Attachment_4a_Clarifications_1_-_69_140P2123R0005_0001.pdf

NTCRA under CERCLA at El Capitan former waste dump Yosemite National Park Attachment 4a: Clarifications 1 - 69

From the RFP: Prospective offerors are encouraged to send questions ASAP. Questions received by June 7, 2023, will be answered in a mid-June amendment posted at SAM.gov. Additional questions submitted by 9:00 am PT on June 29 will be answered in an amendment to be posted on or prior to July 11. Final questions received by 3:00 pm PT on July 13 will be answered in an amendment posted on approximately July 17; it will include notes from the site visit and a list of attendees.

Clarifications 1 – 69 for Solicitation #140P2123R0005 Amendment 1 posted on 6/20/23

This document provides clarifications based on submitted queries.

1. Are Mariposa County Environmental Health and the Department of Toxic Substances Control the lead regulatory agencies?

A. No, NPS is the lead agency.

2. Please confirm if Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviews are required for any of the reports included in the SOW and if so what review duration should be assumed for the schedule.

A. DTSC reviews are required, and one may assume a 45-day review duration.

3. The SOW states that a California Hazardous Substance Removal Certification is required. The Solicitation establishes that this project is being conducted under CERCLA and on federal property. As such, contractors are only required to comply with the substantive portion of the ARARs. This State certification is an administrative ARAR, and the park is outside of the state’s jurisdiction. Please confirm that this certification is not required for a CERCLA Removal Action on Federal land.

A. The Site is under a CAL EPA/DTSC consent agreement which states NPS must follow state law, too. The hazardous substance removal certification is required.

4. Section 3.10.2 of the SOW states “The contractor shall provide a copy of their Hazardous Substance Removal Certification, issued by the State of California, for themselves and for any proposed subcontractors.” Our question stems from the use of “and” in the above statement. If an appropriately certified subcontractor will perform all aspects of the project that involve removal actions, including excavation of soil and hauling waste to appropriate disposal facilities, does the prime contractor also need this certification?

A. All contractors and consultants subject to Hazardous Substance Removal Certification requirement issued by State of California shall have the certification. Submit the certification for the contractor (prime or sub) who will perform the excavation and transportation.

5. SOW 3.10.2 General Requirements. Is it acceptable for one member of a joint venture (JV) to hold a Hazardous Substance Removal Certification issued by State of California or must all members of a JV possess this certification?

A. All contractors and consultants subject to Hazardous Substance Removal Certification requirement issued by State of California shall have the certification. Submit the certification for the contractor (prime or sub) who will perform the excavation and transportation.

6. 10.2.2 Access Road Preparation: Attachment_2_El_Capitan_NTCRA_Work_Plan indicates that “An 8-foot lateral clearance exists along the access road alignment. This access road routing is suitable for tracked vehicles; therefore, the General Contractor must use tracked vehicles to transport equipment and materials along the access road”. Please clarify this requirement and whether this would apply to haul trucks used from the export of excavated materials to the off-site landfill(s).

A. In the current condition of the access road, only tracked dump trucks would be able to fit.

The left lane of Northside drive by the entrance/exit of the access road could be restricted to vehicular traffic, for the purpose of staging trucks for hauling of materials off-site. In this arrangement, there would need to be a transfer of material from the tracked vehicle to the highway rated hauling trucks. If wheeled vehicles are to be used to access the excavation sites instead of tracked vehicles, it would be the contractor’s responsibility to assess the access route for necessary tree removal and consult with the park prior to tree removal.

Additionally, track mats would need to be used for wheeled vehicles and restoration of the valley loop trail to park standards would need to be performed by the contractor.

7. Soil loading operations in the Work Plan indicate that “heavy equipment” operations are limited to 7 AM to 5 PM. Is a quiet start (equipment maintenance, truck staging) allowable before 7 AM so that truck loading activities may begin at 7 AM.

A. Yes

8. Will the trucks be allowed to enter the park before 7 AM?

A. Yes

9. Will the haul trucks be given a pass, or will they be required to pay the daily entrance fee?

A. The Park will send a pass to be printed ahead of time. In case truck driver does not have the pass, if they state the project name and their contact as Moshe Calm, they will be given a pass by the fee ranger. Trucks will not be charged an entrance fee.

10. SOW 3.11. Site Access. Will the park have a separate construction lane/entrance for transport trucks to allow for timely entry to access the site? Will the Contractor be required to use the main entrance to Yosemite National Park that is also used by all park visitors or is there an alternate entrance that can be used by the Contractor for park access?

A. The trucks need to enter through the same gates as the visitors. If entering on the HWY 120 Entrance or the HWY 41 entrance, there may be opportunities to use an employee/vendor lane to avoid waiting to go through kiosk. There is an employee/vendor lane at the HWY 140 entrance as well, but the road width here maybe too narrow to try and utilize. At all entrances, the trucks must come to a complete stop and watch for rangers crossing the road before passing through. Drivers should wave or make eye contact with the ranger before proceeding. For reference, road restrictions can be found at this link Vehicle Restrictions - Yosemite National Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov).

11. Are there any NPS approved truck staging areas along Highway 140?

A. No approved staging areas on Highway 140. The park will consider closing the left lane of northside drive adjacent to the El Capitan FWDA for the purpose of staging.

https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/restrictions.htm https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/restrictions.htm

12. Please clarify the demurrage time trucks should anticipate at the park entrance.

A. This is variable. If arriving before 7 AM, Demurrage time should be minimal. By 9AM it could be 5-15 minutes. By midday it could be a half hour. On a Friday afternoon it could become over a half hour wait time.

13. Will there be a restriction on the number of truck loads allowed through the park per day?

A. No restriction.

14. If timed entry into the Park is reinstated, would this impact the Contractor?

A. No impact to the contractor if a reservation system were to be reinstated.

15. SOW 3.11.1 – Site Access. Referencing the map provided with the RFP, Northside and Southside Drive are one-way roads. Will the subcontractor have alternative access points for waste shipments and site access?

A. No, there will not be an alternative route.

16. For the purposes of estimating transportation logistics, could the NPS please provide information on borrow sources available for reconditioning excavated areas? Are there any permits required to utilize these sources?

A. The park is planning to utilize meadow soil stockpiled in the East Valley Upper Rivers staging area for the excavated. The VER branch team issues permits for the use of this source.

17. I downloaded the documentation from SAM.gov, but I don’t see any plans for the project.

Will they be made available? Please provide a copy of the Final EE/CA for El Capitan FWDA.

A. There are additional documents linked from Section 2 of Attachment 1 and here, such as the EE/CA, EE/CA SAP, and others. The NTCRA work plan is Attachment 2a of the RFP and is linked from the RFP at SAM.

B. We are working with IT staff to allow contractors to request permission to access the site.

If, after 6/21, you are unable to request permission from the linked site, send an email to sarah_welch@nps.gov with a list of email addresses of people who request access.

18. SOW 10. Contractor Staffing; 10.8. Human Health Risk Assessor and 10.9. Ecological Risk Assessor. The Statement of Work notes that resumes are required for a Human Health Risk Assessor and Ecological Risk Assessor in the proposal submission. Will the Contractor be required to perform a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and/or an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) under this Contract as the Non Time-Critical Removal Action Work Plan provides details of a previously completed HHRA and ERA for the site?

A. For each DU, human health and ecological RGs were developed based on an EPC, which was usually computed as the 95UCL on the mean for an exposure area. Thus, the risk assessors will need to analyze the confirmation data and calculate the exposure area’s new 95UCL to ensure RGs have been achieved. In addition, a risk assessor may be needed for any “risk management” suggestions that may be needed based on confirmation sampling results.

Due to the generally increased contaminant sensitivity of wildlife receptors, the need for an ecological risk assessor would be greater.

https://doimspp.sharepoint.com/sites/nps-NPS_ECCD_External_Communications/YOSE%20CERCLA%20El%20Capitan/Forms/AllItems.aspx mailto:sarah_welch@nps.gov

B. Human Health Risk and Ecological Risk Assessors are required, thus resumes are required to be part of the proposal submission.

19. SOW 4.4. Pre-Removal Project Documentation. The Statement of Work indicates that the Contractor must prepare a polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) work plan (PFAS_WP) for soil and groundwater sampling; however, there are no requirements in the Statement of Work indicating that any samples will be collected or analyzed for PFAS? Please clarify the purpose of the PFAS_WP and whether any samples must be analyzed for PFAS.

A. CAL EPA/DTSC required the plan development but not they did not require implementation.

20. SOW 5.5.1. Confirmation Sampling. Sections 5.5.1.1 and 5.5.1.2 indicate that “If sidewall results meet the removal goals, no further contaminated soil removal and disposal is required” and “If sidewall results exceed the RG, notify the YOSE POC, COR, and CO. The Contractor and NPS will develop an approach for continued soil removal and disposal with associated additional confirmation sampling. The CO will authorize additional quantities of CLINs 3 – 6 if necessary and exercise Option B in a unilateral contract modification”. However, the NTCRAWP indicates that “Confirmation sampling will be conducted using Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM) at each DU after excavation to 4 feet. The analytical results will be used to document final site conditions including contaminated soil left in place, if any”.

Because ISM sampling will not provide specific details on whether each individual sidewall exceeds the RG, please clarify the requirement for confirmation sampling and/or continued soil removal past the specified boundaries of each Decision Unit.

A. NPS disagrees with the statement “ISM sampling will not provide specific details on whether each individual sidewall exceeds the RG”. NPS’ goal is to ensure exposure areas meet RGs and not just a sidewall and/or bottom.

B. SOW Sections 5.5.1.1 and 5.5.1.2 are revised to “If confirmation samples meet the removal goals….”

21. Page 6 of SOW Section 5.5.1.1 and 5.5.1.2: The sampling section suggests that only side walls will be sampled for confirmation. When the SOW refers to a sidewall, is it referring to the surface of the excavation?

A. “Sidewall” means the vertical surface of the excavated areas. Confirmation samples should be taken from the excavated surface and sidewalls of each DU. Also see B in Question 20.

22. Section 10.6 of the NTCRA Work Plan indicates confirmation sampling will be conducted using Incremental Sampling Methodology. Section 5.5.1 of the SOW states that additional excavation will be based on the results of confirmation samples. How will the location and extent of over-excavation be determined based on the results of ISM sample analysis?

A. NPS does not understand the question, please rephrase/resubmit after considering Answers 20 and 21.

23. The NTCRA WP states that “the Vegetation and Ecological Restoration Branch (VER) will be contacted ahead of excavation and fill work to coordinate revegetation activities. VER will need at least one year’s lead time to treat high priority weeds on site, collect seeds for restoration work, survey for special status plants on site, and send seeds for grow-out at a nursery so that they are ready to plant when fill work is complete.” Please clarify if this coordination work has already started, or if this coordination is required by the contractor and must be accounted for in our schedule. Please also clarify whether the contractor will be required to purchase any seed or plants for revegetation, or if it will all be provided by the VER.

A. The VER coordination has started. There is already a seed collection/amplification in place for this work, coordination would be limited to handover of completed backfill areas to VER. The VER team will be supplying all seeds and plants. The amplification process will have negligible yield in fall of 2023. Harvest of seeds is anticipated in fall of 2024, these seeds will be cleaned and tested before planting the following year. VER will also be collecting seeds from established grasses in the park to mix in with amplified seeds for the purpose of diversity.

24. Per the NTCRA WP, “Excavation of the DUs closest to the bank of the Merced River may result in destabilization and loss of riverbank. In this case, VER would rebuild the riverbank using an engineered log structure as they are doing elsewhere in Yosemite Valley in accordance with the Merced River Plan. Design work would be provided by an environmental engineering firm. VER will also need one year’s lead time to prepare this design.” Please clarify whether this evaluation of riverbank stability has already been conducted, or if this coordination time must be accounted for in our schedule.

A. This design task still needs to be completed, which will be completed by the VER team.

Excavation of these areas should not be scheduled until confirmation from the VER team.

These areas should be scheduled for early autumn when the river will be at the lowest level.

25. SOW 7.2: What considerations will the NPS restoration ecologist, hydrologist, and geologist use to determine grading/restoration requirements?

A. Some of the waste was originally deposited in overflow channels of the Merced River that were several feet deep relative to the adjacent floodplain surface. A hydrologist will consult in the field on the regrading of these channels, using a 1-foot contour topographic from 1919 as a guide.

26. SOW 7.4: Where is NPS borrow source of native litter/duff located relative to project site?

A. The VER team will be completing this action; the location this material will come from is another location within Yosemite Valley.

27. Please confirm that site restoration requirements do not include revegetation or seeding of the site and that these items will be performed by the NPS VER branch.

A. Correct: the re-vegetation and seeding will be performed exclusively by the VER branch.

28. Please confirm NPS will be handling all revegetation efforts, except spreading of duff accumulated during site preparation and duff from borrow sites within the park.

A. The Park VER team will be handling all re-vegetation efforts. They will spread the duff material that is accumulated during site preparation as part of this effort.

29. Please confirm that the contractor is not responsible for chemical testing of onsite fill sources to be used for backfill.

A. Confirmed.

30. Please confirm that riverbank stabilization design and/or implementation is not part of this

RFP.

A. The design and implementation of the riverbank stabilization will be performed by YOSE VER branch.

B. VER recommends that DUs adjacent to the riverbank should be planned for excavation in the fall when river levels are at a minimum.

31. Page 28 of Work Plan Section 8.1 Section 8.1 of NTCR states waste soil from each DU will be segregated and placed in a stockpile. Will the contractor be required to stockpile soil from each DU separately?

A. Yes. However, waste soil from each DU may be direct loaded into trucks and disposed in accordance with the hazardous waste landfill operator requirements as the following example illustrates. At another YOSE Site, the operator of the hazardous waste landfill is located in Kettleman, CA. In order for them to accept the Site’s contaminated soil, approximately six composite soil samples from the Site will be taken and submitted for laboratory analysis This is waste characterization sampling that Waste Management will use to profile the waste. This pre-excavation characterization sampling will replace the stockpile samples described in the Site’s NTCRAWP. The pre-excavation characterization sampling should allow directly loading transport trucks to the landfill without stockpiling. (Note, this characterization sampling is not the confirmation sampling protocol steps listed in the Site’s NTCRAWP.

This confirmation step happens later, after excavating to 4 foot deep).

32. SOW 5.5.2: If approved by the receiving facility, can waste characterization samples be collected in-situ (as opposed to stockpile samples), using a similar sampling frequency and methodology described in Section 8.0 of NTRCA work plan?

A. Yes. NPS recommends following the receiving facilities’ waste characterization sampling frequency and methodology.

33. Is biological exclusion fencing required around excavation and/or stockpile areas (either soil or duff stockpiles)?

A. Excavation pits should be capped to prevent wildlife from entering and/or escape ramps installed to prevent entrapment of wildlife, such as rodents and amphibians. The mitigation should be reviewed with park Wildlife team for approval. Stockpiles should be capped with visqueen or other appropriate capping material at the end of each workday.

34. Will NPS provide biological/cultural monitor, or do contractors need to provide their own monitors.

A. The park will be providing Tribal monitoring for all ground disturbance activities as well as weekly park archeology monitoring as a supplement. The biological monitoring plan will be established prior to mobilization and will be performed by the park.

35. Will any of the cultural artifacts deposited with the former dump site debris be classified as a concealed archeological resource that would require work to stop and consultation with NPS cultural monitor? If so, please indicate where on the pricing schedule contractors should include costs for potential down time related to stopped work?

A. This is not anticipated as the site has had extensive archeological testing in 2001, 2016 and 2017. The California SHPO determined in 2021 that this site is ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

36. SOW 5.3. Will NPS require the contractor to have a cultural monitor on-site full time or just available as necessary if an isolet is encountered?

A. The park will provide a tribal monitor for any day that ground disturbance is planned. The park will provide a Park Archeologist for routine monitoring.

B. It is the responsibility of the contractor to communicate schedule updates with the NPS inspector and Tribal monitor to ensure excavation is monitored properly.

37. Section 10.10.2 of the NTCRA Work Plan, states that conceptual locations for new monitoring wells are shown on Figure 6. However, it is unclear on Figure 6 if the wells shown (MW-1 through MW-4) are existing or new proposed wells to be installed as part of this NTCRA. If wells shown are existing, please indicate the location and quantity of the proposed new monitoring wells.

A. See Figure 9 and assume five monitoring wells.

38. Page 49 of Work Plan Section 10.10.3 suggests that temporary injection points be installed to deliver amendments into the contaminated groundwater to chemically remediate elevated PAH concentrations. How many injection points should be assumed and which CLIN should the contractor include associated costs?

A. 28; see EE/CA pdf page 1157 / 1159. Include the costs in CLIN 8.

39. Zero-valent iron is the suggested injection amendment for in-situ treatment of PAHs. At what rate should it be assumed that this chemical will be spent?

A. For Year One, 122,200 pounds; see EE/CA pdf page 1157 / 1159.

40. Is Mariposa County Environmental Health the approving agency allowing the contractor to inject amendments into groundwater?

A. This is likely the approving agency for this action, the park needs to confirm.

41. SOW 6.2.2.1. Conduct groundwater monitoring (four events, one per quarter) and in situ treatment in accordance with El Capitan NTCRA WP and SAP. Section 1. Introduction of the Statement of Work indicates “NPS will issue a separate acquisition to perform groundwater sampling, analysis, treat the groundwater if necessary, and prepare reports of groundwater findings for up to five years”. Please clarify if the Contractor must perform in situ chemical treatment of PAHs in groundwater under this Contract.

A. Yes, contractor must perform in situ chemical treatment of PAHs in groundwater under this Contract. See SOW Section 6.2.2.1.

42. The NTCRA WP says six (6) monitoring wells in Section 10 Performance of Work, but SOW Sections 1.1 and 6.2.1 state five (5) wells. What is the required quantity?

A. Five monitoring wells, see Figure 9.

43. Does NPS have information that can be shared, prior to the scheduled site walk, regarding the current state of the El Capitan FWDA, specifically regarding impacts from winter storms/valley flooding that may have significantly changed site conditions from those presented in the NTCRA WP (i.e., washout of DU areas near the riverbank, deposition of significant sediment and/or debris from flooding that would impact site preparation and restoration efforts)?

If site conditions have changed significantly, will NPS consider allowing more time between the site walk date and the due date for proposals?

A. Merced River levels have been high this spring, with peak level of 12.1 feet at Pohono Bridge gauge on 5/22. At the El Capitan FWDA there has been some ponding due to the rising river, but no wash outs of material away from the site. The snowmelt this spring has been steady and not accompanied by flash flood from rainstorms. The moisture content of soil on the site is seasonal and the park recommends assessing these conditions prior to starting work. Excavations of the DUs closest to the Merced River should be planned for end of summer/early autumn when water levels are at their lowest. It is the opinion of the park that conditions of the site will be wetter than the previous site visit, but this seasonality of the river needs to be considered and shouldn’t require additional time for proposals.

44. Please confirm the assumed waste tonnage for the proposal, as the value presented in the price schedule differs from the value presented on page 44 of the NTCRA WP.

A. Kane Environmental used CDM’s 2020 EE/CA to prepare the NTCRAWP and found multiple references to the 9,520-bcy estimate, but they couldn't find in the EE/CA how CDM arrived at that figure. They wanted to independently confirm the total volume based on the excavation boundaries as drawn in the EE/CA and shown on NTCRAWP Figure 6. A summary of those excavation areas and volumes is included in NTCRAWP Table 8.1; the total volume of excavations estimated in this manner is 9,490-bcy. NPS chose to be conservative and decided to use 9,520-bcy for proposal purposes. Item 3 in Forms 2 and 7 has been updated to bcy per EE/CA PDF Page 1154 / 1159.

45. Are there noise level limitations and/or required noise monitoring during construction work?

A. No limitations or noise monitoring are anticipated. Construction activities are limited to

7AM-5PM.

46. SOW Section 2.5: Will Contractor have access to water/hydrant (water truck fill up) for dust control in the Valley?

A. A permit will need to be issued by park Utilities to access a hydrant for this purpose.

There are no hydrants in the vicinity of the El Capitan Site. An agreed upon hydrant would be identified in Eastern Yosemite Valley.

47. SOW Section 2.5: Can the Contractor extract water from the Merced River in the vicinity of the site for dust control purposes?

A. No.

48. Can the staging area be fenced for security purposes and access control?

A. Yes, it is intended for the valley loop trail section that goes through the project site to be closed during construction. In a similar manner, contractor may install temporary fencing at/around staging areas for security and access control.

49. Are there public signage requirements for the Contractor?

A. If yes, NPS will provide.

50. Will the NPS provide the native files from the geophysical survey of the Designated Units, to include GPS coordinates?

A. Yes, to the contract awardee.

51. The period of performance of 730 days does not allow the Contractor adequate time to complete the planning documents (section 4.4), conduct the removal action (section 5.0), perform groundwater monitoring (section 6.2.2.1), and implement MNA (section 6.2.3.1). Would the Government please clarify?

A. 60 days to complete the planning documents (SOW Section 4.4), ~120 days to conduct the removal action (section 5.0 & EE/CA pdf 1158 / 1159) and implement MNA (section 6.2.3.1& EE/CA pdf 1158 / 1159)., ~400 days to perform groundwater monitoring (SOW Section 6.2.2.1) and write final report. The period of performance remains at is 730 days after notice to proceed.

52. Page 8 of Work Plan Section 4.6 states that birds may nest both on the ground and in trees in this area and work may not be performed during the nesting period of May 1 to July 31. Are the excavations or portions of the excavations located within known bird nesting areas?

A. There are no mitigations prescribed for bird nesting sites at this location. The protected species of concern for this site is the red legged frog. If work is conducted in the months of November-March, a biological survey will need to be performed by the park wildlife team.

Between the months of April-October, this mitigation will not be necessary.

53. The solicitation says that the work will be awarded as a “single firm-fixed-price construction contract.” However, there are some unit price line items noted in the pricing schedule. Please confirm that the contractors are to submit pricing according to Form 2.

A. All prices in Form 2 are firm fixed price (FFP), including the unit priced items, which renders it a FFP contract; no work will use labor hour or time-and-materials pricing. Submit FFPs for all lump sum and unit-priced items in Form 2.

54. Solicitation H5, Limitations on Subcontracting Requirements. Based on NAICS 562910 and this procurement being set aside for small businesses, should the threshold for limitations on subcontracting be 50% for services rather than 85% for construction?

A. The U.S. Department of Labor has consistently found that contracts for this type of work are subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (Construction) statute (formerly Davis-Bacon Act) rather than the Service Contract Act. Since the standards in 52.219-14 are based in large part on labor costs, the construction 85% limitation applies.

55. Section 5.5.1.2 of the SOW states that based on the results of confirmation sampling the CO will authorize additional quantities of CLINs 3 – 6 if necessary and exercise Option B in a unilateral contract codification. Please indicate the number of days from receipt of confirmation sample results until the CO authorizes additional quantities of CLINs 3-6 and Option B.

A. NPS will minimize the number of days to allow efficient use of contractor resources, with a goal of ≤4 business days.

56. Where on the pricing schedule should contractors include costs for potential down time related to NPS decision making and CO authorization?

A. Include in Item 1 under General contract administration and project oversight (see Form 7).

57. Form 2 – Price Schedule. Item 5 Transportation and Disposal of RCRA hazardous soil.

Please confirm if this line item is for RCRA direct disposal or will this waste stream require stabilization? Please provide any available Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) or Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) sample data.

A. This line item is for RCRA direct disposal.

B. NPS does not have any TCLP or STLC data

58. The solicitation requests bidders to use Form 5 to demonstrate relevant experience. Can we include a 2-page narrative introduction prior to the completed forms to provide an overview of relevant experience?

A. Yes, this is acceptable. Assertions in the narrative must be supported by the projects listed on Form 5. NPS will use the information in the narrative to evaluate the team’s direct participation in comparable contracts or orders.

59. RFP Item 2 under Subfactor A. Relevant Prior Experience (corporate) states, “Performed in remote mountainous environments with limited services, such as electricity, cell phone coverage, grocery or hardware store, etc., or in public, highly visible locations.” “Mountainous” may not properly define the intent of the Government. Please consider using “Performed in logistically challenging environments with limited services, such as electricity, cell phone coverage, grocery or hardware store, etc., or in public, highly visible locations.”

A. The definition is revised to “Performed in logistically challenging environments with limited services, such as electricity, cell phone coverage, grocery or hardware store, etc., or in public, highly visible locations.”

60. Will the Relevant experience of a Team Subcontractor be considered for the experience and past performance evaluations, provided that a Teaming Agreement is included with the Proposal?

A. Yes.

61. SOW 5.2.3 states that biobased products are preferred. Are biobased products a requirement for this project? Will bidding contractors that include biobased products be evaluated more favorably than those that do not?

A. Using biobased erosion and/or dust control products is not required, and the use of biobased products is not part of the evaluation rubric.

B. However, Option C, biobased hydraulic fluid in heavy equipment, is required to be priced so that NPS can decide whether to exercise it.

62. Campsites within YNP can be difficult to secure. Will NPS block-off camp site reservations within YNP for contractor use? Or will contractors have to compete with the public for camp site reservations.

A. Contractors will have to compete with the public for camp site reservations.

63. Can NPS schedule the site visit earlier or allow more time between the site visit and when the proposals are due?

A. We acknowledge that there are very short turnaround times between the site visit, question due date, amendment, and solicitation closing date and have endeavored to mitigate the impact by having such a long pre-site visit period to address questions. We cannot reschedule the site visit but have added another interim question due date: Questions submitted by 9:00 am PT on June 29 will be answered in an amendment to be posted prior to July 11. See introductory paragraph to this document.

B. We do not intend to extend the proposal due date.

64. Are firms involved with the development of the EE/CA, NTCRA Work Plan, and site investigations prohibited from participating as prime or subcontractors in this removal action?

A. Yes.

65. Please confirm that none of the information provided by the Government is CUI. If CUI has been included, please identify and mark the appropriate documents so we can apply appropriate controls to those documents.

A. None of the information provided by the Government is CUI.

66. Form 4 has been revised to show the current size standard for 562910: 1,000 employees rather than 750.

67. RFP: FAR clause 52.244-6, Subcontracts for Commercial Products and Commercial Services, is updated to June 2023 version, which incorporates new clause 52.204-7, Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application (Jun 2023) (Section 102 of Division R of Pub. L. 117-328), by reference.

68. RFP: FAR clause 52.204-27 Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application (Jun 2023) is added to the RFP and contract.

69. RFP: Paragraph H.11, Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response – Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19), is deleted from the RFP and contract.