Addendum 1 Questions and Responses.pdf

Addendum 1

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

SOLICITATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Solicitation #: IFB 2027*002 Solicitation Name: EPA Five-Year Reviews

Vendor Question #1: Would the CDPHE consider bids from firms that have not performed reviews for the sites listed in the solicitation?

CDPHE Answer #1: Previous work with a minimum number of 2 of the sites listed is required.

Vendor Question #2: Section B, Minimum Qualifications includes the requirement to have completed a Five-Year Review at two of the five sites that will be completed under this project. Five-Year Reviews are straightforward documents that follow specific Superfund guidance. It’s unclear what is critical about these sites that previous experience at two of the sites is a requirement. Can CDPHE remove this qualification or clarify the need to limit the competition on this opportunity to only previous contractors?

CDPHE Answer #2: Not all sites are equal, having performed reviews at any 2 of the listed sites shows familiarity of these sites and exhibits previous work in Colorado. CDPHE has not conducted FYRs at these sites, only at the Denver Radium Site and Chem Sales Site by CDPHE staff members.

Vendor Question #3: Section III.B.3 states that the bidder shall have performed Five-Year Reviews (FYRs) for a minimum of two sites specified in the IFB. Based on our cursory review of the last two FYRs for each site, they were primarily prepared by either EPA or CDPHE. Please clarify whether consultants with prior FYR experience at other CERCLA facilities can qualify for this bid opportunity.

CDPHE Answer #3: Having performed reviews at any 2 of the listed sites shows familiarity of these sites and exhibits previous work in Colorado. CDPHE has not conducted FYRs at these sites, only at the Denver Radium Site and Chem Sales Site by CDPHE staff members.

Vendor Question #4: IFB1- 2027000002, TITLE: EPA Five-Year Reviews, section VI. Attachments and Exhibits – Attachment 2 Budget Template includes total site cost, but does not include line item costs associated with the deliverables outlined in Attachment Exhibit C – Draft Statement of Work, Section III Work Plan, Deliverables.” In addition to the total cost per site, would CDPHE allow for the costs for each site’s deliverable to be included in the Budget Template to indicate the anticipated invoicing amounts?

CDPHE Answer #4: CDPHE is requesting a line item cost for each of the five (5) sites resulting in a total not to exceed $370,000. Supplemental costs (including QAPP, Health and Safety plan, etc…) should be incorporated into and divided out for each of the five (5) sites.

Vendor Question #5: IFB1- 2027000002, TITLE: EPA Five-Year Reviews, section VI. Attachments and Exhibits – Attachment 2 Budget Template includes site costs, but does not include a line for the Quality Assurance Project Plan. Attachment Exhibit C – Draft Statement of Work, Section III Work Plan, Sub-activities #2 states “The Contractor shall submit a contract- specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).” As the QAPP is a “contract-specific” document, would it be appropriate to include the QAPP as a deliverable and add it to the Budget Template? Or shall we factor in the QAPP costs across the five sites?

CDPHE Answer #5:CDPHE is requesting a line item cost for each of the five (5) sites resulting in a total not to exceed $370,000. Supplemental costs (including QAPP, Health and Safety plan, etc…) should be incorporated into and divided out for each of the five (5) sites

Addendum 1

Vendor Question #6: IFB1- 2027000002, TITLE: EPA Five-Year Reviews, section VI. Attachments and Exhibits, Exhibit C – Draft Statement of Work, Section III Work Plan, Sub-activities #3 states “The Contractor shall conduct Site Inspections.” Can CDPHE confirm that a single site inspection is anticipated for each FYR site?

CDPHE Answer #6: Each site shall require a site visit for observations made by the Vendor for accurate site conditions for each respective site.