VAFO_upper_forge_contractor_Q_A_0001.docx
DOCX document 15 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 140P4224Q0115
About this file
This document is a set of questions and answers related to a federal solicitation for the conservation of wooden artifacts at Valley Forge National Historical Park in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
The key details are:
- There is no current incumbent performing treatment of these or similar artifacts. The park previously worked with an intern, but they are not eligible to bid on this solicitation.
- There has been no prior conservation work done on the artifacts in the solicitation, but the treatment report for a similar grouping will be shared with the successful bidder.
- The National Park Service is open to in-situ treatment at the park to help reduce costs and risks, but the successful bidder must provide a comprehensive safety plan.
- The artifacts contain creosote and potentially other hazardous materials, but there is no documentation on how the creosote was applied. The goal is to reduce the parts per million of hazardous creosote before the artifacts are moved to museum storage.
- Physical encapsulation is desired, and the size and weight of the artifacts will need to be considered when choosing how they are enclosed for storage in the museum collection.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol_140P4224Q0115_Amd_0001.pdf | ||
| 233050-Industrial_Hygiene_Monitoring-final_0001.pdf | ||
| Wage_Determination_WD_15-5791_Rev_26.pdf | ||
| Statement_of_Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| Price_Schedule.docx | DOCX document | |
| Sol_140P4224Q0115.pdf |
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
140P4224Q0115 – Contractor Questions
· Is there a current incumbent performing treatment of these or similar artifacts for the park? If so, are they eligible to bid on this solicitation? No, the park previously worked in an agreement with an intern who treated a similar group of artifacts. They are not a contractor and are not eligible to bid on this solicitation.
· Has there been any conservation work on the artifacts in the solicitation? If so, could these treatment reports be shared? No, there has not been any work on these artifacts. The treatment report of the other similar grouping will be shared with the successful bidder.
· Would the NPS consider in situ treatment at the park to help reduce costs and risks to the artifacts? Work can be completed at the park, but successful bidder must supply a comprehensive safety plan spelling out how work will be carried out, materials to be used with MSDS if applicable, PPE, site set-up & break-down procedures, and hazmat disposal.
· We have concerns about the creosote in these artifacts and what other hazardous materials may have been applied to the wood.
· Have the artifacts been analyzed for the presence of hazardous materials? If so, can this information be shared? Please see attached report.
· Can the park share any information about how the creosote was applied to the wood and when? The creosote was applied prior to the grouping of artifacts being part of the NPS collection and there is no documentation of exactly when or how the creosote was applied.
· Please clarify what 'remove creosote' means. What level of removal is being requested? How will 'removal' be determined? Removal is meant to reduce the PPM of hazardous creosote before the artifacts are moved to a museum collection storage space.
· Does 'encapsulate' mean physical or chemical encapsulation? A physical encapsulation is desired.
· Does 'acid-free housing' mean that rigid boxes or containers are required after encapsulation? These artifacts will be stored in a museum collection storage space once they are treated. When choosing how they are enclosed, the size and weight of these artifacts will need to be considered.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .