Attachment_4b_Clarifications_70_-_116_140P2123R0005_0002.pdf

NTCRA under CERCLA at El Capitan former waste dump Yosemite National Park Attachment 4b: Clarifications 70 - 116

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 70 – 116 for Solicitation #140P2123R0005

This document provides clarifications based on submitted queries.

Responses 1 – 69 are in Attachment 4a, posted with Amendment 1 on 6/20/23.

17 update: Due to DOI IT and Security protocols, you may see a Terms & Conditions message pop-up pertaining to access of the documents hyperlinked from Attachment 1 or 4a. The message is for awareness and understanding but should not be an obstacle to access for Microsoft/Office365 account holders. There is a possibility that non-Microsoft/Office365 users may have issues with access, in which case, send an email to sarah_welch@nps.gov with a list of email addresses of people who request access.

37 and 42 update: Attachment 2a, NTCRA WP, which includes revised Figure 9 showing monitoring well details, is provided with Amendment 2 (its omission from Amendment 1 was an oversight).

51 update:

• SOW 4.3.5 is revised to read “All removal action and later tasks in this SOW shall be completed within 730 days after issuance of a notice to proceed with on-site activities.

Planning tasks in SOW 4 shall be completed within 60 days after award.”

• SOW 5.1.4 is added: “Do not mobilize to the site until the Contracting Officer has issued a Notice to Proceed (NTP) with on-site activities. The NTP will start the 730-day performance period.”

70. Per Section 4.6.3 of the NTCRA SAP, please confirm that 100% of the confirmation and groundwater sample data will undergo EPA Level 3 (Stage 2B) validation, and additional review (e.g., Stage 4) is not required. Please also confirm that a Level III-equivalent report provided by the analytical laboratory is sufficient.

a. NPS confirms Level 3 data review is sufficient.

71. Tables 6 through 9 of the SAP include hexavalent chromium (Chromium VI) under the EPA Method 6020 analytical suite; however, Chromium VI is generally run under EPA Method 7196 or 7199. Please clarify if Chromium VI is required as an analyte, and if so, which analytical method is required, or if it’s inclusion in these tables was unintentional.

a. Tables 6 through 9 of the SAP have been updated to have Chromium VI analyzed via EPA Method 3060 for soil and EPA Method 7199 for groundwater. See Attachment 2a, YOSE_ElCapitan_NTCRAWP_V4_Final 20230630.pdf.

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

72. Sections 4.3.2 and 4.7 of the NTCRA SAP indicate that confirmation sampling will be performed for antimony, cadmium, copper, lead, vanadium, and zinc; however, Sections

2.2.3 and 4.5.2 indicate that arsenic is also included. Please confirm whether or not arsenic should be included in the metals analytical suite (6020) for confirmation samples.

a. Sections 4.3.2 and 4.7 of the NTCRA SAP and Sections 2.2.3 and 4.5.2 are now aligned to include arsenic. See Attachment 2a, YOSE_ElCapitan_NTCRAWP_V4_Final 20230630.pdf.

73. Similarly, Sections 2.2.3 and 4.3.2 indicated that baseline groundwater sampling will be conducted for arsenic, barium, lead, and nickel, but Section 4.5.2 only identifies arsenic and lead as having removal action levels. Please specify which list is appropriate for the baseline groundwater sampling.

a. Work Plan Section 2.2.3 and 4.3.2 have been updated. See Attachment 2a, YOSE_ElCapitan_NTCRAWP_V4_Final 20230630.pdf.

74. Solicitation L.4, Part I, #6: Is the narrative details of roles also restricted to the one page, or is the one-page restriction only for the Org Chart itself?

a. If necessary, this information may be conveyed on two pages.

75. Scope of Work, Section 4.4: Is the PFAS Work Plan for soil and groundwater to be prepared under the Contract Support CLIN or Sampling CLIN?

a. Form 7, revised in Amendment 1, indicates inclusion of developing the PFAS

Work Plan in CLIN 1, Contract support tasks.

76. Can NPS provide an example of NPS-approved PFAS Work Plan or PFAS Work Plan template?

a. NPS does not have an NPS-approved PFAS Work Plan or PFAS Work Plan template.

77. Is a quick turnaround time on waste characterization sample analysis a value for the government if it reduces the time soil stays stockpiled on site?

a. NPS does not have an opinion.

78. Attachment 1, page 15, Item 7 states sampling includes GW sampling, but Item 8 states GW monitoring. Which is correct?

a. Item 7 applies to Section 5.5.3 “Baseline Groundwater Sampling” and 5.5.3.1 “5.5.3.1. Collect baseline groundwater samples before any DU excavations are begun, specifically before any monitoring wells are abandoned as part of the DU excavations”.

b. Item 8 applies to Section 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”.

79. Where are the NPS-supplied backfill soil locations (Woodlot, Upper River Campground, Cascades Former Waste Disposal area)? How much backfill is available at each location?

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

a. The former Upper River campground will be primary source of NPS supplied backfill soil and will be able to satisfy the backfill requirements as shown on page 47 of the NTCRAWP. The former Upper River campground is west of Curry Village near Stoneman Bridge. It is about 4 miles east of the El Capitan site.

80. Is there a charge for use of the NPS-supplied backfill if it is available, approved, and suitable for use on this project?

a. No

81. Paragraph 6 on page 33 of the work plan states that “the General Contractor must use tracked vehicles to transport equipment and materials along the access road”. Will NPS authorize the removal of trees/vegetation required to accommodate wheeled vehicles along the access road as necessary?

a. The contractor would need to identify trees for removal and submit for review by VER team. Use of wheeled vehicles would be allowed in lieu of tracked vehicles, but track-mats would need to be utilized as a mitigation for wheeled vehicles and the trail would need to be rehabilitated to Yosemite Trails branch standards.

82. Statement of Work Section 5.4.5 on page 6 states that excavated soil is to be placed in bins. The work plan says that soil can be stockpiled. Please clarify this discrepancy.

a. Either method maybe used. In addition, NPS refers the reader to Q31 and Q32 responses.

83. Option B on the solicitation bid form shows a quantity of 1 each. Option B on Form 7 Additional Price Details template shows a quantity of 13 each. Please clarify this discrepancy.

a. It is difficult to anticipate how many confirmation samples may be needed; 13 was an estimate based on one per DU. Revised Form 7 shows quantity 1.

84. Can soil be stockpiled/loaded at the location shown as “Staging/Loading Area” on NTCRA WP Figure 3 Site Plan?

a. Yes

85. Line 5 of the pricing schedule is to transport and dispose of 9,320 tons of RCRA

(California) hazardous soil. We are assuming that it is meant to say “FEDERAL” hazardous soil. Should the contractor assume this line item is intended for RCRA Direct Landfill (No treatment prior to final disposal) or that the soil will be RCRA Stabilization (Treatment prior to final disposal)? There is a large cost difference.

a. Line 5 of the pricing schedule is modified from transport and dispose of “9,320 tons of RCRA (California) hazardous soil” to “9,320 tons of RCRA hazardous soil”.

b. For proposal purposes, assume RCRA Direct Landfill is acceptable. If RCRA Stabilization is required by the disposal facility, we will negotiate a change per

SOW 3.10.4.

86. Does each DU have to be backfilled prior to excavating the subsequent DU per the Work Plan?

a. No.

87. SOW 5.3.3: There is a discrepancy between the analyses required for baseline sampling in the Work Plan Section 10.2.5 (SVOCs, PAHs, pesticides, TPH-G/BTEX, TPHD, TPH- O, and metals (Sb, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mo, Ni, Se, Ag, Tl, V, Zn, Hg) and the Sampling and Analysis Plan Section 4.3.2 (Arsenic, Barium, Lead, Nickel — Metals by U.S. EPA Method 6020A; Benzo(a)pyrene – SVOCs by U.S. EPA Method SW8270) -please clarify the required analyses.

a. Work Plan Section 10.2.5 and the Sampling and Analysis Plan Section 4.3.2 are aligned. See Attachment 2a, YOSE_ElCapitan_NTCRAWP_V4_Final 20230630.pdf.

88. SOW 5.3.3: Are water quality parameters required to be collected during groundwater sampling?

a. No.

89. WP SAP, Page 172: Table 5 from the SAP lists the groundwater samples as “grab samples.” Please confirm whether grab methodology such as bailer or peristaltic pump are sufficient, or if low-flow sampling is required.

a. Table 5 has been updated to “Low-Flow Grab Groundwater Sample”. See Attachment 2a, YOSE_ElCapitan_NTCRAWP_V4_Final 20230630.pdf.

90. WP Pages 142 and 172: Section 4.4 states baseline groundwater samples are to be collected before any DU excavations are begun. Table 5 states the purpose for groundwater samples is to document groundwater conditions following removal action.

Are groundwater samples to be collected both before and after the removal action?

a. Yes.

91. WP Page 172: Table 5 Groundwater samples for MW-4 lists 3 samples for SVOCs.

Should this be one sample for SVOCs?

a. Yes. Table 5 has been updated. See Attachment 2a, YOSE_ElCapitan_NTCRAWP_V4_Final 20230630.pdf.

92. SOW 3.10.2, General Requirements: Is the Hazardous Substance Removal Certification issued by the state of California required at the time of proposal submittal, upon award, or at the commencement of work? Is it sufficient for Offerors to have begun the application process at the time of proposal submittal?

a. The proposal must include evidence of the Hazardous Substance Removal Certification for all appropriate contractors (see Q&A #4). Add this as Item #7 in the contents of Part I of the proposal.

93. WP SAP, Page 173: The equipment blank is listed on Table 5 for total metals analysis only. Can you please confirm that no other analyses (e.g., per Work Plan Section 10.2.5) are required?

a. The equipment blank laboratory analysis listed on Table 5 has been updated.

94. Work Plan SAP, Page 177: Table 7 lists method SW8310 for PAHs. Can we substitute

Method SW8270D SIM?

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

a. We need more information before authorizing the change. What is the rationale for the substitution?

95. SOW Section 4.4: Attachment 4a, Clarifications response to Question #19 indicates that the PFAS work plan development is required but implementation is not. Please provide more detail on the purpose and scope of the Work Plan.

a. CAL-EPA/DTSC did not share their reasoning with NPS.

96. WP 10.10.2, Page 56: The Work Plan states that the new monitoring wells will be constructed with similar screen diameters, total depths, screened intervals, and surface completions as the existing monitoring wells, please provide the well logs and construction details for the existing wells.

a. NPS does not have the well logs. However, on pdf pages 28-29 / 1154 of the YOSE_El_Capitan_EECA_Final_05152020.pdf list some information. Additional information may be found here YOSE_ElCapitan_FIR_Final_20110601.pdf, too.

97. WP 10.10.3, Page 56: For the addition of the groundwater amendments the EE/CA specifies 28 injection points and 122,200 pounds. How were these quantities determined?

Where are the 28 points located?

a. See YOSE_El_Capitan_EECA_Final_20200515.pdf page 84 / 1154.

b. Location of the 28 points will be determined as part of the PDI.

98. WP 10.2.5, Page 41: As described in the EE/CA: “Prior to the implementation of the in-situ groundwater treatment, a PDI would be conducted to further delineate groundwater contamination, specifically delineation of PAHs and metals exceeding the MCL/TTAL within the area of attainment for groundwater beneath the Site. As part of the PDI, additional groundwater monitoring wells would be installed to supplement the existing monitoring wells. Groundwater samples would be collected from monitoring wells and temporary sampling locations, as necessary.” The Work Plan does not mention temporary sampling locations will be necessary. Please confirm only sampling the existing monitoring wells will be necessary as part of the PDI.

a. Confirmed. NPS does not expect temporary sampling locations will be necessary.

99. Can the CAD files be provided during bidding process?

a. See files located here.

100. How much area is allowed to be developed at the staging/loading area? Can a figure be provided showing areas that cannot be disturbed?

a. This detail is not yet defined, it will require coordination with the park prior to mobilization. In general, NPS tries to minimize disturbance.

101. Are there any costs the contractor should carry for water since a hydrant (in eastern Yosemite valley) will be designated for water supply? $/Gal? Backflow preventer? Permit? Are there any restrictions on volume of water than can be used on a daily basis?

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

a. A permit application will need to be submitted with anticipated dates of use, estimated volume per day/week and tanker size/license plate number. A currently tested fire hydrant reduced principal backflow assembly with metering capabilities is required. This can be provided by the contractor with a satisfactory inspection by park utilities or it can be rented from the park for $20/day if available. The current rate for water is $12.68/1,000 gallons. Any restrictions on volume will be determined by park utilities when application is reviewed, expect 14 calendar days for permit application review.

102. Is hydrant water supplied by YOSE considered potable?

a. Yes.

103. Attachment 2, NTCRA WP Section 10.8 states the following: 9,490 bank cubic yards (bcy) + 25% swell and utilizing a conversion factor of 1.5 tons/cubic yard = 17,800 tons. Can NPS provide information as to why this is different than the quantity on the bid form?

a. See response to Q44, which describes why NPS uses 9,520 bcy as the estimated quantity. We used a conversion factor of 1.62 tons/cy to arrive at the estimated 15,430 tons for CLIN 3.

104. We do not see references to contract values for retainage or damages (e.g. special, liquidated or other) in the contract sections provided. Will those be utilized for this project and if so, what are the values we should use for each?

a. The solicitation and contract do not include liquidated damages. There will not be retainage on each progress payment request, but NPS will be conservative in the amounts authorized on each progress payment.

105. Can NPS provide a list of currently approved weed-free sources for import material?

a. Refer to #79 and 116. We anticipate having sufficient clean soil available within the park. We do not have a list of currently approved weed-free sources outside the park.

106. Section 4.2 of the NTCRA WP indicates work may not be performed during the bird nesting period of May 1-July 31. Section 10.1.1 indicates work should be planned to occur during dry times of year to minimize potential for soil run-off and erosion and notes survey requirements for sensitive species during work between November and March. Please confirm if it is the intent of NPS to have the removal action commence on August 1, 2024 and be completed by October 31, 2024.

a. Yes, this would be the ideal timeframe to complete this work.

107. Are any of the waste considered F-Listed? If so, what waste codes have been assigned?

a. Unknown at this time.

108. NTCRA WP Section 10.5.2 prescribes requirements for work area dust monitoring and makes mention of separate fence line monitoring. Please confirm if the awardee will be responsible for fence line monitoring, and if so, what requirements apply (e.g., # of stations, action levels, etc.).

a. Fence line monitoring refers to the Project’s Site boundary. Contractor’s industrial hygienist will define the monitoring requirements (e.g., # of stations, action levels, etc.).

109. RFP Section 2., Past Performance Factors, under M.2 Evaluation Factors for Award states, “The general approach for evaluating past performance shall be written or telephonic customer surveys based on past contracts identified.” Form 5 does not request that Offerors provide contract numbers or client contact names. Does NPS wish for Offerors to provide this information? Also, please clarify that “Name of Owner” on Form 5 should be the name of the Offeror’s client. If the Offeror was a subcontractor, the Owner of the project may not be the Offeror’s client.

a. We prefer to gather relevant experience information from the owner but will accept projects where the Offeror’s client is not the owner.

b. Include contact information (working phone number and email) on Form 5 for at least one person familiar with the project and the Offeror’s performance to facilitate gathering of past performance information.

110. RFP evaluation factors 1.A and 2: Are “Form 5 – Relevant Experience” forms allowed to be more than one page per project so that Offerors can provide sufficient detail to address all factors for relevant prior experience given under M.2., 1.A. and 2?

Please confirm that it is acceptable to create and use our own version of the form as per L.4., Part I – Technical Information (electronic), Item 1., “Use “Form 5 – Relevant Experience” form or similar document.”(page 33).

a. Project descriptions should not exceed two pages in length.

b. It is acceptable to use a similar document that captures the same information; use of Form 5 is optional. See response above.

111. RFP Paragraph H.1 Wage Determination identifies wage determination for heavy construction. However, there are portions of the work that are recurring, maintenance type actions (i.e., one year monitoring service). Please identify the applicable Service Contract Act Wage Determination.

a. FAR 22.1003-1 says FAR Subpart 22.10, Service Contract Labor Standards, does not apply to individual contract requirements for services in contracts not having as their principal purpose the furnishing of services. Since this contract’s principal purpose is removal of hazardous materials, which has been deemed to fall under the Construction labor standards, all “laborer and mechanic” classifications should be in the heavy construction wage determination; if additional classifications are needed, we will request a conformance from DOL.

Other labor laws, such as FLSA, and executive orders apply to work performed by workers who are not “laborers or mechanics.”

112. The Sampling and Analysis Plan states that ISM post-excavation samples will be collected from the floor of the excavation only, and not the sidewalls. The SOW states that excavations will not go deeper than 4 feet (presumably due to the depth to groundwater and because the depth of borrowing animals stops at 4 feet as described in the EE/CA). This leads us to believe that there would be no need for additional excavation, because we will only have floor results and we cannot excavate any deeper.

Please confirm whether the Sampling and Analysis Plan is correct and only floor samples will be collected. If it is not correct, will a revised SAP be provided to the contractor, or will the contractor be required to revise the SAP? Please also confirm whether excavations may extend deeper than 4 feet based on sample results.

a. Awardee will sample sidewalls IAW SOW Section 5.5.1. See Q&A #20 and 21 for additional details.

b. Excavations may not extend deeper than 4 feet.

113. If over-excavation is required based on failed ISM confirmation results, please provide the additional quantity that will require excavation (for example, 1 additional foot from the floors only) so that the Contractor can ensure sufficient time exists in the schedule for this additional excavation, sloping/shoring, handling, confirmation sampling, and off-site disposal?

a. We cannot estimate additional quantity in advance. Increases to the quantities exercised by options may include the addition of time in the schedule, depending on the magnitude. NPS will rely on the awardee to suggest the recommended removal amount based on their expertise, using a Request for Price Proposal or other written method.

114. Additionally, as this is a fixed price solicitation, please specify how many, if any, over-excavation/confirmation sampling events we should assume. It is not feasible to price over-excavation events at a fixed unit rate based on quantity because either standby time or demobilization/remobilization needs to be properly accounted for. For example, an additional 100 cubic yards in one over-excavation event results in significantly different costs than 50 CY over two events separated by downtime awaiting analytical results.

a. For proposal preparation and to enable consistency between proposers, assume one over-excavation/confirmation sampling event when developing the unit price for confirmation samples. See Q&A #55 for additional details.

115. Please clarify the measurement for payment on Contract Line Item Number

(CLIN) 3: Excavate soil (estimated 9,520 bank cubic yards). The Quantity and Unit for this CLIN is 15,430 tons, and not bank cubic yards (bcy) as specified in the CLIN description. Will payment be made based on landfill waste tickets obtained under CLINs 4 – 6? We request that the Government change the Quantity and Unit for CLIN 3 to bank cubic yards, and that payment be made based on excavated quantities determined from a pre- and post-excavation survey conducted by a licensed professional land surveyor, as the conversion from bcy to tons may vary depending on moisture content, etc.

a. Yes, payment will be made based on landfill waste tickets obtained under CLINs 4 – 6 as shown in Form 7 and in SOW Section 11. We will not change to pre- and post-excavation survey method.

116. Site restoration is included as a lump sum in CLIN 2. Therefore, if additional excavation is required at any DU, how will payment be made for the additional import and placement of backfill from a borrow source present within Yosemite National Park?

a. The site restoration in CLIN 2 is for the estimated quantities in the SOW and price schedule. If additional quantities of Item 3 (excavation) are ordered, NPS may exercise Option A or newly-defined Option D. Option D is “Load, transport, and place clean NPS-furnished soil (per cubic yard) as described in Section 7.

Payment will be made at the unit price for the actual quantity of clean soil as measured by visual inspection by the NPS Inspector and documented by the contractor. Unit price shall include loading, transportation, placement, and contouring. Preference will be to exercise this option in 10-CY increments. NPS may exercise Option D multiple times.”