connection. * weathering steel is not acceptable to the Forest Service * Must meet the requirements of the Buy American Act. | ||
| 41 | Is funding currently available for this project? | Yes, the FS committed funds prior to issuing the solicitation. | |
| 42 | The notes on sheet C-06 and in the detail 5 on sheet C-20 call for the post base brackets to be Simpson CB88 and the notes on these same sheets indicate the posts are to be 6x6s. The CB88 post base bracket is designed for use with 8x8 posts, please advise if CB66 brackets should be used as they are designed for 6x6 posts or should the posts be changed to 8x8s? | Yes, the CB66 Brackets should be used. | |
| 43 | The typical stair detail on sheet C-19 indicates railing posts are to be 4’ o.c. but detail 2 on sheet C-20 calls these at 5’ o.c., please advise which is to be priced? | Typical stair detail on C-19 is for the Stairways. Detail 2 on C-20 is for landings (same as Typical 2 on C-17). Both are listed as Max. spacing. All posts placements are shown on Enlarged Framing Plan sheets C-13 thru C-16. | |
| 44 | Detail 1 on sheet C-20 shows (3) evenly spaced 2x6 as mid rails while detail 2 on the same sheet shows (1)2x8 and (2) 2x6 as mid rails. Please advise which is to be priced. | Typical stair detail on C-19 is for the Stairways. Detail 2 on C-20 is for landings. | |
| 45 | Can the double 2x12s be used in lieu of 4x12s at the landing framing? | Yes | |
| 46 | Is it mandatory to attend the prebid meeting to bid on the project? | No | |
| 47 | Is builders risk insurance required to be provided by the contractor? | The required types of insurance are listed on page 11 of the document "01 Solicitation Terms and Conditions", under "Minimum insurance requirements." | |
| 48 | Is any of the lumber for the framing to be rough sawn or will everything be S4S? | Refer to "Stairway Timber Notes" sheet C-06 | |
| 49 | Can Fibergrate Fiberglass (FRP) products be used on this project? | The FS would require a PE stamped alternative submittal that meets all dimensions and load capacities. | |
| 50 | Are we hauling all dirt from holes (for new foundations) out or can that be spread on site at location? | Dirt from holes (for new foundations) may be spread on the site, but not within any wetland areas. | |
| 51 | The stair treads specify 3/16" bars spaced ½" on center. This type of tread is typically only used at churches or other places that expect to have people with high heeled shoes because the gap in the bars is so small. It will also make the treads excessively heavy. Is it acceptable if the bar spacing is larger (3/4" to 1-3/16" on center)? | The bar spacing may be larger than 1/2" o.c. However, the stair treads must meet the applicable Accessiblity Guidelines. The "Trail Accessibility Guidance" states "Openings prevent passage of a 1/2" diam. sphere. Where possible, elongated openings should be placed perpendicular, or as close to perpendicular as possible, to the dominant direction of travel." | |
| 52 | |||
| 53 | |||
| 54 | |||
| 55 | |||
| 56 | |||
| 57 | |||
| 58 | |||
| 59 | |||
| 60 | |||
| 61 | |||
| 62 |
image1.png image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .