Attachment 1 - pre-bid_mtg_notes.doc

Notes on the 11/12/2009 pre-bid meeting for the “Mine Closures Upper Michigan Phase I,” Ottawa National Forest, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) project (Norwich area) held at 0900 at the Forest Headquarters in Ontonagon, Michigan Introduction

The pre-bid meeting for the Norwich area Phase I Ottawa NF ARRA mine closures project was attended by seven potential bidders represented by nine individuals, and by one potential vendor. Darla Lenz, (District Ranger), Chuck Frank (Lands and Minerals Program Manager), Amy Amman (Soil Scientist), and Tim Buxton (Geologist and Contracting Officer’s Representative (“COR”)) attended for the Forest Service.

Office meeting

The COR presented a PowerPoint highlighting key points of the solicitation package/contract sections; Amy Amman presented a PowerPoint showing maps and photos of features to be addressed under the proposal, and examples of recent closures in the area.

The COR’s presentation noted:

· Small business set-aside, firm fixed-price contract, submittal due date of 3 December 2009, required registration in the “Central Contract Registration (“CCR”) database, and that this project is an ARRA project with special reporting requirements

· Scope, including nature of work; contractor responsibility for labor, equipment, supervision, transportation, etc.; and timeframe (45 days form notice to proceed)

· Location. Also, Forest Service contracted several closures in this area in summer 2009 which are examples of acceptable design and product

· Bid items - five base bid items and two optional bid items; Forest Service has identified five bid items to receive grated closures, and two bid items where foam closures are deemed more practical

· Access, including only specified roads to be used; rough terrain; ATV and or snowmobile use is possible; hand carry on materials over significant distance is likely; helicopter use for transport of materials is not an option as of now. Transportation of materials to sites noted as a particular challenge.

· Exhibit 1 (table) in Section J of the solicitation

· Technical Specifications, including foam plugs and bat grates; draft work plan schedule required with bid; Contractor’s on-site representative and mine safety qualified person; Contractor responsibility for worker safety; draft Health and Safety Plan required with bid

· Standards, including resource protection

· Performance requirements summary

· Inspection and acceptance, noting that a general or draft quality control plan is to be submitted with bid

· Deliveries or performance, including period of contract and superintendence

· Contract Administration, including post-award conference, government-furnished materials, payment based on features completed, and government options for unacceptable work

· Special requirements – Contractor representative with full authority on-site during work, and mine safety qualified person

· Section I – CCR registration required, ARRA reporting requirements, Buy American Act

· Evaluation Factors – technical merit of proposal, experience of key personnel, past performance, and cost

· Bid requirements – access plan, tentative schedule, durability/permanence of proposed closures, Health and Safety Plan, discussion of ability of proposed work to meet bat access needs, Quality Control Plan

The second PowerPoint showed several maps of the sites and access routes, photos of the features to be addressed in the contract, and photos of similar closures constructed this past summer in the Norwich area, which are examples of an acceptable, practical grate closure design and of a completed foam closure.

Field session

After travelling to the field, the group walked to the bid item locations, viewed several summer-2009 closures, viewed the features to be closed and discussed the recommended closure methods, and reviewed access options.

Discussion

General discussion included that the Forest Service closure method specifications as indicated in exhibit one were somewhat flexible – the Forest service believes the indicated method of closure (grate or foam) to be the most practical method given the features and setting//terrain of each bid items, but contractors may propose alternative methods (see Questions below). The Forest Service also noted that grates to be constructed are to meet Bat Conservation International (“BCI”) specifications for materials and design, or equivalent, and that the Forest Service considers the design implemented by the Forest Service in the summer, 2009 to be equivalent to the BCI specifications.

Options for access to sites via existing roads and trails were discussed. In general, the suggested use of snowmobiles to deliver materials to the staging areas was not viewed as practical by the prospective bidders.

Forest Service and bidders noted that hand-carrying over rugged terrain would still be required if ATVs were used for material and equipment transport. Bidders were quite concerned over the potential for crew injury (slips, trips, and falls) during the repeated, hand-carry trips over significant distances of rough ground that would be required to move in heavy supplies.

Potential bidders requested that helicopter operations be allowed. One potential bidder indicated that he had significant helicopter experience, and was confident that supplies could be safely long-lined into staging areas without any need to cut trees, as the canopy is not very dense. Further, he indicated a capable ship is based in Marquette. Potential contractors expressed concern for whether day laborers could be located, concern of the cost of Davis-Bacon wage rates, concern for injury in the rough terrain and for possible workman’s compensation cases, and for obtaining additional insurance coverage for workers for a single project. Potential bidders generally indicated that helicopter transport of materials for project would be the most practical.

Contractor is responsible for maintaining the 642 road in an open condition for Contractor’s use (Contractor is responsible for removing any tree that fall across the road, for example), and Contractor would be required to maintain and/or rehabilitate the 642 road to control erosion, and leave the route in approximately pre-existing condition following use.

Questions asked during the pre-bid meeting QUESTION – Where can a Contractor find a mine safety person?

REPLY – The Forest Service cannot endorse any specific party, but Ontonagon County has a mine inspector who may be able to point you toward such personnel.

QUESTION - Would the Forest allow helicopter operations for delivery of materials?

REPLY – As of the date of the pre-bid meeting, air operations were not authorized for this project, however this is being reconsidered due to potential bidder comments that helicopter delivery of equipment and materials would be a desirable options for the bidders to reduce the safety issues associated with hand carry of equipment and materials over significant distances of rough terrain, even with ATV support. Keeping in mind that this use is not authorized as of this date, and assuming bidders are willing to perform the work without helicopter support, bidders wishing to propose helicopter use should also submit separate bids for the work, with and without helicopter use, to assure that their bid will be considered. Bidders proposing helicopter use should also submit a draft aviation safety plan (generally following the elements given in attachment 2 (document "5711 PASP") in this amendment to the solicitation. Note: Bidders are not required to use references given (the Interagency Helicopter Operations Guide (IHOG) and Chapter 17 of Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations) in item 14 of the "5711 PASP" document in preparing the Aviation Safety Plan). Further, if a helicopter is to be used in this project, Contractor must use a company/ship certified under 14 CFR Part 133.

The discussion in the field suggested that use of a long-line to deliver equipment and supplies would not require removal of any trees; removal of minor amounts of merchantable and/or non-merchantable trees would be permissible with Forest Service/COR approval.

QUESTION - Could this work be done in January/mid-winter?

REPLY – No. Due to bat presence, the work period for this project is May 15 to August 15, 2010.

QUESTION – If foam is used to plug the Windsor adit, does it need to be 12’ thick (as specified for a shaft closure)?

REPLY – No. As this closure is not potentially weight-bearing, as a shaft closure is, approximately 4 feet of foam thickness is anticipated for this closure, using approximately four to six cubic yards of foam.

QUESTION – Can the Windsor adit be accessed from the base of the slope rather than from the top?

REPLY – Yes, although there is no trail form the bottom of the slope, the distance from a road is much shorter. The Contractor is responsible for rehabilitation of any temporary trail.

QUESTION – Is partial payment possible for the delivery of materials to the sites?

REPLY – The Forest Service can pay for materials not yet incorporated in the work as follows: (FAR 52.232-1 Payments under fixed Priced Const. Contracts.)

"(2) In the preparation of estimates, the Contracting Officer may authorize material delivered on the site and preparatory work done to be taken into consideration. Material delivered to the Contractor at locations other than the site also may be taken into consideration if— (i) Consideration is specifically authorized by this contract; and (ii) The Contractor furnishes satisfactory evidence that it has acquired title to such material and that the material will be used to perform this contract. "

Payment for materials not yet incorporated in the work could occur IF: the contractor has provided a paid receipt for the materials; the materials are adequately stored in a secure site as verified and recommended by the COR, and; the materials are adequately insured by the vendor in case of loss, damage or theft (documentation required).

QUESTION – If a bidder can locate other access routes to the bid item areas, such as old skid trails, could they be used to access the sites?

REPLY – The Forest Service has not located other access routes to the sites beyond those routes specified in the solicitation, however, the Forest Service would consider use of any such routes on a case by case basis. Contractor would be required to maintain and rehabilitate the access route surface to control erosion, and leave the route surface in approximately pre-existing condition following use.

QUESTION – What flexibility does the Contractor have in proposing closure methods for the bid items?

REPLY – Bid items noted in Section J Page 13 (Amendd) which specify grated closures are required to have grated closures which comply with BCI specifications for design and materials. The grates installed by the Forest Service in the Norwich area in 2009 are considered to meet BCI specifications for design and materials. Should contractors propose designs not consistent with BCI specifications as portrayed in the solicitation package, or not consistent with recently installed Forest Service grate closures in the Norwich area, contractor will need to demonstrate, in their bid submission, that their proposed design meets BCI specifications.

Forest Service specified foam closures for bid items 5 and 6 in Section J Page 13 (AMENDED). The Forest Service believes these are the most practical closures for these bid items, but contractor may propose alternative methods (presumably grating) but should discuss the effectiveness of their alternative closure method in their proposal.

Tim Buxton - COR