B09_Amd_5_Schedule_of_Changes_Q_A_0005.pdf
PDF 73 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 140P2022R0066
About this file
This document contains responses to questions from potential offerors on Solicitation 140P2022R0066 from the National Park Service to rebuild the Paramount Ranch and Rocky Oaks Administrative Area in Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. The key details are as follows:
The proposal submission deadline was extended to November 22, 2022 by 5:00 pm Mountain Time. Responses were provided to several questions, including confirming that the on-site Superintendent can also act as the Site Safety and Health Officer, that additional information can be included in the "Other Submittals" section of the technical proposal at the offeror's discretion, and that the schedule required in Factor 3 does not have a specific page limit but must address the requirements in Sections L and M. For the septic system, a process performance warranty is not required and the design can be modified to an AX40RT pod and tank combo or use a comparable product. No submission to the LA County Health Department is needed since this is on federal property.
The document provides clarification to potential offerors on requirements for the rebuilding project at the specified National Park Service locations in California.
View the file
Other files
Show all 31
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
SAMO 303051/310132
Solicitation 140P2022R0066
Amendment 5
Schedule of Changes
a. Proposals are extended to November 22, 2022, no later than 5:00 pm Mountain Time.
b. Question and Responses – Official Government responses to questions from potential offerors are incorporated and provided below. There are more on the current excel spreadsheet but those will be provided in the next amendment, we are aware that these are not all of the questions submitted.
114. Contractor Question: We are assuming that the on-site Superintendent can also acts as the
SSHO. And that the QC Manager can have no other duties. Please confirm this, or clarify it as needed.
Government Response: There is nothing limiting the role of the Superintendent within the solicitation.
Reference the specifications for the QC Manager's limitations and qualifications.
121. Contractor Question: In the solicitation (page 49 of 55, Section E Volume I, Tech Proposal, following Factor 6) there is a final category of content named "OTHER SUBMITTALS". Is there something additional we should be providing in this section, or are we to leave it blank? Is there any information we can provide here that could contribute to the Best Value Continuum Tradeoff Process mentioned in the Solicitation under Section M, Item A (Basis for Award)?
Government Response: Any "other submittals" provided will be at the offeror's discretion and can include any necessary supplemental information to the technical proposal.
122. Contractor Question: Please confirm that Factor 3 has no page limit.
Government Response: Factor 3 does not have a specific page limit.
123. Contractor Question: Please confirm that the schedule to be submitted in Factor 3 is a summary level schedule that includes major milestones and activities, i.e., not a full construction schedule to the level of detail that would be expected after award.
Government Response: This is a difficult question to provide a firm answer to. The schedule must address/comply with what is specified for Factor 3 in Sections L and M of the solicitation. The contractor will need to use their discretion in determining how much detail needs to be included.
124. Contractor Question: Rocky Oaks - Specification 33 32 00 paragraph 2.3.C states that the contractor shall provide the contracting officer a process performance warranty certifying the system meets all pretreatment criteria standards required by LA County. The manufacturer typically provides a design review letter that ensures it will perform to the water quality objectives. This letter is submitted to LA
County Health Dept for approval. The AdvanTex dealer requires this approval prior quoting the project.
There is no record of this project being submitting to LA County Health Department for approval.
In order for the contractor to obtain pricing on this system, can you please coordinate with the engineer of record to have this project submitted to the LA County Health Depth?
Government Response: Pretreatment system must meet standard county requirements for a NOWTS system and water quality objectives to be attained with their device can be reinforced within the design review letter. A process performance warranty is not strictly necessary and can be removed from the specifications requirements as the design review letter will confirm the treated effluent quality meets the correct standards.
As this system is on federal property, it will not be submitted to the LA County Health Department. The federal government does not seek approval of local government entities.
125. Contractor Question: Rocky Oaks - Drawing SS3.0 detail 2 shows an AdvanTex A20 2 pod mode 1A unit for the septic system. The AdvanTex dealer has performed a cursory review of the project and has expressed concern that this project will not confirm with LA County Local Agency
Management Plan. Does the government intend to submit this project for review to the LA County Health
Department? We will be unable to obtain a quote from AdvanTex until this is complete.
Government Response: The AdvanTex dealer suggested these two design modifications that would alleviate their concerns about conforming to the LA County Local Agency Management Plan:
• Instead of using a single 2500 gal recirculation tank with two AX20 pods as shown on the plans, use one AX40RT pod and tank combo. This should be a lower capital cost than the pod/concrete tank system which should be a benefit to NPS.
• VCOM panel instead of the TCOM indicated on the plans. This provides more control and alarm capability with the proposed controller type change.
These modifications are acceptable.
• No, per response above. Other comparable products can be used.
132. Contractor Question: Please advise if the bid date can be moved back. A Monday morning bid will deter a lot of subcontractors from submitting quotes. We want to make sure we have the most competitive pricing for the NPS.
Government Response: Please refer to the latest amendment for the current proposal submission deadline.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .