20260122_Questions from Contractors_ds.docx

Questions from Contractors Cirtus Grove-12639526Q0012

1. Windbreak Performance / Wind Survivability The SOW specifies a 3 m (≈10 ft), 50% permeable windbreak mesh on posts at 16 ft spacing but does not state a wind survivability requirement.

a. Basis of design: Please provide the required wind design basis (ASCE 7 3-sec gust wind speed, exposure, risk category). If the Government does not intend to specify a site wind speed, please confirm a manufacturer-rated agricultural windbreak system installed per manufacturer instructions (with anchorage suitable for local code-level winds) is acceptable.

We decided to remove this requirement from the solicitation. No wind break will be required. Instead, we request to run an additional irrigation water line along the exterior of the block so we can later provide a water source to a natural windbreak.

b. Submittals: Are stamped structural calculations / engineered drawings required for the windbreak posts/anchors, or is a manufacturer data sheet + installation details sufficient for acceptance?

c. Acceptance standard: Please confirm the windbreak will be accepted if installed per the clarified basis above and meets the SOW dimensional/permeability requirements.

Rationale: A stated basis of design (or confirmation that manufacturer-rated installation is acceptable) is needed for uniform pricing of posts, anchorage, and installation methods.

2. Ground Cover Material (Plastic vs Fabric) Task 4 states raised beds shall be "covered with a ground cover material and secured." Please clarify the intended ground-cover type:

a. Confirm whether UV-rated agricultural plastic mulch is acceptable; or

b. Confirm whether the Government intends UV-stabilized woven polypropylene weed-barrier fabric; or

c. If neither (a) nor (b) is intended, please identify acceptable ground-cover material(s) (type and any minimum performance characteristics, if applicable).

Answer: UV-stabilized woven polypropylene weed-barrier fabric should be used to cover the raised beds.

3. Soil Preparation – Restrictions / Acceptance Criteria For Task 2 (soil preparation), please confirm whether the Government has any specific soil-preparation restrictions or acceptance criteria beyond producing a buildable area suitable for raised-bed construction (e.g., required depth of loosening, compaction limits, preservation of soil horizons). If none, please confirm the contractor may select appropriate agricultural tillage methods to achieve the required end condition.

Answer: The contractor can select the appropriate methods. We will not provide the specifics regarding the depth of loosening along the rows. However, we do want to leave the middle area between rows intact with existing natural grass.

4. Compost Placement Interpretation Task 4 specifies beds are “ground soil topped with 6 inches of compost.” Please confirm this is intended as a top layer placed on the formed raised bed, rather than compost being homogenized into native soil.

Answer: The compost can be placed as a top layer and incorporated during the construction of the beds.

5. Soil Fumigation The SOW does not reference soil fumigation or chemical soil treatment. Please confirm that pre-plant soil fumigation / chemical soil treatment is not required under this contract.

Answer: Area is free of previous trees. If this is standard practice in the area for pathogen prevention, then yes soil treatment options would be welcome.

6. Water Source / Tie-In (Type, Location, Available Data) Task 3 references tapping into raw water lines feeding the Moore Air Base Water Treatment Plant. Please clarify:

a. Whether the contractor tie-in will be to raw water upstream of treatment (e.g., canal/surface/raw line) or treated/process water downstream of treatment (pressurized treated/process water).

Answer: The water will be treated and will come downstream of our on-base treatment system. The water access point is along the road adjacent to the grove site along Row 1 (T1-60) (see above figure).

b. Please identify or confirm the location of the water access point that will be made available for contractor connection.

Answer: The connection water line is available by the water treatment facility indicated during the visit.

c. Whether any static or operating pressure information is available at the tie-in point; if not, please confirm none is available.

Answer: The pressure in that area is 55psi.

d. Whether any water quality data (e.g., sediment/turbidity, iron, manganese, biological fouling) is available for the tie-in source; if not, please confirm none is available.

Answer: No information is available regarding the example.

7. Sand Filtration System – Backwash, Power Interface, and Installation Base Task 1/Task 3 require installation of a “sufficiently sized sand filtration tank.” Please clarify:

a. Backwash expectation: Does the Government expect the filtration system to include a backwash/cleaning function sufficient to maintain performance under the anticipated water source conditions? If yes, is backwash intended to be manual or automatic?

Answer: We do expect a backwash function and is expected to be automatic.

b. Power responsibility (if needed): If the selected system requires electrical power (e.g., automatic backwash, controls), will the Government provide an electrical power source at/near the filtration location, or is the contractor responsible for providing the power interface? If Government-provided, please identify available power characteristics (voltage/phase) and tie-in location.

Answer: No. Contractor is to account for power supply run from MAB Wastewater Treatment Plant. The transformer to be taped from is a 277/480, 3 phases. If the electrical equipment is to be the basic 120/240 voltage, a step-down transformer would have to be placed just outside the sewer plant.

c. Permitting/as-builts: Please confirm whether any electrical permitting, inspections, and/or as-built documentation is required for the filtration system power interface.

Answer: No permitting due to government ownership. Copies of as builds are a must, both electronic and hard copy.

d. Base requirement: Please confirm whether the filtration tank and valve/manifold assembly may be installed on a compacted gravel housekeeping pad, or whether a poured concrete pad is required (and if so, any minimum size/thickness requirements).

Answer: Preferably on concrete due to it being a flood area. Sizing: The size of the filter plus two feet all around and 2”X4” thick.

8. Irrigation Automation (Controller/Timer) The SOW requires dual drip lines per bed but does not specify automation. Please confirm whether the Government requires an irrigation controller/timer (automatic scheduling and zone actuation), or whether manual valve control is acceptable. If automation is required, please identify any minimum required features (e.g., zone count, remote access, monitoring requirements).

Answer: Manual valve control is acceptable.

9. Weather Station – Performance and Responsibilities Task 1 requires a remote weather station (Onset RX300) and Task 6 requires installation per manufacturer guidance. Please clarify:

a. Data access: Is cellular/remote data access required? If yes, who is responsible for activation and recurring subscription/cloud fees (Government or contractor)?

Answer: The data activation and access plan will be acquired separately by the government.

b. Minimum sensors: What minimum measurements are required for acceptance (e.g., wind speed/direction, rainfall, air temperature/relative humidity)?

Answer: Specifications for the Onset RX3000 remote monitoring weather station include a 15W solar panel and relay module + barometric pressure, solar radiation, rainfall, temperature and humidity, soil moisture, and wind speed/direction sensors.

c. Siting: Will the Government specify the installation location, or may the contractor select the location to meet manufacturer siting guidance?

Answer: the contractor may select the location to meeting manufacturer guidance.

d. Turnkey scope: Should the quote include all mounting hardware (mast/pole/brackets) and commissioning/verification that data is being recorded and retrievable?

Answer: Yes, the quote should include all additional materials required for installation (although I’m not sure much will be needed) and confirmation before the job is complete that the station is functioning as intended. We will work in tandem to secure the data plan when the station is purchased by the contractor.

10. Site Visit Please advise whether the Government will offer an optional site visit for interested offerors to confirm site access/logistics, general site conditions, and the water tie-in location prior to quotation submission.

Answer: A site visit was held Tuesday, January 20, 2026 from 11-12noon at the Insect Management and Molecular Diagnostics Lab (IMMDL), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 22675 N Moorefield Road, Edinburg, TX 78541.

11. Optional (None-required / informational only): Future Wind Mitigation The SOW includes windbreak mesh along the southeast and southwest perimeter. Please confirm whether the Government wishes to consider (as an optional add) a future-use irrigation provision along the windbreak alignment to support establishment of a vegetative windbreak (tree line, such as dense eucalyptus), such as a capped lateral (externally) installed parallel to the windbreak. If desired, please confirm whether trees and ongoing care would be Government-provided and whether a capped “future use” provision (without pre-installed emission points) is acceptable.

Answer: Following the site visit, we have decided to remove the provision for the artificial wind break. Instead, we requested an irrigation line to run along the road so we can later established a natural wind break. See image.

12. Will there be a site visit scheduled for this project?

Answer: See response to question 10.

Additional Questions for Citrus Grove (following site visit).

11. Site-visit handout provided onsite (request to publish to all offerors) During the site visit, USDA personnel provided a one-page “Worksheet” titled “Re-establishing the citrus research grove at IMMDL TX”. The worksheet includes quantities/assumptions and an estimated direct-cost total (e.g., filtration tank, remote weather station, irrigation line footage, tree counts, land clearing, raised-bed construction, and associated contracts). Because this information directly influences technical approach and pricing, we respectfully request that USDA publish the Worksheet to all prospective offerors as a solicitation attachment (or via amendment) so that all offerors compete on the same information basis. Because the Worksheet was distributed to some offerors during the site visit. To ensure all offerors receive the same information, we respectfully request that USDA either post the Worksheet under the solicitation or confirm in writing that it is not part of the evaluation/performance baseline.

For context, the Worksheet shows $47,000 total direct cost and lists $0 for salary/benefits, travel, and indirect costs. To avoid differing interpretations, please confirm whether the Worksheet is intended as (a) internal planning only, or (b) the Government’s baseline configuration/quantities for evaluation and performance. If the Worksheet is informational only and not part of the evaluation/performance baseline, please confirm that offerors should price solely to the SOW as written.

Answer: The worksheet is for internal planning only and the pricing should be based on the SOW and clarifications from the answers.

12. Design-basis items described onsite as to-be-determined and/or different from the SOW understanding. Based on the site visit discussion and what was shown in the field, the following items appear to remain open design decisions and/or differ from the current SOW basis:

• Plot location / boundaries: The team discussed an expanded plot (approximately 4 acres) and showed a plot area near the wastewater facility (demarcation TBD), which appears different from the plot location identified in the SOW.

Answer: Yes, the site location has changed since the SOW was created due to changes on MAB. The new location will be at the site visited on Jan 20. See below google earth images of the new site location.

• Concrete pad: The need for, and location of, any concrete pad was described as undecided.

Answer: Preferably on concrete due to it being a flood area. Sizing: The size of the filter plus two feet all around and 2”X4” thick.

• Water tie-in / routing: The water tie-in point and routing were described as uncertain and may require locating/tracing. This level of utility locating/tracing scope is not explicitly defined in the SOW beyond a general tie-in requirement.

Answer: Government (FMS) can locate the tie-in point.

• Irrigation capacity / expansion baseline: The Government indicated the lot may expand, but a baseline irrigation demand/capacity (design flow and pressure requirement for evaluation) is not clearly established.

Answer: The irrigation requested is for this initial block.

• Fertigation: Agency representatives discussed interest in irrigation including fertilization (fertigation), but this is not clearly defined as a requirement in the SOW.

Answer: fertigation is required. Specific recommendations by the contactor are requested.

• Row orientation / lanes / windbreak: Row orientation/lanes and windbreak approach/species constraints were discussed as open design decisions.

Answer: Rows should be oriented perpendicular with the road off base. See image below:

13. Request for amendment/clarification and schedule alignment Because the above items directly affect civil quantities, materials, layout, and schedule, could you please advise whether USDA intends to issue an amendment (or written clarification) that establishes the baseline configuration for evaluation, including: (1) the plot location/boundaries to be priced, (2) whether a pad is required and where, (3) the water tie-in point and whether locating/tracing is contractor scope, (4) baseline irrigation requirements (including whether fertigation is required), and (5) baseline windbreak requirements for evaluation.

Answer: see above responses.

Additional comments:

At minimum, a marked-up site map (or coordinates) identifying the plot boundary and the intended water tie-in point would allow offerors to price consistently.

Additionally, the solicitation appears to be missing a defined basis of design for the water supply (e.g., dynamic pressure/flow criteria for the 2-inch supply over approximately 700 meters (~2,300 feet) and the intended zoning assumptions and required header pressure/flow). Establishing these criteria (and whether any booster pump/electrical/mechanical infrastructure is part of the baseline) is necessary for consistent pricing and performance.

Finally, we have observed the solicitation schedule being extended in short increments. Given the amount of design-basis information still to be defined, additional short extensions may not provide sufficient time for USDA to publish a stable baseline and for offerors to revise quotations accurately and consistently. If USDA anticipates issuing clarifications or revising the basis of design, we respectfully request consideration of an extension to the quotation due date that provides adequate time for all offerors to respond on a common, stable basis.

We respectfully request that these basis-of-design criteria be confirmed by the appropriate facilities/engineering/agronomy personnel so offerors can price consistently and USDA can evaluate on a common baseline.

We appreciate your guidance and remain interested in supporting IMMDL with a responsive, executable solution aligned with USDA’s intent and a fair, comparable evaluation.

Answer: We thank the contractor for these comments. Hopefully the information provided in the above responses and the images shared help clarify on the scope of work.

image1.png image2.png image3.png image4.png