A08-02.1282CS20Q0022_LonePineBigWaterCRI_SF30.pdf

(x)

1282CS20Q0022

x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

82CS

DURANGO CO 81301-3647

15 BURNETT COURT

SAN JUAN NATIONAL FOREST

04/09/20200002

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

04/09/2020

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

San Juan National Forest, Dolores Ranger District, RMRI Lone Pine, Big Water Cultural

Resource Inventory

---Amendment 0002---

The purpose of Amendment 0002 is to post a question and answer document.

---End of Amendment 0002---

Period of Performance: 05/01/2020 to 10/31/2021

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

RANDAL W. SADLER

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

Solicitation: 1282CS20Q0022 Lone Pine, Big Water Cultural Resources Inventory Page 2 of 2 Amendment 0002

Question & Answer Document

1. Is the deadline for the Base Unit, August 27, 2021, correct?

2021 is correct.

2. The archaeological district (5MT6599) that encompasses the previously documented archaeological sites was created in the 1980s. Since standards of documentation have changed since the 1980s, should sites that fall within the district be evaluated as eligible or not eligible rather than evaluated as contributing or not contributing to an outdated archaeological district?

OAHP requires that all sites within 5MT6599 be evaluated as contributing or noncontributing.

We have not had success in evaluating sites within the archaeological district as eligible or not eligible.

3. Without the use of GPS units in the 1980s, many of the previously recorded sites are likely to be misplotted. How much time and effort should be given to differentiate between newly documented or similar previously documented sites? The archaeological district contains a large quantity of sites in close proximity to one another and many with almost exact site descriptions.

If it’s possible to determine whether a site that has been identified in the field corresponds to a specific previously recorded site, that should be attempted. Given the obvious challenges that old locational data and minimal site descriptions present, if this isn’t possible, sites should be fully recorded according to modern professional standards, following the site defining criteria provided in the SOW, and assigned new Smithsonian numbers. The text of the survey report should explain what efforts were made to identify the site as one that had been previously documented, and why new site numbers (if appropriate) were assigned.

4. Are we expected to shovel test in the plotted locations of previously documented sites if no artifacts/features are observed?

Given the obvious challenges that old locational data and minimal site descriptions present, shovel testing in plotted locations that have no artifacts/features is not necessary. The exception to this is situations in which the surveyors have reason to believe that the plotted location is in fact accurate (based on photos in original site documentation, descriptions of site environment/topographic location, etc.), but the surface assemblage was 100% collected. This should be explained in the text of the survey report.

5. Are we expected to shovel test all previously documented contributing sites?

Previously documented contributing sites only need to be shovel tested if the surveyors have reason to believe that the site’s status as contributing should be reevaluated.