PreBid Meeting notes.pdf

Eastern Administrative Zone Acquisition Management

200 Weaver Blvd Asheville, NC 28804

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

Agriculture

United States Department of

Forest Service

Date: April 26, 2010

A pre-bid meeting for Trail Maintenance Package #2, Cheoah Ranger District, Solicitation No.

AG-4419-S-10-0360, was held on Wednesday, April 21, 2010, from 10:00 a.m. until approximately 2:00 p.m. at the Nantahala National Forest, Cheoah Ranger District Office and Project Sites.

Kathryn Moore from the US Forest Service in Asheville conducted the meeting. After everyone signed in, the meeting began. The Print-In sheet is included at the end of these notes.

Kathryn began by providing her contact information. The complete information is:

Kathryn Moore US Forest Service

160 Zillicoa Street, Suite A Asheville, NC 28801

828-257-4873 (office) ktmoore@fs.fed.us

Kathryn introduced District Personnel: Operations Assistant Ranger – Scott Haas and Deputy District Ranger – Lauren Stull; Project Personnel: Erik Crews and James Kerzwick; and Inspectors Fredrica Lashley and Jody Maney.

An overview of the project was provided. Kathryn explained that the contract is written as a performance-based contract and the goal of the project is to make the trails comply with current Forest Service Standard Specifications and Drawings, as referenced in the contract, and the Statement of Work and Design Parameters, included in the contract package.

Kathryn stated that this is a recovery project and there are associated ARRA requirements such as quarterly reporting requirements (e.g., go on-line and report how many jobs saved, maintained, etc.) Special ARRA requirements are stated in the contract and must be adhered to.

She also pointed out that contractors are required to be registered with Central Contractor Registration (CCR) to be submit a proposal on this contract. Proposals are to be mailed in to the EROC office in Atlanta (no faxes or emails will be accepted) and be sure to put DUNS number on proposal.

Kathryn and District Personnel stated that the project trail system will be open to the public during construction, however, the contractor will be expected to post signage, temporarily close/ block the trail that they are currently working and restrict access (i.e., close one trail at a time for work and direct public, through signage, snow fencing, barricades, etc. to the open trails).

mailto:ktmoore@fs.fed.us�

Kathryn further stated that work shall not take place on weekends and Contractor shall leave trails in a safe and passable condition at the end of the work day each Friday.

Kathryn advised that it is the bidder’s responsibility to walk the trail to understand the work and analyze access points and constraints.

Discussion took place on changes to the scope of work. If major changes in the work are incorporated based on questions, discussions, and further review of the trails, these changes will be issued as a solicitation amendment and incorporated into the final contract. However, there may be minor changes in the field, during work and based on field conditions, that will not require amendments nor contract modifications.

Kathryn stated that there are two sets of evaluation criteria in the contract and the Best Value Approach (as given on page 3 of the Statement of Work) shall be used. She discussed the contract evaluation criteria, information required to be submitted with offers / bids, and how the offers will be rated. She re-emphasized that it is required to walk the trails and verify, in the proposal, that this has been done.

Kathryn stated that resource, access, public encounter issues / questions should be directed to District Personnel. Contract questions should go to Kathryn.

Kathryn stated that the hazardous tree removal task will be removed from this contract, due to potential presence of Indiana Bat. If it is necessary to remove a standing, dead tree along the corridor, inform Inspector and do not remove the tree until the removal is approved by Inspector.

Kathryn stated that there will be a short (approximately 300 ft.) trail relocation, to avoid an archeological site (a standing chimney). The existing trail shall be closed. The approximate relocation is currently flagged and will be flag-pinned by Inspectors prior to beginning of work.

Other minor shifts of the trail were discussed in the field, however, NEPA clearance for such shifts is not in place and therefore additional relocations are not proposed.

Clearing height for all trails shall be 10 ft. high, as per Pack & Saddle Design Parameters.

Track equipment width shall be limited to 36-inch (unless approved by Inspector/COR).

Wheeled, blade equipment shall be limited to 40 inch, with the blade tilted to obtain a maximum 36-inch width. Single track tread shall not be increased in width. The intent is for areas that are currently wider to return to true single track width.

Scott Haas talked in general terms about the nature of the work. The contractor should not have to do cut bank excavation, as they should be keeping to existing tread only. However if trails have moved down slope, and it is necessary to move them back up slope to original locations, there may be some grading involved in that task.

Access is good as all single track trails trails end in a road. The district will provide combination locks to contractors to use access roads to move equipment. Locations where roads end and single track beings are obvious on the ground; for example, theroad will dead end and there will be a big turn around area, single track will the begin. It is very important to the district that the single track character of these trails be maintained.

There are multiple perennial streams that run across the trails. For the most part, the trails are in good soils, and the water crossings are not much of a problem. Trail insloped get runoff into stream, Hardening these areas with native materials may be asked for in a couple of locations.

However, it is more important to slope the trail, install grade dips, etc. to establish positive drainage on both sides of these crossings to prevent runoff from entering the streams. Resolving tread drainage issues on either side of crossings or wet areas will, in most cases, negate the need for armoring. A lot of the crossings are hard pan and armoring of these crossings will be exception.

The biggest problem on the trails is water holes and poor drainage. Therefore establishing positive drainage in the most critical component of the work (trail tread restoration, restoring/cleaning/adding grade dips, etc.)

It was noted that existing grade reversals count as grade dips in the minimum 50 grade dips per mile requirement.

Fredrica Lashley, Jody Maney, Erik Crews, James Kerzwick and Kathryn Moore accompanied interested individuals to review a portion of Tsali Left Loop. Attendees were instructed to review the other project trails at their convenience and call Kathryn with any questions that they may have.

Specific Questions, Answers, and Comments follow:

1) Q: How many days does the contract give for completion of work?

A:120 calendar days currently. Trails must be left in a safe and passable condition at close of work on Fridays. Contractor is responsible for securing their equipment and placing it so that trails are not blocked.

2) Q: What is the start date for the work?

A:The work can start after the contract award phase is comlete; approximately first part of June, at the earliest. This start- date, however, can be mutually agreed upon with contractor. F.S. would like worked accomplished this calendar year.

3) Q: Is camping permitted?

A: Per Scott Haas: yes, you can use the campground, pay for site, as general public. No camping on along trails, on work site, restricted to campground.

4) Q: Will work be shut down due to weather conditions, such as too much moisture. If notified stop work on all or certain sections of the due to weather conditions, etc. If happens frequently and long enough, an extension of the Contract may be considered.

A: The F.S. has the option (see Statement of Work) to notify the contractor to stop work due to weather conditions (as well as other reaons). If this happens freqently enough and/or long enough, a contract time extension may be considered.

5) Q: Should leaf litter be scattered along finished trail restoration work?

A: Yes, place the duff, saved earlier (removed from area that had been recently re-graded) on the trail and and along side the newly restored tread (on any distrubed or scattered dirt). The intent is for the duff to naturalize the trail, the outside edge and make the newly restored traill look like it has been there (for weekend users) and also provide natural erosion prevention. Do not cerate a berm with the duff.

6) Q:The map provided was extremely helpful in determining what was and was not part of the scope as well as where potential access points were, however there was one trail that didn't make sense: the trail labeled Q: Upon review, the Thompson Connector, TR152B, was a full on 20' wide road with no evidence of trail use and no connection to the trail system at the western end. It looked like it had received fairly recent maintenance (95% grass coverage, no noticeable erosion) and was perhaps vehicle access for logging or prescribed fire. Should this trail, therefore, be part of our scope of work?

A: No, the road Thompson Connector trail shall be dropped from the work.

7) Q: We noted 2 bridges in less than ideal condition (mainly the railings, although several inches of compacted soil on the treads made it impossible to assess the tread condition).

Should we include bridge maintenance in our bid?

A:No bridge maintenance shall be included in the scope of this contract.

8) Q: We saw several wet areas that we felt needed rock armoring. While we could source some rock from within the trail tread in nearby areas we would probably have to import the bulk of the rock at considerable expense unless the Forest Service has an area we can use to obtain appropriate rocks. Please clarify where we can obtain rock from within the trail system (was it 4' from tread center? Is it permissible to scrounge loose rock from already disturbed areas such as grade dip runouts, existing system roads or the lakeshore?)

A: The contract calls for establishing positive drainage. The majority of water crossings and wet areas will not require armoring. The scope of the contract may include minimal rock armoring at wet areas and/or water crossings, when necessary and as directed by the Inspector. When armoring is required, rock can be obtained with the existing trail corridor (limits of clearing, 4 ft either side of center line). Rock may be obtained from already disturbed areas (such as grade dip runouts) along the trail way, if necessary and if the rock is not needed in the grade dip runout.

Rock MAY NOT be obtained from existing system roads nor the lakeshore.

9) Q: Will it be necessary for the Contractor to lay out and flag proposed grade dip locations, as stated in the Statement of Work A: Yes

An amendment will be issued to address the above clarifications.

Should you have any questions regarding these notes, or find any errors or ommissions, please advise Kathryn Moore immediately.