B09_Amd_4_Atch_1_-_Q_A_v3_0004.pdf

TWO COMMUNICATIONS TOWER INSTALLATION AND ONE TOWER

EXTENSION AT HILL TOP TOWER

Addendum to the Specifications

140P8125B0014 Q&A Version 3

Amendment 0001 Q1: The Specifications for the Hill Top Communications Site Modification identify the existing tower as a Valmont Tower. However, the other two tower locations do not reference a specific manufacturer. Is Valmont the preferred or required manufacture for the two new self-supporting towers to be installed or will equivalent self-supporting towers from other manufacturers that meet all structural and performance specifications be considered acceptable?

A1: The Hill Top tower is specified as Valmont as the Government will be providing the 10ft extension for the existing tower. The other two new towers there are no preferred manufactures as long as specs are meet.

Q2: On page 3 of the specifications, the title references a “30FT Direct Embed Monopole” for the Willow Beach Saddle Communications Site. Given that a direct embed installation typically results in part of the pole being below grade (e.g., 5 feet or more depending on design and soil conditions). Is the 30 foot length referencing the total pole length, meaning approximately 25 feet would remain above finish grade after embedment or is the intent for the pole to have 30 feet of height above finish grade, in which case a longer pole (e.g., 35 feet overall length) would need to be provided to account for the embedment depth?

A2: The reference to a 30ft Direct Embed in the subject of this section was in error. Use the details in the spec description as it calls out a 30ft self-support tower.

Q3: Can you please confirm the wind speed design requirements for all the new tower locations specified in this project?

A3: This will be off of the national standards for Clark County NV for Boulder Beach Ranger Station and Mohave County Arizona for Willow Beach.

Q4: Can you please confirm the specified finish for the new towers? Should they be hot-dipped galvanized, weathering steel (self oxidizing/ rust-colored), or a raw/uncoated finish?

A4: Hot dipped galvanized.

Q5: For the 60’ tower, the solicitation identifies two (2) 2’ stand-offs at the top of the tower with one antenna at 59’ and one at 55’. Are the stand-offs for these two antennas?

A5: Yes, these antennas are the ones to be placed on the two top of tower stand offs.

Q6: For the 60’ tower, the solicitation identifies a 3-element Yagi @ 30’. Can you please specify a model and length?

A6: Comprod 295-70, 43 inches.

Q7: For the 60’ tower, what type and quantity of feedlines are needed at each RAD?

A7: All antenna feed lines are to be LMR-600.

Q8: For the 30’ tower, the solicitation identifies two (2) ANT-150F2 @ 30’ and @ 25ft. Is that one (1) at each height, or two (2) at each height?

A8: One at each height.

Q9: For the 30’ tower, the solicitation identifies two (2) 3- element Yagi @ 18’ and @ 25’. Is that one (1) at each height, or two (2) at each height?

A9: One at each height.

Q10: For the 30’ tower, can you please specify the model or length of the yagi antennas?

A10: Comprod 295-70, 43 inches.

Q11: For the 30’ tower, what type and quantity of feedlines are needed at each RAD?

A11: All antenna feed lines are to be LMR-600.

Amendment 0002 None

Amendment 0003 Q12: What size are the LMR-600 antenna feed lines for the towers?

A12: Times LMR-600 cable is approximately 1/2in in diameter

Q13: Is this a design-build project?

A13: No, the two new tower locations require a new tower at the specified heights and utilizing normal soils as there isn't an existing soils report nor does NPS intend to procure one.

Q14: Is a geotechnical report available, or should bidders assume normal soil conditions when engineering the foundations per the specifications?

A14: Normal Soils

Q15: Are monopoles acceptable as an alternative for the SST towers mentioned in the Statement of Work?

A15: As long as the required height is met and the tower is a free-standing tower without guy wires the tower type isn't mandatory.

Q16: Are bidders to assume “normal” soil conditions when pricing foundations?

A16: Yes

Q17: Is the awarded contractor responsible for obtaining a geotechnical study to confirm soil conditions?

A17: No

Q18: Can the paved area below the Willow Beach tower site be used for helicopter picks?

A18: If a vendor proposes helicopter use, then yes that asphalt area at the base of the Willow Beach tower location can be used for helicopter picks.

Q19: Will all three sites be awarded to one GC?

A19: Yes

Q20: Under section 01360 and 01400, 1.2, B. – Daily Submittals – please clarify what the Daily Quality Control Report is.

A20: The only reporting required will be work progression with a follow on Concrete Break Test results prior to tower erection

Q21: Under section 01360 and 01400, 1.2, C. – Tests – please clarify what tests this is referring to.

A21: Concrete break test results showing 4000psi has been achieved. It can be 7 days or 28 days but as long as the PSI is at 4000 then tower erection is then permissible.

Q22: Can an alternative access route be used for the Willow Beach Saddle Site?

A22: As NPS will have to go back to our Compliance Division to get an alternate route approved, it is requested that the original route be bid. Contractors may choose to provide an alternative bid with an optional proposed route along with the base bid. If an alternative bid is provided, the bidding vendor should describe in detail the challenges with using the existing route and what challenges are overcome by using the proposed alternative route.

Amendment 0004 Q23: Is antenna line work part of the scope for this project?

A23: Antenna and line installation is not part of this project and will be handled by NPS staff.