Addendum 2_Water Tank Rehabilitation.pdf
PDF 86 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP_2025_02_21
- Issued by
- Teller County, Colorado
About this file
Addendum 2 is a document issued by the Town of Frisco, Colorado, related to the Water Tank Rehabilitation and Maintenance Services contract opportunity. The addendum, dated March 13, 2025, clarifies a previous response from Addendum 1 regarding cathodic protection for water tanks. Specifically, the document modifies the earlier guidance about including cathodic protection in project proposals, now allowing proposers to determine its necessity based on their professional assessment.
The addendum provides flexibility for proposers, stating that they should include cathodic protection if they believe it would be beneficial to the Town. If proposers do not recommend cathodic protection, they are required to provide a detailed explanation of why they consider it unnecessary or not cost-effective. This change allows potential contractors more discretion in their technical approach to the water tank rehabilitation project, while still maintaining a requirement for professional justification of their technical decisions.
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
Addendum 2
March 13, 2025
Town of Frisco Frisco Water Tank Rehabilitation and Maintenance Services Responses by: Christopher McGinnis, Public Works Director/Town Engineer
Questions, comments and clarification requests for plan holders:
In Addendum 1, a question (Question 7) was asked regarding whether cathodic protection of the tanks was desired and should be included in proposals. The response stated that “cathodic protection is desired and should be included in proposals”. This response is hereby revised to the following:
Proposers should include cathodic protection if they believe its addition would be beneficial to the Town.
If Proposers do not believe a cathodic protection would be beneficial or cost effective, then it can be omitted, but Proposers should include a statement of why they do not recommend cathodic protection.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .