127EAW25R0014 - RFI Official Responses - 1.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) OFFICIAL RESPONSES

127EAW25R0014 - Plumas NF Lookouts Restrooms

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 – will the down trees be removed prior to for the Red Rock look out?

USFS Response – Trees will be cut out of the main road accessing Red Rock Lookout past the gate prior to contract start.

RFI #2 – There is a water source for the Red Rock lookout about the 7 mile marker. Will we be able to utilize that waterhole just off the road for water?

USFS Response – The only water source that is authorized to be used is a drafting site marked in red below. A 2mm screen is required on the intake hose. Additionally the following BMPs are required: The water drafting rate should not exceed 350 gallons per minute for stream flow greater than or equal to 2.0 cfs, Drafting rate should not exceed 50 percent of the surface flow, drafting should cease when bypass surface flow drops below 10 gallons per minute, and intaks shall be placed parallel to the flow of water. Contractor is required to give 48 hours notice prior to drafting activities commencing.

RFI #3 – At the Dixie lookout there is another existing vault. Is that vault to be removed as well on this contract?

USFS Response – There is only one permanent toilet vault at the Dixie location that is included in the demolition scope, reference plan C-04 in Attachment A Drawing Set.

RFI #4 – Do you need a California Contractor License to bid this job?

USFS Response – No, a contractor license is not required to submit a proposal.

RFI #5 – Note 6 on page 1 of the drawings states Contractor is required to coordinate all

Historic requirements during construction with USDA. What are these requirements? How is the Contractor to account for the cost and time associated with these potential historical requirements. Is there any information pertaining to potential SHPO requirements the

Contractor could be provided to better understand these potential impacts to cost or schedule.

USFS Response – The Dixie Mountain and Mills Peak Toilet locations are considered historic.

The siting and look and feel of the new buildings at these locations should match the look and feel of the existing asset prior to demolition. The design package takes into consideration these requirements for all restroom locations. The contractor will be required to coordinate with the

Government on a paint color for those buildings requiring paint.

RFI #6 – Note 7 on Page 3 of the drawings states Contractor shall procure all permits, Fees, Licenses and Pay for related taxes as required to perform full scope of work. Has the USDA applied for the permits for this project? If not, what permits are required so that the

Contractor can include the cost?

USFS Response – No permits, including building or septic system permits are required for this contract.

RFI #7 – Are there any indications of asbestos in the existing structures requiring to be demolished and removed? If Asbestos is encountered how will the additional cost for removal be addressed in the contract.

USFS Response – There is no indication of asbestos at the locations requiring demolition. If asbestos is encountered a supplemental agreement modification will be put in place.

RFI #8 – Can premixed bagged concrete with a portable mixer be used instead of commercial readymix concrete for the slabs, steps, etc. due to the remote location and restricted access for equipment to the work area. Would this method be acceptable?

USFS Response – Yes this would be acceptable for locations where concrete trucks are not able to access. Cold joints are not acceptable. Bagged concrete mix is required to comply with performance and testing requirements as listed in specification 033000.

RFI #9 – Is there a specification for door material/species for the entry door to the bathroom and the access door to the solid waste container?

USFS Response – Provide Type 1-1x10 T&G cedar siding with beveled edge secured to 15/32” marine plywood. Type 2- 1-3/8” cedar paneled door.

RFI #10 – Is there a specification for the solid waste container?

USFS Response – The solid waste container Basis of Design is 17" x 17" x 27" (H) Mini Waste

Away® Drum - FIBC Tote. This product or a similar product meeting the dimensions and characteristics of the basis of design is acceptable.

RFI #11 – Is the contractor to provide bags for the solid waste container and if so, is there a specification and quantity for these bags?

USFS Response – The basis of design waste container includes the bag. The entire tote is disposed of. The contractor shall provide 10 totes per toilet. In addition, provide a minimum of

50 biohazards bags, minimum 5 cubic feet.

RFI #12 – Are compression or fused fittings preferred for HDPE pipe connections to toilet and leach field system?

USFS Response – Contractor shall provide proposed method of connection for HDPE urine conveyance pipe to toilet structure piping and leach field piping in the technical proposal. Both connections shall allow for easy disconnection of the HDPE pipe for maintenance or replacement. All PVC components of the connections must be located so as to be protected from direct sunlight.

RFI #13 – What is the thickness of the marine plywood for the hatch access to the solid waste container?

USFS Response – Provide ½” thick marine plywood.

RFI #14 – Is Schedule 80 pipe for leach field to be factory perforated or can it be perforated manually in the field?

USFS Response – Factory-perforated piping is preferred. If 1.5” factory perforated schedule 80

PVC is not available, contractor may submit an alternative factory-perforated product for consideration or may submit a plan for field-perforating the piping for consideration in the technical proposal.

RFI #15 – What does coordination of Historic requirements with USDA entail?

USFS Response – Reference response to RFI #5

RFI #16 – Will accommodation be made for any site discrepancies or adverse conditions observed when work commences since a pre-bid site visit will not be possible before the bid date, specifically referring to the following plan notes and addenda:

1. Note A.11 on Sheet G-03

2. Note B.1 on Sheet G-03

3. Note B.9 on Sheet G-.0

4. Addendum 2

USFS Response – No event shall failure to inspect the site constitute grounds for a claim after contract award. Only unforeseen conditions will be reviewed for a possible change in award price. Note – Only one site location had a formal site visit as listed in the solicitation completed on 6/12/2025. All other sites were the responsibility of the bidder and are accessible at time of bidding.

RFI #17 – Given the importance in being able to determine access to build location from the parking area for construction equipment (path of travel), the specific soil conditions at build locations (degree of excavation difficulty) and the need to determine safety requirements

(personnel, site and public) will consideration be given to delaying the bid date until such a time as the sites become accessible in Spring of 2025?

USFS Response – All of the sites are currently accessible.