RFI Official Responses - 1.pdf

PDF 179 KB Posted

Attached to
127EAW22R0037 - Loop 6 Bridge Replacement Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
127EAW22R0037
Issued by
Department of Agriculture Forest Service

About this file

This document contains responses to requests for information (RFIs) regarding solicitation 127EAW22R0037 for the Loop 6 Bridge Replacement project on the Tahoe National Forest. The Forest Service responded to twelve RFIs providing clarification on various aspects of the project, confirming that temporary fencing and sanitation facilities would be allowed onsite but not paid items, the creek flows year-round, no special permits are required for using pack animals, and alternate staging areas may be used if approved by the district. The solicitation is for a small business set-aside construction project with an estimated value between $250,000 and $500,000 to be awarded by the USDA Forest Service.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to 127EAW22R0037 - Loop 6 Bridge Replacement, newest first.
File Type Posted
A00004 - RFIs.pdf PDF
RFI Official Responses - 3.pdf PDF
A00003 - RFIs.pdf PDF
RFI Official Responses - 2.pdf PDF
A00002 - RFIs.pdf PDF
A00001 - Time Extension.pdf PDF
127EAW22R0037 - Loop 6 Bridge Replacement.pdf PDF
1. Statement of Work.pdf PDF
3. Schedule.docx DOCX document
4. Map and Drawings.pdf PDF
7. Davis-Bacon Act WD # CA20220007.pdf PDF
8. RFI Form.docx DOCX document
6. Forest Service Supplemental Specifications.pdf PDF
5. Bridge Pictures.pdf PDF
2. Fire Plan.pdf PDF
Show all 15

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • 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

127EAW22R0037 - Loop 6 Bridge Replacement

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 – PRIMARY HELICOPTOR LANDING & LOADING AREA. IS THE CONTRACTOR

ALLOWED TO SECURE THE LANDING & LOADING AREA WITH TEMPERARY

FENCING?

USFS Response – Yes, it would be incidental to the project, no pay item will be added for temporary fencing.

RFI #2 – INSPECTIONS. IS THERE SHOP INSPECTION ON THE STRUCUAL STEEL

BRIDGE COMPONENTS REQUIRED?

USFS Response – We can work with contractor to do shop inspections or inspect in place, either is fine with FS

RFI #3 – SANITARY FACILITIES, SHALL THE CONTRACTOR ASSUME A MODIFED

(FOR LIFTING) PORTA POTTIE FOR THE BRIDGE SITE AND IF ALLOWED TO FENCE, A

PORTA POTTIE FOR THE LANDING SITE.

USFS Response – Temp fencing is allowed, but incidental for the project, as will any sanitary facilities, modified or not.

RFI #4 – DOES THE CREEK FLOW YEAR-ROUND? IS WATER EXPECTED IN THE CREEK

AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION? WE COULD NOT DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF

WATER IN THE PICTURES PROVIDED.

USFS Response – The creek does flow year-round.

RFI #5 – CLAIRIFCATION ON STATEMENT OF WORK, SCOPE OF CONTRACT, LINE 7

CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR “PERMITS AND REQUIRED TESTING NECESSARY

TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT” IS THE AGENCY AWARE OF ANY PERMITS OR TESTING

NOT INDICATED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR DRAWINGS?

USFS Response – No permits or testing required, just general language on the contract.

RFI #6 – CLLAIRIFICATION ON OPTION 1. DISMANTLE WOODEN SUPERSTRUCTURE.

THE PICTURES AND AS-BUILTS PROVIDED IN THE RFP SHOW, 2) W8X30 JUNIOR

BEANS SPANNING TWO C.I.P. ABUTMENTS WITH A 4 X 16 DECK TIMBER WITH WHAT

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

APPEARS TO BE 2 X 4 WOODEN HAND RAIL. FASONE ASSUMES THAT THE DECK

MAKE UP IS THE SUPERSTRUCTURE? QUESTION, IF THAT OPTION IS NOT CHOOSEN,

HOW DO YOU REMOVE THE JUNIOR BEAMS FROM UNDER THE DECK? WHAT

SECURES THE TIMBER DECKING IN PLACE? AND I MISSING SOMETHING?

USFS Response – Beams are bolted on to anchor them to the abutments. Option 1 is for contractor to dismantle all components of the superstructure, package for removal, and dispose of the pieces correctly off Forest Service land. If option 1 is not selected, then the FS will remove decking, and railing from I-beams, setting it aside for contractor disposal off FS land.

RFI #7 – THE OPTION CALL OUT TO DISMANTLE THE SUPERSTRUCTURE. DOES THIS

BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR? SEC 203 – REMOVAL OF

STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS, SEC.05 DISPOSING OF MATERIAL. THIS SECTION

DOES NOT APPLY. PLEASE ADVISE.

USFS Response –When section 203, Removal of Structures and Obstructions is indicated, then all the sections under 203 are included. Therefore 203.05 disposing of materials is also included.

Thus, the materials removed become the property of the contractor, the contractor then is will be able to recycle, salvage, or dispose of the materials properly off FS land.

RFI #8 – WHERE IS NEAREST POTABLE WATER FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.

USFS Response – There is no potable water nearby, it will need to be brought in from Foresthill.

RFI #9 – Reference is made to plans sheet No. 2. The transverse section calls for the deck plank to be “3 X 12 (Full Dimension Lumber) X 7’-2” deck plank.” In the Deck Plank Details view a note calls for 3 X 12 – 7’-2” planks S4S, while a dimension line in the same view shows the planks width to be 11-1/4” wide.

Which dimensions should be used for the deck plank?

USFS Response – Deck plank width should be 12" and deck planks should be next to each other

(no gap between) as shown on the plan view on sheet 3. The 11 1/4" was the width of the original deck planks, which had 3/4" gaps between them.

RFI #10 – Do we need a special permit for using pack mules or horses to reach the site with materials?

USFS Response – No permit required.

RFI #11 – Can we camp onsite overnight?

USFS Response – Yes, site to be agreed to by district and must follow all fire safety regulations.

RFI #12 – Are we limited to the staging areas listed on the map, or can we use alternate sites?

USFS Response – Alternate sites are fine, if they are pre-approved by the district.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .