B09_-_ATT_13_-_RFI_QA_for_Prime_Hook_removal_action_0714_rev_0004.docx

Responses to contractor inquiries regarding the solicitation for the Prime Hook Lead Abatement solicitation 140F0S23Q0021 Prepared by Fred Pinkney, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office 7/14/2023

1. The proposal spec does not address screening of soils. In the event that the landfill requires screening, who is responsible for the costs of that screening?

Since the primary concern is metals and this is a site with no history of organic contamination, I expect that the landfill will only require TCLP analysis. The contractor’s proposal can include a contingency that could add a couple thousand dollars in case other analyses are required. The contingency amount must be provided as a separate item item on the contractor’s price proposal and must be clearly identified as an additional item not part of the original solicitation items, see new pricing sheet.

2. The proposal spec calls for treatment of up to 4% Enviroblend. If more than 4% is required to obtain passing TCLP results, who is responsible for those additional costs?

Based on the Pilot Study, 4% should work but a contingency could be added to cover additional expenses if more is needed. The contingency amount must be provided as a separate item item on the contractor’s price proposal and must be clearly identified as an additional item not part of the original solicitation items, see new pricing sheet.

3. What are the weight restrictions on the roads to the site?

The contractor will need to obtain this information through interactions with local authorities.

4. Will the project require bonding for potential damage to roads?

The contractor will need to discuss this with local authorities.

5. Is a bald eagle nest survey required?

No, the refuge maps indicate that there are no nests near the site.

6. What type of wetland habitat is preferred after site restoration?

The site is a forested wetland and should be restored as a forested wetland.

7. Is wetland mitigation (per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and associated requirements included as part of the Scope of Work?

Wetland mitigation is not anticipated and if any would be needed it is outside the Scope of Work.

As the Prime Hook site is being responded to under the Service's CERCLA authority, the project does not require permitting under NEPA. CERCLA response actions are exempt from all federal, state, and local permitting requirements under section 121(e), but the Service will still need to comply with the substantive requirements of the law. The work should be consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requirements (https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll7/id/20099). Item #38 (for Cleanup of Hazardous and Toxic Waste). The Service can state that impacts are temporary since we are restoring site to existing grade and veg community / conditions.

8. Please confirm that only preparation of the LTS Plan, and not implementation of the LTS Plan (e.g., post-remedial groundwater and surface water monitoring) is included as part of the SOW. If implementation is required, can the Service clarify how many rounds of sampling should be included for planning and budgetary purposes?

Correct, only the preparation of the Long Term Stewardship Plan is part of the Scope of Work. The Service will review the draft plan and expects a final plan that would include a point by point response to comments. The plan should provide a rationale for the type and frequency of sampling and the trigger points for changing or terminating the sampling portion of the Plan.

9. Can the Service confirm what, if any, substantive requirements of the ARARs have already been completed? If so, can the Service share any results/documents from previously completed cultural or archaeological surveys, for example?

Contracting is in progress for a cultural/archaeological survey to be conducted later in 2023. No previous surveys have been conducted. Please also see the answer to question 7.

10. Solicitation Standard Form 18 and Amendment Standard Form 30 indicate a performance period up to September 30, 2024 (i.e., approximately 15 months from today). Page 2 of the Solicitation Clause Sheet V3 (Section F.1.0 – Period of Performance), indicates a performance period up to 18 months. Can the Service clarify the period of performance?

The Period of Performance will be up to 24 months from the date of award. The longer period is intended to take into account possible delays from various considerations such as not conducting the remediation during the Hunting Season (roughly October through January) and any possible delays due to the archaeological survey. It is anticipated that the on-site portion of the work would be conducted in a period of weeks to a few months.

11. The removal volume is uncertain and requires delineation. Accordingly, can FWS add the Variation in Estimated Quantity Clause FAR 52.211-18 and provide a bid item for Soil Disposal at a unit rate per ton. Tons are better than cubic yards as quantiles will be measured directly by weight tickets at the landfill and not require volume estimates and fluff factors for yards. The EECA indicates up to 8,282 cubic yards and estimates 1.4 tons per yard. Therefore, a unit rate line item for up to 11,600 tons for treatment and disposal at a unit rate would take out uncertainty and allow all quoters to propose on the same quantity.

This approach is acceptable, and the clause can be added. The weight unit makes sense.

12. If unable to add the Variation in Estimated Quantity Clause a, can FWS explicitly state the volume of soil that requires removal/treatment/disposal so bids are comparable?

See the answer to question 11.

13. Do contractors who will not disturb site soils need OSHA HAZWOPER Training? For example, surveyors or tree clearing contractors, assuming roots are removed by OSHA HAZWOPER excavation contractors.

The Service agrees with that approach which should be documented in the Health and Safety Plan, citing the relevant authorities.

14. The Site Restoration section of the Removal Action Work Plan states that temporary or permanent fencing shall be installed to restrict public access to the disturbed areas. However, the EE/CA states that the removal action will achieve unrestricted future land use. Is fencing needed after the removal action is complete? If yes, does FWS prefer temporary or permanent fencing, and should the fencing exactly follow the site outline to include the excavation boundary and 2003 remediation area?

Temporary fencing is needed for the duration of the on-site remediation. It will be removed at the appropriate time, either by the Contractor or by Service personnel.

15. Please provide specifics on what is required for site restoration and revegetation.

Fill material should be adequately characterized chemically so that the Refuge does not have concerns about contamination. The Service encourages the Contractor to characterize the current soil. The newly added soil should have sufficient organic matter and nutrients to support the growth of the plantings described below.

To the extent possible, mature native trees (priority on oaks and maples) should be retained, as should standing dead snags that do not pose a safety concern; While the sediment removal might threaten some trees, I would still rather end up with some snags in a few years than take out more trees than necessary. But I imagine they make excavation difficult Annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) - planted thickly, could help hold the soil, reduce weeds, but not persist long and hinder native regrowth; it could be planted as a matrix along with native plants Species planted that are intended to persist (e.g., shrubs and trees) should mimic community types already identified in the area, such as:

· Overstory species / Trees

· Red maple (Acer rubrum)

· Willow oak (Quercus phellos)

· Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)

· Wild black cherry (Prunus serotina).

· Mid-story species / Shrubs

· American holly (Ilex opaca)

· Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana)

· Southern bayberry (Morella cerifera), Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia)

· Arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum)

· Groundcover / Herbaceous

· Native ferns (e.g., Royal fern (Osmunda regalis), New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), Netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), and/or Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica)

· Cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis) - in moist areas

· Marsh St. John’s Wort (Triadenum virginicum)

16. During the proposal walk, FWS stated that an anthropology survey is being conducted under a separate contract. Our understanding from the RFP and the Removal Action Work Plan is that a cultural resources survey will be included in this contract. Can you please clarify if the cultural resources survey should be included in our proposal?

No there is a separate proposal process for the cultural anthropology survey. It should not be included in the current proposal.

17. If the cultural resources survey is needed, is test pitting and screening for artifacts required, and is there a specific grid pattern? Or is a non-invasive approach acceptable to assess archaeological potential?

These questions are outside the scope of the current proposal.

18. Is an archaeologist required to be on-site during excavation of the grid cells? quirem No. The archaeological survey will address any concerns.

19. When will the anthropology survey be ready?

The request for proposal has not gone out yet but is anticipated to go out within the next several months.

20. Does FWS have a list of wells and surface water sampling locations that should be sampled during the baseline sampling event?

The Pinkney and Callahan (2017) report describes the groundwater monitoring wells that have been monitored in the past. There are three wells on the upland area that had the 2002 removal action, one downgradient well in the area to be addressed in this project, and one upgradient well outside the proposed removal footprint. FWS has surface water sampling data water sampling location data and expects the number of samples to be between 6 and 10. Previous samples were analyzed for total and dissolved (0.4 micron filtered) lead and water hardness.

21. The northern portion of the site could not be delineated in 2017 due to access limitations. What were the access limitations, and will the limitations preclude future sampling or removal actions?

The area to be delineated should be restricted to areas that are dry or at most moist and avoid inundated areas. That is the limitation, and it will apply to the sampling needed to delineate the area that will need to be remediated. The bids can add a contingency with a cost per ton for removal and disposal of a portion of this area, with the assumption that EcoBond addition will allow the soil to pass the TCLP test.