Questions Answers Site Visit.pdf

Hazardous Tree Removal- CLRD

Solicitation Number AG-82B1-S-10-0317

Pre-Bid/Site Visit Notes 4/20/10

• The following individuals were present at the site visit:

• Eric Hopkins, Peak to Peak Forestry

• Mark Morgan, Morgan Timber

• Ron Schmelzer, Summit Forestry

• Steve Vance & Tom Flynn, Front Range Arborists

• Nicholas Nunley, Sweat LLC

• Forest Service: Dick Edwards, Bruce Lewis, Mike Montgomery, Luke Brandy, Dave Hattis

Meeting structure was an office review of the contract with question & answer on each item, as needed from the contractors. This was followed by a field visit. All contractors except Eric

Hopkins attended the field visit. Only Mark Morgan and Ron Schmelzer attended the entire field visit, the other contractors left after visiting a couple of sites.

Campgrounds visited during the field visit included: West Lake CG, Dowdy Lake CG

Bellaire Lake CG. Jacks Gulch CG, Mountain Park CG, and Manhattan Dispersed Sites, other campgrounds included in this project were not visited due to ground conditions and inaccessibility.

The following is a list of questions from contractors and clarifications provided by the Forest

Service:

Bellaire Campground- Reviewed the updated contract as there was confusion on the part of contractors since Bellaire was erroneously listed as having an off forest decking location on a previous version of the contract. The hazard trees in Bellaire campground will be decked onsite.

The latest contact has this item corrected. Section J, Exhibit 1 Summary of Work, Level A and

Level C was sent to EROC but has not been corrected in Fed Biz Ops.

Contractors requested to propose different methods to complete the work and which of these methods the Forest Service would allow. Alt COR Montgomery informed the group that multiple technical proposal/bids would be accepted if the contractor had different ways of completing the work. The evaluation panel would decide the feasibility of each proposal and give a pass or fail in accordance with the specification and the solicitation. Alt COR

Montgomery clarified that the purpose of this contract is to remove hazards trees with little or no impact to the ground. Solicitation, 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items (a) 1. Technical

Approach

Contractor asked if felling of trees could be completed with equipment. COR Brandy informed the group that falling must be completed using chainsaws and the use of wheeled or tracked felling equipment will not be permitted. C.3.2.2 Felling

Contractor asked if material being removed off forest had to be cut into 4 four foot lengths.

COR Brandy informed the group that if material was to be removed to an off forest location

Level C C.3.4.6, any length would be acceptable as long as all other requirements of the contract remained the same. Topping and limbing is required before removal of all pieces, including those with agreed to lengths exceeding 4 feet (C.3.2.5, bullet 2). The 4 four foot length requirement applies to material that is left on site or is moved to decking location on the forest. See Section J for clarification on location that this applies. 4 four foot length applies to

Level A and Level B C.3.4.4 and C.3.4.5

Contractor asked if equipment could be used for piling of slash. COR Brandy informed the group that piling of slash shall be completed by hand. C.3.3.3 Slash Piling

Contractor asked what the requirements for wood decking on the National Forest would be.

COR Brandy informed the group that wood shall be stacked no less than four feet in height.

Greater heights would be allowed and preferred. COR Brandy emphasized that the end result of deck stability is very important given the proximity of public use areas. Level A and B, C.3.4.4 and C.3.4.5 Wood Handling

Contractor asked if loaders (equipment to stack logs or pieces of logs) would be allowed at decking locations and on roads. COR Brandy informed the group that wheeled loaders would be allowed on all road types to facilitate decking of cut material. Loaders with rubber tires may be allowed on asphalt or chipseal roads and loaders with tracks may be allowed on native surface roads as long as sufficient mitigation measures are in place to protect the road surface.

Selection panel would determine if sufficient mitigation measures were specified in the technical proposal during the selection process. Level A–C, C.3.4.4, C.3.4.5, C.3.4.6 Wood

Handling

Contractor requested partial payment when operating during the split period of performance.

Alt COR Montgomery informed the group that partial payment for each period of performance would be allowed with Contracting Officer approval.

Contractor asked when the notice to proceed is expected. COR Brandy informed the group that contract award will be on or about May 3, and the notice to proceed could be up to 10 days following award. C-1 (f) Project Description and Location

Contractors questioned if the Forest Service is able to issue the Notice to Proceed by this date and if operations were going to be allowed outside the May 1- May 24 or May 1 to June 24 dates. Alt COR Montgomery informed the group that operations past the first operating season would not be allowed if the Notice to Proceed was timely. The government understands that the contractor needs sufficient time to complete the work as required and time outside of the normal operating period of performance may be granted by the Contracting Officer. Section J, Exhibit 1 Summary of Work, 2010 Operating Period

Dave Hattis requested that the last sentence of the first paragraph of C.3.1.6, starting with

“G.2.2 Measurements provides…” be struck from the contract. The reference to Measurement in Section G is unneeded so Dave Hattis felt that it was clutter and should be removed.

Contractor asked if a piece of equipment could go off of roads to dislodge a hang-up tree. COR

Brandy told contractors that this would be reviewed on a case by case basis and for safety reasons, equipment may be allowed, if needed to safely dislodge a hang-up tree. C.3.2 Hazard

Tree Felling, Bucking, and Skidding

Contractor asked what the minimum specifications for slash piece size would be, COR Brandy told contractors that all slash over 1’ long and 1” in diameter would need to be piled.

Contractor asked if blown-out tops of marked trees would also need to be treated, COR

Montgomery told them such pieces would be treated. Contactor asked about slash piling, the distance from residual trees and how piles would be constructed in areas with tight timber and no openings. COR Brandy informed them that the COR may agree to piles being built closer than 12 feed in instances where no openings occur within 200 feet of slash, but this would be evaluated on an individual basis. C.3.3.3 Slash Piling

Contractor asked if a processor could reach from the road and process manual felled trees into

4 foot lengths and a forwarder could reach from the road to load and move pieces. COR Brandy stated that processors and forwarders with rubber tires may be allowed on asphalt or chipseal roads and processors and forwarders with tracks may be allowed on native surface roads as long as sufficient mitigation measures are in place to protect the road surface, and the processor and forwarder did not leave the road and the tree was felled by hand. Selection panel would determine if sufficient mitigation measures were specified in the technical proposal during the selection process.C.3.2.2 Felling and C.3.2.4 Bucking and Limbing.

Contractor asked how a solo tree more than 200 feet from any other trees with less slash that would make the minimum pile size would be treated. COR Brandy stated that a tree or small group of trees not generating enough slash to meet the minimum pile size shall be piled where they are if no other piles or trees to be treated are within 200 feet. C.3.3.3 Slash Piling

Contractor asked if work was being done diligently, but time was running out during the first performance period, if priority trees could be dropped and left until the second performance period when they would be limbed bucked, piled and removed to meet contract specifications.

COR Montgomery stated that such a situation would be considered on an individual basis if the need were to arise, and that the contractor would not be paid for felled trees that were waiting to be bucked and removed. C.3.2 Hazard Tree Felling, Bucking, and Skidding, C.3.3 Slash

Disposal, and C.3.4 Wood Handling

Field visit was concluded at approximately 1500 hours