Questions and Answers for W9128F26QA058.docx
DOCX document 16 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W9128F26QA058
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document for the Fort Peck Test Flow Cultural Resource Monitoring Survey solicitation (W9128F26QA058) issued by the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Engineering District Omaha. The Q&A clarifies key aspects of the project requirements and contract terms for potential contractors bidding on this cultural resource monitoring effort.
The document addresses critical project scope and administrative matters, including confirmation that this is a new requirement with no incumbent contractor. Generic research information and methodologies remain contractor property, while all site-specific data and documents generated from the project become sole property of the Government. The project requires evaluation of 39 identified cultural resource sites or isolates within a defined geographic focus in eastern Montana counties (Richland, Valley, McCone, and Roosevelt), with emphasis on homesteading and farming contexts rather than mining themes. Pre-test fieldwork refers to timing within the USACE test flow framework, and limited surface testing for assessing deposition potential is permitted within the principal investigator's professional judgment, though Phase II archeological testing is not anticipated. The contract is structured as a Firm-Fixed Price award with no allowances for cost escalation, such as fuel price increases. Award decisions will follow FAR 52.212-2 evaluation criteria for commercial products and services, which emphasizes lowest cost considerations. Notable exclusions include TERO fees, comprehensive archive access (dependent on staffing coordination), and formal documentation of undocumented ferry crossing locations, though these may be discussed within the report's context section.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Questions and Answers.docx | DOCX document | |
| Att 0002 - Fort Peck Test Flow - Price Schedule.docx | DOCX document | |
| W9128F26QA058 - Ft Peck Test Flow Cultural Monitoring Survey.pdf | ||
| Att 0003 - SCW WD 2015-5381 2015-5395.pdf | ||
| Att 0001 - PWS_Fort Peck Test Flow.docx | DOCX document |
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 and Answers Fort Peck Test Flow Cultural Resource Monitoring
W9128F26QA058
1. Will this solicitation be a strictly lowest cost award?
Answer: Please refer to page 22-24 of the solicitation under FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Services.
2. Is there any incumbent/recompete or is this a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.
Answer: This is a new requirement. There is not an incumbent.
3. Data Rights (p 11). States the government data shall be the sole property of the Government and may not be used for any other purpose without permission. May I assume that this will be site specific information. Generic information, such as Prehistory/History, research design, research questions, site patterning (without site-specific information) is still the property of the contractor.
Answer: The generic information that does not contain site specific information is the contractor’s information. Documents, data and materials generated from this project containing site specific information is the sole property of the Government and cannot be reproduced, disclosed, used or sold by the contractor without written permission from the Contracting Officer.
4. Does the USACE have an agreement with the Fort Peck Tribe regarding the TERO Fees, which would require 3 percent of the entire project cost?
Answer: TERO fees are not included on this project and are not applicable to this project.
5. Am I correct in assuming that the context for homesteading/farming in eastern Montana will focus primarily on Richland, Valley, McCone and Roosevelt counties? If we go for the entire east half of Montana, the context will be very general.
Answer: Yes, focusing on the relevant counties is the recommendation.
6. Same with the mining context: Valley, Richland, McCone and Roosevelt Counties? Williams in ND had some mining but not close to the river, more to the NE of Williston.
Answer: Mining is not among the themes identified in PWS Part 4.1.7.8., paragraph 3 as necessary for this project. Its identification earlier in the paragraph is part of a list of examples of research themes copied from a reference document.
7. 3.4 says Pre-Test Fieldwork. I just want to make sure that we are to examine the defined 39 cultural resource sites/isolate. Furthermore, it is our understanding that testing is not required and that testing for NRHP evaluation is not allowed.
Answer: “Pre-Test” in this instance refers to timing related to USACE’s test flow, not archeological testing. Testing in the sense of Phase II archeology is not anticipated, though limited surface testing for the purpose of assessing deposition potential is allowed and expected within the professional judgement of the PI (see PWS Part 4.1.4., paragraph 3).
8. If awarded the project, can we get access to the USACE archives in the admin building at Fort Peck?
Answer: At current staffing levels, access to the archives cannot be promised, but may be allowed if the contract and project office can coordinate a mutually acceptable time.
9. We have identified a few ferry crossing locations that have not been previously documented. Should those locations be documented?
Answer: These locations and associated discussion may be included in the report within the context section, but field recordation and the production of site forms would be outside of the scope of this contract.
10. If the cost of a gal of gas skyrockets later this year, will there be an allowance in the contract for this additional cost?
Answer: This solicitation is for a Firm-Fixed Price award and an allowance will not be included in the award.
11. What happens if the river level drops too low to use a boat to access most of the sites?
Answer: It is expected that the contractor will coordinate with private landowners to secure access permissions necessary to record and evaluate sites, as necessary.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .