MODIFICATION
R -- Top of the Rockies, CO Professional Services needed for Project Site Master Plan Development and other products/services Period of Performance NLT 31 Dec 2012
- Notice Date
- 8/31/2010
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 541618
— Other Management Consulting Services
- Contracting Office
- Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, R-2/RMRS Central Administrative Zone, 240 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526
- ZIP Code
- 80526
- Solicitation Number
- AG-82X9-S-10-0143
- Archive Date
- 9/18/2010
- Point of Contact
- Kimberly J. Luft, Phone: 3032755405
- E-Mail Address
-
kluft@fs.fed.us
(kluft@fs.fed.us)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- CLARIFICATION TO SOLICITATION AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS COMMON TOP OF THE ROCKIES RFP QUESTIONS: 1. How has the TOR - CMP and IMP been used in the past, and by whom? These documents have been instrumental in project development and design elements along the Byway for federal, state, and other stakeholders. 2. Are there other agencies or stakeholders that the new CMP/IMP will be targeted to? The same agencies identified above will receive the finished products. No particular agencies or stakeholders are being targeted for this project. These plans will remain in the public domain, cannot be copyrighted by the successful firm. 3. How much of the current CMP/IMP has been implemented thus far? These plans are updated periodically to address several dynamics along the Byway, including biophysical and social data, that help ensure the successfulness of Byway projects. 4. Shall we assume that public meetings will be held for the work on the entire Byway, or only the new section? Public meetings should be held for work along the entire Byway to ensure the public provides input in the planning for the future of Byway projects and design. 5. Is the TOR steering committee comprised wholly by the TOR Board of Directors, Independence Pass Foundation, White River National Forest, Aspen Historic Society and Pitkin County, or are there other members? The TOR steering committee is a consortiam of various public and private organizations that see the benefit of a scenic byway connecting local communities.Leadership of the steering committee will be involved with this project, but not the entire committee. Who is on the technical review committee is propriatory information and WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED. 6. Is it possible for us to review the Scenic Byway submission document that resulted in the designation of Top of the Rockies Scenic and Historic Byway in 1998? No, the original byway nomination information is old and outdated. 7. Please give more detail as to the expectations for "interactive mapping" in item F.8A (page 14 of 76) The specifications call for "Show interactive mapping of the byway cooridor with site." Clarification of requirement: The plan documents should include a map that is linked digitally to inventoried sites and recommendations. 8. Is CDOT aware of the RFP and/or are they partners in the project? If so, have they expressed any specific concerns? CDOT is aware of this project. They will not be involved with the specifics of the project, but will be concerned with the final requirements and completion of the planning documents. 9. Under section C in the description of work, item (i) requires a Safety needs analysis and improvements within the CMP, and describes "new safety and transportation concerns"; have these "new" concerns already been identified or is that identification process part of the consultant scope? These new safety and transportation concerns have not been identified in the current CMP / IMP and will need to be part of the planning process. Specifically, these new concerns are part of they dynamics of the Byway. 10. How will the USFS Rocky Mountain Region Center for Design and Interpretation be involved? As the Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer Representatives overseeing the planning and contractual processes. 11. Please confirm your preferred deliverable for the RFP response (digital and/or hard copies and quantity) You'll need to complete the RFP packet attached to the solicitation, along with your company's drafted proposal. We require only one copy by the cut-off date. We will work with you if you have formatting deviations in advance. Notify Kim Luft, Contract Specialist at kluft@fs.fed.us. 12. What is the percentage breakdown of the work based on interpretive planning versus corridor mgmt planning? The planning and writing for the documents will be about 80% of the work, with design guidelines, and a concept site plan for Independence Pass as the remaining portions. 13. What is the level of detail expected for conceptual planning? Drawings, illustrations, renderings, that represent an idea for any facilities, fencing, kiosk or wayside signage, materials used, and type of identification signs for various sites (campground, entry portal, interpretive site, recreation area...etc.) 14. There is no transportation inventory in the available materials for the new section of the byway. Where is it? As part of the updating of the CMP and IP, any transportation data for the new section of the byway will be obtained from CDOT, and included as part of the new CMP/IP. 15. Will any tribal consultation be done within the scope of this project? Tribal consultation of historically native tribes of the area will be done working with forest archeologists, and regional tribal liasions. It is anticipated that any tribal consultation would focus on interpretive themes, stories, and graphic images. 16. Can a Canadian firm bid on this project? US government contract regulations give priority to American owned/domestic companies. Please refer to FAR part 25.000 for further information. 17. Are digital proposals acceptable? Yes, digital responses are acceptable, but must meet the time requirement established in the RFP. 18. The FedBizOps.gov website indicates that a "Packet must be filled-out, signed, and returned by RFP cut-off date and time" to acknowledge receipt of the amended rfp. We are unable to locate on the website. Is this a packet that can be emailed to us or can we acknowledge receipt of the rfp in our cover letter or in a separate statement? The requirements for the "package" are listed/included in the document titled RFP_Top_of_the_Rockies_KL.docx, with a letterhead dated August 9th, signed by Kim Luft. This is a file title required RFP paperwork for submittal, on the Fed Biz Opps solicitation page, located on the right side of the page. 19. The proposal production requirement includes "50 single-sided pages." Can we provide double-sided pages, and if so, does the total number remain at fifty? Please submit single-sided as requested in the solicitation. If there are issues with this requirement, please see above response to question 11 for POC information. 20. We have no more than five 11 x 17 pages as a part of our project summaries. Is this acceptable or should we reformat to 8.5 x 11? Please reformat for ease of printing, and reviewing. See POC information provided in question 11 for formatting issues. #######################################################
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USDA/FS/82FT/AG-82X9-S-10-0143/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Colorado, United States
- Record
- SN02261637-W 20100902/100831235349-b80e58ca135b28fe1a8d2b7ab5060606 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |