B01-A01_Ensign_Gulch_Prebid_mtg.docx

Ensign Gulch Pre-bid Meeting 7/16/2019 0900 Attendees:

All had shared that they had read through the contract prior to the meeting. Before taking questions, I took the opportunity to share that the K-C 3.5.2 (page 19, Appendix B) Designation for units 3, 4, and 7 is written to define stump diameters but equates to all trees in the 5” up to and including 11” dbh. This allowed them to get a visual for what would be removed as we looked at units.

There were two discussion topics generated from the contractor’s questions, both regarding the mastication specs (page 6, appendix A, item g), that were clarified by the Forest Service:

1. The first was related specifically to the statement that material “shall not exceed four (4) feet in length.” The point was raised by the contractors that when they are required to masticate trees up to 10” dbh, it is difficult to masticate the boles to a 4’ max length. The Forest Service explained that boles could be bucked to four foot lengths and anything exceeding that should be an exception (not regular occurrence) to be approved by the COR.

2. The second issue was clarifying the statement that boles “shall be six (6) inches or less above the ground.” One interpretation of this statement was that boles exceeding 6 inches in height (as they lay) should be ground down to within six inches of the ground surface. The Forest Service explained that the intent was to get the boles to lie as flat on the ground as possible. Further explained that there should be no more than six inches of space between the ground surface and the surface of the bole if, for example the two ends of the bole contacted the surface of uneven ground leaving the middle of the bole suspended.

It was confirmed by the Forest Service that landing and temporary road locations, lengths and sizes are not dictated by the contract and that the contractor would be expected to come to agreements with the COR based on their own operational capabilities and procedures.

The Forest Service reiterated that the contract is not meant to dictate the methods used by the contractor, but define the specs of the outcome. Different approaches to achieve the desired outcome, as defined in the contract, are acceptable as related to the mastication spec and landing/temp road discussions.

We also reviewed the powerline specs and looked at both the transmission line and service line running through the project.