SF_30_Continuation_Page_Amendment_01.pdf

PDF 340 KB Posted

Attached to
Eldorado Road Signs Inventory Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
127EAS22Q0061
Issued by
Department of Agriculture Forest Service

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Eldorado Road Signs Inventory, newest first.
File Type Posted
SF30_Continuation_Page_Amendment_02.pdf PDF
SF30_Amendment_02.pdf PDF
Amendment_01_Attachment_02_Road_Signs_Mileage_Breakout.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
SF30_Amendment_01.pdf PDF
Amendment_01_Attachment_01_1992_ENF_Sign_Inventory.pdf PDF
Sign Inventory Fire Plan.docx DOCX document
Wage Determination 2015-5663 Rev19 Amador County.pdf PDF
Wage Determination 2015-5631 Rev1 Eldorado County.pdf PDF
Sign Inventory Project Map.pdf PDF
RFQ_127EAS22Q0061_El_Dorado_Sign_Inventory.pdf PDF

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

STANDARD FORM 30

CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION NUMBER

127EAS22Q0061

PAGE OF PAGES

2 2

SEE BELOW FOR QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSES.

Question: Will the Government provide a rough estimate of the number of signs expected.?

Government Response: A rough estimate of road signs on level 3-5 roads is 1,300.

Question: A prior inventory was conducted in 1992. Will the Government provide access to that inventory?

Government Response: Yes, attached is the 1992 ENF Sign Inventory.

Question: Does the Government anticipate a large increase since the 1992 Sign Inventory?

Government Response: No, the Government does not anticipate large increase. Rather, the Government estimates a change of potentially 5% above or below the 1992 Sign Inventory. However, the Government does anticipate that many signs will no longer be physically in place or with visible wording.

Question: Is retro-reflectivity required to be captured in the condition of a sign?

Government Response: Yes, retro-reflectivity should be captured in condition of sign. A new column should be added to Table 1 to document the condition of retro-reflectivity and/or overall condition of sign.

Question: Is price or best value the determining factor for award?

Government Response: Please refer to Section M, “Evaluation” (pgs. 30-31) of Solicitation 127EAS22Q0061.

Question: Will the Government provide the project files and related GIS data layers corresponding to the Sign Inventory Project Map?

Government Response: The Government will provide the requested data to the awardee.

Question: Will the Government provide the mileage breakout for each of the unit areas defined in the RFQ (Amador, Georgetown, Pacific, Placerville)?

Government Response: Yes, attached is a spreadsheet with a summary of mileage breakdown per district and road list.

Question: Are there any additional attribute fields required for collection or population besides the attribute fields defined in the tables provided in the RFQ (Table 1 Sign Inventory and Table 2 Gate Inventory)?

Government Response: Yes, the following two (2) attribute fields should be added to Table 1: “Retro-reflectivity”, and “Condition”.

Additionally, the following attribute field should be added to Table 2: “Condition of Signs” or “Remarks”.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .