A11_QA-Log2-12970224R0024_V2_6Mar2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 46 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Trimmer & Auberry Station and Work Center
- Solicitation number
- 12970224R0024
- Issued by
-
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
About this file
This document is a comprehensive Questions and Answers (Q&A) log for a Design-Build contract solicitation (No. 12970224R0024) for the Trimmer & Auberry Station and Work Center project by the U.S. Forest Service. The project involves designing and constructing new administrative buildings to replace facilities lost during the Creek Fire, with a total project maximum value of $13 million and a 730-day period of performance anticipated to begin around May 15, 2025.
Key details include the requirement for architectural and conceptual utility drawings for barracks and engine bay buildings, with specific submission guidelines for electronic and physical copies. The project will involve designing solar-ready infrastructure, new water systems with a 50,000-gallon tank, fire hydrants, hazardous material storage buildings, and facilities for Forest Service vehicles. Notable requirements include using Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs), meeting energy efficiency standards, and incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) techniques for stormwater management. Design presentations are scheduled for the week of April 7-11, 2025, with a proposal due date anticipated for April 2, 2025.
View the file
Other files
Show all 34
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A_PCS
| Item No. | Question Asked | Government Response | Ref. | Repeat Question? | Repeat Question Orig Item No. Resp | Original Government Response | |
| 1 | Please confirm whether there is an updated RFP document for Phase II and provide if available. The documents uploaded to the sam.gov listing do not include an RFP with instructions. The Phase I Revision 1 of the RFP contained information on the Phase II proposal requirements, contents, submission instructions, etc. but this document has since been removed. | Updated information would be provided as the project moves along. If the RFP has changes, updated information would be provided to the contractors so they can bid the project accordingly. | |||||
| 2 | On page 40 of Revision 1 of the RFP released with the Phase I of this solicitation, it is stated that "During Phase II, the Government will state the maximum dollar amount of the award." | ||||||
| No such information has been provided to the bidders. Please provide the maximum dollar amount that has been budgeted for this project. | The Government establishes a Project Maximum $-value of $13M. Vendors are advised that proposals will be evaluated with a Best Value approach. | ||||||
| 3 | On page 47 of Revision 1 of the RFP released with the Phase I of this solicitation, has information regarding submission of physical copies that has been crossed out in the Volume IIA section. On page 48 of the same document states "Provide 2 physical copies". The Volume IIB section on the same page notes that 1 copy of the Arch D planset and 2 copies of the Arch B planset are to be provided. No instructions on submission of the physical copies are provided. Please confirm whether the Phase II proposal submission is electronic, physical, or both. Please provide instructions for whatever submission method/ methods is/ are required. | Providde electronic copies of both volumes and presentation (PDF format). Volume 2A, provide 2 physical copies. Volume 2B, provide 4 physical copies of B size, Plan sets to be 11x17 (pdf format). 4 physical copies of presentation. Physical copies to be provided at time of proposal presentation in person. Volume 2C to be submitted to CO. (excel and pdf format). Page limitation will be set to no more than 50 pages. | |||||
| 4 | Based on Revision 1 of the RFP released with Phase I documents, which has been removed from the sam.gov listing, the following items are required to be submitted as a part of the Phase II proposals. Please confirm this list derived from pages 47-48 and section M5 starting on page 58: | correct. It is anticipated that the package would have those items listed. For the concept drawings under voloume 2A, Provide those separate. They don't have to be downsize to fit a 8.5x11. For the project schedule, it can be separate, provide 11x17. | |||||
| 5 | Based on the RFP released with Phase I documents, which has been removed from the sam.gov listing, the following requirements/ limits apply to Phase II proposals. Please confirm below listed items: |
Volume IIA > Provide (2) physical copies. Page limit is (20) pages per criterion. Provide a narrative response to all Phase II evaluation criteria.
Volume IIB - Architectural Drawings > Provide (1) copy of architectural D size, (2) copies of architectural B size.
Volume IIC - Price Proposal
| > Submit firm-fixed price proposal. Page limit is (20) pages at minimum. Pricing shall be in MS Excel Format. | see response #3. Page limitation will be set to no more than 50 pages. | ||
| 6 | Based on Revision 1 of the RFP released with Phase I documents, the drawings listed to be included in the proposal do not indicate the design discipline. Based on information provided at the jobwalk, the Government is seeking a comprehensive solution for utilities and MEPs. Please confirm whether the proposals are to include architectural drawings only, per RFP or a comprehensive set of drawings from all disciplines. | Proposal is to include architectural and conceptual of utilities and MEPs. For both type of buildings (barracks and engine bay) provide; Site Plan of the site, Floor Plan, Elevations, Typical Building Sections, 3D renderings. For trimmer metal building provide elevations and 3D renderings. For the Auberry metal building provide floor plan, elevations, and 3D renderings. | |
| 7 | Volume IIA Criteria 4 lists drawings to be included in the volume. Volume IIB is also reserved for drawings only. Please confirm that proposers are to include the developed set of drawings in Volume IIA Criteria 4 and provide guidelines such as page size. Are these to be scaled to 8.5"x11" sheets or just be included within the narrative as illustrations/ visual aids supporting the design narrative? | Do not include drawings into Volume 2A. Only provide drawings as part of Volume 2B. Plan sets to be 11x17, B size (pdf format). | |
| 8 | Volume IIA Criteria 5 lists Project Schedule as a submission component. Please confirm that the Government is looking for a PDF version and not a source file from the software used to develop the schedule. | Correct, provide a PDF version of the schedule (11x17). No source file from the software. | |
| 9 | On page 59 of Revision 1 of the RFP released with the Phase I of this solicitation, the following is stated with regards to the schedule: "This schedule shall establish the Period of Performance and completion date based on the date of anticipated award listed in the Phase II RFP." |
No Phase II RFP has been provided and no documents list an anticipated award date. Please provide the anticipated NTP or award date? is there a POP or a target completion date that the Government needs the construction to be completed by? The Period of Performance is 730 days from NTP.
The projected award date is on or around 15May2025.
| 10 | Volume IIC Criterion 6 - Price lists a Completed Price Proposal Form to be included. Please provide this form. | Use the proposed schedule of values provided. |
| 11 | Please provide existing topographic drawings for the Trimmer and Auberry sites. | the governemtn does not have a topo of the sites. Any other site drawings Would be provided. |
| 12 | Please provide any existing site plans showing utility layout, existing site layout, etc. for the design teams to reference. | The government would provide any existing information related to the project. |
| 13 | We respectfully request the owner consider modifying the contract structure for this project from a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) to a Cost Plus Fee with a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) model. This adjustment would better align the project timeline, current stage of design development, and the level of cost certainty required by both parties. The time frame allocated for preparing the FFP proposal is insufficient. Bidders must rely heavily on their designers to produce a conceptual design. While this approach establishes an initial vision for the project, it does not provide sufficient detail for accurately estimating construction costs. To manage risks, bidders may include inflated contingencies in their proposals, which could result in an unnecessarily high FFP. Alternatively, an underestimated proposal could lead to cost overruns and project delays. |
| Under a Cost-Plus Fee with GMP structure, the project can proceed more efficiently and transparently while ensuring cost predictability for the Government. Bidders provide pricing for General Conditions, General Requirements, Design & Engineering Costs, Overhead and Profit. Actual direct construction costs would be tracked transparently and presented to the owner as the design nears completion. These costs would then be incorporated into a mutually agreed-upon GMP. As the design phase progresses and construction details are finalized, a GMP would be established, providing the owner with cost certainty while maintaining flexibility during design development. | The Government does not intend to amend the solicitation (or any resulting award) from Firm-Fixed-Price to Cost-Plus. Vendor input and in+C17+C14 | ||
| 14 | Please provide any schematic drawings as discussed at jobwalk (plumbing, other utilities, site). | Would be provided. | |
| 15 | Can the Government conduct a Geotechnical Investigation and provide the Geotechnical Report for the designers to reference? The civil and structural require this information to perform analysis and design various elements, such as foundations, retaining walls, etc. The information found in this report will affect the earthwork operations and impact cost. | No report is available. The Contractor shall include all assumptions. It is the contractors responsibility to seek such information for the project. When there is no soils report available, typically use geologic maps from the California geologic survey. | |
| 16 | It is unclear what stage of design Phase II corresponds to. Please confirm whether the current proposal phase is corresponding to the Conceptual Design Verification as described in the following documents: |
> Revision 1 of RFP released in Phase I, page 10 section F2. Other Requirements, point b. (see below) Conceptual Design Verification (CDV): The time period during which the design criteria are finalized and preliminary drawings and written descriptions are prepared to illustrate the proposed design of the work or a portion of the work to the Government. 35% Submittal required.
> Project Program, page 6, section 5.0 Buildings, subsection 5.1 B Designs Provided by the USFS Region 5 (see below)
| R5 Barracks Construction Drawings and Specifications – 90% Construction Document drawings & specifications to be provided by the Government prior to the 35% deliverable Due Date. These drawings will include Architectural, Electrical, and Mechanical. A&E Firm will be responsible for reviewing drawings and completing the missing components for the complete design. Completing structural calculations and design of all elements including Structurally Insulated Panel (SIP) components, fire sprinklers, completing geotechnical for foundation design with calculations for a complete Construction Drawing Package. The A&E firm will be responsible for stamping the final set for construction and providing all construction administrative services with this design. | The varification of the conceptual drawings provided would be completed once the project is awarded. For phase II tasks, see response #3. | ||
| 17 | Refer to Solicitation 12970224R0024, Part IV, Section L, Clause 452.215-71 (c) [Page 40] - This part of the solicitation states that during Phase II, the Government will stat the maximum dollar amount of award. Please state what this amount will be. | The Government establishes a Project Maximum $-value of $13M. Vendors are advised that proposals will be evaluated with a Best Value approach. | |
| 18 | Refer to Solicitation 12970224R0024, Part IV, Section L, Clause 452.215-71 (d) [Page 40] - This part of the solicitation states two confidential meetings will be held with each offeror and the Government. Please indicate how and when these meetings can be scheduled. | Confidential Pre-Proposal Conferences were held 26Feb2025 and 27Feb2025. Design Presentations are anticipated to be held the week of 7Apr2025 through 11Apr2025. | |
| 19 | Attachment C - Project Manual - Section 014000 - 1.06A- This section states the Design-Build Contractor is to employ and pay for services on an independent testing agency to perform testing and inspection. This typically is a conflict of interest to hold the testing agency under the Design-Builder. Please confirm the Government should be employing the testing and inspection agency. | The government would not be employing the testing and inspection agency. It is the contractors responsibility to employ such testing and inspection services. | |
| 20 | Attachment C - Project Manual - Section 019000 - 1.01E- This section states the Commissioning Agent is to be employed by the Design-Build Contractor. This typically is a conflict of interest to hold the Commissioning Agent under the Design-Builder. Please confirm the Government should be employing the Commissioning Agent. | No commissioning services required. It is expected to meet california commissioning code (cal green) standards for commercial buildings. | |
| 21 | During the job walk, it was mentioned that existing overhead utilities near the proposed locations for the engine bay and pre-fab metal building at the Trimmer site would be decommissioned and relocated by the Government. To ensure proper coordination, please provide a detailed confirmation of the specific services and utility poles that will be removed, including their exact locations. Additionally, confirm that the Government will assume responsibility for all associated costs, permits, fees, and applications necessary to complete this scope of work. If possible, please clarify the timeline for these activities to ensure they align with the overall project schedule. | The government would coordinate with pg&e to have the power disconnected from the poles. The government would coordinate with PG&E about the application, agreement, and fees associated. The contractor would assist on this process by providing needed information for the application such as loads for the site. It would be the contractors responsibility to coordinate any inspections with PG&E in the interior of the site and main connections. | |
| 22 | During the job walk for the Trimmer and Auberry sites, it was noted that the existing primary overhead electrical services are single-phase rather than three-phase. We would like to confirm if three-phase power is required to support the anticipated facility loads, including equipment such as water pumps, appliances, or other systems. If three-phase power is necessary, please confirm that the Government will handle all coordination, fees, applications, and associated activities required to bring three-phase power onsite at both locations. Additionally, if three-phase power is required, please provide details on any expected timeline to ensure alignment with the overall project schedule. | For Auberry, if single phase power is adequate for the needs of the metal building, than the government would not seek 3 phase power. Trimmer, If the existing power source is adequate, than the government would not seek 3 phase power. If 3 phase power is required, the government would coordinate with PG&E about the application, agreement, and fees associated. The contractor would assist on this process by providing needed information for the application such as loads for the site. It would be the contractors responsibility to coordinate any inspections with PG&E in the interior of the site and main connections. It would still be the contractors responsibility to connect to the main power source, once PG&E finishes thier portion. | |
| 23 | In reference to Section 3.3 A of the Project Program, which states that telecommunications services are to be determined by the Design-Build Contractor (DBC), we would like to confirm the following details to ensure proper planning and design: | ||
| 1. | During the job walk, it was noted that Ponderosa is the existing telecommunications utility provider. Please confirm if Ponderosa is the provider for both the Trimmer and Auberry sites. | ||
| 2. | To assist in the design and coordination of telecommunications infrastructure, we request any available as-built plans, utility maps, or other documentation that indicate the location of existing telecommunications utilities for both sites. | ||
| 3. | Please confirm the scope of telecommunications services required. We assume both voice and internet services are mandatory. Additionally, is cable TV service required at either site? | ||
| Clarification of these details will allow us to ensure compliance with project requirements and coordinate effectively with the utility provider and the Government. | No cable TV services are required for the both sites. Correct, Voice over internet protocal (VoIP) are required. Any plans would be provided. Ponderosa is the existing provider for both sites. | ||
| 24 | In reference to Section 3.2 B of the Project Program, which outlines the requirement for the facilities to meet "solar-ready" standards, please provide additional clarification on the specific expectations for compliance. Are there any defined criteria, such as structural reinforcement, electrical infrastructure (e.g., conduit, inverter space, or designated panel capacity), or roof load specifications, that must be integrated into the design? Additionally, is there a preferred orientation or designated roof space required for future solar panel installation? If applicable, please confirm whether the Government will provide specific guidelines or if industry standards should be followed for solar readiness. | We are calling to have solar ready infrusture for solar panels. So that later the Forest can purse a solar system on those buildings. Roof system shall be designed to hold the additional load. Follow industry standards for solar readiness. | |
| 25 | During the design and planning phase of the Trimmer and Auberry facilities, it is critical to understand the specifications of all government vehicles that will utilize the new facilities. To ensure that the design adequately accommodates all operational needs, we request detailed specifications for the following types of vehicles: |
Light-duty trucks Fire engines Crew buggies Additionally, if there are other vehicle types, such as specialty equipment or support vehicles, anticipated to use these facilities, please provide their specifications as well.
Key details requested include:
Dimensions (length, width, height, and weight) Turning radius requirements Parking and maneuvering needs Any specific utility or maintenance requirements (e.g., fueling stations, wash facilities, etc.)
This information is necessary to confirm that the facilities meet all operational requirements and avoid design adjustments later in the process. tipical dimensions: crew buggies 152 inches long, 62.5 inches wide, 78 inch high. Fire engines: type 3 fire engine. Ligh duty trucks: 12 ft - 16 ft long x 6 ft 6 in wide x 6 ft high. More information about the dimentions can be obtained via web search. No specific utility nor maintenance requirements.
26 To ensure clarity and proper integration during the design-build process for the Trimmer and Auberry facilities, we request a complete list of all owner-furnished, contractor-installed (OFCI) equipment. Please include the following details for each item:
Equipment Name and Description: Provide the specific equipment type, model, and manufacturer details.
Quantity: Specify the number of units to be furnished.
Dimensions and Weight: Include all relevant physical specifications (length, width, height, and weight).
Power Requirements: Indicate voltage, amperage, and any special electrical considerations.
Utility Connections: Specify required plumbing, electrical, or other connections, including schematics if available.
Delivery Timeline: Confirm expected delivery dates to align with the project schedule.
Installation Details: Provide detailed instructions, including mounting, positioning, and special handling requirements.
Testing and Commissioning: Specify if the contractor is responsible for testing or commissioning upon installation.
This information is critical to ensure proper allocation of space, utilities, and resources in the design and construction phases. Additionally, please confirm if any of the following equipment categories are OFCI:
Kitchen appliances or fixtures HVAC equipment Telecommunications equipment Security systems Firefighting and emergency response equipment
| there would not be any specialty equipment at those buildngs. But, there would be 5HP compressor with 100 gallon tank at each of those metal buildings, name and brand is not known at this time. There would be a welding maching at each of those metal buildings, name and brand is not known at this time. We anticipate installing a portable 48" evaporative coller at each of those metal buildings, name and brand is not known at this time. | |
| 27 | As per Section 5.3 B. of the Project Program, it is noted that there is a maximum allowable separation distance between the engine bay and the barracks. To ensure compliance with the design requirements, we request clarification on the following: |
What is the exact maximum separation distance allowed between the engine bay and the barracks?
Are there any specific criteria or guidelines (e.g., fire code, accessibility requirements) driving this separation distance?
Does the specified distance take into account additional structures or landscaping elements that may affect compliance?
| This clarification will assist in finalizing the site layout and ensuring alignment with project requirements. | There is no set distance. The objective was to minimized noise for the barracks. The layout/shape of the barracks and engine bay shall not change, processed with the provided layout/shape. There will be room for adjustment to make the buildings fit the site. Example; the barracks locations can be adjusted to best accomodate the layout. Same goes for the engine bay. The engine bay can be adjusted/moved to best accomodate the layout. | |
| 28 | Value Analysis - Project Program - Section 1.0 - As per the Project Program (Page 2), the design portion of the project includes a third-party value analysis report. To ensure proper compliance and alignment with project expectations, we request clarification on the following points: |
Intent of the Value Analysis Report:
Is the purpose of the report to evaluate cost-saving opportunities, design efficiency, or both?
Are there specific criteria or benchmarks the Government expects this report to address?
Scope of the Value Analysis Report:
What project elements (e.g., site layout, building design, materials, systems) should be included in the analysis?
Should the analysis include alternative design options or solutions?
Requirements for the Third-Party Analyst:
Does the Government have specific requirements or pre-approved firms for conducting the analysis?
Are there qualifications or certifications the analyst must meet?
Deliverables and Timeline:
What are the required deliverables for the report (e.g., format, depth of analysis, supporting documentation)?
When is the value analysis report expected to be completed and submitted?
Government Review and Feedback:
Will the Government review the report and provide feedback before finalizing the design?
| Clarification of these details will help ensure the value analysis report meets the project's requirements and expectations. | A third party outside the team shall be utlilized to insure most efficient & cost efficient design. It is to ensure that the projects elements, materials, systems, and process have been met. The government does not have a tipical standard. Use industry standards. Yes, the governemtn would provide feedback before finalizing the final design. | |
| 29 | In reference to Section 1.2 of the Project Program, it appears that the paved parking area in front of the helitack bay has been descoped from the project. To ensure alignment with project requirements, we request confirmation on the following: |
Has the paved parking area in front of the helitack bay been officially removed from the project scope?
| If so, are there alternative provisions or instructions regarding the parking area? | Correct, the asphalt parking in front of the helitack has been removed from the project scope. There are no alternatives in regards the parking area. | |
| 30 | In reference to Section 4.5 (Site Amenities) of the Project Program, it is noted that an antenna for radio communications is required. Could you please confirm whether the antenna is required at both the Trimmer Work Center and Auberry Station sites? |
Additionally, to ensure the design can adequately support the intended functionality, could you provide details on:
The specific systems the antenna will be supporting.
The type, count, and diameter of cables required between the antenna mount and the building telecommunications room at each site.
| Whether the antenna systems will be furnished and installed by the Government or if they are expected to be provided and installed by the Design-Build Contractor. | The radio antenna is required for trimmer engine bay and auberry metal building. The antenna would be utilize for a single CB radio. The contractor is to provide the antenna and wire going into the building. The antenna can be mounted to the building. We are not calling for a tower. its just a tipical antenna for single CB radio. | |
| 31 | In reference to Section 5.6 of the Project Program, several Fixtures, Furnishings, and Equipment (FFE) items are noted as being descoped from the project (indicated in red text). Could you please confirm: |
Whether these items are entirely removed from the scope of the Design-Build Contractor.
If any of these items will be furnished and installed by the Government or another entity.
| If any items still require provisions from the contractor, such as infrastructure, power, or connections, to ensure future compatibility with the descoped items. | Correct, those itmes have been removed from the project. No further action from the contractor. The only items that ramained were; plumed for a 5hp compressor and a 50a plug for welding. At both of those metal buildings. | ||
| 32 | In reference to Section 5.1 B of the Project Program, it is noted that 90% Construction Document (CD) drawings and specifications for the R5 Barracks are to be provided prior to the 35% deliverable due date. Could you please confirm whether the R5 Barracks Construction Drawings and Specifications provided to us are the referenced 90% CD drawings? | Correct, we are refering to the R5 drawings and specs provided. | |
| 33 | The Region 5 Design Standards specify achieving LEED Silver or Two Green Globes certification (Page 5), but the Project Program does not explicitly require certification. Is certification mandatory, or should the project simply aim to meet comparable sustainable principles? | Correct, the project does not required certification. Our goals is to be as efficient as possible for our new construction. | |
| 34 | The Region 5 Design Standards (Page 4) specify coordination with the Forest Service CIO for internet and telecommunications, whereas the Project Program leaves this to the contractor’s discretion. Should the contractor include coordination with the CIO in their scope? | Since the most of the FFE have been removed, disregard the coordination with the CIO. | |
| 35 | In reference to the Region 5 Design Standards (Page 4), it is noted that site development should incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to manage stormwater on-site and minimize total suspended solids (TSS) discharge. Additionally, it recommends strategies such as porous pavement for new parking areas and natural systems to accommodate stormwater flows. |
The Project Program (Section 4.2) mentions repaving and redesigning parking areas for proper drainage but does not explicitly reference LID techniques or standards for stormwater management.
To ensure compliance with project goals and regional standards, could you please clarify:
Whether the use of LID techniques, such as porous pavement, bioretention systems, or other green infrastructure, is required for the parking areas and site drainage?
If specific LID techniques are not mandatory, are there alternative stormwater management measures that should be incorporated into the design?
Are there defined standards or performance metrics for stormwater management (e.g., runoff volume reduction, infiltration rates, or sediment control) that the design team should meet?
| Should the design team plan for any additional permitting or coordination with local authorities for implementing LID measures? | A SWPPP will be required during construction. Minimal stormwater design shall be used, any method will be acceptable. No porous pavement. | |
| 36 | In reference to the Region 5 Design Standards (Page 9), a comprehensive geohazard and geotechnical assessment is required, including a two-phase investigation if necessary. However, the standards do not specify when these assessments must be completed relative to the design milestones, such as the 35% or final deliverables. |
| Could you please clarify the timeline for completing the geotechnical and geohazard assessments? Specifically, should these assessments be completed before submitting any design deliverables, or can they be conducted concurrently with design development? Additionally, should the Phase 2 investigation, if required, be completed before finalizing construction documents? | These assesments are not required during phase 2. They can be conducted concurrently during the design development once the project is awarded. Should be complete before construction documents are finalized. | |
| 37 | The Region 5 Design Standards (Page 2) require that designs achieve energy efficiency targets of 30% less energy usage than ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 if cost-effective. However, the standards do not specify the methodology for demonstrating compliance with this target, such as energy modeling or other documentation requirements. |
| Could you please confirm the required method for demonstrating compliance with the energy efficiency target? Should energy modeling software be used to validate performance? Additionally, are there specific criteria or benchmarks to determine "cost-effectiveness," such as lifecycle cost analysis or return on investment thresholds? | There is no set standard for this requirement. By default, the construction of these new buidlings they would be more energy efficient, compared to the rest of the infrastructure in the site. | ||
| 38 | Please confirm that per jobwalk all existing water utilities at tank to be abandoned in place and new tank location to be determined by DBC. Please confirm that existing tank is to be abandoned in place and not required to be removed and disposed of. | All existing water lines that feed the buildings will need to be replace. Per jobwalk, the existing water lines to be replace can be abandon in place. For the tanks, per the scope, the tanks and thier components above ground will need to be demolish and disposed of, along with their foundation. | |
| 39 | Please confirm that per jobwalk the 3 existing wells are functional and the power surge issue at well 2 will be resolved by Forest Service prior to construction start. | Correct, the forest will have the wells resolved by the time the project gets awarded. | |
| 40 | Please confirm that existing chlorinator to be reconnected to new system. | Correct. | |
| 41 | Please confirm that per jobwalk, existing layout shown for engine bay at Trimmer to be flipped to be on the right side of the powerline. | Correct. The engine bay would need to be flipped to accommodate. | |
| 42 | Please confirm the size of new metal prefab building at Trimmer to be 80x125 and not 100x100. | Correct. | |
| 43 | Please confirm that per jobwalk, (1) existing barrack building at Trimmer is to be removed by DBC. All other site buildings and concrete pads to be demo'ed by Forest Service. | correct. | |
| 44 | Please confirm that all trees necessary to be removed will be removed by Forest Service prior to construction start. | correct. | |
| 45 | Please confirm that per jobwalk, the existing culvert at Trimmer to be removed and reconstructed by Forest Service. Confirm that the new road layout is up to the DBC and Forest Service will coordinate construction of new culvert with the proposed layout. | correct. | |
| 46 | Please confirm that existing septic at Trimmer to be abandoned and a new septic system to be constructed for barracks and engine bay. | correct. | |
| 47 | Please confirm whether there is any need for 3-phase service. Per jobwalk, existing service is 1-phase and may not be sufficient if a new fire water pump or other equipment is required. | For Auberry, if single phase power is adequate for the needs of the metal building, than the government would not seek 3 phase power. Trimmer, If the existing power source is adequate, than the government would not seek 3 phase power. If 3 phase power is required, the government would coordinate with PG&E about the application, agreement, and fees associated. The contractor would assist on this process by providing needed information for the application such as loads for the site. It would be the contractors responsibility to coordinate any inspections with PG&E in the interior of the site and main connections. It would still be the contractors responsibility to connect to the main power source, once PG&E finishes thier portion. | |
| 48 | Per jobwalk, it was stated that the number of existing hydrants greatly exceeds the needs of proposed site and only 5-6 hydrants will be required. Please provide locations and confirm the number of new hydrants desired. | 6 fire hydrants would be carry forward for the site. Exact locations are not yet determined. It is anticipated that they would in the following vicinity; 2 at the entrance area, 2 by the engine bay/metal building, 2 throughout. Helitack building would not have a fire hydrant, but it would have a standpipe (fill hydrant). see picture for referance. 6 fire hydrants and 1 standpipe. | |
| 49 | Please confirm that chainlink fence removal at existing basketball court and the paving at court will be removed by Forest Service prior to construciton start. | correct. | |
| 50 | Please confirm location of hazmat storage building. | one at Auberry in the visinity of the new metal building. And two at trimmer (one in the visinity of the metal building and one in the visitnity of the engine bay). | |
| 51 | Please confirm whether hazmat storage buildings is to be sprinklered. | No sprinkleres. For hazmat storage. | |
| 52 | Please confirm whether any asbestos testing has been performed at existing barracks buildings. If so, provide report as this may have a cost impact. | No asbestos testing has been performed. It would be the contractors responsibility to seek such test. | |
| 53 | Project program lists key access to be either mechanical OR electronic. The two options will range greatly in price. Please confirm the preferred option for bidders to carry in the base bid to ensure proposals can be compared one to one. | Key pads (PIN)for all exterior doors on the Engine garage and Barracks. | |
| 54 | Please confirm that trees at existing barracks building will be removed or trimmed per code. The sloped roof shown in typical plans require trees to either be removed or trimmed for clearance. | correct. | |
| 55 | Please confirm that Forest Service to remove slab at pickle ball court at location of the second barracks building. | correct. | |
| 56 | Please confirm whether there is an existing septic system at the second barracks building and provide size if existing. If existing, also confirm whether a perc test has been performed. | There is an existing septic system at the second barracks location. Approx. 1,000 gallon capacity. No perc test has been performed. The liquids go into a sump pump basin and get pumped to a leach field. | |
| 57 | At the Auberry site, please confirm whether the existing septic system is standard and whether a perc test has been performed. It is unclear as to whether the existing septic system is large enough to accommodate the added demand from the new building. | there is an existing septic at auberry, but it would not be large enough to accommodate the new demand. Per the scope, a new setic design is being called out. | |
| 58 | At the Auberry site, please confirm whether a wash rack is required near the retaining wall where the trucks will be washed down. Will this also require an oil-water separator? | No wash rack is required for this project. It was an ideal that the forest was considering, but not required for the project. | |
| 59 | Please confirm whether this project is in the jurisdiction of regional water QC standards or state? | for our other locations, we follow the county. | |
| 60 | For the Trimmer site, please confirm whether the fire supression is to come off the tank as well as the domestic water service? | correct. Domestic and fire water would be supply via the same tank. | |
| 61 | The trees near the mobile unit (Trimmer Site) that will be new barracks appear to be too close to the new building foundation and will more than likely hang over the new roof. Will these be removed to meet the defensable space required around a structure? | they will be removed to accommodate the new barracks. The tree pines near that structure would be the contractors responsibility to address. The other trees (oaks) would be address by the FS. | |
| 62 | At the Auberry site visit it was mentioned that truck will be washed and filled at the new retaining wall location. Please confirm if truck washing will take place here since there will need to be an oil / water separator installed to prevent tainted water entering any natural water ways or seep into the soil | It was an ideal that the forest was considering, but will not be carry forward. | |
| 63 | Multiple page sizes for the drawings are required to be submitted in Phase 2. Are we required to create multiple drawings sets scaled specifically to each drawings size, or is it acceptable to draw them at the larger drawing size and print at approx. 50% scale for the smaller drawing requirement? | see reponse #3 | |
| 64 | At the site visit on 12/20 it was discussed that the existing schematic building and site plans and system routing diagrams would be sent out on Friday 12/21. We have not seen these plans come through yet, when can we expect these? This information is needed for the Phase 2 | Would be provided. | |
| 65 | Will solar and batteries be part of this project? Will the well pump be on a generator and / or solar with batteries? | No solar, no batteries. No EV charging nor backup generator. | |
| 66 | Who are the AHJ's? Will RWQCB be the AHJ over the septic and storm water? Who is the AHJ for Fire Safety? | AHJ for fire is Forest Service. Fire and Aviation Management. We don't go through the tipical city fire marshal. As for the storm water, Minimal stormwater design shall be used, any method will be acceptable. | |
| 67 | Will BIM submittals be required? | No. See response #3. | |
| 68 | Will this project need to meet any LEED level? | The project does not required certification. Our goals is to be as efficient as possible for our new construction. | |
| 69 | Multiple page sizes for the drawings are required to be submitted in Phase 2. Are we required to create multiple drawings sets scaled specifically to each page size, or is it acceptable to draw them to scale on the larger drawing size and print to 'fit page' for the smaller drawing requirements? | see response #3 | |
| 70 | Unless a geotechnical investigation is already in the works we do not anticipate having data available for the 35% submittal. Is there any geotechnical data for either site from previous construction efforts that we can review and use for preliminary structural design? | No report is available. The Contractor shall include all assumptions. It is the contractors responsibility to seek such information for the project. When there is no soils report available, typically use geologic maps from the California geologic survey. | |
| 71 | Are there any blast loading requirements at the CMU enclosure with swing gates replacing the gabion walls on the Auberry Site? | NO. the FS would be putting hesco barriers once the enclosure is completed. see schematic for details. No gate is required at this enclosure. | |
| 72 | Are there any existing geotechnical soils testing reports that we could refer to to assist with the 35% drawings? | No report is available. See resonse #15. | |
| 73 | Are there any existing perc tests to assist with the 35% drawings? | No report is available. | |
| 74 | We will show power from the nearby abandoned meter. That meter pole and meter will be replaced with a new underground service from the existing transformer - confirm | The meter and pole will not be replaced with a new underground service connection. There would be power at the other poles in the visinity. | |
| 75 | The client will provide data, CATV and telephone to each building. We will provide a backboard and show conduit coming into the building - confirm | correct. | |
| 76 | Can you please provide us with a date that the government intends to provide responses to RFI's by? The intent of requesting the RFI due date extension originally was to allow the opportunity to ask follow-up questions to the released RFI responses. | The Government's Q&A responses are projected to be posted on or around 5Mar2025 | |
| 77 | Can you please confirm that a second site visit is still possible, and if so, who should we contact to schedule it? | send the COR a message when you are planning to visit the site. The site visit would be without government personnel. | |
| 78 | Please confirm if the Trimmer Work Center Engine Bay should be considered an essential facility and therefore designed as a risk category IV structure? | No essential facility. Risk category 2. | |
| 79 | Please confirm if the Trimmer Work Center and Auberry Station PEMB building should be considered essential facilities and therefore designed as a risk category IV structure? | No essential facility. Risk category 2. | |
| 80 | Please confirm that the Trimmer Work Center Barracks are not essential facilities and therefore designed as a risk category II structure. | No essential facility. Risk category 2. | |
| 81 | Per Amendment 02, the Phase 2 submission date is currently scheduled for 20 Januuary 2025 but does not specify the dates for the Pre-proposal Conference or Design Presentation per Section L. Please advise. | The propsal due date was most recently revised via Amendment 0003; an additional proposal due date extension is expected, with an anticipated proposal due date of 2Apr2025. The Confidential Pre-Proposal Conferences were held 26Feb2025 and 27Feb2025. Design Presentations are anticipated to be held the week of 7Apr2025-11Apr2025 | |
| 82 | TWC & AS - Will any of the PEMB's require Fire Sprinklers? | Trimmer metal building would not required fire sprinklers. Auberry metal building would required only on the office section of the building. | |
| 83 | TWC - Provide schematics (main and lateral locations, sizes, distances, etc.) of all existing facilities serviced by the two existing water tanks to include the three wells that fill the water tanks. | Would be provided. | |
| 84 | TWC - Identify critical buildings that may require temporary water or restroom facilities during the time the water distribution system is down. | critical buildings that must have water. helitack building, three buildings at the entrance. | |
| 85 | TWC - Please identify all existing buildings with working Fire Sprinkler Systems. | none at both locations. | |
| 86 | TWC - Confirm it is the DBCs responsibility to design a complete system that would meet the fire sprinkler requirements for the new buildings only. | correct. At trimmer, the 2 new barracks and engine bay. At Auberry the office section of the building. | |
| 87 | TWC - Please identify/detail requirements to reconnect existing fire hydrants and if any additional hydrants will be required. | 6 fire hydrants would be carry forward for the site. Exact locations are not yet determined. It is anticipated that they would in the following vicinity; 2 at the entrance area, 2 by the engine bay/metal building, 2 throughout. Helitack building would not have a fire hydrant, but it would have a standpipe (fill hydrant). see picture for referance. 6 fire hydrants and 1 standpipe. | |
| 88 | AS - It was discussed during the site visit the FS will provide dimensions and further information for the enclosed storage area. Please provide. | see schematic for details. | |
| 89 | AS - Please verify requirements for interior spaces in the PEMB at Auberry Station. Paragraph 1.0 of the Project Program states “..office/storage spaces….” While Section 5.1D and 5.5 A. requires “Office space, restrooms, small kitchen/break room and storage area.” If a kitchen/ break room is required please verify the number of workers in the building that will use it. | at most, there will be 10 people utilizing the offices. Divide office spaces equal. Maintain hall way for ada compliance, The other areas can be adjusted (training room, storage). Use engine bay floor plan for referance for restroom and break room dimentions. | |
| 90 | Under section 4.2 the number of light duty trucks to plan for is not clear. This paragraph and associated matrix could be interpreted as maximize the number of stalls for light duty trucks in the Auberry Station. Please clarify the number desired. | For Auberry, the goal is to maximize the number of parking stalls for ligh duty trucks. There is no set number. Would like to have the aba parking next to the metal building and parking above can be adjust to fit | |
| 91 | Verify Engine Bay and Pre-Fab Hazardous Material Building (50’x100’) require compressed air hook up. Also verify which site will have the Hazrdous Material Building, or if both will have them. | both sites would have the hazardous material storage. | |
| 92 | Verify new road is part of current contract | no, there is no access road as part of this project. | |
| 93 | Verify size of Pre-Engineered Metal Building (PEMB) required at each site. Currently the Statement of Work (sow) listed as 80’X125’ for Trimmer and 80’x100” at Auberry. During the initial site visit there were conversations about overall size desired is 10,000 sq.ft. for some. Please clarify requirements. | auberry, 80ft x 100ft. Trimmer, 80ft x 125 ft. For trimmer the objective is to have 10,000 sq.ft. | |
| 94 | SOW states new fire hydrants will be provided. Please verify if the overhead fill will be needed at both sites. This is called out in the SOW in general terms. | NO. correction, there will not be overhead fill station. Instead of the overhead fill sation, we intend to use more like a standpipe for filling the eingines. | |
| 95 | Verify on site demo is to be done by forest service. (this includes chain link fence removal and other landscaping) | correct. | |
| 96 | Please verify requirements for interior spaces in the PEMB at Auberry Station. Paragraph 1.0 of the Project Program states “..office/storage spaces….” While Section 5.1D and 5.5 A. requires “Office space, restrooms, small kitchen/break room and storage area.” If a kitchen/ break room is required please verify the number of workers in the building that will use it | at most, there will be 10 people utilizing the offices. Divide office spaces equal. The other areas can be adjusted (training room, storage) can be adjusted. | |
| 97 | Project Program section 1.0 calls to reconnect to the existing water system but appears to call for a new 50K water tank to supply the water. Please clarify what is required. New tank running through existing lines? New tank and underground lines for a completely new system? | new 50K gallon tank on new distribution lines. Complete new system. | |
| 98 | In the project program section 3.2 Solar Ready standards of the NREL are required. This approach would not install PV panels but only the connectivity for the system to be installed later. This will also necessitate structural input for support of panels but how many panels. What is the DBC responsible for designing? Should PV arrays be required on the building similar to other projects? | We are calling to have solar ready infrusture for solar panels. So that later the Forest can purse a solar system on those buildings. Roof system shall be designed to hold the additional load. Follow industry standards for solar readiness. | |
| 99 | Under section 4.2 the number of light duty trucks to plan for is not clear. This paragraph and associated matrix could be interpreted as maximize the number of stalls for light duty trucks in the Auberry Station. Please clarify the number desired. | the goal is to maximize the number of parking stalls for ligh duty trucks. There is no set number. | |
| 100 | Project Program Section 5.1. B. a. requires the use of Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) for some of the buildings. Is it acceptable to use a standard framed wall at the plumbing “wet” walls for ease of installation? | Insulated panels shall be used as much as possible but ocaccional deviations shall be permitted under certain conditions and with approval of project engineer. Wet walls could be an example. | |
| 101 | In Project Program section 5.2 C.a.ii.b calls for AV systems. Are there Forest Service standards for the equipment to be used? If so, what are they? What is the DBC required to provide for AV? The SOW appears to say the DQC team will design and install the AV systems. Is this correct? | No EV parking/charging station. No battery backup nor backup power generator. | |
| 102 | Project Program Section 5.2 C.b., lists requirements for a “large meeting room” not in the standard plans. Please clarify what is desired for the AV systems and what rooms they will be in. | Disregard this section. | |
| 103 | Is there a preliminary GeoTech report available for either site? | No report is available. The Contractor shall include all assumptions. It is the contractors responsibility to seek such information for the project. When there is no soils report available, typically use geologic maps from the California geologic survey. | |
| 104 | Please confirm the only FF&E to be included in the contract is for Window shades. Section 5.3 C. appears to remove any other requirements for FF&E. | window shades. And the other items are - Plumed for 5HP air compressor with 100 gallon reservoir tank throughout the engine bay. Place compressor inside in |
the storage area.
50A Plug capacity in Shop for Welder (Welder provided by USFS)
| 105 | Please provide amounts and types of items to be stored in the Hazardous Materials Storage facility. The proposed size seems very large. Is a PEMB acceptable for this building or can a Hazmat container suffice? | A PEMB is acceptable. A Hazmat storage container will meet the needs. We are callin for 50-100 sf. |
| 106 | In the Project Manual section 01 30 00 paragraph 3.16 the verbiage appears to say the Forest Service wants to review for final approval all construction submittals. Typically the DQC will review/approve the submittals with oversight from the government. However, certain items (Life Safety primarily) are required to be reviewed by the government. Please clarify the requirements. | that is correct. There will be colaboration for approving submittals. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .