Amendment__1_AG-91S8-S-17-0001_HazMat_IDIQ_Solicitation.pdf

Solicitation AG-91S8-S-17-0001 Amendment #0001 Page 2 of 7

Continuation SF 30

Questions/Clarifications and Answers:

• Is this set aside for firms that are either under $20.5M in annual revenue or under 750 employees, or does a firm priming this need to be under both?

Answer: The under 750 employees can apply to this solicitation since the work will possibly involve “Environmental Remediation Services” as described on NAICS 562910 footnote #14.

• Does a respondent to this solicitation have to reply to all three activities? We are a WOSB and would like to respond to Activities II and III.

Answer: No. Refer to page 16 of the solicitation document regarding the geographical limitation. You may however, partner or joint venture to meet the geographical limitation. Also refer to page 71 of the solicitation for proposal preparation instructions.

• Does small businesses eligible for a set-aside award have to have revenues below $20.5 million?

Answer: Yes, but, the under 750 employees can apply to this solicitation since the work will possibly involve “Environmental Remediation Services” as described on NAICS 562910 footnote #14.

• What positions are considered key personnel?

Answer: Project Manager, Geologist, Engineer, laboratories and key subcontractors.

• Is Past Performance Volume 2 limited to 15 pages max or 10 lines per project for 10 projects? 10 lines per project for 10 projects would only cover 4-5 pages so why 15 pages.

Answer: Past Performance, Volume II is limited to a maximum of 15 pages.

• The technical proposal instructions on page 71 of the solicitation limits Volume III to 15 pages. However, responding to all Volume III instructions (also on page 71, third paragraph) will force us to exceed the 15-page limit. Here is an accounting of those requirements: SF 1449: 1 page; Solicitation amendments: ?;

Pricing Sheets: 11 pages; Laboratory Rates (pricing sheets require a separate list of lab rates under B-3 Analytical & Subcontracted Services): 28 pages; Completed FAR clause fill-ins (52.209-5, 52.209-7, & 52.212-3): 21 pages

Answer: The 15 page limit for Volume III is removed

• Are the Scenario Responses for each Activity included in the 15 page limit for Volume 1 – Technical Approach? Activity III requests, for each individual scenario, to "prepare and submit a work plan”.

Providing work plans for each individual scenario in Activity III, responding to Activity II scenario, and including the additional sub-factors requested in Volume I within the 15 pages limitation may prevent the ability provide thorough responses/information.

Answer: No. the Scenario Responses are considered separate attachments to the overall technical proposal and are not part of the 15 page limit for the Technical Approach.

• Are resumes in Volume 1 – Technical Approach included in the 15 page limit?

Answer: No, the resumes do not count to the 15 page limit for the Technical Approach.

• Reference ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1--PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS, GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS, Paragraph 1) page 70 of 75. The RFP states “If offering on more than one Activity (I, II, or III), Offerors may combine the proposals, but must clearly identify each section as a

Amendment #0001 Page 3 of 7 separate Activity.” If offerors choose to combine the proposals for more than one Activity, please confirm that the total number of pages allowed for each activity is 15 pages per volume.

Answer: The 15 page limit on the Technical Approach is for each separate Activity for which the offeror is submitting a proposal.

• Reference ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1--PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS, TECHICAL PROPOSAL, second paragraph page 71 of 75. Please confirm that offerors ARE to include pricing information in response to the activity scenarios in Volume 1, Technical Approach.

Answer: Yes, the responses to the Activity Scenarios are to include pricing information.

As stated in the Activity I and III Scenario/s the offeror’s response is to include:

“Provide the estimated cost for the response. Breaking down cost items into key categories (work plan development, mobilization, performance of work, disposal cost, and final report preparation).”

As noted, the Activity II Scenario, is an actual task order that will be awarded as part of this solicitation. The offeror’s response to this scenario must provide pricing information as they would in response to a typical task order issued under the contract.

• Reference ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1--PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS, Subfactor

1.2 – Offerors Capabilities, page 72 of 75. It appears that Activity I is the only Activity requiring immediate response within a specific timeframe (within 2-8 hours of notification). If an offeror is not proposing on Activity I, Emergency Hazardous Materials Release Response, are we still to address “response times” under Subfactor 1.2?

Answer: No.

• Reference ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1--PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS, Factor 2 – Relevant Past Performance, page 72 of 75. The first sentence of this requirement states offerors are to “submit a list of all relevant contracts and/or projects either under a prime or subcontract in the last three

(3) calendar years from the date of solicitation release.” The second sentence states “include a maximum of up to 10 projects for this requirement.” Please confirm that offerors are only to provide a maximum of 10 projects and not a list of all relevant contracts performed within the past three calendar years.

Answer: Yes, only provide a maximum of 10 projects. If the offeror has more than 10 relevant projects within the last three calendar years, submit the most relevant projects to this solicitation.

Relevant Past Performance, page 72 of 75. Is the “maximum of up to 10 projects for this requirement” inclusive of the offeror’s firm AND proposed major subcontractors, or is each proposed major subcontractor allowed to submit up to 10 projects each in addition to the offeror firm’s 10 projects?

Answer: The maximum of 10 projects apply whether the information submitted is from a Prime or Subcontractor.

Relevant Past Performance, page 72 of 75. Offerors are limited to providing ten lines of information per contract/subcontract. This limitation is very tight and does not allow offerors to demonstrate the relevancy of their projects. Because projects “considered by the Government to be more closely related to the scope of this effort will be given additional weight in the evaluation process,” we respectfully request that offerors be allowed up to one page per contract/subcontract to provide a more robust description of the services performed to demonstrate relevancy.

Amendment #0001 Page 4 of 7

Answer: The request is reasonable. The solicitation is amended to allow for each offeror to provide up to a 1 page write-up per contract/subcontract to demonstrate relevancy to the solicitation.

Relevant Past Performance, page 72 of 75. Please verify that point of contact name, email address and phone number required in item (i) is the offeror firm’s personnel and that the Contract Administrator’s name, email address and phone number required in item (v) is the client’s/owner’s personnel.

Answer: Confirmed.

• Reference Attachment 3, Activity II Scenario, Section B) Background, page 1 of 6. The background information provided for the Activity II Scenario, Non-CERCLA Site Investigation, Cleanup, and Restoration, states that limited soil and groundwater investigation and sampling activities have been conducted on the site. Please provide copies of the previous investigation results and reports.

Answer: The Forest Service was unable to obtain a final report. All available site information regarding the previous site investigation efforts is being provided as attachment #5 and #6.

• Reference Attachment 3, Activity II Scenario, Section C) Scope of Work to be Performed, page 1 of 6. The first paragraph of this section states “work to be performed under this task order is the investigation and assessment of the former underground storage tank site…” However, the bulleted list in the second paragraph includes a bullet that states “Excavation and disposal of contaminated soil” is also included in the scope of work to be performed. Without the investigation and assessment being completed, it is difficult to estimate the extent of the excavation and disposal effort and offeror’s proposal responses and prices are likely to vary widely based on assumptions used by each individual offeror. Please clarify whether the scope of work to be performed for this activity scenario does include the excavation and disposal of contaminated soil or if the scope is limited to the investigation and assessment.

Answer: The excavation and disposal of contaminated soils listed in the scenario is only related to investigation derived wastes generated as part of the site investigation.

• The Schedule of Supplies or Services (pages 3–13) requests contract rates for PPE from Level A to D for each work activity. However, the details (and costs) of PPE components will change depending on the particular physical and chemical hazards at each site. Can you provide general guidelines or assumptions for the PPE levels that we should use to establish contract rates?

Answer: Unclear what is being requested. While actual project health and safety protection measures will be site dependent, the primary components of what comprises the four OSHA PPE categories are well established. It is expected that the offerors would use this as the basis for their rates. If the Offeror has additional schedules which define these costs, they can include them as part of the response.

• The Schedule of Supplies or Services (pages 3–13) requests rates for several craft trade categories that are covered by the Davis Bacon Act (Equipment Operator and Trucker Driver), as well as possible others under the “Other” category. Because Davis Bacon wages vary greatly throughout the service areas covered by this contract, should we assume the rates requested are for non-Davis Bacon wages and that Davis-Bacon wages would be developed per task order, as appropriate?

Answer: Yes, that is appropriate.

• On page 71, the submittal requirements limit the page count to 15 pages per volume. For contractors proposing on all three activities, should we assume 15 pages per activity per volume is allowed, so that our proposal will be comparable to those received from contractors proposing on one activity (i.e., the limit per volume for all three activities is 45 pages)?

Answer: Yes, see answer above, the 15 page limit on the Technical Approach is for each separate Activity for which the offeror is submitting a proposal. If submitting for all three activities then the limit is 45 pages.

Amendment #0001 Page 5 of 7

• In response to Activity II, should we include qualified third-party subcontractors for lead-based paint and asbestos clearance testing (listed on page 21) with this proposal, or should we assume we can include these contractors on a task-order basis? Alternately, is the third-party testing to be provided by a third-party contractor not included on this master contract?

Answer: The offerors should include and identify primary subcontractors as part of their proposal. If the offeror anticipates the need for using additional “third-party” subcontractors for certain tasks they should make note of this state they will be identified as part of the individual task order response.

• Under Factor 1, Subfactor 1.1, resumes are requested. May these be provided as an attachment that does not count against the page count for Factor 1?

Answer: Resumes can be included as a separate attachment and does not count against the page limitation for Factor 1.

• Under Factor 1, Subfactor 1.3, scenario responses are requested. May these be provided as an attachment that does not count against the page count for Factor 1? If not, we would respectfully request that the allowable number of pages for Factor 1 be increased so contractors submitting on all three activities can provide a complete, thorough response to each scenario under Activities I, II, and III.

Answer: As stated previously, the Scenario Responses are considered separate attachments to the overall technical proposal and are not part of the 15 page limit.

• Under Factor 2, Past Performance, please clarify whether we are to submit 10 projects per activity or 10 projects total. Similar to question 2 (above), may we can submit 10 projects per activity to allow equitable comparison of past performance with those contractors who are submitting on only one activity?

Answer: The offeror is to submit 10 projects per activity they are bidding on.

• Under Factor 2, Past Performance, page 72, the required information includes (i) project description, firm name, point of contact name, email address, and phone number and (v) contract administrator’s name, email address, and phone number. Is it correct to assume the contact information provided in the response to (i) should be that of the contractor and the information submitted under (v) should be that of our client representative for a given project?

Answer: Confirmed.

• Related to the scenario for Activity I (Emergency Hazardous Materials Release Response).

a. Should we assume that both sites are accessible by 2WD vehicle?

Answer: Yes, both sites are accessible via 2wd vehicles.

b. Should we assume that both sites are being addressed concurrently (in a single mobilization)?

Answer: No, these are considered separate sub scenarios and are to be considered individual events.

c. What is the approximate slope of the embankment?

Answer: Assume the embankment referenced in Scenario 2(Inyo spill) is approximately 10%.

d. Please clarify whether the spilled diesel ran 180 feet down slope from the point where the tank left the trailer or from the resting location of the tank.

Answer: The spill is 180 feet from where the tank came to rest and ruptured.

• Related to the scenario for Activity II (Non-CERCLA Site Investigation, Cleanup, and Restoration)

• This Scenario calls for an “an actual bid proposal.” Does this include a cost estimate? If so, should we assume we are only providing costs for the investigation phase, because the costs for remediation would depend on the investigation results?

Answer: Yes, the offeror must include a cost estimate for their Activity II Scenario response in order for the government to be able to make an award for the task order. The offeror’s response

Amendment #0001 Page 6 of 7 to this scenario must provide pricing information as they would in response to a typical task order issued under the contract. As stated in the Activity Scenario the task order is only for the investigation phase and not the remediation phase.

• If costs are only to be included for investigation, please provide the following information:

a. Copies of historical documents from previous investigation and removal work

b. Depth to groundwater

Answer: Copies of all previous site investigation data that is available to the Forest Service is attached (attachment #5 and #6). Historic records show depth to groundwater greater than 100 feet.

• If costs for the remediation phase are to be included, please provide the following information:

a. Details on the extent of site impacts.

b. Details on the existing asphalt (e.g., mix design, thickness, and surface completions) and concrete (e.g., mix design, integral color, rebar type, rebar size, rebar spacing, and rebar doweling) at the site (assuming removed asphalt and concrete areas to be replaced in kind).

c. Details on the layout and depth of the excavation area.

d. Details on any adjacent structures to the removal area to assess the need for shoring and/or sloping.

e. The Excavation and Backfill specification identifies specifications for a “native backfill.”

Is this a local material available for use as backfill? If so, how much is available and where is it located in relation to the site. Will the backfill material require screening or other processing to meet the specifications for use as backfill at the site?\

f. The Excavation and Backfill specification states that imported backfill will be from an approved contractor source. Please provide details on what is required to approve a source.

g. The Excavation and Backfill specification states that barricades be placed along all excavations to prevent accidents. Is the intention for these barricades to be concrete k-rail, or waterfilled barricades, or just folding barricades?

h. The Characterization of Materials Generated during Field Activities specification identifies specific sample sequences and analyses. Are these testing requirements meant to gain acceptance at a disposal facility? If so, which one and is the facility compliant with the EPA Off-Site Rule. Can we propose the use of another facility? Or is this the testing requirement for potential use of excavated material for backfill? If so, please provide the screening criteria used to make that determination.

i. Details on the existing underground improvements and utilities at the site. Are we to assume the existing underground improvements and utilities should be protected in place? Or should they be rerouted for the work? If so, would they need to be reinstalled after the work is complete?

j. The Use of Government Facilities specification states that electricity is available at the site. Is that electricity to be provided at no cost? What are the voltage, phase, and amperage of the provided power? What is the disposition of the power (i.e. transformer, fuse box, outlets, meter, etc.).

Answer: The remediation phase is not included in this task order.

• Related to the scenario for Activity III (Illegal Marijuana Grow Site Investigation and Cleanup)

a. Will law enforcement be present during the site inspection work?

Answer: Yes

b. Can you provide the approximate elevation change for each site (i.e., how far up/down is it elevation wise from the access point)?

Answer: Unknown

c. Should we assume all sites have been cleared for booby traps prior to the start of the contract?

Answer: Yes assume booby traps have been removed.

d. Should we assume that all sites are being addressed concurrently (in a single mobilization)?

e. Are the distances provided for site access along trails, or as the crow flies?

Amendment #0001 Page 7 of 7

Answer: As the crow flies.

f. At the Pierce Creek and Wildhorse sites, can you provide the dimensions of each reservoir and approximate construction details (i.e., lined, unlined)?

Answer: Unknown

g. What is the approximate distance between the Pierce Creek and the Cottonwood Creek sites?

Answer: Approximate 43 mile drive on Forest Service and county/state roads. See Google Maps

h. At Cottonwood Creek and Wildhorse Creek, is solid waste to be removed? If so, what volume of solid waste is present at each site? Can helicopters be used to haul material from these sites?

Answer: Solid waste removal is not included under the Activity III Scenarios.

Note: The offerors should note that the level of detail and information that has been provided in the Activity III Scenarios is typical of the level of detail available to Forest environmental staff when preparing a task order for grow site hazmat cleanup.

• Please clarify if USFS intends to award the sample task order as a real task order. Please also confirm that

USFS wants us to provide a price with our proposal and the level of detail you expect regarding the development of that price.

Answer: No this is a sample task order. The only Scenarios that will be awarded is the Activity II Scenario.

• What hazardous materials has USFS stored in the gas house?

Answer: Gas cans, paint, flammables were stored in the gas house in the late 1990s. Lawn movers and hand tools were stored in the gas house in the early 2000s. The gas house was empty and no longer needed prior to its demolition in May of 2012.

• The sample problem figures show only one excavation. Can USFS provide a rough sketch of the second excavation’s footprint? If possible, please also include the locations of any samples previously obtained and their laboratory analysis results.

Answer: Attachment #5, draft UST Soil Removal Phase I Excavation Summary Report dated June 13, 2012 provides details on the second excavation site (fuel island/dispenser area). The details of the excavation for the fuel island/dispenser area are discussed in the summary report.

The contractor did not complete the Keenwild project as contracted and did not submit follow up documentation for the Phase II excavation site (tank pit area). The contract specifications required the former UST pit to be excavated at the former horizontal excavation limits (approximately 20 feet east-west and 20 feet north south) and extend to a depth of about 15 to 20 feet to expose bedrock. The information provided in the statement of work provide details on the level of soil contamination remaining at the site in the tank pit area excavation.

The contractor did not finalize the attached draft summary report.

Attachment #6, dated March 29, 2006 summarizes the investigation prior to the 2012 soil excavation.

• Please explain the corrective action goal(s) of the excavation as well as the dimensions of the required excavation.

Answer: I assume this is regard to the Activity II Scenario. The excavation goals were to remove all contaminated soils so that no further action determination could be obtained from the lead regulatory agency.

• What is the depth to bedrock in each of the previous excavations?

Answer: Based on information available in the provided report, the depth to bed rock varies at the site from 3, 4 or 8 feet in places.

***************************End of Questions/Clarifications and Answers***********************