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
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SF30_Continuation_Page_Amendment_02.pdf | ||
| SF30_Amendment_02.pdf | ||
| Amendment_01_Attachment_02_Road_Signs_Mileage_Breakout.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| SF30_Amendment_01.pdf | ||
| Amendment_01_Attachment_01_1992_ENF_Sign_Inventory.pdf | ||
| Sign Inventory Fire Plan.docx | DOCX document | |
| Wage Determination 2015-5663 Rev19 Amador County.pdf | ||
| Wage Determination 2015-5631 Rev1 Eldorado County.pdf | ||
| Sign Inventory Project Map.pdf | ||
| RFQ_127EAS22Q0061_El_Dorado_Sign_Inventory.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 .