AMEND0002_70Z08725RJUNE2824423_RFIs_SOS.pdf

AMEND 0002 RFP 70Z08725RJUNE28424423

Alaska Environmental Remediation Services IDIQ

Project No. 28424423

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 5

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

10/21/2025 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

CONTRACT SPECIALIST

USCG, CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT JUNEAU

709 WEST 9TH STREET, ROOM 817

JUNEAU, AK 99801

CONTRACTING OFFICER

USCG, CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT JUNEAU

709 WEST 9TH STREET, ROOM 817

JUNEAU, AK 99801

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (NO., STREET, COUNTY, STATE AND ZIP CODE) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

70Z08725RJUNE28424423

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09/30/2025

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

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:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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.

B. THE ABOVE REFERENCED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

D. OTHER (SPECIFY TYPE OF MODIFICATION AND AUTHORITY)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return 1 copy to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (ORGANIZED BY UCF SECTION HEADINGS, INCLUDING SOLICITATION/CONTRACT SUBJECT MATTER WHERE FEASIBLE.)

TASK ORDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 70Z08725RJUNE2824423 Alaska Environmental Remediation Services

A. This amendment is issued to answer RFI’s 6- 24, incorporate Supplemental Attachments, Amend Sections L and M of the solicitation.

B. PROPOSAL DUE DATES EXTENDED FROM 11/30/2025 to 12/02/2025.

C. PLEASE RETURN A SIGNED COPY OF THIS AMENDMENT WITH YOUR PROPOSAL.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or Print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Cheryl A. Berry, CONTRACTING OFFICER, USCG

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Project No. 28424423

AMENDMENT 0002 ANSWERS RFIS 6-24 AND INCORPORATES AMENDED

SECTIONS L AND M AND,REVISED PRICE PROPOSAL EXCEL FILE, AND

ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHEMENTS.

6. Section M of the solicitation states that “Award of a Seed Project will be made to the Offeror representing the best value”. The solicitation, however, only requests that Offerors submit the Seed Project Price Schedule, with no technical narrative nor price detail. How does the Government intend to make a Best Value determination based solely on the price summary?

A. See responses to Question #7

7. The Statement of Work for the Seed Project is non-prescriptive in its requirements and may lead Offerors to propose vastly different schemes with a broad range of assumptions. Therefore, would it be beneficial to the Government’s Best Value determination to require a technical approach of 5 or more pages for the seed project?

A. Section L and M have been Amended see Attachments.

8. Would it be beneficial for the Government to require a technical narrative that provides the management approach by which the Contractor proposes to execute the overall ERS contract?

A. Thank you for the suggestion. After review of Section M, the Government believes the current evaluation criteria will allow for appropriate assessment of the management approach for executing the ERS contract.

9. Is their a schedule site walk for the subject opportunity?

A. There is not a site visit scheduled for this opportunity.

10. From Page 10 of the 2015 SCR:

"The letter also required a proposal to assess the presence of lead-contaminated soil on site in a similar manner as the investigation at Cape St. Elias and that USCG determine a method of tracking the presence of this soil to ensure that it does not inadvertently become excavated and disposed of inappropriately. In a letter report dated 22 October 2007, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) summarized the objectives and field activities performed during the Modified Phase II/III EDDA investigation (USCG 2007b)." Can the Government provide the referenced documents above for review? Specifically, the Work Plan and Report for the referenced investigation at Cape St. Elias.

A. The 2006 letter is attached, there is no mention of the Cape St. Elias methods. In addition to the 2006 letter, please review the 2008-Eldred Rock Tech Memo attachment which summarizes field activities in 2007.

Acceptance of the findings of this memo is evident on the ADEC’s Site Report for ER, hazard ID 2699.

11. Can the Government please confirm the applicable standards for which impacts require characterization at Eldred Rock (Task 3.1)? Per the 2015 SCR, lead was confirmed exceeding the ADEC-approved ACL of 1,064 mg/kg; however; risk-based cleanup levels were derived using the Adult Lead Model (ALM) that were greater than sitewide average lead concentrations, and a remedy of "Develop ACLs and Institutional Controls" was selected because the risk-based cleanup level was found to be protective of human health and the environment. This information included in the report suggests that further lead characterization is not warranted if ADEC approved the remedy selection.

A. The ultimate objective is to meet Alaska Department of Conservation (ADEC) requirements for cleanup under the Alaska Administrative Code. If review of historic documentation and coordination with ADEC site administrators determine that no further Site Characterization is required, then the next logical site-specific report to achieve site closure shall be developed.

Stakeholder coordination will be required.

12. In contrast to an ADEC letter dated 21 April 2006 where ADEC determined that "Concentrations of residual-range organics exceed the default cleanup level of 8,300 mg/kg, which is based upon the ingestion pathway. Additional sampling, cleanup, or discussion should be held in order to address this small area of contamination” (ADEC 2006).", the 2007 Modified Phase II/III EDDA Investigation states that "RRO would not remain as a contaminant of concern at the Light Station Eldred Rock site. RRO results ranged from 440 mg/kg to 1,300 mg/kg.

The average RRO concentration was 755.45 mg/kg (USCG 2008)." Can the Government please confirm if RRO characterization is required under Task and if so if the site maps are available that would identify the location of this are of impact and the location of the soil samples and analytical tables associated with this data?

A. RRO was determined to no longer be a contaminant of concern, the 2008 tech memo summarizes results from a 2007 sampling event. “The results of the Paint Shop samples analyzed for RRO contamination indicate that RRO is not a contaminant of concern. RRO was detected in all samples below applicable cleanup criteria. Silica gel cleanup was also run on each sample to remove biogenic organics. RRO concentrations were significantly lower after being run through the process. No further action is required.” Acceptance of the findings of this report is evident on the ADEC’s Site Report for ER, hazard

ID 2699.

From the ADEC site report: Near the paint shop field screening was performed to guide RRO delineation. Of 17 field screening (PID) samples, the average concentration was 6.3 ppm. Ten analytical samples for RRO were collected from the highest PID reading locations. No locations exceeded cleanup levels. The average RRO concentration was 187 mg/kg. The maximum concentration was 1.300 mg/kg.

https://dec.alaska.gov/Applications/SPAR/PublicMVC/CSP/SiteReport/2699#:%7E:text=Near%20the%20paint%20shop,was%201.300%20mg/kg.

13. On page 22, Section 7.2 - Remediation Approach of the 2015 SCR for Eldred Rock (which is page 27 of 48 within the PDF) the text mentions the suggested remedial approach for stabilization of the lead impacted soils. Is this the activity that is being requested for this seed project estimate? If so, the volume and location of the soils requiring stabilization are not clear based upon the limited information included in the 2015 SCR. It is assumed that there would be other historical documentation available that would accurately identify those areas.

A. The means and methods of achieving site closure will be determined through coordination with USCG/ADEC and any other stakeholders. In the past, ADEC site managers have been amenable to scoping discussions.

14. It is not clear if a tab or divider is preferred for the requested content listed in Sections L5.1 through L5.4. It assumed that the USCG would like contractors to provide the proposal information in the order as requested in those sections.

A. Tab or divider is not a requirement for submission.

15. Is it allowable to insert an introduction cover page with the content provided in each of the Sections L5.1 to L5.4?

A. Introduction page is not a requirement for submission.

16. Is it allowable to insert a divider page between the individual supporting documentation submitted within each Section?

A. See Answer 14.

17. For Attachment 3, does the USCG request completed PDF file as well as the native excel file (stand alone) as part of this submission?

A. USCG requests excel file only with supporting documentation in pdf format, see Attachments.

18. Section L5.4, Item b and Appendix 3 Rate Sheet, Rate Sheet Tab, are the Offerors required to submit pricing for all labor disciplines listed? Specifically for the labor categories of Power Equipment Operation, Electrical Technician, Carpenter, and Plumber which are not typical for an ERS IDIQ.

A. See Amended: “Amended Attach 3 RATE SHEET and Seed Project Price

Schedule”

19. For section L5.4 Business/Price, if the Offeror submitting the proposal is a JV, does the USCG require the audit documentation for each of the JV partners?

A. Yes, in order to determine contractor responsibility, audit documentation for each JV partner is required.

20. Please confirm reference to “complex” Environmental Remedial Investigation for required Project #3 is not intended to solely apply to a CERCLA Remedial Investigation, but also include “Site Investigations, Site Characterization Investigations, Investigations, Environmental Multi-Media Investigations” under equivalent regulatory programs as referenced in the Statement of Services

A. Confirmed.

21. Please confirm that a technical approach is not required for the Seed Project, as it not references in the Proposal Instructions.

A. See Response to Question 7.

22. The RFP indicates only two (2) resumes are required for Key Personnel the

Program Manager & Environmental Scientist/ Engineer/Specialist; however, in Attch. 1 Statement of Services ENV IDIQ, two (2) additional roles are mentioned as Key Personnel – Environmental Manager & Project Manager. Do we need to provide resumes for those roles in this solicitation response?

A. Negative. As stated under 3052.215-70 Key Personnel, only Program

Manager and Environmental Scientist/Engineer/Specialist are consider Key Personnel for the IDIQ. Accordingly, L5.1 requires only the resumes for those positions for the purpose of this solicitation.

23. Regarding the definition of a Project, would the government consider work performed at two (2) different Sites at the same facility or installation each with unique/separate scope of work as two (2) projects, if they are part of the same contract/task order?

A. No. While the Government understands the question, the intent of L5.3 Past

Performance is to evaluate three (3) projects and not less than (3).

24. While we understand the USCG prefers a U.S. Government audit (e.g., DCAA), we would like to clarify whether a recent independent audit—performed by a third-party CPA firm—could be considered sufficient, provided it supports our proposed overhead rates and complies with the cost principles outlined in FAR

31.2. Please advise whether

A. Section L and M have been Amended see attachment.

Attachments:

1. Amended 70Z08725RJUNE28424423_Alaska_EnvRem_IDIQ_L and M 10.21

2. Amended Attach 3 Rate Sheet and Seed Project Price Schedule

Supplemental Attachments (SA) 1-3:

1. SA1: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2006. Review of Debris Removal Report and Requirements for Closure, USCG Eldred Rock Light Station (reckey: 1997110122305). Letter to U.S. Coast Guard, April 21.

2. SA2: U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2007. Eldred Rock; Project 17-J4199; Draft October 2007 Eldred Rock Sample Results. Technical memorandum.

3. SA3: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2025. USCG Eldred Rock Light Station site report (Hazard ID 2699). Retrieved from Alaska DEC Contaminated Sites database:

https://dec.alaska.gov/Applications/SPAR/PublicMVC/CSP/SiteReport/2699