QandA Sheet 6973GH-26-R-00026.pdf
PDF 233 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 6973GH-26-R-00026
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) Sheet for federal contract 6973GH-25-R-00026, a TLH Tower Refurbishment project. The document defines Reduced Equipment (RE) Status as allowing only one station to be offline at a time and provides clarifications about project specifics. Key details include FAA's requirement for 8 total "US Property – No Trespassing" signs to be installed by the contractor, confirmation that generator backup power is not required, and guidance that pole re-alignment has been removed from the Statement of Work (SOW). Multiple questions address technical aspects of tower maintenance, such as servicing high mast poles (110' or 130' tall), and the contractor's responsibility for determining local permitting requirements. The document emphasizes that specific implementation methods are the contractor's responsibility, with the FAA providing minimal prescriptive guidance beyond the core project requirements.
View the file
Other files
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
Q&A Sheet
6973GH-25-R-00026; TLH Tower Refurb
Reduced Equipment (RE) Status definition: Only one station can be offline at a time.
Q1. Will generator back up power be required for sites requiring electrical component replacement?
A. Generator backup power is not required with Reduced Equipment (RE) status.
Q2. Is there a maintenance window we should consider with regard to taking a site offline.
A. Yes, only one station offline at a time.
Q3. At Station 05 as shown in Photo 10, a new top section may be required. Should a Mobile tower unit be included to support the antenna while the top section is replaced?
A. No, only one station offline at a time.
Q4. Typically, on Federal property, local jurisdiction’s permitting requirements do not apply.
Is that the case for these projects?
A. Not a question we can answer. This is up to the contractor to determine.
Q5. There were no identifying placards for manufacturer or model numbers for the monopoles on site. Do you happen to have those? I think for the one mast that is called out to be realigned, it needs to be replaced in its entirety or at the very least, top part of it replaced, as it seems this was bent in a hurricane or storm. I don’t think you can straighten those out, once they are bent.
A. No model numbers nor placards are available. Per the as-builts provided, pole manufacturer was American High Mast. Pole will remain and re-alignment of pole will be removed from SOW.
Q7. It also seems for the top parts of these poles to be serviced, we would need to get boom trucks and man baskets for these, since these are not climbable. Is that what they have done in the past for these? I don’t see of any other way, as these poles were either 110’ or 130’.
A. Contractor’s means and methods for accomplishing items in SOW.
Q8. It was mentioned that the signs that are called out to go on the new fence sides are outdated. Do you happen to have the new template for the signs?
A. Warning signage is no longer required. FAA will provide new US Property – No Trespassing sign as Government Furnished Property for installation by contractor on new fences – 8 total signs, one sign per side of fence.
Q9. The station closest to the ATC tower is a new fence site. I believe it calls for fabric and gravel, but there is already existing fabric and gravel. Does that existing gravel need to be removed to install the new grounding system for the new fence?
A. Contractor’s means and methods for accomplishing items in SOW. Follow requirements specified in SOW.
Q9. During field review at Station No 3 (Spring Hill Road), our team observed that the top segment of the high mast pole appears to be leaning slightly. Per our professional evaluation and visual inspection, the pole is structurally sound and in good working condition with no signs of damage, deformation, or foundation distress.
The scope of work calls for the realignment of the leaning top high mast segment; however, based on our assessment, there is no practical method to realign the segment without fully replacing the pole. Given the current satisfactory condition of the structure, replacement does not appear necessary.
Should the existing pole remain in place as-is, given that it is in good condition or should we proceed with pole replacement to address the minor lean?
A. Pole will remain. Re-alignment of pole will be removed from SOW. Pole replacement not included in the SOW.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .