RFI Official Responses - 4.pdf
PDF 165 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 127EAW22R0028 - Caldor Fire Gates
- Solicitation number
- 127EAW22R0028
- Issued by
-
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFI Official Responses - 3 .pdf | ||
| A00002 - RFIs 3 and 4.pdf | ||
| A00001 - RFIs Round 1 and 2.pdf | ||
| RFI Official Responses - 2.pdf | ||
| RFI Official Responses - 1.pdf | ||
| Gate Pictures.pdf | ||
| 7. RFI.docx | DOCX document | |
| 127EAW22R0028 - Caldor Fire Gates.pdf | ||
| 5. Gate Locations and Type.pdf | ||
| 1. Statement of Work.pdf | ||
| 2. Fire Plan.pdf | ||
| 4. Drawings and Maps.pdf | ||
| 6. Davis-Bacon Act WD # CA20210007.pdf | ||
| 3. Schedule.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 14
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
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) OFFICIAL RESPONSES
127EAW22R0028 - Caldor Fire Gates
RFI responses will be responded to as necessary in amendment format which will be posted to the solicitation via beta.SAM.gov
Telephone requests for information will not be accepted or returned.
RFI #1 – For Gate type A the bottom of the sheet has Contract gate size listed as 14’ and 16’. But if you refer to the Gate location and descriptions page all of gate A should be larger than 16’ as the smallest roads are listed at approximately 20’, some are even listed at 25’ and 2 lane roads. Please advise if there is going to be a more appropriate detail being released to accommodate +-25’ gate spans?
USFS Response – No additional details available. Gate length is location dependent. Gate type is typical of desired gate (ie, Single arm, Double Arm, Single Arm Square, Double Arm Square).
RFI #2 – Is there an area set aside that the General Contractor can use as a staging/Storage area for this project?
USFS Response – Location TBD after contract award
RFI #3 – Can I get a plan view of the Bearing strap, with clearer details?
USFS Response – No other drawings.
RFI #4 – The Gate Locations / Location Description attachment calls to repair the existing gate at
MET at Iron Mountain, 38.628, -120.222. Please clarify, is the damaged gate to be repaired the one at the Snow Park? There is no further access down MET as it is snowed in.
USFS Response – The gate to be potentially repaired is the existing gate at the old Iron
Mountain Snow Park. There is a new gate to be installed past that point on MET.
RFI #5 – If one gate is being repaired is the contractor still fabricating and installing 16 gates? Or only fabricating 15 gates and repairing one gate?
USFS Response – Fabricate 16, repair (if possible) 1
RFI #6 – The Forest Service answered an RFI regarding the repair of the damaged gate at MET
38.628, -120.222 the response is to straighten and re-anchor the gate. Is the intent of “straighten and re-anchor” to re-set the posts with new foundations to a vertical position? Are any metal parts to also be straightened? Will removal of decals, painting or signage be required on the repaired gate?
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
USFS Response – Intent is to reset the posts in new foundations in a vertical position so existing gate arms can function. Additionally, replace decals and signage as necessary
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .