Amendment_1_Q_A_0001.pdf

D/B Upper Dam – Amendment 1 – Q&A Document

1. Page 55, Phase 1 Evaluation Factor 2: Past Performance – “(1) For Similar Projects sub‐factor, offeror shall provide documented experience working on similar projects as evidenced by the proposed project team members’ resumes.” Are the resumes referred to in this sentence referring to a ‘firm’ resume or a key personnel member individual resume?

Response: This would be in reference to the key personnel team members.

2. Page 55, Phase 1 Evaluation Factor 2: Past Performance – “The team members responsible for the design and construction of the project shall provide 3 projects in the past 5 years constructed within the same scope, schedule, and budget limitations.” Is this sentence requiring each firm on the team to provide 3 projects or each key personnel member to provide 3 projects that they have worked on?

Response: This would be 3 projects in total presented to the Government. 3 projects in which the team you have compiled, have worked on together as the prime contractor.

3. Page 56, Phase 1 Evaluation Factor 2: “The offerors CPARs rating (or equal) of past performance documenting cost, schedule, quality of product/service, and project management will be reviewed along with the following: ∙ Ability to accomplished work effectively and efficiently ∙ Demonstrate innovation by improving customer interface, increase longevity, reduce user effort, and save of time and/or money.” Two questions: Do we have to provide CPARs? If we don’t have CPARS, do we have to provide the ‘or equal’?

Response: CPARS does not have to be provided and if there are no CPARS reports, that portion of past performance in relation to CPARS will be rated as neutral.

4. Task 5.A. Task A. Environmental Permitting Assistance, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review, and NEPA Documentation.

a. Task 5.A describes develop, prepare, and submit NEPA documentation. There is a publicly available December 2023 Draft Environmental Assessment Proposed Upper Lake Dam Modernization and Water Management Improvements Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge (Draft EA). Is additional NEPA documentation needed or are we updating the existing Draft EA?

Response. If the USFWS decides to Exercise (i.e. Award) Task A (Option Task) during the Contract’s Period of Performance, the awarded Option Task would be used to assist the USFWS with any remaining NEPA documentation and/or follow‐up add‐on NEPA documentation that would be required for the project / contract.

In addition, the Design/Build Contractor and their Permitting Consultant would provide revisions to the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) if and when required.

b. A Task 5.A bullet item includes a Section 7 / biological opinion and biological assessment. Has the biological assessment been started or has any USFWS species consultation been initiated? Are any field species or habitat assessments required?

Response. No, a Section 7 biological assessment was not previously started. Refer to the published Draft EA for Pahranagat ‐ Upper Lake Dam for a list of threatened and endangered species. Note, an Official Species List was previously prepared and should be considered preliminary until finalized. Further, there are Birds, a Reptile, Fishes, Insects, Migratory Birds, and a Critical Habitat Area noted in the Draft EA (Electronic Page 85).

The Official Species List was previously provided by Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. Lastly, there will be field species identification and habitat assessments required to be performed by the Design/Build Contractor and their Permitting Consultant.

5. Task 5.C. Task C. Cultural Resource Clearance and Section 106 Compliance. In the Draft EA, the

SHPO letter states that they concur with FWS’s findings of No Adverse Effect. Does the September 18, 2023 SHPO concurrence cover this statement of work?

Response. I believe the September 18, 2023 SHPO concurrence provides partial coverage for this statement of work since the Project Locations / Project Areas have not received full definition. Note, the Task C (Option Task) was included in the statement of work in the event the USFWS Refuge and USFWS Cultural Resources Team would not be able to perform this work activity in‐house. It should be further noted, the USFWS expects a follow‐up concurrence from USFWS Cultural Resources and SHPO is to be required and once the Project receives full definition (i.e. refinement of the project scope). This is why this Option Task remains in the statement of work and is part of the Design/Build Contractor’s scope of services.

6. Statement of Work, Task B (OPTIONAL TASK), page 13 & 14 of 65, states the following:

Organize the identified Permits in the 100% Permit Registry (TASK 6). Develop and prepare the Permit Applications and Permit Support Documents for All Federal, State, County, and Local Permits. Submit the Finalized Permit Applications and Permit Support Documents (to include the Detailed Project Description and/or portions of the Detailed Project Description) to the USFWS for Refuge Manager Signature. Obtain the USFWS Signature Copies of the Applications and submit the executed signature copies of the Permit Applications and Permit Support Documents to each Federal, State, County, and Local Regulatory Agency for Review and Approval / Conditional Approval and Pay All Permit Fees, Processing Fees, and Plan / Specification Review Fees. Participate on Section 7 Consultation Meetings as required during the Regulatory Agency Review Period.

a. Please clarify if the selected Design‐Build team is responsible for Applying, Paying & Securing all required permits under Task 4 (BASE TASK) or the selected Design‐Build team is ONLY responsible for Applying, Paying & Securing all required permits if USFWS decides to award Task B (OPTIONAL TASK) Response. The Task 4 (Base Task) is revised. The Design/Build Team will only be responsible for Applying for, Paying, and Securing all required permits if the USFWS decides to award Task B (Option Task).

b. Based on the language included in Task B (OPTIONAL TASK), is it USFWS intent to restrict the Design‐Build team from beginning the process of Applying, Paying & Securing all required permits until the design has progressed to the 100% stage (TASK 6)?

Response. No, it is not the intent of USFWS to restrict the Design/Build Team from beginning the process of Applying for, Paying, and Securing all required permits until the Final Design is submitted. The probability that USFWS would exercise Task B (Option Task) is high because it is expected the USFWS Refuge and Refuge Manager will require assistance from the Design/Build Contractor and their Permitting Consultant(s) in the Application for, Payment, and Securing of all required permits.

7. As this project will utilize the Design‐Build Delivery method, please clarify the need to submit an

Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost and a Contractor’s Opinion of Probable Construction Schedule at the 65% (Task 5) and 100% (Task 6) design stages.

Response. The USFWS has revised the statement of work (SOW). The requirement for an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) has received a strikethrough in the SOW as this is a future Design/Build Contract. However, the USFWS does continue to require an Opinion of Probable Construction Schedule (OPCS). However, the OPCS is expected to take the form of a Formalized Design/Build Prime Contractor’s Schedule once on‐site work start and finish dates for work activities are firmed‐up and could be accurately estimated.

8. The Dam Inspection Report references a H&H model that was established to determine the auxiliary spillway was undersized. Can this model be provided in Phase 2 of the solicitation?

Response. I am checking with the USFWS National Dam Safety Program to confirm if this H&H Model could be developed, prepared, and submitted and what native file extension is available for this item.

9. Do you want Sec on K to also be included in Phase I with the SF1442.

Response: The data entry form document required in your proposal will be sufficient. It contains your UEI which holds your reps and certs. If there is addi onal informa on you believe should be submi ed in sec on k, please do so.

10. Sec on L – Instruc ons do not indicate where we are to include the relevant Reps and Certs in either the Phase 1 or Phase 2 submission. Please provide instruc on as to which phase and in which sec on they should go.

Response: The Data Entry Form you are required to submit has your reps and certs informa on (your UEI number will contain that informa on).

11. If USF&W consulta on with USACE regarding this project has NOT occurred yet regarding sec on

401 and 404 permits, and it appears that a USACE Na onwide Permit will not be applicable to this project (as is alluded to in the Dra EA), has the typical meline for USACE sec on 401 and 404 submissions, review, public comment and follow up (typically 1 year or more) on an individual permit basis been factored into the s pulated comple on date of February 1, 2027 that is in the current solicita on?

Response. From my understanding, the U.S.FWS has not ini ated any type of consulta on with U.S.ACE regarding sec on 401 and 404 permit applica ons and permits. However, the Refuge and Refuge Manager could confirm if there was any informal or formal consulta on and engagement with U.S.ACE. Although, the Dra EA alludes to a U.S.ACE Na onwide Permit as not applicable to this project, if the permit scope is awarded to the Design/Build Prime Contractor, this in‐applicability of the Na onwide Permit should be verified and validated.

The original Project Timeline factored in approximately 11‐months for work activities related to NEPA and permitting. It is realized, a conservative estimate for the section 401 and 404 permits would be 12‐ to 18‐months. The Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) Project Completion Date is noted as March 14, 2027.

This Completion date may require a request for extension since the permitting could require approximately 12‐ to 18‐months to conclude.

12. Are the exhibits in the Dra EA (or any more subsequent non‐dra version) regarding the species of concern or the SHPO concurrence or the Tribal requirements for the project current and correct?

Response. I am not aware of any recent subsequent non‐dra version of the Dra EA including exhibits. However, I would want to further confirm with the Refuge Manager and Refuge.

For the species of concern, this list should be current as presented in the Dra EA. However, this should be verified and validated by the Design/Build Contractor’s Team.

The SHPO concurrence should be current, but should be re‐visited and re‐confirmed once a design alterna ve or design alterna ves (has)/have been selected and advanced star ng with the ini al concept through preliminary and final design documents.

The Tribal requirements will require further defini on and it is expected the en re project team will have to engage with the local area Tribes (specifically, the Nuwuvi) to ensure their requirements are met and to ensure the Nuwuvi are ac vely engaged in the project and the project’s outcomes.

13. Will the Dra EA (or any more subsequent non‐dra version) be made part of the solicita on documents as an Amendment?

Response. The Draft EA will be included as part of this Amendment to Solicitation and as a separate attachment. I am not aware of any subsequent non‐draft version, but this will be verified.

14. Has or will an EIS been or be done or required as part of this project and if. If one has been done is it available? If one is yet required who is responsible for performing it, USF&W or the D‐B Contractor?

Response. It is my understanding, there is no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that has previously been developed, prepared, and submi ed. The USFWS is asking for the Design/Build Contractor and their Permi ng Consultants to re‐review all NEPA documents and Dra EA documents developed, prepared, and submi ed and determine if an EIS would be required for this project’s Proposed Ac on. If an EIS is required, the Design/Build Contractor and their Permi ng Consultant would be required to perform this necessary work item.

However, currently, the USFWS is thinking an EA could be sufficient for this project and Proposed Ac on. However, whether an EIS is or is not required will ul mately be determined by the selected alterna ve(s) for this project.

15. Will Archeological monitoring be required for ground disturbing ac vi es on this project and if so who is responsible to provide it under this contract, USF&W or the D‐B Contractor?

Response. The requirement for Archeological Monitoring will be determined by the USFWS Cultural Resource Team (CRT) Office and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

The Design/Build Contractor and their Archeological Consultant will be required to perform the Archeological Monitoring Services during the course of this contract if monitoring requirements are identified by the USFWS CRT and SHPO as part of their Conditional Approvals, Terms, and Conditions. The requirement for monitoring could be identified by USFWS CRT and SHPO during the Cultural Resource Compliance and Section 106 Compliance Process.

16. Sec on H.6 references the need for all contractor personnel requiring physical access to non‐ public areas or for logical access to Level 3 or Level 4 Federally controlled informa on systems to undergo very specific security level screening, including criminal backgound checks and fingerprin ng for access to the facility and for the contractor to bear all costs for this requirement for the issuance of access cards or temporary badges for access to the facility and/or systems. Are these requirements applicable to this specific project on this Pahranagat NWR facility?

Response. I believe this is a contract requirement for all Construc on Contracts.

However, there is no applicable Card Key Access System to the Refuge.

For any areas closed off to public access, the Refuge will provide entry and escort of Contractor employees if and when required.

17. Are there any limita ons or permits required for the use of UAV’s (drones) on this Pahranagat NWR facility and if so what are those limita ons and permit processes?

Response. There is a permi ng procedure and permit applica on for use of UAV’s (i.e.

drones) on USFWS Property. The Design/Build Prime Contractor should verify and validate the applicable permi ng requirements (e.g. procedures and applica ons) with the Refuge Manager.

It should be noted, in the past, there was a moratorium for use of drones on USFWS Property.

I am not sure if this moratorium was previously li ed or what the status is of this moratorium at this point in me.

The simple answer to this ques on, is, no, the USFWS does not allow drones on USFWS Property.

However, a more nuanced answer would be, it depends.

18. The No ce of Offerors states that a maximum of 15 pages are allowed for the Technical Approach and Work Plan (10 pages for Technical Approach and 5 pages for Work Plan.)

Solicita on Page 55, Sec on M.2.3 Evalua on Factors states that a maximum of 10 pages are allowed for the Technical Approach and Work Schedule and further that responses exceeding the 10‐page‐maximum limit shall not be considered. Please confirm the maximum allowable page count for this sec on of the proposal response.

Response: Please submit no more than 10 pages for your technical approach and 5 pages for your work plan. 15 pages in total will be allowed for this evalua on factor.

19. The No ce to Offerors indicates the me Phase 1 proposals are due on July 26,2024 is 12:00 pm Central Standard Time (meaning 1:00PM Central Daylight Time?) , however the SF‐1442 indicates that proposals are due at 12:00 PM local me with reference to only the Falls Church, VA address mearing noon Eastern Daylight Time. As we are in the Pacific me zone near the project loca on, we need to know which is correct.

Response: The proposal due date has been extended to Friday, August 9th, 2024 at 12PM CST

20. SF‐1442 is required to be included in the Phase 1 proposal. The SF‐1442 indicates an Offer Guarantee is required (further s pulated at 20% of the proposed total elsewhere in the RFP documents) , however the instruc ons do not indicate a need to supply the offer guarantee as part of the Phase 1 proposal contents. As this is a two‐phase proposal process and pricing is not required un l Phase 2 this stands to reason, however, in our experience with two phase proposal processes it is customary for phase 1 proposals to require le ers of bondability or other assurances that the phase 1 proposer can meet the requirements of the phase 2 pricing and poten al award requirements. Will a Le er of bondability or other statement of financial capacity be required to properly evaluate vet phase 1 proposal responses?

Response: The offeror guarantee is not due un l phase 2 of the proposal. Le ers of bondability are not required as part of phase 1.

21. Sec on L states that the proposers Phase 1 proposal’s Technical Approach and Work Plan be a maximum of 15 pages in length (10 for Technical Approach and 5 for the Work Plan) which seems reasonable given what informa on the RFP puts forth to base our response on. Sec on M, however, renames this sec on slightly and clearly indicates that only 10 pages are allowed and anything beyond 10 pages will not be evaluated. Which is correct, Sec on L or Sec on M?

Response: 15 pages in total.