127EAW25R0009 - RFI Official Responses - 1.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) OFFICIAL RESPONSES

127EAW25R0009 - West Camino Cielo Road Repairs

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 – Roadway section – Location near pot hole 72 – Longitude -120.00616 approximately. A very large Boulder (see attached Photo) has fallen into the roadway section. Is the intent that this

Boulder is to be removed to maintain the 16’ roadway cross section shown on plan sheet C-01

USFS Response – Yes, remove and strategically place in project area, to be determined by COR.

RFI #2 – Equipment and material staging areas:

Can the open areas at the beginning and end of the project be used for staging

Can the larger turnout be used to stage equipment along the roadway be used for staging

USFS Response – ,Both ends can be used for staging. The large turnout in the middle of the project area can be partially used for stagging. There is a recorded site there but there is enough room to stage once Archeologist flags off the avoidance area

RFI #3 – Roadway section: Areas along the roadway require excavation alongside the existing cut slope to maintain the section shown on plan sheet C-01 16’-17’ +/-

Several of the locations have existing slides from the cut slope with unstable material. Cutting into these areas will cause more of the slope to slide down onto the roadway.

What is to be done for slope stabilization in these cut sections. Are we required to maintain the 16-

17’ section in these areas

USFS Response – Clean travel way as best as you can without causing additional slumping.

RFI #4 – Roadway Excavation: Can clean excavation from the roadway cut sections be dumped, graded and compacted at the large dirt turnout along the alignment. Several of the larger dirt turnouts could use regrading and this could be a good use of the onsite material. Not having to export off site.

USFS Response – Yes ,Both ends can be used for staging. The large turnout in the middle of the project area can be partially used for stagging. There is a recorded site there but there is enough room to stage once Archeologist flags off the avoidance area

RFI #5 – Please Clarify Addendum 2 Cutting Roadway Vegetation

Section 2 d. 3) Materials may be scattered downslope from the roadbed, outside of the work area and drainages. Concentrations shall be rescattered or removed.

Can all cut vegetation from the project be left onsite on the downslope from the roadbed or it to be hauled off site for disposal.

USFS Response – If the Contractor is not utilizing a masticator, then yes, the large vegetation should be hauled off and is incidental to the specification.

RFI #6 – Traffic Control: Can West Camino Cielo Road be closed to public travel during working hours.

The roadway is very narrow and maintaining a work zone and a 10’ lane width for most of the project limits will not be possible

USFS Response – There is no gate where the project begins, and there are also landowners that utilize the road. The Contractor should plan on having someone monitor the entrance when the road is not passable due to work taking place. This will be a challenge throughout the project.

RFI #7 – Section B Schedule of Items Item 20402 Roadway excavation and embankment, compaction 204.11.3, tolerance class Ahas an estimated Qty of 6.72 mile. The roadway lengths measures 5.4 miles from start to finish just passed pot hole 103 at longitude -119.99128. Please clarify the difference form the measured onsite millage to the Qty in item 20402

USFS Response – The Forest Service utilized GIS data for the length of the project. This is only an estimate, and the Contractor needs to calculate what they believe is the correct quantities to complete the project.

RFI #8 – On the plan sheets there are several green dots that are not numbered. Please clarify what they represent. Example

USFS Response – The map was generated in GIS and when the dots get too close together it cannot display every number. Each dot represents a failure and need to be addressed.

RFI #9 – Can the Ditch Section shown on plan sheet C-01 be located on the plan view along the roadway? Locations of existing ditches that need to be excavated and/or regraded.

USFS Response – Existing ditches should be cleaned after the brushing has taken place to ensure that drainage will function when the project is finished. FP-14 Specification 20402

RFI #10 – For the Brushing & Grubbing of 7.62 miles, can the Government clarify how far from the road on each side this is required? In other words is this just for the embankment section or an area past it?

USFS Response – The roadside brushing is the same mileage as the travel way 6.72 this is a typo.

The brushing should be 10’ from roadside edge on both sides where possible.

An updated attachment “2. Schedule of Items” will be posted via amendment.

RFI #11 – The Schedule of Items includes Item 842 Brushing and Grubbing for 7.62 MILE. The drawings include Item 832 Remove and End Haul Materials for 25 CY. Are we to include Removal and End Haul Materials in the Bid Item 842?

USFS Response – No, preferably a masticator will be used and the woody chips will be distributed into the brushed area. If the masticator is not used, then the large branches/brush shall be hauled of and is incidental to the specification.

RFI #12 – We cannot locate the Supplemental, and Special Project Specifications. Can these sections please be provided

USFS Response – Amendment A00001 posted the 842 - Vegetation Spec as an attachment.

RFI #13 – Amendment 2 842 CUTTING ROADWAY VEGETATION references Special Project

Specifications for the height and width of the vegetation to be cut.

SECTION C--DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.4 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Section J of this contract contains Supplemental and Special Project Specifications that supplement and/or modify the Standard Specifications. The Standard, Supplemental, and Special Project

Specifications shall all be used in conjunction with each other to properly determine the correct specification for each Pay Item in the Schedule of Items.

USFS Response – The 842 Specification states Special Project Specification. This can be disregarded. The roadside brushing will be 10’ from road edge on both sides where possible. The

LPF would hope an honest effort to brush the difficult areas such as cut banks, around rocks, etc… would be implemented.

RFI #14 – What is to be done with large rocks that are located along the road work area?

USFS Response – remove and strategically place in project area, to be determined by COR

RFI #15 – Is there traffic to be expected? Will we be able to close the road to general public?

USFS Response – There is no gate where the project begins, and there are also landowners that utilize the road. The Contractor should plan on having someone monitor the entrance when the road is not passable due to work taking place. No road closures, This will be a challenge throughout the project.

RFI #16 – Is Schedule of items B.1 item 842 Brushing and Grubbing “QTY 7.62” correct or incorrect?

USFS Response – The roadside brushing is the same mileage as the travel way 6.72 this is a typo.

The brushing should be 10’ from roadside edge on both sides where possible

An updated attachment “2. Schedule of Items” will be posted via amendment.

RFI #17 – Is Item Contractor testing a third party or performed by contractor?

USFS Response – Third Party