Questions_Addressed-_140L6225Q0005_0002.docx
DOCX document 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- IRA NEW FORK RIVER, SHEEP FENCE
- Solicitation number
- 140L6225Q0005
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document addressing three contractor questions about solicitation 140L6225Q0005 for the IRA New Fork River Sheep Fence project. The first question concerned adding wood stays between fence posts to prevent wire tangling when laid down, which was rejected by the field office. The second question sought clarification on post specifications, confirming that all posts must be CCA-treated wood with minimum retention of 0.4 pounds per cubic foot using full-cell pressure treatment, with no steel T-posts allowed. The fence includes approximately 14,927 linear feet of 4-wire fencing.
The third question asked about using a track loader mounted mower/mulcher for brush clearing, which was approved as long as clearing remains limited to 10 feet on either side of the fence line with no blading allowed. Cut brush must be scattered evenly adjacent to the fence line. This Q&A document relates to a larger project involving fence conversion to wildlife-friendly fencing across two segments totaling 3.52 miles, with a performance period of August 15 to November 15, 2025.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
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
AMD 002
Questions Addressed Solicitation: 140L6225Q0005 IRA New Fork River Sheep Fence
1. It’s not a question I realize the question period is over, more of an issue with the design with the extended year warranty. With a laydown fence such as this, you have to have a stay (preferably wood) stapled to the strands of wire in between the wood posts or the minute the livestock owner lets the wires down in the off season it will become a twisted over each wire mess as there will be nothing separating the wires from each other if that makes sense, even with the correct wire tension. I never saw any stays mentioned on the drawings or solicitation. The strands will be about impossible to separate and untangle the next grazing season to put back up. I would suggest an amendment of one wood stay between each post (you won’t need more than that) I took a drawing out of the wildlife friendly handbook so you have a visual of what I mean(ignore all the other parts of the drawings I’m just trying to show how the wires will stay separated on the ground)lay down fence without stays is also a major tangling hazard for wildlife. We can still use the approved nail/slot attachment points on the wood posts. This will just save the BLM/permittee and wildlife a major headache using the fence and a lot of money over time.
a. For some reason the field office (customer) did not want stays. Stays are not to be used.
2. In SOW that no steel line post will be used in construction, all wood posts will be used. Does this include the posts that would standardly be metal t-posts spaced every 16.5’? If so, am I understanding correctly that all posts used, including corners, braces, line and any other post used in the fence will be CCA treated wood? If this is correct, is there a specification for the wood posts used as “line” post in place of T-posts? I was unable to find one in the documents. I did however find a spec for 5.5’ metal t-post as line post. Are these being used as “line” posts? What does BLM want, Please clarify.
a. Please refer to statement of work section:
b. Specifics for Segment No. 1 - New Fork River Fence. There are approximately 14,927 linear feet of new 4-wire, all-wood post fence to be constructed in accordance with the drawings and Work Data Sheet.
c. Wood Treatment Practices: General: The following treatments may be used. Treatment method shall be in accordance with AWPA C 1.
i. Chromated Copper Arsenic Method: Chromated copper arsenate, waterborne preservative (conforming to Type B in AWPA 5) shall be applied. Minimum net retention of solid preservative shall be 0.4 pounds per cubic foot (gauge only) using the full-cell pressure treatment process.
3. Regarding clearing of fence line it states that no blading will be allowed but brush may be removed as needed using a bush hog or similar tool. Would a track loader mounted mower/mulcher be considered as a “similar" means of brush control? The material would be processed/dispersed to the same or greater spec. Please clarify.
a. Yes, please refer to statement of work. Clearing: No blading will be allowed. Cutting and clearing shall be by brush hog or other comparable equipment. Clearing shall be limited to 10-feet either side of the fence line. Dispose of cut brush by scattering it evenly adjacent to the fence line.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .