Vendor Q and A 260518.docx
DOCX document 17 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 12445526B0008
- Issued by
-
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
About this file
This is a Vendor Questions and Answers document for the MOF Williams River at Tea Creek Bridge Replacement project (Solicitation 12445526B0008). The document addresses five key inquiries from contractors regarding project specifications and execution.
The Q&A clarifies that Line Item 22 (Furnishing Pile Driving Equipment) is intended to pay for equipment necessary to install micropiles (Line Item 0029, Pay Item 56701 for 513 feet) and is independent of the piles themselves. Regarding demolition of the existing structure, the Forest Service will not dictate means and methods but requires compliance with plans, specifications, and conservation measures, specifically referencing Conservation Measure #28 (Crossing Structure Demolition) in Appendix A. For proof testing of piles, contractors may perform the test on a vertical pile rather than a battered pile. On stream diversion, the contractor bears responsibility for pump sizing; the hydraulic analysis provided estimated a 2-year flood flow of 2,170 cubic feet per second, though low-water flow estimates were not provided. Finally, regarding the timeline discrepancy between the statement of work and plans, the Forest Service clarified that the July to October date in the plans is the operative timeframe for in-stream work activities, superseding the July 1-September 15 reference in the statement of work.
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
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
MOF Williams River at Tea Creek Bridge Replacement:
Vendor Question and Answers:
1. “Could you provide USDA’s intent of Line Item 22 – Furnishing Pile Driving Equipment?
On Sheet C-8, the plans indicated the proof test should be performed on a battered pile. For safety and quality considerations, would it be acceptable to perform the test on a vertical pile?”
A: Line Item 22 – Furnishing Pile Driving Equipment is intended to pay for the equipment necessary to install the piles. It is independent of the piles themselves.
It would be acceptable to perform the proof test on a vertical pile.
2. “Due to the low clearance of the existing bridge, it appears impossible to install a debris shield and completely prevent concrete from entering the stream during demolition operations. Will the contractor be permitted to demolish the existing structure by means of hoe-ramming, provided that all concrete debris is immediately removed from the stream?”
A: The Forest Service will not dictate the means and methods of demolition. Demolition activities shall comply with the plans, specifications, and conservation measures. Please make note of conservation measure #28 Crossing Structure Demolition in Appendix A: BMPs/Conservation Measures.
3. “Regarding Attachment 1, Schedule of Items, Line Item 0022, Pay Item 55151 “Furnishing Pile Driving Equipment” (1 LS), no pile driving operations appear to be shown or required in the plans. Please clarify the intended purpose and scope of this pay item. If pile driving is not required for the project, what value should the contractor enter for this item in the bid schedule?”
A: Line Item 0022, Pay Item 55151 “Furnishing Pile Driving Equipment” (1 LS) refers to the equipment necessary to install Line Item 0029, Pay Item 56701 ”Micropile” (513 FT).
4. “I am looking to bid for the bypass pumping for this project. Regarding the stream diversion, how much flow would the pumps need to cover? I saw the hydraulic design data for the bridge opening, but I am looking for the flow in order to size the pumps for this project.”
A: Any pump sizing for diversion is the responsibility of the contractor.
For information only: The hydraulic analysis estimated a 2-year flood flow of 2170 cfs. Flow was not estimated for low water conditions.
5. In-stream work: The statement of work restricts in-channel work to July1- Sept 15 (p. 16) but the plans state In-stream work between July and October (sheet 2 of 31). Could you clarify this 2-week discrepancy?
A: The timeframe intent is to utilize the July to October date for in-stream work as is in the plans.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .