Attachment_4c_Clarifications_63_-_84_0003.pdf

Removal of Impacted Soil at Grant Grove Burn Dumpsite Kings Canyon National Park Attachment 4c: Clarifications 63 - 84

Clarifications 63 - 84 for Solicitation #140P2124R0002

Amendment 3 posted on 1/10/24

Questions deferred from earlier amendments

11. Statement of Work (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 native backfill material will come from up to four different locations within 30 miles of the Grant Grove site. There are minimal or no access restrictions at the locations.

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 backfill is in piles and is not compacted. The material is a mix of topsoil, decomposed granite, and small rocks. Option B is loose cubic yards.

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

a) No. See Question 63 below.

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?

a) This is unknown at time of solicitation since NPS has not yet completed a determination of eligibility (DOE) of the Grant Grove Historic Dump for the National Register as required by 36 CFR 800 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Additional contractor tasks to support NPS compliance with Section 106 have been added to Attachment 1a, Revised Statement of Work, in Section 12.

b) Use revised Form 3 to articulate the price for the Section 106 activities under CLIN 1.

c) We also added Option J in SOW Section 11 for archeological monitoring services during ground-disturbing activities. Enter price in revised Forms 2 and 3.

55. Is it necessary to fence the entire site where operations will take place, and if so, what type of fencing is recommended?

a) There is no need to fence the site. Install a sign at the gated entrance warning people that this is an active construction zone and to keep out.

New questions

63. Which CLIN will NPS use to compensate contractors for removal and disposal of the existing piles of asphalt/concrete/wood chips? Will NPS use the per ton rate provided in Option G (transport and dispose of non-hazardous soil and debris), or are contractors expected to include these costs in the lump sum price provided in CLIN 2 (non-removal site activities)?

a. Include disposal of asphalt and concrete in Option G if the disposal site for non-hazardous soil accepts these materials and it is the cheapest place to transport and dispose of them.

b. NPS has defined new Option H: Load, transport, and dispose of surplus stockpiled wood chips at an appropriate composting facility (preferred) or landfill. Payment will be for the actual quantity at the unit price per ton. Quantity will be measured by adding up weight tickets from disposal site. There is no estimated quantity due to lack of stockpile measurements and unknown quantity to be used in site restoration. Use Revised Forms 2 and 3 provided with Amendment 3.

c. NPS has defined new Option I to be used if the disposal facility in Option G doesn’t accept these materials or is more expensive: Load, transport, and dispose of asphalt and concrete at a recycling facility (preferred) or an appropriate landfill.

Payment will be for the actual quantity at the unit price per ton. Quantity will be measured by adding up weight tickets from disposal site. There is no estimated quantity. Use Revised Forms 2 and 3 provided with Amendment 3.

d. The unit prices of Options H, I, and J will be evaluated for price reasonableness, similar to Option G (see RFP M.1 C, Evaluation of Options).

64. RFP Section L, “11. Hazardous Substance Removal Certification, issued by the State of California, for companies performing covered work." Are you requesting that we provide a copy of this certification or confirmation that the company performing this work is certified to do so?

a. Include evidence of the certification in Part I, Technical Information, of the proposal. This can be a photo of the business license card or a screen shot from the California State License Board (Check A License - CSLB (ca.gov)). The evidence must show the contractor’s name, HAZ certification, and include the expiration date.

65. With California bill AB334 taking effect on January 1st is the response to question 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?) still “yes”?

a. The answer is still “yes”.

66. Is there a specification for the import material defined as Option A?

a. No.

67. SOW 2.4 See the final engineering evaluation/Cost analysis report. The link provided cannot be accessed. Please provide this final report

a. Request permission from the site administrator to be added. You may need to log in to a

Microsoft account but are not required to log in to a DOI account.

68. Are there any test results indicating the existing stockpile is "clean" and usable material?

a. No.

https://cslb.ca.gov/OnlineServices/CheckLicenseII/CheckLicense.aspx

69. SOW 4.7.3 Site inspection (SI) Sampling and Analysis (SAP) template - This link does not work, please provide this template. The link takes you to a DOI website where you have to log in your credentials

a. Request permission from the site administrator to be added. You may need to log in to a

Microsoft account but are not required to log in to a DOI account.

70. What is the size and flow rate of the water source located at the Grant Village?

a. We are unable to provide this information prior to the proposal due date.

71. Has the NPS spoken to McKittrick regarding the project? If so, can you forward the contact name/email/phone number?

a. No.

72. SOW Section 8.4: Are there any known permits that the contractor should be aware of at the time of bid?

a. It is the contractor’s responsibility to research permit requirements.

73. Attachment 4a Q&A #26: What waste class should the Contractor base the transport/disposal of wood chips? Can an alternate location within the park be identified for the surplus chip waste? Possibly at the clean fill borrow site.

a. Refer to Q&A #63.

74. WP Section 6.2 Recondition Excavated Areas & 6.3: Does this apply to the NPS furnished clean fill borrow site? If so, what level of restoration is required for this location?

a. The WP does not apply at the borrow sites; restoration is not required there.

75. WP Section 5.2.6 & SOW Section 6.1.1: The RFP section 5.2.6 notes “Revegetation will be completed by NPS”. The SOW section 6.1.1 notes “The slopes must be hydro-mulched or a stabilized with the application of a bonded fiber matrix. SOW Section 6.1.1 notes “rocks” not used to restore the site must be removed by the contractor. What defines when “rocks” cannot be used and would require removal from the site?

a. The restoration materials need to be mix of soil, organic materials and small to medium rocks. If a large number of larger boulder-size rocks are discovered during the excavation some of rocks will be to be relocated in the park or disposed of outside of the park. The goal of restoration is to create an area where native fauna and flora can repopulate the form dump area.

76. If hydro-mulching (or) bonded fiber stabilization is required, can you define the SOW, the required seed and slurry design, and a total SF area to receive the materials?

a. These details will be determined after award as part of the product submittal process. The total square foot area will be measured by the contractor upon completion of the removal activities.

77. Attachment 4a Q&A #37 & #38: To establish a fair evaluation of the offers, can the pricing schedule include a minimum incremental over-excavation quantity for the contractors to bid for?

a. No, because the quantity is unknown. NPS will evaluate the unit-priced options at a variety of quantities to determine unit price reasonableness and compare the total value of offers under different scenarios.

78. Attachment 4a Q&A #31. NPS has allowed for a 23 ton per load invoicing in the event the landfill charges a flat per load disposal fee. In most cases, unless the waste stream is classified as hazardous requiring special handling/treatment, the landfill facilities will simply charge for the tonnages that are received. The trucking associated with the off haul is an additional consideration; typically, the trucking industry will charge by the ton with a minimum tonnage per truck load. Question: Can the RFP be modified to include a minimum invoicing allowance per truck load for the transportation (say 20-22 tons per load) (or) a per load rate based on a known truck capacity?

a. No. The unit prices per ton for Options E, F, G, H, and I should account for the per-load minimum tonnage pricing requirements imposed by the transportation subcontractor.

79. The RFP specifies RCRA and non-hazardous soil disposal options. Class II disposal is considered a Non-hazardous waste classification. The price schedule Option E request pricing for a “RCRA Class II landfill”. Option F request pricing for a “RCRA Class I landfill”. Questions:

Please clarify if Option E is for hazardous waste or a Class II non-hazardous waste.

Did the NPS mean to have Option E specify a “Class I Non-RCRA (California- Hazardous)” landfill direct waste stream?

Please clarify if Option F is for a RCRA Landfill direct waste stream (or) RCRA waste stream requiring pre-treatment prior to landfill disposition.

Please clarify if Option G is for a Class II non-hazardous waste stream.

a. The option definitions in the SOW are accurate. Option E is intended for Class II wastes -wastes that do not require disposal at a Class I facility. Option F is intended for Class I wastes that cannot be taken to any other type of facility in California. Option G is for non-hazardous waste that is free of contamination.

80. Can the NPS provide a marked-up plan showing the hazard trees to be removed? Can the NPS provide information of the “Hazard Trees” to include estimated height and DBH dimensions?

a. No; it is up to the contractor to determine which trees are hazardous and in the way of their operations.

81. Can the NPS furnish “Bid To” quantities for the existing asphalt/concrete debris, soil mound, gravel mounds and rock piles?

a. No; we do not have estimated quantities. See Q&A #63.

82. For the traffic control. Are there any required State of California permits for Hwy 180?

a. It is up to the contractor to research state permit requirements.

83. WP Section 5.2.2.2 notes “Once mobilized to the Site, the Contractor will provide temporary barriers to protect existing trees” and “The TPZ for each tree will be demarcated with marking paint or demarcation flagging.” For the TPZ around the 12 identified trees, are we to install a physical barrier (or) just paint/demarcation flagging? If a barrier is required, can a requirement be provided i.e... stakes w/ snow fencing?

a. Refer to SOW 8.2, which states that temporary barriers are required. We do not have a specification for those barriers.

84. At the NPS borrow sites:

a) Will the contractor have to include a SWPPP and BMP? No.

b) Will the contractor have to clear/grub? No; the clean fill material is in piles.

c) What will the traffic control entail? We do not anticipate that traffic control will be required at the borrow sites.

d) Will we have chance to visit the borrow site? Noting the entire park is now covered with snow. Not prior to the solicitation closing.

Note that Amendment 3 incorporates revised versions of two attachments; these revisions replace the original attachments:

• Attachment 1a, Revised Statement of Work.

• Attachment 3b, Revised Wage Determination CA20240018 1-5-24 heavy EXCERPT.

The proposals are now due by 9:00 am on January 19, 2024.