36C24119R0105-009.docx

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED

BPA NO.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE

CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 11/2016)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office.

is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30

PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243 (Type or print) (Type or print) (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (If other than Item 6) (Specify type of modification and authority) (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer) A00002 09-18-2019

689-CSI-109

Department of Veterans Affairs VA Connecticut 950 Campbell Avenue West Haven CT 06516 Department of Veterans Affairs VA Connecticut 950 Campbell Avenue West Haven CT 06516 To all Offerors/Bidders

36C24119R0105 08-21-2019 x x

09/23/19, 11AM

This amendment is issued to disseminate the following information to all interested parties:

(1) Solicitation closing date is extended to 9/23/19 and all proposals are due by 11:00AM Eastern Time.

(2) Contractors' Questions and Government's Responses ... See Pages 3-8

(3) Site Visit attendee list is attached ... See pages 9-10

(4) Veteran Preference ... See Page 11

Christopher J. Field Table of Contents

36C24119R0105

Page 1 of

Page 1 of

Contractor’s Questions and Government’s Response - RFI

1) Is there additional restoration beyond replacing the block wall to match the existing exterior finishes and filling floor openings with concrete to level the floor surface?

Gov’t Response: Refer to the SOW and provide experienced input.

2) Adjacent patient imaging can interfere with sensitive radiation measurements; what is the patient imaging schedule?

Gov’t Response: We perform PET Cardiac scans on Monday & Wednesdays in which we utilize a rubidium generator located in the current PET imaging room. The generator is housed in a lead lined cart and the patient receives ~ 30 mCi per scan. Rubidium has a very short half-life. Given the distance between PET camera and a lead lined wall, there should be essentially zero radiation interference. On Tuesday, Thursday and Friday we use the PET camera for oncology purposes.

We receive a bulk dose of FDG around 7:30am which is unpacked in the hot lab and installed in the MEDRAD Intego delivery system located in the injection/uptake area far away from the cyclotron. The system shielded. We might receive anywhere from 1-4 unit doses on the oncology days which are shielded and stored in the hot lab. Radiation activity is expected to be less than background in and around the hot lab. Patients arrive around 8am and we are usually done scanning by 3:30/4pm.

3) Can normal vibration from wall removal, concrete sawing, and jackhammering within the cyclotron room cause damage to the MEG?

Gov’t Response: Provide your experienced input

4) As one of the attendees was allowed to take a picture of the vendor sign in sheet just as the tour was starting, can a copy of that sheet be shared with those that signed in earlier?

Gov’t Response: A copy of the sign-in sheet is attached

5) Page 6 of the solicitation states “The Contractor shall have the knowledge, expertise, manpower, tools, transportation, licenses, and resources to decommission and remove the Cyclotron”. For the benefit of all bidders, please confirm that by “cyclotron” VA actually means an RDS-112 cyclotron system comprised of the following components: cyclotron, composite shield blocks, integrated lead shields and blocks, water recirculating system, utility support structure, utility cabinets, and cabling.

Gov’t Response: Cyclotron is referring to the RDS-112, and includes all items and areas visited during the tour and as defined in the specification, although the room numbers may be different.

6) Page 6 of the solicitation states “The Contractor shall provide decommissioning and removal plans, transportation and disposal plans. All plans must be pre-approved by the National Health Physics Program and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” It is our experience working with both NHPP and the NRC on multiple projects that they will not accept four separate plans for review and approval, and instead will desire a plan that focuses on the surveys that are used to demonstrate unrestricted release. Can we assume that this usual level of planning is sufficient (i.e., one plan vs. four separate plans) provided NHPP and NRC agree the work may commence?

Gov’t Response: The information should be provided to regulators as one document

7) Page 6 of the solicitation states that the Contractor is responsible for “complete demolition, removal, and construction of all affected walls, floors, and ceilings”. The following questions pertain to this statement.

a. The term “affected” is not defined elsewhere in the solicitation. We expect it is used to describe walls, floors, and ceilings that currently do not meet criteria for unrestricted usage and must be remediated. Is that correct, meaning that walls, floors, and ceilings, or portions thereof which do meet criteria for unrestricted use need not be demolished, removed, or reconstructed?

Gov’t Response: Please refer to the SOW and provide your experienced input in terms of remediation of affected areas.

b. In addition to walls, floors, and ceilings, other apparatus in the room may or may not be releasable and will be assayed including electrical outlets and conduit, cable trays/runs, ceiling tiles and hangers, phone service, wooden benches, doors and knobs, overhead lights and switches, etc. Similar to the discussion above regarding building surfaces, we assume that except for the cyclotron and its associated componentry, only those items assayed and determined to be above unrestricted use criterion are required to be removed and disposed. Is this correct? If not, please provide a list or description of the items or components not specifically part of the RDS-112 cyclotron system that must be removed even if assay shows they are releasable.

Gov’t Response: We believe that paragraph A1- 3, and others, of the SOW indicates what to do with non-activated non-regulated waste.

c. Except for the use of the word “construction” in the statement quoted above, the Scope of Work is silent regarding refurbishment of the work area. During the site visit, however, it was mentioned and repeated that some sort of remodeling effort is expected, and that the “spec” in the solicitation should be observed. As the solicitation does not contain such a specification, can we assume that construction is limited to closing any structural surfaces that are removed 1) to make access for cyclotron removal or 2) because they are “affected” as described above and remediated?

Gov’t Response: There is information about walls and the floor in the SOW. As always work must comply with applicable VA specifications.

d. Various repairs to the concrete floor were discussed during the site visit. Is it sufficient to simply fill voids with concrete or cement, or is a completely new floor throughout desired? If the latter, please provide specifications for the repair.

Gov’t Response: There is information about walls and the floor in the SOW. As always work must comply with applicable VA specifications.

e. There are a variety of steel channels/rails embedded in the concrete floor including an approximately 8-inch deep cable run away from the cyclotron. If these embedded components are assayed and determined to be releasable, may they be left in place? If so, need they be filled with concrete as was mentioned at the site visit?

Gov’t Response: There is information about walls and the floor in the SOW. As always work must comply with applicable VA specifications. We believe that paragraph A1- 3, and others, of the SOW indicates what to do with non-activated non-regulated waste.

f. There is a large electrical service running chest-level through the cyclotron room along the exterior wall that will be removed to remove the cyclotron. This service seems to be powering equipment in an adjacent room that is not related to the RDS-112 cyclotron system. Will VA relocate this electrical service to provide continuity to the adjacent space, or is the contractor responsible? If the latter, please provide specifications.

Gov’t Response: Please refer to the SOW and provide your experienced input.

g. Related to the previous question, please identify any other utilities or services for which the contractor is responsible for providing continuity.

Gov’t Response: Please refer to the SOW and provide your experienced input.

h. A closet-sized utility room was toured during the end of the interior visit. That space appears to serve as a central location for various electric and other utilities servicing that general portion of the building (not just the cyclotron). As this room will not be radiologically impacted, what work if any is expected in it beyond disconnecting RDS-112 system cabling?

Gov’t Response: Please refer to the SOW and provide your experienced input.

i. May contractors utilize installed electric utilities and outlets to operate cyclotron doors and power hand-held equipment?

Gov’t Response: You are responsible for understanding the available power at the time and including a plan to successfully complete the project.

8) Page 7 of the solicitation states “The written report will need to be submitted for and pass regulatory review, so that VA- Connecticut (VACT) is granted ‘free release’ of the entire Cyclotron room.” The following questions pertain to that statement.

a. It is understood according to this statement and other descriptions in the solicitation that a written report will need to be submitted for and pass regulatory review for “free release”, and that any concerns or questions from a regulatory agency will need to be addressed by the Contractor. Nonetheless, the term free-release by itself is not sufficient for project design – an endpoint criterion must be specified. Can we assume that the NRC’s radiological criteria for unrestricted use from 10 CFR § 20.1402 (i.e., a TEDE of 25 mrem per year) will serve as the endpoint criterion? If not, please provide the alternate criteria upon which free-release will be designed.

Gov’t Response: TEDE is as indicated in the SOW

b. Please confirm the statement indicating that the Cyclotron room is the only survey unit for which free release is sought.

Gov’t Response: Incorrect, please refer to the SOW and provide your experienced input.

c. Other work involving radiation and radioactive materials appears to be occurring in adjacent spaces. Radiation from those activities could make the cyclotron room a restricted area even if all of the residual radioactivity from cyclotron operation is remediated and removed. Is the contractor relieved of the responsibility to have its report for free-release approved if the disapproval is due to excess radiation from other work/areas?

Gov’t Response: Please refer to the SOW for clarification of when work is to be performed.

9) Pertaining to the Basis of Award description beginning page 9 of the solicitation, we have the following questions:

a. Regarding Sub-factor 1, the solicitation states “To be evaluated as acceptable the offeror must provide a sample schedule that demonstrates an understanding of and ability to appropriately utilize CPM form requirements.” Our expectation is a simple schedule as the removal, remediation, and surveying is accomplished in series over a period of approximately 2 weeks. Due to the short span, essentially everything is on the critical path. Please confirm that a simple schedule commensurate with the work duration will be evaluated as acceptable.

Gov’t Response: Unacceptable, there is nothing simple about this project. Offerors are expected to present a realistic schedule based upon their experience. The VA’s expectation is that an Offeror will have full knowledge on how to manage this project, not a generic CPM chart, and associated time frames. We put out this solicitation to source a team that has full knowledge of what is involved in our specific situation.

b. Regarding Sub-factor 3, the solicitation states “To be evaluated as acceptable the offeror must provide details of three (3) previous contracts for removal and decommissioning RDS-112 Cyclotrons within the past six (6) years…” That statement is followed by bullets showing details that will be included – one of them is “Facility Disposition (Resulting in Unrestricted Use)”. We have decommissioned the requisite three RDS-112s within the past 6 years, but one of the sites was remediated to unrestricted occupancy levels but not free-released because the client desired to renovate the room for a new cyclotron. We have decommissioned 14 other cyclotrons in the same 6 year time period including 3 RDS-111/Eclipse, and 12 of those sites resulted in unrestricted use (the remaining 2 sites were also reused). Please confirm that this experience will be evaluated as acceptable.

Gov’t Response: We are obligated to use criteria set forth in the solicitation.

10) Question: Section 2.9, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors and Section 4.1, Evaluation Factor Commitments, discuss implementation of evaluation factors for SDVOSB and VOSB utilization, yet the evaluation criteria in the instructions to offerors are silent in this regard. Since two SDVOSBs did attend the site visit and much of the work is able to be accomplished by well qualified SDVOSB and VOSB companies, please describe any considerations that will be given to proposals that substantially utilize such businesses.

Gov’t Response: Veterans Preference

To implement the preference for verified SDVOSBs and VOSBs or planned utilization of SDVOSBs and VOSBs required by VAAR 852.215-70, the government will reduce proposed pricing, for price evaluation purposes only, utilizing the following price reduction adjustments:

1. Verified SDVOSBs will receive a 5% price evaluation preference,

2. Verified VOSBs will receive a 4% price evaluation preference,

3. Small businesses proposing utilization of verified SDVOSBs shall receive a 3% price evaluation preference, and

4. Small businesses proposing utilization of verified VOSBs shall receive a 2% price evaluation preference.

Example

To illustrate application of the price evaluation, consider the following hypothetical proposal scenario: Vendor A (SDVOSB) proposes $100, Vendor B (small business proposing use of a verified VOSB) proposes $100, and Vendor C (Small business with no planned utilization of SDVOSBs or VOSBs) proposes $100. The Government would evaluate Vendor A's price at $95, Vendor B at $98, and Vendor C at $100. Assuming all proposals are responsive and evaluated to be considered technically acceptable, Vendor A would be selected for award at $100 based on their evaluated price of $95.

11) Regarding Section 3.8 of the solicitation, Limitations on Subcontracting, it appears based on the Calculation of Self-Performed Work from page 12 of the solicitation that VA intends for Contractors to demonstrate they will self-perform 15% of the work (i.e., general construction). Is this correct? If a category other than general construction, please advise how offers should account for transportation and disposal that will be significant costs relative to the total contract.

Gov’t Response: As stated on the SOW and the solicitation, this acquisition requires specific licenses/permits and expertise for the decommissioning and removal of a Cyclotron RDS-112. The SBA guidance for specialty construction contract states that the prime contractor shall perform at least 25% of the cost of the contract with its own employees, not including the cost of materials.[footnoteRef:1] [1: SBA Small Business Set-Aside, https://www.sba.gov/partners/contracting-officials/small-business-procurement/set-aside-procurement ]

Site Visit – Attendee List

Veterans Preference

To implement the preference for verified SDVOSBs and VOSBs or planned utilization of SDVOSBs and VOSBs required by VAAR 852.215-70, the government will reduce proposed pricing, for price evaluation purposes only, utilizing the following price reduction adjustments:

1. Verified SDVOSBs will receive a 5% price evaluation preference,

2. Verified VOSBs will receive a 4% price evaluation preference,

3. Small businesses proposing utilization of verified SDVOSBs shall receive a 3% price evaluation preference, and

4. Small businesses proposing utilization of verified VOSBs shall receive a 2% price evaluation preference.

Example

To illustrate application of the price evaluation, consider the following hypothetical proposal scenario: Vendor A (SDVOSB) proposes $100, Vendor B (small business proposing use of a verified VOSB) proposes $100, and Vendor C (Small business with no planned utilization of SDVOSBs or VOSBs) proposes $100. The Government would evaluate Vendor A's price at $95, Vendor B at $98, and Vendor C at $100. Assuming all proposals are responsive and evaluated to be considered technically acceptable, Vendor A would be selected for award at $100 based on their evaluated price of $95.

Page 1 of Page 1 of image1.png image2.png