Amendment_2_-_Attach_1-_answers_to_questions_140F0118Q0077_(2).pdf

Amendment 2 Solicitation No. 140F0118Q0077 Title: Contaminate removal Action, Abandoned Firing Range at Tule Lake NWR

Answers to questions

Question 1 - The Removal Action Workplan discusses the project in detail, but is not clear on the sampling/analysis requirements. Is the contractor responsible for all sampling, analyses and data validation?

Answer: See revised SOW.

Question 2 - Noticed that the Removal Action Workplan has Ahtna Environmental completing the reporting, are there any reporting requirements beyond closeout submittals and presentation of confirmation results? The Statement of Work document states that contractor shall provide a summary report. Which is correct?

Answer: The selected contractor is responsible for all reports identified in the SOW and work plan.

Question 3 - Is there an ability to utilize an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) meter to field screen the area for metals, and potentially couple the field data with analytical results from select areas?

Answer: Yes, pending soil conditions.

Question 4 - Is lead-impacted soil already pre-approved at Klamath Falls Landfill, regardless of assessment results? I see the Statement of Work document states that TCLP results will be required to verify compatibility with landfill. Is there a potential for Subtitle C/D landfilling?

Answer: No, the selected contractor will be responsible for sampling and disposing all contaminated soils leaving the site. Disposal receipts and manifests shall be part of the final report.

Question 5 - Is fill material available onsite, or do we just grade the existing material to eliminate low spots? Is there a potential that offsite fill will be required?

Answer: Per 5.5 of the work plan, the selected contractor will grade the disturbed areas eliminating the low spots. The berm will also be leveled; no off site fill is required.

Question 6 - General:

a. Are Ahtna and/or Geosyntec prohibited from bidding or participating on a bidder’s team?

Answer: Under legal review with determination pending.

Question 7 - Work Plan Section 5.2 Grid Layout: “…the project team will … locate the previously used grid system (Figures 2, 3, and 4)”:

a. Will the USFWS provide the GPS coordinates in electronic format to the successful bidder? If not, is there an existing benchmark or other fixed reference point that can be used to re-establish the grid?

Answer: No, it will be the selected contractor’s responsibility to reestablish the applicable sections of the grids system.

Question 8 - Work Plan Section 4.0 “Approximately 600 cubic yards (cy) of soil will be excavated and screened to remove lead shot.” and Section 5.4: “…the soils appear to contain a relatively high concentration of fines in the silt/clay particle size. As such, there is a possibility that the use of a power sieve will be challenging. If sieving of the soils is not practical, a composite soil sample will be collected and analyzed for waste disposal characterization without screening.”

a. The Work Plan presents an alternative for soil characterization in the main impact area (portions of Grids I2 through I5) if soil sieving is not practical. However, the Work Plan does not indicate how soils will be handled or how lead will be removed from the other Grids if soil sieving is not practical. Please specify how that situation will be addressed.

b. Is it acceptable in the main impact area (portions of Grids I2 through I5) to forgo screening and proceed directly to waste characterization and disposal through composite sampling?

PLEASE NOTE THE ANSWER TO QUESTION #3 COULD IMPACT BOTH THE

GOVERNMENT’S STATEMENT OF WORK AND THE BIDDERS PRICING. Providing the answer to this question prior to the site walk is requested to allow for procurement of accurate subcontractor pricing within the current timeframe for proposal submittal.

Answer: a. The site assessment has determined the soils, in the other grid areas (blue and green areas in Figure 4 of the work plan), are able to be screened. b. Yes, but your bid submittal must reflect your proposed action. The contract is fixed price.

Question 9 - Work Plan Section 5.5 “…removed vegetation will be piled up, but not disposed.”

a. Is it necessary to cover the pile(s) of removed vegetation that are left onsite?

b. Is the remaining large metal target (SAP Attachment A, Photograph 2) to be left onsite or can it be recycled?

Answer: The piles do not need to be covered. Recyclable materials (abandoned water line and metal plate) may be recycled by the selected contractor at no cost to the government.

Question 10- Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) Section 4.3 “Within each 50x50-foot grid, surface soil samples (0 to 2 inches bgs) and subsurface soil samples (2 to 6 inches) will be collected using…”

a. The SAP implies that all 16 Grids with 50 ft x 50 ft dimensions will be sampled. The Work Plan Figure 4 indicates that only 13 Grids will be excavated (Grids H1, H6, and I6 are excluded from the excavation effort). Are all 16 Grids to be sampled in accordance with the SAP?

Answer: See revised SOW.

Question 11 - SAP Section 5.0 “In an effort to characterize the soils beneath the burn area, soil samples from this area will also be analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA Method 8270SIM and polychlorinated biphenyls by EPA Method 8082.”

a. Are samples from the burn pit area to be collected at two depths (0 – 2 inches below ground surface and 2 – 6 inches below ground surface) or at a single depth?

b. If samples from two depths are collected, will both be analyzed for the methods listed or will the deeper sample be analyzed only if the shallower sample exceeds soil screening criteria?

Answer: See newly provided Soil Investigation Summary Report dated August 12, 2015 for analytical results and revised SOW.

Question 12 - SAP Attachment A, Photograph #6 shows what may be large chunks of concrete debris on the west side of the berm area.

a. If concrete debris is present, should it be left onsite or characterized and disposed offsite?

Answer: Debris to include concrete will be placed in a pipe close to the grid area designated by the refuge during the kickoff meeting. Recyclable materials (abandoned water line and metal plate) may be recycled by the selected contractor at no cost to the government.

Question 13 - Evaluation Factors: Page 20 of the RFP indicates that the price of any options will be included when comparing the total cost of each bid.

a. There do not appear to be any optional tasks in the Scope of Work. Please confirm this is the case or provide details on what options are to be priced.

Answer: See revised SOW for optional items and option item to price on bid schedule.

Question 14 - Specifications state 600 cubic yards of soil will be screened to remove lead shot. Subsequently, a statement that 175 cubic yards (or 240 tons) will be screened and disposed of as impacted material. My question is, is the 175 cubic yard volume an estimate of the material that will require offsite disposal?

Answer: Correct, it is estimated that 175 cubic yards will be removed, screened, sampled (see revised SOW), and disposed of offsite. See 4.0 and Figure 4 (purple area) of the work plan.

Question 15 - Are areas I3, I4 and I5 the only areas where excavation, screening and potential offsite disposal will occur?

Answer: The purple area of Figure 4 of the work plan. See revised SOW for sampling requirements.

Question 16 - Is it correct to assume that three five-spot composite samples (one in each of the three cells – I3, I4 and I5) are the only confirmation samples required?

Answer: No, see revised SOW.

Question 17 - Is it correct to assume that a single composite sample from the material designated for offsite disposal will require a TCLP for Lead? Are samples required based on the volume of soil generated?

Answer: At a minimum the FWS requires one sample per grid area. It is the selected contractor’s responsibility to ensure correct sampling procedures and quantities are followed per federal, state, local, and landfill regulations.

Question 18 - Is the grid layout still present onsite? Will someone from FWS or the hired consultant be responsible for laying out the boundaries of cells I3, I4 and I5? Is surveying to accurately place these boundaries required?

Answer: There is no consultant or FWS representative to assist. It is the selected contractor’s responsibility to replicate the grid system.

Question 19 - Will contractor be responsible for profiling waste and obtaining approved waste profile for material designated for offsite disposal at Klamath Falls Landfill?

Answer: Yes, if required the selected contractor is responsible for profiling waste and obtaining approved waste profile for material designated for offsite disposal.

Question 20 - What is the process if TCLP-Pb samples do not meet landfill criteria? Will waste stabilization potentially be required to meet Subtitle D landfill requirements?

Answer: Per the newly provided Soil Investigation Summary Report dated August 12, 2015, the FWS anticipates the soil will be below the TCLP-Pb threshold.

Question 21 - Disposal Manifests: Will USFWS personnel sign the disposal manifests? If so, will that person(s) be onsite and immediately available during the work effort?

Answer: No, the selected contractor will sign representing the FWS.

Question 22 - Work Plan Section 5.4, 2nd paragraph “Upon the completion of the excavations at grids I3, I4, and I5, a five-point confirmation soil sample will be collected from the bases of each of the three grids. The composite samples will be collected from the 3- or 6-inch excavation depth.” Please clarify the sampling guidance:

a. Figure 4 of the Work Plan indicates that excavation at the referenced grids is to be

1.5 feet deep. Are samples to be collected from 3- and/or 6- inch depth before excavation is complete?

i. If so, is it necessary to excavate to 1.5 feet if the shallower sample(s) meet ESL criteria?

ii. If not, we assume samples are collected from the bottom of the excavation

– is that correct?

b. Text indicates samples are taken from 3- OR 6-inch excavation depth (highlight added)? If these intervals are to be sampled, is the choice of depth up to the contractor?

i. If not, what are selection criteria?

Answer: a. The selected contractor shall follow the work plan and excavate to the required depth per color coding of Figure 4; no “pre-excavation” sampling required; see newly provided Soil Investigation Summary Report dated August 12, 2015 for the results.

Sampling shall be done at the base of the excavated areas; b. See revised SOW.

Question 23 – Work Plan (WP) section 5.4, last paragraph “All soil sampling requirements detailed in the Sampling and Analysis Plan [SAP] dated June 22, 2015 will be followed during the removal action.”

a. The SAP in the RFP is dated June 9, 2015. Is this the correct SAP to use in preparing the bid?

b. If so, Section 4.3 of the SAP specifies that 2 samples are to be collected from each 50x50 foot Grid. However, the WP does not indicate how these sample results are to be used and it is not clear if only the 50x50 foot grids identified in the WP for excavation are to be sampled or if all Grids shown on WP Figures 2-4 are to be sampled. Please clarify the sampling requirements for this project.

Question 24- Sampling and Analysis Plan Section 4.2 “A visual inspection will be performed at each range to delineate the extent of lead shot at land surface…”

a. The Work Plan implies that this survey was performed in 2015. Is it to be repeated as part of this effort?

Answer: No, please see newly provided Soil Investigation Summary Report dated August 12, 2015 for the results.

Question 25 - Sampling and Analysis Plan Section 5.0 last paragraph “In an effort to characterize the soils beneath the burn area, soil samples from this area will also be analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA Method 8270SIM and polychlorinated biphenyls by EPA Method 8082.”

a. The Work Plan described results from such samples during the characterization effort in 2015. Are these samples to be collected again?

b. If so, from what depth(s) should the sample(s) be collected?

Answer: No, please see newly provided Soil Investigation Summary Report dated August 12, 2015 for the results.

Question 26 - Work Plan section 5.2 “At the onset of the project, the project team will use a field iPad equipped with GISPro and a global positioning system (GPS) to locate the previously used grid system (Figures 2, 3, and 4).”

a. Is it necessary to reestablish the entire grid or only those grids to be excavated as shown on Figure 4?

Answer: It will be the selected contractor’s responsibility to reestablish the applicable sections of the grids system.

Question 27 - Section 2 of the Solicitation, 2nd bullet states that remaining soils on site shall be below occupational ESL of 320 mg/kg. The Work Plan does not provide guidance as to how much additional excavation and confirmation sampling is needed if the confirmation samples fail after excavating the quantities described in the Work Plan.

a. Please identify the requirements to be met with respect to additional excavation depths and/or volumes.

b. Please specify the confirmation sampling requirements for additional excavations beyond the 600 cubic yards specified in the Work Plan.

Question 28 - Are there any limits on the length of the work day at the site?

Answer: No, but the selected contractor will need to be coordinated with the Refuge POC that will be identified during the kickoff meeting.

Question 29 - Is weekend work allowed?

Answer: Yes, but the selected contractor will need to be coordinated with the Refuge POC that will be identified during the kickoff meeting.

Question 30 -Are there any other soil sample results from the site that were not presented in the Work Plan?

Answer: See revised SOW.

Question 31 - The Work Plan specifies that soil excavations are to be performed to 3 inches, 6 inches or 1.5 feet below ground surface (Figure 4).

a. Is it necessary to provide a topographic survey of the grids before and after excavation to demonstrate the excavation targets have been met?

b. not, please provide guidance as to what field measurements are required to verify the excavation depths were met.

Answer: This will be a check point conducted by a FWS employee to ensure that each depth is reached per the color coded grids outlined in the work plan, Figure 4. The USFW will verify the depth on site.

Question 32 - Please clarify the excavation quantities with respect to volumes left on site versus disposed off-site:

a. Is the 175 CY to be disposed off-site included within the 600 CY total so that 425 CY is left on site and 175 CY is disposed off-site?

b. Is the burn pile off-site disposal included in the 175 CY designated for offsite disposal?

Answer: The estimated total excavation amount is 775 cubic yards. Of the 775 cubic yards, 175 cubic yards (purple area of Figure 4 in the work plan) will be screened and disposed of offsite. The remaining estimated 600 cubic yards of soil (blue and green areas of Figure 4 in the work plan) will be excavated, screened, sampled (see revised SOW), and replaced.

Question 33 - Are there any underground pipes from the well or any other underground utilities present within the excavation footprint?

a. If so, is it necessary to preserve them?

Answer: The only known utility line is a galvanized water line that has been abandoned and the water line is no longer charged. The water line debris shall be staged at the designed debris location by the excavation area or recycled by the selected contractor at no charge to the government.

Question 34 - Is water available at the site for dust control and site operations? Is there a charge for using the water, if available?

Answer: There is a hydrant available to get water. But, the hydrant and the entire refuge are supported by a single well. Flow rates may be reduced. There is no charge for the water.

Question 35 - Are the portions of the berm that are not excavated as per Figure 4 in the Work Plan to be left in place or flattened and spread across the site?

Answer: Fattened and spread across the site.

Question 36 - In order to provide adequate time for Contractors to adjust pricing per responses to questions and coordinate with bidders to revise subcontractor bids, we respectfully request an extension to the proposal due date to two weeks after answers to questions are provided.

Answer: The date for receipt of proposals has been extended out two weeks from issuance of amendment 2, so proposals are now due by 2 PM PT on May 11, 2018.

Question 37- Is water or electricity available on the site for subcontractor usage?

Answer: There is no electricity close to the site. There is a hydrant available to get water. But, the hydrant and the entire refuge are supported by a single well. Flow rates may be reduced.

Question 38 -Please clarify if USFWS will remove/relocate the shipping container and drums located immediately east of Grid #L3, since these items will interfere with operations?

Answer: Yes, those item will be removed prior to the selected contractor receiving the Notice to Proceed.

Question 39 - Confirm the remedial activities will be confined to the green, blue, and purple grids shown in Figure 4 of the Work Plan.

Answer: That is correct; remedial work is confined to the green, blue and purple areas illustrated in Figure 4 of the work plan.

Question 40 - Can buried water piping that interferes with the work be cut and removed to the limits of the excavation, since the system is reported as non-operational?

Answer: The galvanized water line has been abandoned and the water line is not charged.

The water line debris shall be staged at the designed debris location by the excavation area or recycled by the selected contractor at no charge to the government.

Question 41 - Remediation will likely be conducted during the dry time of the year to facilitate screening of the soils. It is not known how many and when visitors and/or other subcontractors working on the renovation of the buildings will be onsite and their staging requirements. Can the remediation subcontractor reroute access, set up staging areas, and install safety corridors as needed within the site to support the work?

Answer: There is no other scheduled projects at the refuge during this time period.

Question 42 - Can the USFWS provide coordinates sufficient to use GPS to establish the grid configuration in the field as shown in the Work Plan drawings (coordinates could not be located in the documents provided)?

Answer: No, it will be the selected contractor’s responsibility to reestablish the applicable sections of the grids system.

Question 43 - Can the USFWS provide the average and range of the soil material (percentage by weight) retained on and passing through the #4-mesh sieve?

Answer: No

Question 44 - Section 5.4, 1st paragraph indicates that if screening is not affective, the unscreened soil will be tested for TCLP for offsite disposal without screening. Should we assume this will represent a change in site conditions since additional resources will be required for testing, staging/load out, transport and disposal, import fill, and regrading of the site?

Answer: No, this is the purple area of Figure 4 of the work plan and will be disposed of offsite regardless.

Question 45 - Based on the information it appears that no sampling is associated with the green, blue, Burn Pile, and grubbed material. Please confirm?

Answer: See revised SOW.

Question 46 - Section 5.4 2nd paragraph indicates that confirmation samples will be collected from grids I3, I4, and I5 following excavation. It is assumed, that if additional contamination is found and requires removal, this will be a change in site conditions, please confirm?

Answer: See revised SOW.

Question 47 - Section 5.5 ‘Site Restoration’ in the Work Plan states that regrading of the site is required to match topography. Since the berm is only removed to a depth of 1.5’ in purple area and 0.5’ in the green area, is the intent to regrade the remaining berm material into the green and blue post-excavation areas?

Answer: Yes

Question 48 - The SF 1449 indicates a total volume of soil handled is 600 cy. However, Figure 4 indicates a volume of 775 cy for the green, blue, and purple areas, which soil volume is correct?

Answer: The estimated total excavation amount is 775 cubic yards. Of the 775 cubic yards, 175 cubic yards (purple area of Figure 4 in the work plan) will be screened and disposed of offsite. The remaining estimated 600 cubic yards of soil (blue and green areas of Figure 4 in the work plan) will be excavated, screened, sampled (see revised SOW), and replaced.

Question 49 - On page 187 through page 189 of the RFP package there are three pages of already answered questions. The answer to Question #11 indicates that there is an Amendment #2.

However, no such amendment is in Fed Biz Ops (FBO). Please provide a copy of Amendment #2.

Answer: These questions to answers pertain to the previous solicitation issued for this requirement that had to be cancelled since the Section 106 was not approved yet. They were included on this resolicitation effort since the questions are still pertinent, so please ignore the reference to amendment 2.requirement.

Question 50 - On page 187 of the response to Question #2 it indicates that the subcontractor can bid the project without screening the soil. If this is the case, will there be a separate location on the bid sheet to provide this pricing? Also what assumptions will go into this option? As an example, does the subcontractor bring in additional fill or just grade out the remaining berm for site restoration? Assume most of the other requirements would remain the same, please confirm?

Answer: The berm shall be graded to existing grade, so yes the selected contractor could use the berm as fill in this case. If alternate method(s) to perform work at a firm fixed price are proposed and considered acceptable, the line item of the award document will reflect that accepted method.

Question 51: Is the water-line leading to the pump house to be protected, if encountered during excavation activities?

Answer: The galvanized water line has been abandoned and the water line is not charged.

The water line debris shall be staged at the designed debris location by the excavation area or recycled by the selected contractor at no charge to the government.

Question 52: Is tree removal part of the Scope of Work? If not, are the trees to be protected during excavation?

Answer: The refuge would like to protect the row of trees on the North side of the green gridded areas of Figure 4 in the work plan by the existing barn. All other trees in the excavation areas can be removed if required to meet the objective of the work plan.

Question 53: What are the Government’s requirements for soil excavation depths, if vegetation removal results in soil removal depths greater than those shown on Figure 4 of the Work Plan?

Answer: Per Figure 4 of the work plan.

Question 54: Does the Government expect multiple screen sizes in order to better isolate lead fragments and lead shot, from rocks and debris of a similar size?

Answer: Recommended, but the screening approach to get to the desired sized is the responsibly of the selected contractor.

Question 55: Is it the Government’s intent to have the entire berm removed (greater that the 1.5 feet excavation noted in Figure 4 of the Work Plan)?

Answer: The berm will be spread out to natural grade.

Question 56: The Work Plan states “No imported backfill will be required.” It is to be assumed that the soils remaining onsite (following screening and confirmation sampling) are intended by the Government to be used as backfill? If the soils remaining onsite are not of sufficient geotechnical quality (for compaction) or in volume, are imported soils permitted?

Answer: There are no compactions requirements for the soil. The berm shall be level to grade, which will provide additional fill.

Question 57: Are the generation of a SAP and HASP required for the Scope of Work detailed in the 2017 Work Plan?

Answer: No, the selected contractor is required to provide their own HASP, SAP, and a final report.

Question 58: Will the Fish and Wildlife Service accept basis of estimate assumptions with offers?

Answer: Yes

Question 59: If a contractor wishes to propose an alternate to screening (in accordance with Attachment 5, Q&A # 2), is the contractor to markup the Standard Form 1449 or will a revised Standard Form 1449 be provided?

Answer: If a contractor proposed an alternate, firm fixed priced approach that is considered acceptable, the SF1449 item description for award will be revised accordingly.

Question 60: Please verify which grids are to be excavated and the total quantity of soil requiring excavation. Standard Form 1449 and SOW state to assume approximately 600 cubic yards, but page 8 and Figure 4 of the Ahtna Work Plan state 600 cubic plus 175 cubic yards (for a total of 775 cubic yards) are to be excavated.

Answer: The estimated total excavation amount is 775 cubic yards. Of the 775 cubic yards, 175 cubic yards (purple area of Figure 4 in the work plan) will be screened and disposed of offsite. The remaining estimated 600 cubic yards of soil (blue and green areas of Figure 4 in the work plan) will be excavated, screened, sampled (see revised SOW), and replaced.

Question 61: Please confirm whether contractor is responsible for confirmation soil sampling.

Answer: See revised SOW.

Question 62: If contractor is responsible for soil confirmation sampling, please confirm whether a separate five-point confirmation soil sample is required from each grid designated for excavation.

Answer: See revised SOW.

Question 63: Are GPS coordinates available for Figure 4 and are there any control points available for the contractor to tie into?

Answer: No, it will be the selected contractor’s responsibility to reestablish the applicable sections of the grids system.

Question 64: Please confirm whether contractor is responsible for preparing the summary report.

Answer: Yes, to include sampling results, deliverables –manifest disposal receipts, etc.

Question 65: What about water availability or using our well at the HQ and what about recycling of the large metal sheet used for a target backstop.

Answer: There is a hydrant available to get water. But, the hydrant and the entire refuge are supported by a single well. Flow rates may be reduced. The selected contractor can recycle the large metal sheet at no additional cost to the government or stage on site outside of the grid areas. The FWS will identify a staging area for debris (concrete, piping, wood, metal, etc) during the kick-off meeting.

General information for prospective contractors:

The Park Service has a big event planned for the C Camp on June 30th. Not sure how long the project is expected to take but contractors should anticipate a shut down for this event. Most likely there will be a need to shut down Friday and Saturday for set up then the actual event, the Monday after there may be some folks around to pick up porta-johns and that kind of stuff.

Consequently, probably the earliest start date possible is after July 4, 2018.

Answer: Based upon above information, the earliest start date for a kickoff meeting will be the week of July 2nd with work starting no earlier than July 9, 2018.

Answers provided to questions from previous solicitation

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

09 June 2017 Solicitation No. F17PS000687 Tule Lake NWR – Firing Range Lead Remediation

1. Galvanized water-line riser pipes and spigots were observed within the proposed work area. We noted a pump house outside the excavation area, but were unable to determine the alignment of the water line(s). What is the water-line alignment? Is it active? And does it need to be protected or removed if encountered during excavation activities? The Service is not sure. The line has been abandoned and the water line is not charged.

2. Is the recycling value of lead to be incorporated into the cost estimate? If so, does the Government have an estimate for the amount of lead that will be removed and recycled? The Service does not have an estimate.

3. Are there any special status animal or plant species at the site that might affect excavation efforts? No

4. Section 5.3 of the Work Plan indicates, “…excavation work will follow existing contours.” If so, can the Government please clarify if there is an onsite source and if there are any compaction standards needed? It is the selected contractor's responsibility to select the equipment required to identify the treatment areas IAW the work plan. The IPad comment was how the company the developed the work plan would identify the grid system. There isn’t any on site sources of backfill material on site nor is there any compaction standard.

5. What class of disposal is to be assumed for the burn pile? See second paragraph of 5.3 of the work plan.

6. There is a known water supply at the Visitors’ Center. Can we assume that water will be available for use during activities related to excavation activities (i.e., dust control, decontamination, etc.)? If so, will there be any fee associated with using that water? Yes, there is a hydrant available to get water. But, the hydrant and the entire refuge are supported by a well. Flow rates may be reduced.

7. Do all grid nodes require surveying, or only the outer limits of each excavation area It is the selected contractor's responsibility to select the equipment required to identify the treatment areas and their boundaries IAW the work plan. The IPad comment was how the company the developed the work plan would identify the grid system.

8. Are any Federal or State permits required for performing the proposed scope of work? No