Addendum_4_C15E0055.pdf

State of California • Natural Resources Agency Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Lisa Ann L. Mangat, Director One Capitol Mall, Suite 410 Sacramento, California 95814

ADDENDUM No. 4

Issue Date: April 28, 2016

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

BID NUMBER: C15E0055

MALAKOFF DIGGINS STATE HISTORIC PARK

SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND REMEDIATION SERVICES FOR HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS THROUGHOUT THE PARK SITE PROJECT

Statement of Qualifications (SOQs) Due Date: May 2, 2016

Revised Statement of Qualifications (SOQs) Due Date: May 9, 2016

This addendum corrects/revises the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Site Characterization And Remediation Services For Hazardous Materials Throughout the Park Site Project. The changes in this addendum shall be included in the Statement of Qualifications submitted in response to this RFQ. All conditions not affected by this addendum shall remain unchanged.

1. Statement of Qualifications (SOQs) Due Date Extension:

REVISE Section 1.5 SOQ Delivery and Deadline, page 8 of 16 paragraph 1.5.2, as follows:

Deadline: Sealed SOQs will be accepted no later than 2 p.m., Monday, May 2, 2016 Monday, May 9, 2016.

2. Questions (Q) and Answers (A) submitted:

1) Q: Page 13 of 16 – last paragraph under 3.2 Selection Criteria.

Contractors shall include the Standard Form 330 for their subcontractors (sub-consultants) for evaluation as a team (for reference only). However, the evaluation of the proposing contractor will not include the individual evaluation of its subcontractor(s).

I just want to double-check that each sub-consultant on our team must submit a complete SF330 including both Parts I and II in their entirety?

A: Yes, each sub-consultant on your firm’s team must submit a complete SF330 including both Parts I and II in their entirety.

The evaluation team will not evaluate each sub-consultant individually, but will evaluate the sub-consultants as part of each firm’s team.

Addendum #4 RFQ Bid Number: C15E0055

2) Q: Can 11x17 sheets be used?

A: No, per RFQ Section 3.1 Minimum Requirements, paragraph 3.1.1. Statement of Qualifications, SOQ shall be prepared in a bound 8.5” x 11” booklet format, using tabs to divide section of the Form 330.

3) Q: With the site walk date having been moved back to April 18, is there any expectation the due date for the SOQ submittal will be moved back?

A: The due date for the SOQ submittal date has been extended to 2:00 p.m., Monday, May 9, 2016. See this addendum.

4) Q: Based on the RFQ, while it sounds like there are ongoing water quality issues can you further elucidate the overall goal of the long-term project?

A: It is currently unknown all of the oversight agencies who will be involved with the project. It is anticipated, at a minimum, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board due to the current permit issued by them and the Office of Historic Preservation. At this point in time we do not have a project level description with which to make the determination which oversight agencies will need to be consulted.

5) Q: What agencies will the successful bidders be expected to work with as oversight agencies, given the work to date?

A: It is currently unknown all of the oversight agencies who will be involved with the project. It is anticipated, at a minimum, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board due to the current permit issued by them and the Office of Historic Preservation. At this point in time we do not have a project level description with which to make the determination which oversight agencies will need to be consulted.

6) Q: Is the DPR anticipating that an EIR would be required under CEQA due to the anticipated level of disturbance/impact?

A: The CEQA process has not been initiated due to the lack of a complete project description. Once the CEQA process is started, subsequent resource analysis will be able to determine potential impacts and/or mitigations measures that may be required It is anticipated that whatever work is performed will not adversely impact the park’s eligibility to remain on the National Register of Historic Places.

7) Q: State Parks representative Dan Milsap presented a Lidar survey map at the site walk on 4/19, which they plan to make available for contractors on eProcure. Is the Lidar map georeferenced? If not, is the georeferenced Lidar survey publically available to be shared on eProcure?

A: Yes, the lidar survey map is georeferenced and is attached to this addendum.

8) Q: The RFQ directs us to address selection criteria in Section C Written Statement. This is information we typically provide in SF330 Section H. If we are addressing the criteria in Section C, is there any particular information you want to see in SF330 Section H.

Addendum #4 RFQ Bid Number: C15E0055

A: No additional statements are needed in addition to SF 330 Section H.

9) Q: We are a small consulting and remediation construction firm with experience and expertise very relevant to the Malakoff Diggins project and we attended the mandatory site visit. The RFQ requires resume information on subcontractors to be supplied in the SOQ and encourages the prime to team with SBEs.

Yet, at the site walk it was pointed out that the resumes from subcontractors will not be considered as part of the review and selection process. Consequently, the large prime contractors are neither motivated nor incentivized to team with subcontractors.

Please clarify if and how the Park Service will value subcontractors and their contribution to the SOQ. If the Park service determines that subcontractor contributions will be included in the overall evaluation, then please consider adding some time to the submittal date so the primes can include this information.

A: See response to Question #1 of this addendum.

END OF ADDENDUM #3

Attachment

1. Lidar Survey Map (1 page)

Addendum #4, Attachment 1, 1 page