Question_received_and_answered-By_Sections-_HQAP_RFP.pdf
PDF 57 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- DTFH61-13-R-00037
About this file
Responses to Questions received on time.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| DTFH61-13-R-00037-_Amendment_000001.pdf | ||
| J-3_SUBCONTRACTING_PLAN.docx | DOCX document | |
| DTFH61-13-R-00037.pdf | ||
| J-2_Financial_Report_(Monthly).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| J-1_Schedule_of_Rates_-_TFHRC_HQAP_Support.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
QUESTIONS RECEIVED ON TIME
DTFH61-13-R-00037- Improving the Core Elements of Highway Quality Assurance Program
SECTION B QUESTIONS
Question 1:
Page 2, Section B-2, 3rd line – Is “the five contract years” ought to be “the four contract years”?
Answer:
Yes. That sentence should read “the four contract years.”
SECTION L QUESTIONS:
Question 2:
Page 62, Item d, 2nd bullet “Understanding of ….” – It seems that the list under this bullet does not match the requirements listed in Section C. Is this list intended to be the same as the list under Section C.1 on Page 5?
Pg. 62 of the solicitation references a list of “Understanding of and capability to perform the requirements..” and also references Section C of the RFP. The list on Pg. 62 is entirely focused on bridges, with no mention of the items listed in Section C, Pg. 5 of the solicitation (e.g. asphalt materials, smoothness, etc.). We wanted to confirm the level of bridge-related expertise is commensurate with the items listed on Pg. 62 of the RFP. Please advise.
Answer:
The information on page 62, as stated above, is focused on bridges and should not be a part of this Solicitation. It will be removed with this amendment 000001. The information in Section C.1 on Page 5 of the RFP is inserted instead.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .