Attch_9_-_Amend_0002_SF1510-56_PRE-BID_Attendees_List__Qs_As_0002.pdf

COTTONWOOD RIVERBANK STABILIZATION

Solicitation No: 140L0622R0007 – Amendment 0002 Site Visit Attendees List, Solicitation Overview, Q&A

Form 1510-56 (December 1985)

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

SITE INSPECTION TOUR / PREBID CONFERENCE RECORD

1. Solicitation No.: 140L0622R0007 4. Meeting Place: COTTONWOOD REC SITE

2. Title: COTTONWOOD BANK STABILIZATION 5. Conducted by: JERRY BURROWS – CIVIL ENGINEER

3. Date and Time: 5/16/2022 10:00A.M.

7. Attended By: Virtual Solicitation Overview by BLM NOC Contracting, GREETCHEN JEREMIE – CONTRACT SPECIALIST. See Pages 1 & 2

Name and Firm Address (include zip code) Phone No.

(Include area code)

U & A; TAGGART

KEITH PIVONSKI

1753 EBLING TRAIL

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401

(410) 849 - 3211

TDX POWER SERVICES

LOREN JALBERT

25005 EMPIRE WAY

BOISE, ID 83716

(208) 554 - 0336

CONFLUENCE CONSULTING

GREG ORUM

PO BOX 1133

BOZEMAN, MT 59771

(406) 585 – 9500

RIVHAB

JEANNE MCFALL

2976 E STATE ST., STE 120, #33

EAGLE, ID 83616

(208) 401 - 6129

BIOTA

JEFF PHILLIPS

140 E BROADWAY SUITE 23

JACKSON, WY 83001

(307) 699 - 2437

DARRIN DANCE

301 N 700 W

BLACKFOOT, ID 83221

(208) 681 - 4223

8. Questions asked, and responses given: See Pages 3 -6

DB, COTTONWOOD RIVERBANK STABILIZATION

Pre-Bid Conference Contracting Talking Points

Solicitation No: 140L0622R0007

Project Title: DB, Cottonwood Riverbank Stabilization

Project Description: See solicitation and attachments

Type of Construction: Heavy Construction

Magnitude: $500K- $1M

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): 237990 - "Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction"

Set-Aside: Total Small Business

Limitations on Subcontracting: Yes, the prime contractor must perform at least 15% of the cost of the contract, excluding the cost of materials, with its own employees.

Solicitation No: 140L0622R0007 – Amendment 0002 Site Visit Attendees List, Solicitation Overview, Q&A

Bid Bond: Yes, 20%

Performance and Payment Bonds: Yes, 100% of the contract amount, to be submitted within 10 days after award.

Construction Wage Requirements: DOES apply to this project, please refer to attachment 4, for the wage rates.

Contracting Team: Nate Roush, CO, Greetchen Jeremie, CS; based out of Colorado.

Contracting Officer Representative: Jerry Burrows, Civil Engineer.

Questions Due Date: This upcoming Thursday 05/16/22 at 2pm MD; All questions must be submitted in writing via email to

CS/CO as instructed in L-2, p36 of the solicitation. No questions will be accepted via phone calls. All questions will be addressed/answered in a solicitation amendment posted on sam.gov.

Proposal Due Date: Tuesday 05/31/21 at 2pm MD as stated on page 4 of the solicitation.

POP: Work would commence within 7 calendar days, with a completion date of 365 calendar days after receipt of the notice to proceed.

Work Hours: The performance period is based upon work being conducted 7:00am – 5:30pm Monday through Friday, except government holidays. See page 15 of the solicitation.

Basis for Award: See page 42 of the solicitation. The Government intends to make a single award firm fixed-price contract from this solicitation, utilizing the Two-Phased Design-Build submission and evaluation procedures in accordance with FAR 36.3, and as detailed in Section M. source selection procedures as defined in FAR Part 15. An award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation.

Final Reminders:

-Be sure to read and complete Section K (Page 27-32 of the solicitation) in its entirely; including Reps and Certs, other offerors statements, etc.

-Please read closely and follow: Section L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS and Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD. P33-45 of the solicitation.

-Notable mentions from both sections:

• Proposals must be valid for a minimum of 120 days for PHASE ONE, and 90 days for PHASE TWO.

• Proposals for PHASE ONE (which include three volumes) are due by the date and time specified on the first page of this document.

• DO NOT SUBMIT VOLUME 4 OR 5 WITH PHASE ONE. Instructions for submission of Volumes 4 and 5 for

PHASE TWO will be provided by the Contracting Officer only to offerors that are selected as among the most highly qualified, up to a maximum of five (5).

Solicitation No: 140L0622R0007 – Amendment 0002 Site Visit Attendees List, Solicitation Overview, Q&A

DB, COTTONWOOD RIVERBANK STABILIZATION

Pre-Bid Conference and Site Visit Questions & Answers

Q1. Why was the scope magnitude reduced in the solicitation?

A1. The original scope magnitude was inaccurate. The solicitation 140L0622R0007 Amendment 0001 page 4 of 45, shows the correct revision of the magnitude.

Q2. Phase 1 of the proposal needs to be valid for 120 days. What do you anticipate the review period will be for those proposals?

A2. Greetchen Jeremie: No firm estimates. We are choosing 120 days just to be conservative. It depends on a variety of factors– namely, how many proposals we receive and our ability to schedule our technical review team, and if we have any back and forth. Typically, or generally, it does not take the full 120 days. However, we are floating 120 days just to be conservative and to account for any potential unforeseen factors that can delay the process. We are looking to award this project as soon as possible. We will do our due diligence on our end to make sure we review these proposals, but 120 days is the maximum number of days to make sure we allocate time to review all proposals accordingly. I should note, the 365 days POP does not include the proposals review time.

Q3. In terms of tentative start date, the issuance of the Notice to Proceed, was there a particular time that we are aiming for on the project?

A3. See the attached Specifications Part 1.9.B “Timing of In-Water Work.” The work windows called out in Appendix C of the

Programmatic are intended to guide the Contractor’s overall proposed working schedule.

Q3. Is the referenced Programmatic the correct Programmatic that was attached to the solicitation?

A3. The attached Programmatic is not the correct Programmatic that is referenced in the specifications. The NMFS Programmatic will be added as an attachment (via amendment 0002) along with the FWS Programmatic.

Q4. Horse Creek is upstream, Pahsimeroi is downstream, so I think the work window is actually July Q2 through March Q2, Main

Salmon, is that correct?

A4. In the Specifications Part 1.9.B, the Cottonwood Campground falls within the River Reach of Tributary titled “Main Salmon

River – Pahsimeroi River to Valley Creek.” See attached Programmatic Appendix C for in-water work windows.

Q5. There is 365 days from the Notice to Proceed to finish the project, is that a funding requirement?

A5. The 365-day period of performance is not a funding requirement.

Q6. Is the contractor required to coordinate with NOAA fisheries and submit the project information form for the programmatic or will the agencies be doing that? Is BLM going to do that? Your scope talked about the 404 permits, but it did not talk too much about who is responsible for the Idaho programmatic.

A6. Once a 60% design has been approved the BLM will consult with NMFS and USFWS. Once consultation has concluded the BLM will submit the application for the 404 permit.

Q7. Since it’s NOAA fisheries waters, who is responsible for fish salvage. Is the contractor responsible or BLM?

A7. The BLM will be responsible for any fish salvage activities.

Q8. A question about project goals, safety, access: We are trying to do non-traditional bank stabilization. It seems like there is a lot of users. How does that play into the design effort? After the project is implemented with large wood structures, stringers, is that something that we are going to have to work with the public safety aspect of things? Designing something that is not going to allow someone’s life to be taken, right here accessing the river. If we are trying to use wood to try to push the water away from the bank, is that approved?

A8. Once the project is completed the BLM will fence and sign along the river in hopes to deter bankside foot traffic and promote riparian recovery. The goal is to try and use wood to move the thalweg away from the bank. The design will comply with both the NMFS and USFWS Habitat Restoration Programmatic(s) which are approved.

Q9. Is the federal government going to provide any trees or anything or is that up to the contractor?

A9. There are no Government furnished materials included in this contract.

Q10. Are geotechnical investigations required for the design?

A10. The Government is leaving all design requirements up to the Contractor.

Solicitation No: 140L0622R0007 – Amendment 0002 Site Visit Attendees List, Solicitation Overview, Q&A

Q11. Could you go over a little bit of the site history? It seems like the imagery that was online was a little bit older. Just wondering when the bar formed and when the bank erosion started?

A11. Available online imagery (Google Earth) dates back to1992. The developed campground was installed in 1997, bank stabilization efforts started 1998. The bar's size and orientation (particularly top end) has not changed drastically since 1992 (Google Earth). Barbs were augmented and riprap was added in December 2009.

Q12. In terms of our references can CPARs work instead? In phase 1, having a reference, there’s one section in there, can we use

CPARs instead because a lot of federal agencies won’t give you a reference?

A12. Please refer to: Section M1, C. - 2. Factor II, b. Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation, (page 43) of the solicitation.

Q13. When were the existing barbs installed?

A13. Consultation for the installation of the rock barbs was completed in November of 1997, assume they were installed thereafter.

Barbs were augmented and additional riprap was added December of 2009.

Q14. How many feet of ground has been lost so far?

A14. The best way to see changes to the ground is through online imagery (google earth) dating back to 1992.

Q15. With the new design, where are you trying to reconstruct the new toe? Are you trying to bring the bank out to where it previously was?

A15. The Government is leaving all design aspects up to the Contractor.

Q16. Is all the work to be done on the campground side of the river or can work be done across the river?

A16. The attached Site Location map indicates the allowable working areas for project.

Q17. Are there access roads to get to the other side?

A17. No.

Q18. Does the Government have any reference sites that they are using as sort of a template for what they are envisioning?

A18. No.

Q19. Is there any water quality data that is available for the river?

A19. The Government is not providing any water quality data.

Q20. Has the Government heard of any changes coming from Biden’s permit action plan that came out last week that will trickle down through the fed within the next year, year-and-a-half that this will all fall under?

A20. No.

Q21. Will we be able to shut down parts of the campground?

A21. Yes, you will be able to shutdown part of the campground for safety of the crews and public. The BLM will work with the

Contractor to optimize any site closures for the benefit and safety of the crews and public.

Q22. Did you have any abnormally wet years in the five years after 2017 or was 2017 just abnormal?

A22. No, spring runoff as steadily declined the past 5 years. High runoff seems to have a ~10 year return 1997 (16,900), 2006

(14,900) and 2017 (17,100) The closest gage is located approximately 45 miles downstream in Salmon Idaho online records going back to summer of

1987.

https://waterdata.usgs.gov/id/nwis/uv/?site_no=13302500&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060,00010

Q23. Are we encouraged to reuse material that’s already here?

A23. Yes.

Q24. Looking at modeling, you are not seeking to lose land anywhere, only to gain land from what you have right now?

A24. The Government is seeking to build back areas of high erosion lose and not lose any more ground.

https://waterdata.usgs.gov/id/nwis/uv/?site_no=13302500&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060,00010

Solicitation No: 140L0622R0007 – Amendment 0002 Site Visit Attendees List, Solicitation Overview, Q&A

Q25. Is there anything besides the irrigation piping and campsites that the Contractor will have to watch out for, and will the irrigation piping be removed or replaced?

A25. Just the irrigation pipe. The irrigation pipe will be removed by the contractor as it is encountered. The BLM will be responsible for the replacement of the irrigation system once the project has concluded.

Q26. Can the contractor stay on site in RVs? If so, is there a fee?

A26. Yes, the Contractor can stay on site and the fee can be waived.

Q27. It looks like from accessing the site, there could be some damage to the existing roads and asphalt. It does not look like it will hold up trucks very well. How much risk does the contractor have on that?

A27. Damages to the site caused by the Contractor during the duration of the contract shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to fix.

Q28. How does the stream on the far side interact? Is it just a narrow, shallow stream that comes around and reconnects on the other side?

A28. Yes, it is a low-flow, small channel, that flows on the backside of the island and reconnects to the river.

Q29. You said that wood is not going to be provided. Is harvesting willow cuttings going to be allowed? Would it be allowed to be harvested on BLM land?

A29. Willow harvest is allowed on non-ESA streams and irrigation canals. The BLM will direct the Contractor to local approved locations for willow harvesting and will waive any fees.

Q30. Is on-site material sourcing allowed? Does the BLM have other locations where we could harvest cottonwoods, other species, or other materials?

A30. There will be no on-site sourcing of any materials. Willows are the only material the BLM can assist the Contractor in obtaining. See question 29 for willow harvesting.

Q31. Is there going to be any rock spec as far as hardness or other rock spec goes?

A31. The Government is leaving all design aspects up to the Contractor.

Q32. Can we harvest any trees in the river or out on the gravel bars that are felled, dying, or at risk of falling? How about other materials?

A32. No.

Q33. Are we trying to tie into the rock face?

A33. The Government is leaving all design aspects up to the Contractor.

Q34. You mentioned the upstream survey extents are 500 feet upstream of the boat ramp. What are the downstream survey extents?

A34. See Design-Build Specifications Part 3, section 3.2.A.

Q35. Are there any improvement expectations for the camp sites themselves? Would the Contractor be responsible for returning sites to existing condition if they are affected during construction?

A35. No, there are not camp site improvement expectations for this contract. The Contractor will be responsible for any damages/alterations to the camp sites during construction.

Q36. Is this project strictly bank stabilization, or is there to be fish habitat considered in the design?

A36. The primary goal is to stabilize the bank. Doing the project under the NOAA Fisheries and USFWS will minimize impacts to

ESA fish and their habitat. While fish habitat enhancement is encouraged, it will not be required in the design.

Q37. What is the submittal review process like, will the Contractor have to meet with the Government?

A37. The Contractor will send in their submittals to the Government. The Government will review the submittal(s) and then return a submittal review sheet to the Contractor with comments if any. If there arises a reason to meet then it can be arranged, but it is not required.

Q38. The FAR magnitude on page 4 is $1-5M but a budget of $663,000 is identified on page 40. Is the $663,000 intended for the design with additional funds used for the construction?

A38. FAR magnitude has been revised to reflect 500K-1M, via amendment 0001.

Solicitation No: 140L0622R0007 – Amendment 0002 Site Visit Attendees List, Solicitation Overview, Q&A

Q39. The solicitation Factor I, Subfactor 3: Capability to Perform (Page 40), description is identical to Volume 3, Factor II: Past

Performance (Page 40), except for the requirement that the responses are in the format provided. Can you please provide guidance as to how these factors differ, if they do, and the focus of the desired responses for each factor?

A39. Please refer to: Sections M3, C. and M4, B., (pages 44-45) of the solicitation.

9. Was a complete site inspection made? ∼ Yes ∼ No. (If “No,” explain)

By (Name) Title Date

Jerry Burrows Civil Engineer 05/16/2022