Attachment_4a_Clarifications_1_-_54_0001.pdf

Removal of Impacted Soil at Grant Grove Burn Dumpsite Kings Canyon National Park Attachment 4a: Clarifications 1 – 54

Clarifications 1 – 54 for Solicitation #140P2124R0002

Amendment 1 posted on 12/8/23

Site visit was held on 11/29/23; the list of attendees is on the final three pages of this document.

The meeting was convened at the Grant Grove visitor center at 11:00 am PT by Contracting Officer Sarah Welch, who said “Welcome! Thank you all for your attendance at this site visit and your interest in this CERCLA response action at Grant Grove former Waste Disposal Area.

I’m Sarah Welch, the Contracting Officer and source selection authority for this project. I hope you have had a chance to review the solicitation, Statement of Work, and additional reports. The purpose of today’s meeting is to show you the site and for you to become familiar with the logistics of working here. We do not intend to review the RFP or SOW and will take only limited verbal questions related to the site.

A few administrative details:

• Please register on the sign-in sheet and indicate if you are a potential prime or sub-contractor. You may also leave a business card.

• There are restroom facilities here; there are no facilities at the site.

• Please refrain from side conversations during the tour. We’d like everyone to hear the same information.

• After this introduction, we’ll caravan to the gated site for a walking tour to show you points of interest related to this work, after which we’ll reconvene for limited questions.

You’re welcome to remain onsite to look at any areas more closely, take measurements, etc., for about an hour afterwards. Ground disturbance is prohibited.

Reminders about the solicitation:

• Nothing said today changes the terms, conditions, requirements, or specifications of the solicitation and eventual contract. All changes will be formalized and incorporated by formal written amendment(s) to the RFP and posted at SAM.gov.

• As previously mentioned, we will take only limited questions during this site visit.

Submit all questions to me, ideally referencing the particular section of the SOW or RFP.

Questions received by 3:00 pm PT on December 4 will be answered in an amendment posted at SAM approximately a week later. It will include notes from the site visit and a list of attendees.

• Additional questions received up to seven days prior to the due date will be answered in later amendment(s) posted at SAM.

• I encourage you to thoroughly review Sections L and M of the solicitation, which describe our evaluation process, define the evaluation factors, and include detailed instructions about what to include in your proposal and how to submit it.

• Proposals are currently due on January 9 at 1:00 pm PT unless extended by amendment.

• This acquisition is set aside for Indian Small Business Economic Enterprises (ISBEEs).”

Other NPS site visit participants: Mr. Gary Riley, Regional Environmental Program Coordinator;

Ms. Carolyn Tatoian Cain, Environmental Protection Specialist; and Ms. Kelly Roche, Safety and Occupational Health Specialist.

Questions submitted prior to 3:00 pm on 12/4/23:

1) Section 3.9.2 of Attachment 1, Statement of Work (SOW), states “All entities (prime and subcontractors) to whom the requirements apply shall have a Hazardous Substance Removal Certification (HAZ), issued by the State of California, upon submission of a proposal and for the duration of covered activities.” 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? Note that Section L of the RFP also requires a Hazardous Substance Removal Certificate issued by the State of California.

a) Only contractors “to whom the requirements apply” (meaning the company/companies performing the types of work covered by the state certification) must have HAZ certification. If the prime will not perform covered work, then the prime is not required to have the certification and only the subcontractor’s HAZ must be active when the proposal is due and for the duration of the covered activities. If relying on a subcontractor’s HAZ, include Teaming Agreement or letter of commitment in the proposal.

2) SOW 4.3 bullet #8 indicates that fieldwork should be planned during the dry season, approximately June to September. Bullet #10 indicates work involving the closure of the horse trail and traffic controls shall not occur until 9/9/24. These two bullets leave less than one month to complete the fieldwork, which is likely not enough time to complete the removal activities. Which schedule constraint takes precedence, horse trail closure or wet season work?

a) Both bullets apply; refer to the conceptual schedule at the end of the SOW. On-site preparatory activities are allowed once the NTP is issued, estimated in late June. There is no requirement to complete the removal action by 9/30/23. Removal action work must conclude by Day 245 after award to comply with the post-removal submittal deadlines and reviews within the 320-day performance period.

3) Are there any time periods during which excavation cannot be performed due to ecological, cultural, or other restrictions?

a) Excavation must occur outside of bird nesting season (February 1- August 15) and fisher denning limited operating period (LOP: March 1- June 30). Excavation shall not occur prior to the agreed upon September start date (9/9/2024) due to the proximity of the concessioner/Grant Grove stables’ stock use of the adjacent trails. Noise disturbance above ambient levels should also be avoided prior to the agreed upon September start date for all of the above reasons. Also refer to potential fire season restrictions in SOW 8.18.1.

4) According to SOW 5.2.2.2 Excavation and Demarcation, the contractor will clear brush to expose the soil. Will the brush (tree limbs and heavy brush) above the ground surface be disposed of as green waste or left on site (either adjacent to the work zone or placed within the work zone as part of the restoration)? If the contractor is to remove it from the site entirely, where should it be taken? If simply moved to an adjacent area outside of the work zone, please describe the location and any placement requirements.

a) Green waste that is chipped can be placed on disturbed soil per SOW 6.2.4. Remaining chips and non-chippable green waste should be removed from the park and taken offsite to appropriate legal location for disposal.

5) SOW 8.3 related to hazard trees is ambiguous and has price impacts. Can NPS decide now whether trunks and limbs from felled hazard trees will remain on site to be used in the restoration or get hauled out of the park?

a) NPS has determined that the contractor may chip hazard tree green waste to use as mulch or remove it (chipped or whole) per Q&A #4.

6) According to SOW 5.2.2.2 Excavation and Demarcation, the contractor will provide temporary barriers for the tree protection zones and no ground disturbance will be allowed within these zones. However, in the general area of GPR line G-349 (figure 4) there are several trees that will limit excavation. Will hand sorting suffice for top surface debris in the tree protection zones?

a) Hand sorting is sufficient in the TPZs.

7) SOW 8.1: Will the NPS identify trees that are to be protected at the site prior to the proposal due date? If not, can they be marked on one of the WP figures?

a) Yes. There are approximately 12 trees to be protected, that were flagged with yellow flagging nailed to tree prior to the site visit.

b) Eight hazard trees have been identified, marked with blue paint, and tagged with brass tag on North side. The contractor shall fell the hazard trees during site clearance (SOW 5.2) and either remove the green waste or chip it per Q&As #4 and 5.

8) Work Plan (WP) 5.2.2.2: If any trees are to be protected, will the full tree protection zone (TPZ) radius be required?

a) The general TPZ in the WP is supplemented by the specific dimensions in the table below provided by the park forester. Contractors shall avoid or minimize disturbance within these tree protection zones; see Q&A #6. If necessary, exceptions will be discussed on a case-by-case basis with the forester.

Tree Number

Species Diameter

4.5 ft above ground (In)

TPZ Radius (Ft)

1 Sugar Pine 64 64 2 Sugar Pine 52 52 3 Jeffrey Pine 42 42 4 Incense Cedar 16 16 5 Black Oak 26 26 6 Incense Cedar 36 36 7 Incense Cedar 36 36 8 Jeffrey Pine 36 36 9 Jeffrey Pine 38 38

10 Jeffrey Pine 34 34

Tree Number

Species Diameter

4.5 ft above ground (In)

TPZ Radius (Ft)

11 Jeffrey Pine 48 48 12 Sugar Pine 24 24

9) Are there any weight restrictions on equipment to be used at the site, particularly near tree roots?

a) SOW 2.10 states that the maximum gross vehicle weight on SEKI roads for all activities in this SOW are 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, 20,000 pounds on a single axle, and 34,000 pounds on a tandem axle group. There are no additional weight restrictions for equipment at the site.

10) Is NPS aware of any truck length restrictions in the park or on Highway 180?

a) 65 feet maximum inside the park, outside the park refer to California law.

11) SOW 5.2.6 Backfill and Site Restoration – where are the NPS borrow pits for native backfill material located? Are there any access restrictions?

a) The response to this question will be in a future amendment.

12) Please describe the native backfill material (e.g. percent of rocks, rock sizes, how compact it

is) and its current disposition (e.g. is it in a stockpile or does the contractor need to dig it out of the ground or from a sidehill?).

a) The response to this question will be in a future amendment.

13) Definition of Line Items and Price Schedule. Are the units of Options A (imported soil) and B (NPS-furnished soil), bank cubic yards or loose cubic yards?

a) Option A is loose cubic yards. Option B’s unit will be further defined in a future amendment (bank vs loose); see Q&A #12.

14) How will quantities of Options A and B be measured?

a) See SOW 11, Definition of Line Items. Option A includes “Payment will be made at the unit price for the actual quantity of clean soil as indicated by loading tickets from the source (weight tickets are preferred over cubic yard measurements).” The same section includes, for Option B, “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.”

15) Will the contractor be required to conduct an engineering survey or condition assessment of the access road before mobilization of equipment and after de-mobilization to identify damage caused by their activities?

a) The response to this question will be in a future amendment.

16) Will the contractor be required to repair the access road after de-mobilization?

a) The contractor must leave the access road in similar or improved condition as compared to existing condition. Do not widen the road, prune vegetation, or expand the current disturbed 11-ft width unless the COR grants prior approval to do so.

17) The site access gate may be too narrow for equipment and trucks to negotiate the corner to enter the site. Is the contractor allowed or required to make modifications to the gate during the removal action or after?

a) Yes, with prior acceptance of the proposed modifications by NPS. The contractor must adequately secure the site from unauthorized entry during the removal action; use of a similar wider gate is acceptable. Prior to demobilization, re-install the original gate or leave the new gate in place to match the functionality of the gate pre-removal.

18) To the left of the entrance, a water line riser was observed. Will NPS trace and mark the water line before the removal contractor mobilizes?

a) NPS is not confident of location. Contractor will need to trace and mark the water line path per SOW 8.4.

19) Please identify potential water sources for contractor use during the removal action and any requirements for using the water (e.g. metering, advance permission, access).

a) Water should be available in the Grant Village area, most likely near the maintenance yard. The contractor must supply a backflow device and meter, install them per industry standards, and remove them prior to de-mobilization inspection. NPS will charge the contractor the 2024 rate (not yet determined). For pricing consistency among offerors, use $35 per 1,000 gallons and an estimated quantity of 120,000 gallons.

20) Are there any known utilities inside the removal action boundaries?

a) The only known utility is the potential water line (see Q&A #18). The Contractor is expected to use their expertise, judgement, and reasonable diligence to discover and locate unknown utilities prior to mobilization. See SOW 8.4: Contractor shall be responsible for locating and preventing damage to known utilities. If damage occurs, repair of the utility will be done at no additional expense to the Government.

21) SOW 5.7.2: If approved by the receiving facility, can waste characterization samples be collected in-situ (as opposed to stockpile samples)?

a) Yes. This work may occur prior to September 9, 2024.

22) Are there any restrictions on how the contractor accesses the lower sections of the site?

a) Yes. Access must be from the top as previously identified. No access for equipment from the horse trail. Discuss any potential access requests with the COR and park POC.

23) SOW 5.8: Will NPS provide a designated truck staging area for waste off-haul trucks prior to being loaded at the site? If so, please describe its characteristics and location relative to the project site.

a) No. The contractor will need to make arrangements for staging within the site. There may be an opportunity to use an existing roadside pullout depending on the timing of work.

24) WP 5.2.2.4 Soil Stockpiling: Will NPS calculate the quantity of existing wood chips for the contractor to remove?

a) No. Offerors may use information they gathered during the site visit. NPS will attempt to measure the approximate length, width, and height of the chip pile and/or take some photos, and provide the information in a future amendment.

25) WP 5.2.2.3 and SOW 6.1.1: Where should the contractor take the wood chips, gravel, asphalt, and other items currently located in the staging area?

a) The materials should be hauled out of the park and disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

26) What should the contractor do with excess new wood chips (beyond what will be used in restoration in SOW 6.1.1)?

a) Excess chips should be hauled out of park and disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations; also see Q&A #4.

27) What are the compaction requirements for the proposed backfill placement?

a) The response to this question will be in a future amendment.

28) Will restoration methods beyond those listed in SOW 6.1.1 be required to ensure that the backfill soil does not wash out during a rain event?

a) Yes, if needed to meet slope stabilization and soil and stormwater management best practices.

29) SOW 6.2.3: Does the NPS have a list of approved weed-free backfill sources?

a) No. We may be able to provide this in a future amendment.

30) The SOW indicates that there are an estimated 7,400 bank cubic yards (BCY) of material to excavate and dispose, which is further described as approximately 9,650 loose cubic yards.

The SOW and price sheet describe the material as having an estimated mass of 9,988 tons.

Can you share how the mass was calculated from the estimated volume?

a) (7,400 BCY) times (1.35 BCY/ton) equals 9,990 tons. Also see WP Page 11.

31) SOW 1.4, the estimated volume of excavation (7,400 cubic yards) and quantities of waste disposal (9,988 tons) indicate the waste soil is approximately 1.35 tons/cubic yard. At that density, haul trucks’ capacity may be limited by volume as opposed to weight. If contractors are charged a minimum tonnage for disposal (typically 23 tons/load), will NPS compensate contractors for the minimum tonnage, or only for the tonnage listed on the weight ticket?

a) In general, NPS will pay the contract unit price per ton for the quantity shown on the weight tickets. For loads that don’t meet the landfills’ minimum tonnage and for which a flat disposal fee is charged, the contractor may invoice NPS for the minimum tonnage (e.g. 23 tons) at the contract unit price.

32) 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) The response to this question will be in a future amendment.

33) If archaeological or cultural resources are encountered during the project, where on the pricing schedule should contractors include costs for potential downtime related to stopped work?

a) You may include it in CLIN 1 under general contract administration and project oversight (see Form 3).

34) Campsites within SEKI can be difficult to secure. Will NPS block-off campsite reservations within SEKI for contractor use? Or will contractors have to compete with the public for campsite reservations?

a) NPS will not reserve campsites or lodging for contractor use.

35) The ISM confirmation samples analyses include dioxins/furans, which have an unavoidably long laboratory turnaround time. The schedule for heavy equipment work is limited by external constraints (limitations on when we may close the horse trails and when we’re likely to have suitable weather.) It is possible that there is not enough time in the field season to receive confirmation dioxin/furan results and backfill. How does the NPS intend this to be scheduled, e.g., does the NPS intend for us to demobilize and leave the excavation open? If so, do we need to protect or winterize the excavation in any way?

a) During the time that confirmation samples are being analyzed, protect the site in accordance with the SWPPP and ECP. Monitor weather forecasts and if a season-ending event is predicted prior to receipt of results, implement measures to winterize the site to reduce the likelihood of erosion, run-on intrusion from the site to adjacent areas, and sloughing of slopes. Contractor shall describe a Site-specific approach for NPS’ concurrence. NPS will waive the requirement in SOW 7.1, allow demobilization after the inspection in 7.2, negotiate an extension to the performance period for the remaining work, and formalize it in a written modification to the contract. Unless otherwise negotiated, the extension will be calculated by suspending the contract clock as of the day of de-mobilization. The contractor shall resume operations as soon as the site is accessible and conditions are appropriate; the contract clock will resume when operations resume. Notify NPS at least one week prior to work resumption.

36) WP 5.2.3 states that “Results of the confirmation sampling must show that the Site meets RGs prior to backfill and Site restoration.” Can we assume that this requirement is simply that each ISM confirmation sample’s results are below the remediation goals (RGs) in Table 1? Or is some more complicated assessment desired?

a) If an individual ISM sample is above the RGs, then the human health and/or ecological risk assessor would calculate the new exposure point concentration over the entire exposure area.

37) Please elaborate on WP 5.2.3: If an ISM confirmation sample for a given portion of an excavation exceeds one or more RGs, how much deeper will the excavation be extended? If the ISM sample includes sidewall samples, how much will the excavation need to be extended laterally? Laterally in all directions, or using some set of decision inputs and rules?

a) Dig no deeper than four feet from the Site’s final horizon height (must be at least four feet of cover).

b) If an individual ISM side wall sample is above RGs, then the human health and/or ecological risk assessor would calculate the new exposure point concentration (EPC) over the entire exposure area. If the newly calculated EPC is above RGs, then continue lateral excavation until sidewall samples or the EPC are below RGs.

38) SOW 5.7.1 states that based on the results of confirmation sampling the CO will authorize additional quantities of CLIN 3 if necessary and exercise Options E, F, and/or G in a unilateral contract modification. Please indicate the number of days from receipt of confirmation sample results until the CO authorizes additional quantities of CLINs 3 and associated Options.

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

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

a) You may include it in CLIN 1 under general contract administration and project oversight

(see Form 3).

40) SOW 4.7.10 says “All draft and final deliverables shall be signed/stamped by the

Environmental Professional before submitting to NPS.” Is it the intent of NPS to have the following deliverables (draft and final) signed and stamped by the Environmental Professional (EP)?

• Site Health and Safety Plan (SHASP)

• Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)

• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)

• Erosion Control Plan (ECP)

• Traffic Control Plan (TCP)

• Response Action Completion Reports (RACR)

a) No, of the documents listed above, only the SAP and RACR are required to be stamped by the EP.

41) Can the Human Health Risk Assessor and Ecological Risk Assessor key person be the same individual (dual hat)?

a) Yes, see SOW Section 9.6.2.

42) Are there specific tasks that you anticipate the human health risk assessor and ecological risk assessor performing? (Also see the question above regarding evaluation of whether RGs are met.) Or is their availability more of a contingency in the event of unexpected conditions or changes in requirements? If the latter, is there a number of hours of their time that we should include for estimating purposes?

a) See responses to Questions 36 and 37.

43) Can the Site Safety and Health Officer and On-site Quality Control Representative be the same individual (dual hat)?

a) Yes.

44) While this is a non-mandatory requirement, given this is an ISBEE small business set aside, the requirement for the Regulatory Specialist to hold a juris doctor (J.D.) degree seems like an unduly restrictive requirement. Will the Government consider removing this?

a) No. Note this not a “requirement”, it is a “non-mandatory qualification”. See SOW

Section 9.10 for the description and RFP M.2.1.D for how it will be evaluated.

45) RFP submission, Executive Summary. Form 4 showing comparable aspects of relevant experience once completed likely will take up 1 full page. We respectfully request that NPS allow up to 2 pages for the Executive Summary, so contractors may provide a brief introduction regarding our past relevant qualifications.

a) NPS will allow two pages for the summary, including the relevant experience table.

46) May the various forms to be included in Proposal Part I be modified, including but not limited to removing instructions, changing fonts and shading colors, etc., as long as the primary relevant content remains the same?

a) Yes.

47) The SOW 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) The use of biobased products for erosion and/or dust control is preferred, not required, and will be determined after award based on submittals. Intended use of biobased products will not be evaluated. All offerors are expected to provide prices for Option D, biobased hydraulic fluid in earth-moving equipment so that NPS can decide whether to exercise it.

48) In lieu of potential challenges with requesting and gathering Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) during the holiday season, is it permissible to submit PPQs completed in response to previous solicitations?

a) Yes, existing PPQs may be included in lieu of completing the Microsoft Form if the content and evaluated characteristics are similar.

49) Would NPS like completed CPARS to be submitted with the proposal?

a) No; this is unnecessary.

50) Is the Government’s evaluation approach lowest price technically acceptable or best value?

a) The evaluation strategy is presented in Section M.1.A.3 of the Request for Proposals (RFP) and elsewhere. “The Government will use a tradeoff process for this source selection. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and provides the best value to the Government on the basis of

(1) its technical capability, (2) the Government’s level of confidence in the offeror, and

(3) its offer (price) as described in Section M.2.”

51) FAR provision 52.204-29, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders— Representation and Disclosures (DEC 2023) is added to the solicitation. Full text is available at Federal Register :: Federal Acquisition Regulation: Implementation of Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act (FASCSA) Orders.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/05/2023-21320/federal-acquisition-regulation-implementation-of-federal-acquisition-supply-chain-security-act https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/05/2023-21320/federal-acquisition-regulation-implementation-of-federal-acquisition-supply-chain-security-act

52) FAR clause 52.204–30, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Prohibition (DEC 2023) is added to the contract. Full text is available at Federal Register :: Federal Acquisition Regulation: Implementation of Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act (FASCSA) Orders.

53) FAR clause 52.204-23 Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab and Other Covered Entities is updated to the DEC 2023 version.

54) 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.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/05/2023-21320/federal-acquisition-regulation-implementation-of-federal-acquisition-supply-chain-security-act https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/05/2023-21320/federal-acquisition-regulation-implementation-of-federal-acquisition-supply-chain-security-act https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/05/2023-21320/federal-acquisition-regulation-implementation-of-federal-acquisition-supply-chain-security-act

a) SOW 2.10 states that the maximum gross vehicle weight on SEKI roads for all activities in this SOW are 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, 20,000 pounds on a single axle, and 34,000 pounds on a tandem axle group. There are no additional weight res...