Attachment_9_Clarifications_1-51_0002.pdf

Conduct TCRA under CERCLA at burned sites Rocky Mountain NP Attachment 9: Clarifications 1 - 51

Clarifications 1 – 51 for Solicitation #140P2123R0008

Amendment 2 posted on 5/15/23

This document provides clarifications based on submitted queries.

1. The definition of Option FLR-4 at Fern Lake on Page 35 of Attachment 1 is confusing.

a. Option FLR-4 is slightly revised to read (FLR-5 is included for reference):

Option FLR-4: Transport of non-RCRA hazardous materials presumed to contain friable asbestos.

Quantity will be measured and calculated by adding up weight tickets from disposal facility. The quantity of Option FLR-4 shall match the quantity of Item FLR-5. This is the same as Option FLR-4 except that payment will be made at the unit price for the actual quantity as measured by adding weight tickets of Option FLR-5.

Option FLR-5: Characterization and disposal of non-RCRA hazardous materials presumed to contain friable asbestos. Quantity will be measured and calculated by adding up weight tickets from disposal facility.

2. Will the Site Visit described in the Scope of Work Section 4.3.1 take more than 1 calendar day to visit all 22 sites?

a. NPS anticipates it will take two days to adequately visit all 22 sites, including hiking to the Fern Lake Ranger Station site, weather permitting.

3. Will the Site Visit described in the Scope of Work Section 4.3.1 include in-person visits to the Optional sites (Fern Lake Ranger Station and Betty Dick Garage)?

a. Betty Dick Garage will be visited in person during the Site Visit. NPS intends to include the Fern Lake Ranger Station in the Site Visit, weather permitting. NPS recommends that the Fern Lake Ranger Station be visited by at least one member of the Contractor Site Visit team that is physically capable of safely participating in the hike.

4. Section 3.18.3 indicates that the planning documents (Schedule, RAWP, SWMP/UPPP, QCP, and SAP update) are indicated to be due within 60 days of award. This appears to conflict with several other sections of the Attachment 1, SOW, with different due dates of QCP within 30 days of NTP (Section 3.6.4), 15 days of award for HASP (Section 4.4);

prepare and submit RAWP within 10 days of Site Visit (Section 4.5), prepare and submit SWPP/MP within 10 days of Site Visit (Section 4.6.4); and updated SAP within 30 days of contract award. Of these due dates/times, for bidding and planning purposes, which is accurate?

a. Final versions of these documents, accepted by NPS, are required within 60 days of award and prior to CO issuing the Notice to Proceed. The various interim due dates are structured and staggered to allow sufficient time for drafts to be prepared and issued, NPS review and comment, and subsequent Contractor modifications as necessary. All dates are accurate. Note, the HASP must be completed prior to performing the Site Visit.

5. Attach 1 SOW Section 3.6.4 states Contractor shall submit a Quality Control Plan (QCP) to the Contracting Officer or designee for approval, within 30 days of Notice of Award. However, Section 3.18.3 states the Contracting Officer will issue a Notice to Proceed (NTP) with on-site removal activities after all planning documents (including schedule, RAWP, SWMP/UPPP, QCP, and SAP update) are fully accepted or approved. Per the SOW, these are due within 60 days after the award. Please clarify if the due date for the QCP is 30 or 60 days after notice of award.

a. Final versions of these documents, accepted by NPS, are required within 60 days of award and prior to CO issuing the Notice to Proceed. The QCP must be submitted within 30 days of contract award to allow sufficient time for NPS review and Contractor modifications, if necessary, prior to the 60-day deadline.

6. Define the “dry part of the year” that is stated in Scope of Work Section 5.2.

a. Dry part of the year is intended to generally include the period after spring snow melt and prior to permanent winter snow cover. As indicated in Section 2.3.4, the sites are normally accessible from May through October, with the Fern Lake Ranger Station site potentially having a tighter construction season window.

7. Please clarify if the Contractor is required to demolish and remove the concrete and stone foundation at the Fern Lake Ranger Station.

a. The Contractor is NOT required to demolish and remove the concrete and stone foundation at the Fern Lake Ranger Station.

8. In consideration of the prohibitions on using aviation assets for transporting personnel (Scope of Work Section 9.9.4), is the contractor permitted to use pack animals and/or horses to access the Fern Lake Ranger Station on each workday that work is performed at that site?

a. Contractor is allowed to use stock to transport personnel and tools only.

Contractor must submit a stock use plan for approval that describes expected stock use and number of trips.

9. In consideration of the prohibition on establishing construction camps (Scope of Work Section 2.1.2), are contractor personnel allowed to stay overnight in existing backcountry campsites near the Fern Lake Ranger Station?

a. Yes, contractor personnel may camp in designated backcountry campsites in the area under the same conditions as the visiting public. Depending on time of year, these may be available for contractor use through payment and reservation. There is no guarantee of these sites and contractor must follow all rules and regulations while camping at these sites.

10. Will the National Park Service approve a variance to allow use of mechanized equipment to expedite the completion of soil and fire debris removal at the Fern Lake Ranger Station, which is located within a Wilderness Area, for a portion of or the entirety of allowable work hours?

a. No, NPS will not approve a variance for use of mechanized equipment within wilderness.

11. SOW Section 2.3.2 – Will the contractor be able to use ATVs or other small-motorized 4-wheel vehicle on the 4-mile trail to the Fern Lake Ranger Station (Site

ID 14)?

a. No.

12. SOW Section 9.1.7: Does the contractor need to supply ecological monitors during construction activities (for example, when working within habitat of Mexican Spotted Owl)?

a. No.

13. Will the excavation/cleanup contractor be required to be a Certified Abatement Contractor per CDPHE Regulation 8?

a. Except for standing structures (chimney’s and Onahu Ranch Pump House) that may be identified as containing more than trigger levels of ACM, it is NPS’s understanding that the excavation/cleanup contractor is not required to be a Certified Abatement Contractor per the CDPHE October 2020 East Troublesome Wildfire Guidance. However, contractors are strongly encouraged to confirm requirements with the CDPHE Indoor Air Program and prepare their proposals accordingly

14. Did CDPHE provide input on the scope of work?

a. CDPHE did not provide specific input on nor review the scope of work. The scope was developed based on NPS understanding of Colorado Regulation No. 8, the CDPHE October 2020 East Troublesome Wildfire Guidance, and discussions with CDPHE Indoor Air Program staff.

15. Will a variance be applied for by NPS with CDPHE to allow asbestos removal without a containment (i.e., a variance for open air abatement)?

a. With consideration of the flexibilities offered by the CDPHE October 2020 East Troublesome Wildfire Guidance, no variance is required or anticipated for removal of the presumed asbestos containing ash and debris from completely destroyed structures. However, if materials are found containing greater than 1% asbestos in aggregate quantities above trigger levels in the remaining standing structures (chimney’s and Onahu Ranch Pump House), the full requirements of CDPHE Regulation No. 8 apply to those structures, including variance requests if deemed necessary. If the ACM cannot be safely abated in accordance with Colorado Regulation No. 8 prior to demolition, it is likely that NPS would apply for a variance request to allow demolition without abatement. If abatement is deemed necessary and can be safely performed, a variance request for “open air abatement” may be pursued if conformance with Colorado Regulation No. 8 standard requirements is not practical.

16. Will perimeter air monitoring be PCM or TEM?

a. The SOW does not require perimeter air monitoring for asbestos. Per Section 4.5, daily dust monitoring using real-time field instruments up-wind and down-wind of each site is required during removal activities. SOW Section 5.5 specifies control measures shall be implemented to prevent visible ash and dust emissions.

17. SOW General: Is perimeter community air monitoring required during earth moving operations (beyond personal air monitoring defined in Section 4.4)? If so, please specify the type, frequency, and analyses.

a. Perimeter air monitoring for asbestos is not required. Per SOW Section 4.5, daily dust monitoring using real-time field instruments up-wind and down-wind of each site is required during removal activities. Section 5.5 specifies control measures shall be implemented to prevent visible ash and dust emissions.

18. SOW Section 5.3. Will NPS define the assumed number of jurisdictional wetland delineations required for this work for pricing purposes?

a. There are currently no known wetlands within or near the work sites. If during construction, it is suspected that there are wetlands within 50 ft of any construction activities, contractor shall contact the CO or designee and we will have NPS staff come out to confirm if they are wetlands and if any mitigations are needed.

19. SOW Section 5.19. Per CDPHE memo all concrete must be inspected by the CABI to determine if it is ACM free prior to recycling. Will all concrete need to be sampled and analyzed for asbestos?

a. The CDPHE requirement is that concrete slabs and foundations must be inspected by a CABI to determine if it is ACM free prior to recycling. This does not mean the concrete slabs and foundations must be sampled and analyzed if no suspect ACM is identified by the CABI during inspection.

b. Concrete slabs and foundations that are not inspected and not determined to be ACM free shall be managed as presumed asbestos containing debris in accordance the CDPHE October 2020 East Troublesome Wildfire Guidance.

Concrete debris, other than slabs and foundations, shall be managed as presumed asbestos containing debris in accordance with the CDPHE October 2020 East Troublesome Wildfire Guidance.

20. If asbestos is detected during the bulk sampling, will a spill delineation be conducted per CDPHE Regulation 8?

a. The only bulk sampling of materials anticipated is of suspect asbestos containing material that may be identified during inspection of the standing structures (chimneys and Onahu Ranch Pump House). If ACM is identified though such sampling, it is assumed it is in-place and spill delineation will not be required.

The ash and debris at each burn site is presumed to contain friable asbestos and is being removed and managed in accordance with the CDPHE October 2020 East Troublesome Wildfire Guidance. No suspect materials in ash/debris will remain after successful completion of removal activities and no asbestos should be detected in confirmation soil sampling.

21. Will an abatement permit be required for this work from CDPHE if asbestos is detected?

a. Per the CDPHE October 2020 East Troublesome Wildfire Guidance, an abatement permit is not required for the removal of ash and debris from completely destroyed structures. Per this Guidance, if asbestos is found above trigger levels in structures not completely destroyed by the fire (i.e. chimneys), then the full requirements of Colorado Regulation No. 8 apply. Abatement and demolition permits will be required in such cases. As noted in Section 5.20 of the SOW, proposals should assume asbestos is present but at quantities not exceeding trigger levels.

22. Has any previous asbestos sampling or other environmental sampling been conducted at the sites?

a. Prior asbestos and other environmental sampling are described in the Draft Final Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) furnished by NPS on May 5. Draft tables presenting metals (total and TCLP as necessary), dioxin/furan, and PCB data from sampling performed in the fall of 2022 were provided as Attachment 2 of the RFQ. None of the burn sites included in this SOW were sampled for asbestos after the East Troublesome Fire. Materials in three structures in the Onahu Ranch Area were sampled for asbestos in 1995, with >1% asbestos reported as detected in drywall systems in two. NPS does not know if these samples were collected by a Certified Inspector, nor does NPS know the quantities of ACM present or if it was abated prior to the fire. NPS has confirmed with CDPHE that despite these historic asbestos detections, these structures can be managed in accordance with Part 1 of CDPHE October 2020 East Troublesome Wildfire Guidance.

23. The SOW states that “contractors are advised that Trail Ridge Road is not suitable for construction traffic and may not be reliable for daily worker commuting.” Can you tell us for what reasons that it may not be suitable and if there are weight and size limits for equipment? Also, what would be the alternate access to the locations that would be suitable for the equipment necessary to complete this work?

a. Trail Ridge Road is the highest continuous paved road in the United States and climbs to 12,183 feet between the east and west sides of the park. It is closed in winter, typically starting in early October, with temporary closures due to weather happening at any moment. It receives high visitor traffic, with early morning and late evening being the least congested. It is not suitable for large trucks or hauling trailered heavy equipment, but neither use is prohibited.

b. The park maintains a Trail Ridge Road recorded status phone line at (970) 586- 1222. It is the responsibility of the contractor to be aware of weather conditions.

c. Lower portions of Trail Ridge Road required to access sites on the east and west sides of the park may be used. Sites on the west side of the park are accessed by Route 34 (aka Trail Ridge Road) via the west entrance of the park north of Grand Lake. Sites on the east side of the park are accessed via Route 36 and other interior park roads via the east entrance of the park located west of Estes Park.

24. If once the NTP is issued and the plans are approved, it is too late in the season to perform all work prior to mid-October, would the successful contractor be able to postpone mobilizing until May of 2024 so that all work could be completed in one mobilization?

a. Refer to FAR clause 52.211-10 in Section F of the RFP which allows cessation of work during winter.

b. The POP in SOW 3.18.4 (120 days) is wrong; it should be 260 days to match the RFP (Block 11 of the SF1442 and Section F).

25. The SOW states that contractor cannot demobilize from a site until all tasks are completed. Does this include seeding? Are we to leave the equipment on site?

a. See response to #24 regarding work phases.

b. Equipment not necessary for seeding may be demobilized once removal activities are completed, confirmation data provided, and authorization to demobilize is provided from the Contracting Officer.

26. Scope of Work Section 9.2.1 states that a minimum of 75 days should be accounted for to obtain an Archeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) permit before subsurface disturbance can occur. Scope of Work Section 3.18.4 requires completion of the removal action and confirmation sampling is 120 calendar days after the NTP is issued. Given that the Contractor has no control over the timeframe for ARPA permit approval, is the government willing to change the period of performance requirement for completion of the removal action and confirmation sampling to the greater of 120 days or 60 days after approval of the ARPA permit?

a. The POP is 260 days after NTP (see #24).

b. If obtaining the ARPA permit delays implementation of removal actions, the government will consider increasing the period of performance for completion of the removal action and confirmation sampling.

c. Note that the two burn sites at the Moraine Park Stables area do not require archeological monitoring and may proceed prior to the ARPA permit being issued.

27. Does the performance period for completion of fieldwork include the optional work at Fern Lake Ranger Station and Betty Dick Garage?

a. Yes

28. It is understood that the Optional Betty Dick Site and the Fern Lake Ranger Station locations may or may not be awarded initially and the Contracting Officer may exercise optional CLINs after award. Can we assume that if awarded they will both be awarded so as to perform the work during the same mobilization as the other Sites included in the base award?

a. The SOW indicates that NPS has the unilateral right to exercise work at these optional sites within 60 days after contract award.

b. NPS does not control the contractor’s scheduling and will not comment on this assumption.

29. For structures where archeological monitoring is needed and that are previously recorded sites, does the NPS want updated OAHP site forms to be completed for each resource to reflect their current, destroyed status? Or are OAHP forms only required when a new discovery occurs?

a. OAHP forms are only required when a new discovery occurs as defined in the

SOW.

30. Can you provide GPS friendly locations or maps showing equipment delivery and contractor staging areas for the east and west sides of the Park?

a. The only approved staging areas are within the site boundaries themselves and must be located on paved or hardened surfaces. Contractor shall not create any new ground or soil disturbance for staging. The contractor will be required to restore any unapproved ground disturbance to preconstruction conditions at their own expense.

31. Table 2 provided in the Statement of Work referencing type and total number of confirmation samples does not match the types and quantities provided in Table 2A of the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). Please verify the types of analysis and number of samples of each analysis per work site required.

a. Table 2A of the SAP was utilized for the Phase I initial site investigation sampling. Table 2B of the SAP is to be used for confirmation sampling included in this SOW. Table 2 of the SOW and Table 2B of the SAP match, except for four structures (Grand Lake Entrance Station, Harbison Picnic Area Vault Toilet, Timber Creek Road Camp Barn and Timber Creek Tack Shed) which are not included in this SOW. Table 2 of the SOW is specific to this project and accurate regarding the types and numbers of samples required.

32. SOW Table 2 and SAP. Does the 10% field duplicate guidance also apply to the ISM soil sampling? It is noted that triplicates for each DU/SU are already being taken. By applying the triplicate results for these data quality objectives instead, it would quantify any lab error which will be useful for the low dioxin action levels.

a. The 10% duplicate requirement applies to ISM soil sampling. While the triplicate samples provide insights regarding variance of concentrations within each sampling unit, it does not address the precision of individual sample results.

33. SOW Table 3: Background concentrations are listed as “to be provided” and note 3 states “Site Specific Background concentrations determined from each of the six background locations and compared to the projects sites in the immediate vicinity.”

Are the Site-Specific Background Concentrations provided in Attachment 2 tables the same as the “To Be Provided” column in Table 3 of the SOW?

a. Conceptually yes. However, the tables provided in Attachment 2 are draft and still being refined. Background values presented in Attachment 2 may differ from final values, although the general magnitude of the values should be similar. Final background values will be provided after contract award.

34. SOW Section 9.3: Is the Contractor or the Government responsible for identifying and compensating the Environmental Consulting or Environmental Remediation contractor?

a. The Contractor.

35. SOW Section 9.3: Must the employee of an Environmental Consulting or Environmental Remediation contractor be from the prime contractor, or may they be employed by the prime’s teaming subcontractor(s)?

a. Daily environmental oversight may be performed by the prime company or the prime’s subcontractor(s). Per SOW Section 9.3, this employee must be under the direction of the Environmental Professional.

36. RFP Section L5. Item 1 for the Part I Technical Information is “1. List of successfully completed contracts demonstrating relevant experience in work that is similar in type and complexity, with brief description of the project….”. RFP Section M2. Item 1. A.

Relevant Prior Experience (corporate). States, “… The Government will evaluate the firm’s direct participation in comparable contracts or orders, including current contracts if >80% complete.”

Is a comparable contract or order performed by a primary subcontractor or teaming partner considered relevant in Sub-Factor 1A?.

a. Yes, we will consider experience of a primary (first-tier) subcontractor or teaming partner if the proposal includes a Letter of Commitment from the subcontractor or teaming partner. The proposed entity will be subject to the substitution requirements established for key personnel in RFP Paragraph H.6.

b. In M.2 1.A, substitute the word “team” for “firm.” The team includes the prime contractor and all first-tier subcontractors and/or teaming partners subject to substitution requirements. We recognize that many areas of expertise are required to perform the work successfully and proposals may include a variety of arrangements.

37. Are the Key Personnel to include in the proposal, the four listed in Section 10.12, 10.13, 10.14, and 10.15 of Attachment 1, SOW?

a. Yes, the positions listed in 10.12, 10.13, 10.14, and 10.15 of Attachment 1 are to be filled by key personnel. Submit documentation listed in RFP Section L.5 for each person who will serve in these positions.

38. RFP Section L.5 Proposal Contents: If a contractor has exceptions to or suggestions regarding the contract Terms and Conditions, where should these be included, in Part II (Offer and Business Information)?

a. Include them in the relevant part: if suggesting changes to the SOW then include them in Part I; if suggesting changes to the RFP/contract, include them in Part II.

Refer to FAR provision 52.215-1 Alt II.

39. RFP Section L.6 Proposal Submission Methods: Should the contractor submit Form 2 (Contract Price Schedule) as a separate excel file also?

a. This is acceptable but not required.

40. RFP Section M2. page 38 of 39, 2.0 Past Performance. Reference to “2. Past Performance Factors: …. The past performance of the offeror and its proposed septic installer on projects similar in scope and complexity (i.e. relevant to the current project) will be evaluated in the areas of quality, timeliness, business relations, and cost control.” It appears this reference to “septic installer” is a typo or hangover from another solicitation. Will NPS please clarify?

a. The words “and its proposed septic installer” are hereby stricken from that section.

41. RFP Section L5, the RFP does not specify what is required to be submitted for Factor

2. Then in Section M.2 Evaluation Factors for Award, 2 Past Performance Factors states that the approach for evaluating past performance will be through written or telephonic surveys.

For which contracts will NPS evaluate the past performance through written or telephonic surveys?

a. We will gather past performance information from “past contracts identified” [in the proposal], performance reports in CPARS, and any other sources we deem useful, as stated in that factor.

What shall the offeror include in Factor 2? Shall the offeror submit the CPARS (or PPQ or other documented performance assessments, if CPARS is not available) for contracts presented in Subfactor 1A?

a. NPS will contact owners and POCs to gather past performance information. The proposal does not need to include PPQs.

42. Form 4 - Limitations on Subcontracting Worksheet. In row 12, the referenced NAICS appears to be incorrect “NAICS 237110”. Please revise to NAICS 562910 to match the current solicitation.

a. You may correct the form prior to submission.

43. RFP Section L5. PART II – OFFER AND BUSINESS INFORMATION. Form 6

– General References or similar document states “This form contains a listing of reference information related to the offeror's surety, bank, insurance company, and material suppliers.” It is noted that Form 6 does not require information about material suppliers and the reference appears to be an error. Please remove “and material suppliers”.

a. You may disregard or delete “material suppliers” prior to submission.

44. RFP Section M.2. A. Relevant Prior Experience (corporate). Comparable contracts or orders is defined “1) Non-Time Critical Removal Actions (NTCRAs) or Time Critical Removal Actions (TCRA) under CERCLA, of similarly complex sites with similar characteristics, including similar contaminants and affected media, particularly structure sites damaged by disaster (e.g., fire, flood, earthquake, etc.), …” Since response actions for “structure sites damaged by disaster” are by nature performed as expedited actions, not under the guidance of CERCLA, will NPS move up the reference to this type of contract as a new category 2) in this list of “comparable contracts or orders”, and assign these contracts a higher favorable evaluation rating (Section M2) due to their extreme similarity to the scope of this solicitation?

a. We will not create a new category of comparable relevant experience. Note that

RFP M.2.A states “Experience conducting similar environmental remediation and investigation services performed pursuant to different regulatory authorities are less comparable but will be evaluated.”

45. SOW Section 10.12: This section identifies the Environmental Professional as holding a “current Professional Engineer’s or Professional Geologist’s license or registration” in Colorado. However, Colorado does not currently require licensure or registration of geologists. Please confirm the Environmental Professional shall instead fulfills the requirements of a “professional geologist” as defined in the Colorado Statutes.

a. The Environmental Professional qualifications in the SOW are revised to individuals who fulfill the requirements of a “professional geologist” as defined in Colorado statutes or a licensed Professional Engineer who has the minimum years of relevant experience listed in the SOW.

46. Why are bid, payment, and performance bonds required for this CERCLA TCRA?

a. Bonds are required per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 28.102.

47. Is the due date for the proposal 11AM on Wednesday, May 24th (per the original solicitation, issued 24 April 2023) or 11AM on Tuesday, May 23rd (per Amendment 1, issued 05 May 2023)?

a. As of Amendment 2, proposals are due by 11:00 am on Thursday, June 1, 2023.

48. Will you provide a list of firms that submitted questions in response to this solicitation?

a. Questions were submitted by Warmouth Environmental Services Inc., ATI Inc., ECC Infrastructure LLC, Environmental Works, ENVECO Environmental Solutions LLC, and Engineering/Remediation Resources Group Inc. (ERRG).

49. There are some errors in Form 2, Price Schedule.

a. A revised form dated 5-10-23 is provided with this amendment. Formulas in cells E27, E41, and E52 have been corrected.

50. RFP Section L5. Part I Technical Information. “Item 3. Proposed schedule.” Please confirm the proposed schedule may be presented on B size (11x17 inch) sheets for clarity and to facilitate Government review.

a. This is acceptable.

51. RFP Section L5. Part I Technical Information. “Item 6. Identify the proposed project team, including prime contractor support roles and anticipated subcontractor trades, and a brief description of their roles and responsibilities on a one-page organizational chart or list.” Please confirm the response to Item 6 may be presented on a B size sheet (11x17 inch) to accommodate all the required information.

a. This is acceptable.