Request For Information_ Final for Solicitation Posting.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 58 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Operation & Maintenance of the South Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FY26OMSBIWTP
About this file
This document is a Request for Information (RFI) and federal contract opportunity file for the Operation & Maintenance (O&M) of the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP) in San Diego County, California. The solicitation (No. 191BWC26R0001) is issued by the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) and seeks a contractor to provide comprehensive facility management for a 25-35 MGD wastewater treatment plant processing wastewater from Tijuana, Mexico. The contract will be a hybrid structure combining Firm Fixed Price, Cost Reimbursable, and Time & Materials CLINs, with an anticipated expansion to 50 MGD by 2031.
Key contract details include a proposal submission deadline of December 22, 2025, at 5:00 PM MT, with small business utilization goals of 23% small business, 3% veteran-owned, 3% service-disabled veteran-owned, 3% HUBZone, 5% small disadvantaged, and 5% women-owned small business. The contractor will be responsible for full-service O&M including day-to-day management, personnel, sampling, equipment maintenance, system monitoring, reporting, quality control, capital improvements, vehicle management, grounds maintenance, and chemical supply. The current incumbent is Veolia, and the contract will involve complex bi-national coordination with Mexican stakeholders and integration with an ongoing rehabilitation and expansion project.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 48
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet
| Solicitation 191BWC26xxxxxx RFI Tracker | |||||
| RFI # | Date | Status | Reference | Question/info | Government Response |
| 1 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | During Industry Day, will the IBWC provide details on the transition process for bringing on a new O&M contractor, especially regarding site access, data transfer, or support from the incumbent if a change occurs? | Yes, please refer to PWS section 1.1.1 Transition Plan | |
| 2 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Can you clarify during Industry Day which Performance Work Statement requirements and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan metrics will be emphasized for evaluation and future contract renewals? | Currently, we plan to use the PWS and QASP attached to the Sources Sought announcement with some expected edits before the Solicitation announcement | |
| 3 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Will Industry Day include information about how O&M contractors are expected to coordinate with IBWC and other parties during planned facility expansions or upgrades? | During Industry Day, IBWC will hold an agency panel discussion where the Progressive Design-build Team (PDB) will brief on the current plans for the facility expansion and upgrades | |
| 4 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Can the IBWC speak during Industry Day to how potential bidders should address risks, such as unexpected utility costs or regulatory changes, within their proposals and ongoing operations? | During Industry Day, IBWC will hold an agency panel discussion where questions are welcome; please refer to PWS Section 3.1 Utilities | |
| 5 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Will Industry Day cover the established protocols for engaging with binational stakeholders and the procedures for communications during incidents or inspections involving cross-border agencies? | During Industry Day, IBWC will hold an agency panel discussion where we can address operations | |
| 6 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Will a list of participating prime contractors be shared before or after the event? | Yes, the attendance sheet can be shared after Industry day | |
| 7 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Will subcontracting opportunities (such as sludge and grit hauling) be discussed during the event or in follow-up sessions? | All grit and sludge is transported back to Mexico through Mexican operators. If at any point we need to go outside of the current O&M operations, we would hire a subcontractor and hauling and disposal would be to Arizona. | |
| 8 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Are there any permitting or compliance requirements specific to the State of California for subcontractors coming from out of state? | Yes, during the agency panel, our Environmental Team will discuss and brief on permits and compliance, please refer to Sources Sought announcement attachment 04 Permit and attachment 05. List of Permits | |
| 9 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Will attendees gain access to any draft scopes of work or technical documents during the SharePoint access period? | Please refer to Sources Sought announcement for current list of PWS and attachments. There is no SOW it will be a Performance Work Statement | |
| 10 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Will there be a formal presentation or site tour of the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant? | Yes, please refer to Industry Day agenda | |
| 11 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Will subcontractors have an opportunity to network directly with prime contractors? | Yes, please refer to Industry Day agenda | |
| 12 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Will USIBWC staff be available for one-on-one discussions regarding the scope of work or subcontracting roles? | Only prime contractors will have the opportunity to provide briefs to IBWC on the second day of Industry Day | |
| 13 | 7/1/25 | Sources Sought | Will any technical documents or expectations for subcontracting (e.g., volume estimates, required qualifications) be provided? | Please refer to Sources Sought announcement for current list of PWS and attachments. | |
| 14 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | What is the added work scope for the project that expanded daily flow capacity from |
25 MGD to 35 MGD? Solicitation Section C.01 - Performance Work Statement states “The Performance Work Statement (PWS) for this Solicitation is referenced in Section J and included as an attachment to this document”; however Section J is not
| included in the solicitation document. | as of November 12th, the PWS is uploaded to sam.gov solicitation in its attachments | |||
| 15 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | Can the Government provide chemical usage projections for the additional 10 MGD | |
| capacity beyond the March 2025 data currently available? | yes, we can attach a pdf with September and October 2025 Chemical Dosage consumption | |||
| 16 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | To ensure our proposal fully addresses the compliance requirements and operational |
parameters associated with the 10 MGD expansion scope, could you please provide a copy of the Cease and Desist Order? This will enable us to develop comprehensive compliance strategies and accurately assess the associated operational and regulatory obligations.
| yes, will attach soon | ||||
| 17 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | What will be the security clearance needed for a System Integrator for this contract? | |
| What is the current estimated time for clearances and will clearances be expedited | Any position requiring administrative level access to the SCADA system will require Tier 4 vetting. This position may begin work upon receiving a favorable pre-employment determination. A pre-employment determination typically takes 2 weeks for applicants that are responsive to requests for documents and do not have issues within their background requiring mitigation. An additional 2-3 weeks may be required if derogatory information is found within preliminary checks. | |||
| 18 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | What will be the security clearance needed for the shift supervisors and operators for |
this contract? What is the current estimated time for clearances and will new
| clearances be expedited? | SCADA operators require Tier 2 vetting. These positions may begin work upon receiving a favorable pre-employment determination. A pre-employment determination typically takes 2 weeks for applicants that are responsive to requests for documents and do not have issues within their background requiring mitigation. An additional 2-3 weeks may be required if derogatory information is found within preliminary checks. | |||
| 19 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | Apart from what is listed in the Capital Project’s list, are there other systems that are |
planned for rehabilitation in the near future, and if so what are these projects and
| their timelines? | No. Planned rehabilitation projects were established and prioritized based on the condition assessement and risk assessement. It is being updated each year by the O&M contractor. Additionally, we will upload IBWCs projected 5 year Capital Plan | |||
| 20 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | The solicitation document has the following requirement: |
H.13 - Section 508 Compliance - All electronic and information technology (EIT) procured through this contract must meet the applicable accessibility standards at 36 CFR 1194, unless an agency exception to this requirement exists (see CFR 1194 implements Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended). The following standard is applicable:
[X] 1194.41 Information, Documentation, and Support.Deliverables shall be accessible to users with disabilities as required in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The contractor shall certify Section 508 compliance and provide a conformance statement with each deliverable.
e. Section 508 Compliance: The Offeror shall provide information as to how the solution meets all applicable standards and functional performance criteria of Section 508 identified in the attached accessibility determination template. The vendor shall complete the attached accessibility determination template or provide similar information in alternative format (Attachment 15). This deliverable is required as part of the response to this solicitation and will be evaluated prior to award.
Question: The referenced accessibility determination template was not provided with the Solicitation documents – would the Government provide this along with
| the instructions for completion? | added as attachment | |||
| 21 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | What is the sampling schedule for the added scope? Please provide a list of | |
| parameters and locations for each testing. | The first additional site is the Blended Final Effluent upstream of the Secondary Effluent sample. The parameters and frequency are the same as the secondary effluent permit requirement (see permit), which include daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly requirements. The second additional sample is from the primary effluent channel (downstream of the PSTs), for the same parameters and frequency tested for the secondary effluent in the permit. The permit secondary effluent and plant influent are still required sample locations. | |||
| 22 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | Is wet-weather event sampling part of the work scope? What is the sampling | |
| requirement? | No. It is part of the Tijuana River Valley Monitoring Program (TRVMP) requirements in the Permit. The TRVMP is not part of the O&M contract. | |||
| 23 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | Given the cross-border coordination requirements for biosolids and settled grit |
hauling to Mexico, could you please clarify the contractual responsibilities and risk allocation in scenarios where hauling capacity or acceptance on the Mexico side experiences delays or interruptions? Will the contractor be expected to arrange alternative disposal methods, provide temporary storage, or will IBWC assume
| responsibility for such contingencies? | the PWS states current requirements needed to coordinate with Mexico. At this time we have procedures in place with Mexico to avoid delays or interruptions. If ever an emergency arises, IBWC immediately mitigates with Mexico | |||
| 24 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | The O&M Manual (Attachment 13, Section 3.9) references lime stabilization |
operations, while the Condition Assessment Report (Attachment 7) indicates the lime storage and conveyance system is currently unavailable. Could you please provide:
(a) the anticipated timeline for rehabilitation of the lime stabilization system, (b) whether interim biosolids management alternatives are required during the rehabilitation period, and (c) clarification on whether lime procurement and
| associated costs should be included in offerors' pricing? | a) The existing lime stabilizationis proposed to be demolished and replaced by a new four-train lime stabilization system as part of the SBIWTP Rehab and Expansion base project. There will be no rehabilitation prior to start of base construction. Base construction of the expansion is potentially scheduled from 2026 to 2031. The new lime stabilization construction will be scheduled during that expansion project timeline. | |||
| 25 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | Given the potential for hydrogen sulfide generation in wastewater treatment |
operations, could you please describe IBWC's planned approach for addressing ongoing or future odor control challenges at the facility? Will IBWC be implementing additional odor control infrastructure, enhanced monitoring systems, or other mitigation measures, or will the contractor be expected to propose and implement
| odor management solutions as part of the operational scope? | Currently as part of the SBIWTP Rehab and Expansion base project, two biological trickling filter systems are recommended to provide odor control for the existing and future expanded facilities. One consolidated system is recommended for preliminary treatment and influent pump station, primary treatment and biosolids processing. The second system is recommended for USSTs. However, these system are part of the base construction project and are scheduled to be completed during the 2026 to 2031 construction time frame. | |||
| 26 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | Given that the plant’s capacity will expand from the current 35 MGD to 50 MGD |
during the term of the contract, how will the Government re-price the services once
| the scope increases? | modifications to the original contract will be review and allowed where necessary, please see PWS page 4 and 10 | |||
| 27 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | Can the Government provide a set of commissioning or similar procedures that will |
be followed prior to the contractor assuming operations and maintenance
| responsibility for the new assets included in the 50 MGD expansion? | yes, IBWC will ensure smooth transition. | |||||
| 28 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | Are design documents and detailed work scope available for the 10 MGD expansion? | yes, design documents are by request, and the detailed Performance Work Statement has been added. Additional attachemnts for this question will be added to solicitation | ||
| 29 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | To ensure accurate maintenance planning and cost estimation for the recently installed dewatering equipment (thickeners and screw presses), could you please clarify: (a) the expected maintenance responsibilities and risk allocation between IBWC and the contractor—specifically, whether the contractor will assume full-risk maintenance for all equipment or if IBWC will retain certain manufacturer service contracts or warranty coverage while the contractor performs preventive and routine maintenance; (b) the current warranty status, including coverage periods, scope of warranty services, and any manufacturer maintenance requirements necessary to preserve warranty validity; and (c) whether maintenance manuals, as-built documentation, and commissioning reports for the expanded capacity equipment are available for offerors' review? | yes, instructions for such equpment are detailed in the Performance Work Statement. B)for warranties and C)maintenance manuals will be transferred over to the new Contractor upon contract award, such transition is stated in PWS section 1.1.1. Additionally, equipment service agreements have been attached to solicitation | ||
| 30 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | Are there ferric dosing locations apart from the CEPT system? If so, what are the locations and their ferric chloride dosing rate? | (response to this question is in progress) | ||
| 31 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | With the cost-reimbursement provisions of the contract, will the Government allow reimbursement of legal costs and similar costs incurred by the contractor due to unforeseen conditions, changes in operations, and other circumstances that are outside the control of the contractor? | No. Please reference PWS page 8 paragraph o. | ||
| 32 | November 7th 2025 | Solicitation Site Visit | Amendment #2 includes an updated chart (page 3/10) indicating "Original, Change, and Current," what is the purpose and intention of this section? | The contract writing system generates this and is not relevant to the solicitation because there is no value included. | ||
| 33 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | ||||
| 34 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | ||||
| 35 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | C & PWS 1.0-1.2 | PDB Coordination Responsibilities Section 1.0 and 1.2 of the PWS state that the PDB team retains responsibility for all construction activities while the O&M contractor must maintain operations, provide SME support, attend coordination meetings, and review shutdown plans to ensure operations are not disrupted. Can you clarify how decisions will be made when PDB construction activities require process outages, temporary operating modes, or additional O&M staffing beyond routine scope—for example, who has final authority to approve shutdown windows and operating constraints, and how required O&M support will be authorized and funded (FFP vs OA vs TM/CR)? | Operation and isolation of process elements will be performed by Operations staff. This would include shutting down process equipment, closing valves, gates, opening tank drains/operating tank drain pumps, isolating sections of pipelines, and similar work needed to place process equipment, pipelines, and facilities in service. O&M staff participate in development of necessary lock out tag out (LOTO) or shutdown planning or at least review the LOTO plan for input and feedback to IBWC. COR will review feedback and IBWC has final authority for approvals. The process tanks with drain systems are to be drained by O&M staff (controlled rates to not impact upstream/downstream process) and cleaned by the PDB Contractor staff. The PDB Contractor is not authorized to open/close valves, gates or electrical disconnects - this has to be done by Operations staff. Additional O&M staffing is not expected to assist PDB team with plant tie-ins or shutdowns. The PDB Contractor will perform all physical work for tie-ins, install/operate/maintain bypasses, clean/remove debris from tanks for Mexico’s disposal, etc. |
The future commissioning of new equipment is expected to require additional effort by O&M staff. The PDB Contractor cannot "operate" treatment equipment or process areas. Coordination and participation will be required of O&M staff for all commissioning activities. These will be addressed in a separate modification once the scope if fully developed.
36 November 22nd, 2025 Solicitation PWS 1.0, 1.1 Expansion Milestones and Interim Operating Expectations PWS Section 1.0 notes current operation at 35 MGD advanced primary (25 MGD to secondary and 10 MGD bypass) and a planned expansion to 50 MGD with a 75 MGD peak hourly capacity by approximately 2031, within the term of this contract. Can you provide a high-level schedule or set of anticipated milestones for major process changes (ie, commissioning of new primary/secondary units, solids handling upgrades) and any associated interim performance expectations (ie, expected secondary flow, allowable bypass durations) that the O&M contractor should assume for planning and pricing? The current SBIWTP Rehab and Expansion project is still in the design phase, there is no detailed expansion schedule. Design is ongoing, current design and schedule include the following, but are subject to change:
Early work package construction:
| - | AST Rehab – Rehab 7 existing ASTs; tentatively scheduled for early 2026 |
| - | Excavation and grading plan for headworks, PSTs, ASTs, and SSTs; tentatively scheduled for early 2026 |
| - | Major Concrete Structures – Concrete work for headworks, PST, AST, SST, and Warehouse; tentatively scheduled for mid 2026 |
Proposed base construction milestones/changes to begin late 2026:
| • | New Influent Pump Station with New Headworks |
| • | Rehabilitate 5 Existing PSTs |
| • | Add 2 News PSTs |
| • | New Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment System |
| • | Add 7 New ASTs and Appurtenances |
| • | Add 10 New SSTs and Appurtenances |
| • | New Electrical Building and Switchgear |
| • | New Electrical Buildings and Equipment at Each Treatment Area |
| • | Add New Generators |
| • | Add 3 New Generators |
| • | Add 1 New Sludge Storage Tanks |
| • | WAS Thickening – Add 4 New RDTs |
| • | Rehab/Expand Solids Processing |
| • | New Sludge Feed Pump Station |
| • | Replace Odor Control throughout |
| • | New/Expand Lime Stabilization |
| • | New Non-Potable Water Pump Station |
| • | New Storage Warehouse & Office Space |
| • | SBOO Modifications |
| 37 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | Section B & PWS 1.1.1 | CR Baselines and Cost Corridor Section B and the CLIN descriptions state that Cost-Reimbursable (CR) CLINs cover variable O&M costs such as chemicals and that a ±10% cost corridor will be applied around a Government-established baseline, with quarterly true-ups and shared variance beyond the corridor. Can you clarify how the initial CR baselines will be established at award (ie, will they be based directly on the Attachment 10 monthly chemical dosage data and current plant loading), how often baseline quantities and unit costs may be adjusted due to changes in flows or processes, and what specific cost-sharing percentages will apply for overruns and underruns beyond the 10% corridor up to the stated 20% threshold? | Baseline is based on Plant capacity which is tied to the permit. As the permit changes, contract will be modified accordingly. |
| 38 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.2(c) & Attachment 10 | Chemical Dosage Assumptions PWS Section 1.2.2(c) states that offerors shall bid the solicitation based on the chemical dosages identified in Attachment 10, which represent average values, while acknowledging that flows and process configurations will change during expansion. Can you confirm whether Attachment 10 should be treated as the contractual baseline for evaluating chemical usage under the CR corridor for the initial base year, and whether USIBWC anticipates updating that baseline as plant capacity and influent characteristics change during the contract? | Baseline is based on Plant capacity which is tied to the permit. As the permit changes, contract will be modified accordingly. |
| 39 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.3 | Definition of “Unusually High” Canyon Sediment Events PWS Section 1.2.3 estimates 4,000 cubic yards annually of canyon collector debris and notes that, in the event of “unusually high” canyon volumes, the contractor may request contract modifications via the OA process when canyon collectors receive double the projected sediment amount within a brief timeframe (1-2 weeks) and elevated levels persist. Could you clarify how the “projected sediment amount” will be defined for the contract (ie, by canyon, by season, or annual total), how “persisting without subsiding” will be measured, and what documentation (ie, Attachment 11 logs, load tickets, photos) is expected for USIBWC to concur that a given period qualifies as OA-eligible work? | The annual total is specified as 4,000 cy annually for all canyons. If at any point in the year it exceeds this amount, contractor may request a modification. Receipts and trackers will be tracked throught out the monthly O&M reports. |
| 40 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.3(c) | Timing of OA Authorization vs Urgent Clean-Out PWS Section 1.2.3(c) requires that canyon collector debris be removed within seven calendar days of each cleaning event, including during rain-related surges, and also references the OA process for unusually high periods. Given the need for immediate response during storm events, can you clarify whether the contractor may proceed with necessary clean-out work to protect public health and permit compliance while an OA determination is pending, and how USIBWC prefers such urgent OA-candidate work to be communicated and documented for later scope and pricing approval? | Contractor is responsible to have the canyon collector structure fully cleaned and put back into service within 72 hours. An amendment to PWS will be posted to correct paragraph 1.2.3.b. |
| 41 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.4(d-f) & Attachment 15 | Corporate Network NIST 800-171 Compliance Timeline PWS Section 1.2.4(d-f) and Attachment 15 require that the contractor’s corporate/admin systems used to store or process CUI comply with NIST SP 800-171r3 and FIPS 199, with quarterly vulnerability assessments and supporting documentation. Can you clarify what minimum level of NIST 800-171 implementation and documentation USIBWC expects to be in place at Notice to Proceed, whether any phased timeline for full compliance (ie, specific controls or domains) is acceptable, and whether USIBWC anticipates funding any significant cyber gap-closure work via CLINs or OA, or expects all such efforts to be borne within the contractor’s indirect structure? | At Notice to Proceed, USIBWC expects contractors to demonstrate baseline compliance with NIST SP 800-171r3 and FIPS 199, including quarterly vulnerability assessments and supporting documentation. A phased implementation plan with POA&Ms may be acceptable, particularly for new Rev 3 controls, but should be clearly documented (IBWC will work closely with contractor in order to establish what is requested/required). USIBWC does not anticipate funding cyber gap-closure work via CLINs or OAs, and expects such efforts to be covered within the contractor’s indirect cost structure (as this is a contractor owned network). |
| 42 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.4(a-c) & Attachment 20 | SCADA System ATO and Documentation Expectations PWS Section 1.2.4(a-c) and Attachment 20 indicate that USIBWC owns the SCADA system and will provide overarching NIST/RMF documentation and audits, while the contractor is responsible for maintaining and upgrading SCADA hardware/software, replacing obsolete field devices, and developing and maintaining network diagrams, SOPs, POAMs, and other security documentation. Can you clarify the current status of the SBIWTP SCADA system’s ATO/RMF package (ie, recent assessment date and residual POAMs), and to what extent USIBWC expects the incoming O&M contractor to (a) update the existing package versus (b) develop new documentation and control implementations as part of the base O&M scope? | USIBWC requires the incoming O&M contractor to complete all phases of the RMF process including preparation, system categorization, control selection (with NIST SP 800-53 and applicable OT overlays), control implementation, assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring along with a current Risk Register and POA&Ms. The SCADA system is a Non-Tier High Value Asset (HVA) per the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Non-Tier 1 HVAs represent systems of significant impact to both the agency and the nation. Both updating existing documentation and developing new documentation are required under the contract to support reauthorization and ensure full compliance. IBWC will provide latest completed rev of Site SSP, Org SOPs, and Org Cyber Policies. |
| 43 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.1 & 1.2.2(e) | Attribution of Regulatory Fines to Contractor Negligence PWS Sections 1.1 and 1.2.2(e) state that USIBWC retains legal liability for permit and legal compliance, but that the contractor may be held responsible for regulatory fines or enforcement actions arising from contractor negligence, gross negligence, or willful misconduct. Can you describe the process USIBWC intends to use to determine whether a given Notice of Violation, fine, or enforcement action is attributable to contractor negligence (ie, use of root-cause analysis, joint investigation, or independent expert review), and whether any contractual cap or limitation on such financial exposure is contemplated? | The contracting officer (CO) will make a written determination on whether the damages being sought are caused by the contractor’s negligence, gross negligence, or willful misconduct. The CO will apply California legal definitions of those terms in making that determination. If the contractor does not agree with the CO determination, it can follow the normal methods of appealing a CO decision. There is no contractual cap or limitation on financial exposure other than those in California law, such as comparative negligence. |
| 44 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.5.2 | Third-Party Claims and Representation PWS Section 1.2.5.2 notes that the contractor shall not represent the Government in regulatory proceedings unless explicitly authorized and that USIBWC retains liability for regulatory actions or third-party claims related to permit compliance, except in cases of contractor negligence. Can you confirm that the contractor is not expected to bear financial responsibility for third-party civil claims or damages (ie, from downstream stakeholders) arising from conditions beyond the contractor’s control, and that any required support in such proceedings will be provided as technical assistance rather than legal representation? | The intent is that the United States will be responsible for and defend against claims by third parties or regulators seekign civil relief or damages arisign from or related to the operation of the Plant, as long as such claims or damages are not caused by operator negligence.Where the United States assumes liability, it will rely on the operator for technical support and assistance during litigation, but the operator will not be required to provide legal representation as the United States will provide that representation. |
| 45 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.2 & 4.1; Section L Factor 3 | Minimum On-Site Staffing PWS Sections 1.2.2 and 4.1 require 24/7 staffing at SBIWTP, at least one bilingual operator onsite at all times, and sufficient qualified staff to meet all operational, canyon, and regulatory requirements, while Section L’s Technical Factor 3 requests our proposed staffing plan. Does USIBWC have any minimum expectations or benchmarks for on-site staffing by classification per shift (ie, number of certified operators, mechanics, I&C technicians) that will be used in evaluating staffing sufficiency, or should offerors assume full discretion to propose risk-based staffing levels as long as all PWS and permit requirements are met? | offerors assume full discretion to propose risk-based staffing levels as long as all PWS and permit requirements are met, as well as the State of California's Waste water treatment operator license requirements are met |
| 46 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.3 & 4.4 | Storm Events, Canyon Response, and Call-Out Expectations PWS Sections 1.2.3 and 4.4 specify daily canyon inspections, additional inspections during rain events, and restoration of canyon collector service within 48 hours after rainfall, along with emergency services requirements. Can you clarify any specific expectations for response time and staffing during storm events (ie, minimum onsite staffing or maximum call-out time for canyon clean-out and bypass management), beyond the general requirement for 24/7 plant staffing? | Spill prevention and response plan is a Permit requirement, and contractor is responsible for providing a response plan to address all permit requirementts. PWS 1.2.3 section e. Contractor bears responsibility for executing all tasks |
specified in the Prevention/Response Plan when responding to transboundary flows. Contractor will submit a prevention and response plan for review during the initial submittal phase upon award. The most-up-to-date prevention and response plan is attached to the solicitation.
| 47 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | Section B TM CLINs & PWS 1.2.2(g-m) | Criteria for Using T&M Emergency CLINs Section B describes T&M CLINs for emergency response and un-scoped repairs, and PWS Section 1.2.2(g-m) outlines preventive and corrective maintenance responsibilities for plant and canyon infrastructure. To help ensure consistent application of the T&M CLINs, can you provide examples or criteria that distinguish emergency work chargeable to the T&M CLIN (ie, sudden failures requiring immediate mobilization beyond standard staffing, major storm damage) from corrective maintenance that USIBWC expects to be absorbed within the FFP OM CLINs? | See decision matrix to help distinguish between emergency work chargeable to T&M CLINs and corrective maintenance expected under FFP OM CLINs |
| 48 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.2(n-o) & Section III | Boundaries for Building and Site O&M PWS Section 1.2.2(n-o) assigns the contractor responsibility for most building and grounds maintenance, cleaning services, security services, and various support functions, while noting that USIBWC’s San Diego Field Office admin building is excluded from some obligations. Can you provide a list or principle (ie, all assets within the wastewater fenced compound except the SDFO admin building, or all assets on Attachment 7) that USIBWC will use to determine which buildings, site utilities, security systems, and common areas are within the contractor’s O&M scope versus retained by USIBWC? | The SDFO admin building will now be part of the scope of work, and an amended PWS with a December 2025 date, will be provided and updated |
| 49 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | Section M & Section L | Relative Importance of Price vs Technical Factors Section L identifies seven technical evaluation factors (past performance, specialized experience, staffing, safety/regulatory, financial stability, phase-in plan, and SCADA experience), and Section M describes best-value tradeoff procedures but does not explicitly state the relative importance of price compared to all non-price factors combined. Can you clarify whether price is equal to, more important than, or less important than the combined technical factors, and whether any particular technical factor (ie, safety or SCADA) is significantly more important than the others? | Price is less important than the combined technical evaluation factors. This means that although price is a substantial consideration, the government may award the contract to an offeror whose proposal is not the lowest-priced if it offers superior technical merit across the seven identified factors: past performance, specialized experience, staffing, safety/regulatory compliance, financial stability, phase-in plan, and SCADA experience. Furthermore, no single technical factor is designated as more important than the others, though safety/regulatory and SCADA experience may carry practical significance due to their direct impact on operational reliability and compliance. |
| 50 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | Sections B, L & M | Treatment of CR/T&M Cost Realism Given the hybrid pricing structure with FFP, T&M, and CR CLINs, can you elaborate on how USIBWC will evaluate cost realism and reasonableness for the CR and T&M components (ie, will the Government compare proposed CR baselines and T&M labor rates against historical SBIWTP data or independent estimates, and could unrealistically low CR/T&M pricing affect a proposal’s risk rating or acceptability under Section M)? | USIBWC will evaluate cost realism and reasonableness for CR and T&M components using a multi-pronged approach: 1. Proposed CR baselines and T&M labor rates will be compared against historical SBIWTP cost data and performance records to assess realism. 2. Evaluators will use IGEs to benchmark labor rates, indirect costs, and reimbursable assumptions for both CR and T&M CLINs. 3. Section B and the PWS define a ±10% cost corridor around a Government-established CR baseline. Quarterly true-ups will be conducted, and shared variance beyond the corridor will be reviewed for acceptability. 4. Labor Rate Evaluation for T&M CLINs: Offerors must identify labor categories and rates for T&M CLINs. These rates will be evaluated for reasonableness and supportability, especially for emergency response and surge support scenarios. 5. Risk-Based Assessment: Unrealistically low CR or T&M pricing may be flagged as a risk indicator. Section M confirms that cost realism will directly influence the proposal’s risk rating and overall acceptability. Low pricing that undermines the feasibility of performance may result in a downgraded technical or management score. |
| 51 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | Section I 52.222-42 & Attachment 23 | Wage Determination and CBA Status Section I includes clause 52.222-42 with equivalent federal rates for several key classifications (ie, chief electrician, chief mechanic, wastewater operator), and the attachments reference a wage determination CA20240001 dated July 26,Can you confirm the specific Service Contract Labor Standards wage |
determination number and revision that will apply at award for this contract, and whether there is any existing or anticipated collective bargaining agreement covering incumbent O&M staff at SBIWTP that offerors should be aware of when
| developing labor rates and escalation assumptions? | There is no CBA for these services. | |||||
| 52 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.5 & 1.3 | Onsite vs External Laboratory and Turnaround Times PWS Sections 1.2.5 and 1.3 require the contractor to implement sampling, analysis, and QA/QC per the NPDES permit and allow use of an external certified laboratory, but the solicitation does not state whether USIBWC prefers an onsite analytical laboratory at SBIWTP versus a primarily external lab model. Can you indicate whether USIBWC has a preference for onsite versus external lab services, and whether there are any minimum turnaround time expectations for regulatory and operational analyses beyond those specified in the NPDES Monitoring and Reporting Program? | We will leave it up to the discretion of contractor to meet contract requirements. | |
| 53 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.3.3 & Attachments 2-3 | KPI Metrics and Impact on Payment PWS Section 1.3.3 requires a Monthly O&M Report that includes a performance dashboard summarizing KPIs, permit compliance support, and deviations, and notes that this dashboard will be used to assess performance-based payment eligibility, while Attachments 2 and 3 provide the QASP and Required Performance Metrics (RPM). Can you clarify whether there are any formal financial incentives, withholds, or payment adjustments directly tied to specific KPI thresholds in the QASP/RPM (beyond standard inspection and acceptance under the FAR), and if so, where those thresholds and adjustment mechanisms are defined? | All negative, positive incentives, and firm fixed price items are specified in the RPM table. Aside from the PWS, QASP, and RPM table there are no other metrics. Any adjustment mechanism to this contract and costs shall be submitted through the OA process as specified in the PWS. | |
| 54 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | Section L.02 “Questions” (recommended reference) | Request for Historical Pricing Information - SBIWTP O&M To better understand cost drivers and develop realistic, competitive Firm Fixed Price, Time and Materials, and Cost Reimbursable pricing for Solicitation 191BWC26R0001, would USIBWC be able to provide all available historical contract pricing and cost information for prior SBIWTP O&M contracts over approximately the last ten (10) years, including: (a) annual or CLIN level FFP amounts by year, (b) T&M labor categories, fully burdened hourly rates, NTE ceilings, and annual T&M usage by CLIN, and (c) CR CLIN actuals or billed amounts by major cost element (ie, chemicals, power, solids handling), together with the applicable contract numbers and periods of performance? If a 10 year period is not fully available, please provide as many years as practicable within that timeframe.” | CR clins are based on actual cost. Time and Material clins are not part of the current 2020 contract. | |
| 55 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.0-1.1; Attachment 9 (Capital Project List) | Capital Expansion Schedule and O&M Involvement PWS Section 1.0 describes an ongoing rehabilitation and expansion to 50 MGD with phased implementation, and Attachment 9 provides a capital project list, but a detailed expansion schedule for 2026-2031 is not included. Can USIBWC provide a more detailed expansion schedule for approximately 2026-2031, including anticipated phase start/finish windows, major system tie ins, expected process shutdowns or capacity reductions, and the level of O&M contractor involvement during equipment and process commissioning? | The current SBIWTP Rehab and Expansion project is still in the design phase, there is no detailed expansion schedule. Please see Question #2 for additional information for systems that will be expanded during the base project. |
The O&M staff must participate in training and integration activities throughout the transitional period leading up to plant expansion project completion and turnover. The O&M Contractor will be responsible for assisting with process stabilization and optimization during the start-up and commissioning of new systems and equipment.
56 November 22nd, 2025 Solicitation PWS 1.0-1.2; Section H.01 Hybrid Contract Structure Capital vs O&M Responsibilities During Improvements During the 2026-2031 capital improvement period, some systems will be rehabilitated or replaced while the O&M contractor maintains operations. Can you clarify which responsibilities (ie, equipment start up, functional testing, temporary process work arounds, operator training on new systems) will remain with the O&M contractor and which will fall under the capital project team, and how operational continuity expectations (ie, uptime targets, allowable treatment train reductions) will be managed contractually during these activities? Per the PWS "During the expansion, the PDB team will work closely with the future SBIWTP O&M Contractor to ensure maintenance of plant operation during the construction services phase and adjusting operations to support design and construction efforts when necessary. The O&M Contractor shall provide Subject Matter Expert support during the design and construction services phases. The support shall include close collaboration and coordination with the PDB team to ensure plant operations are maintained without disruption throughout the expansion project. This support shall involve attending critical meetings related to design or construction coordination, to provide input, and stay informed of project plans and progress. The Contractor shall provide information that may require expertise from the O&M Contractor personnel including operations, maintenance, electrical, instrumentation and controls staff. An essential responsibility will include reviewing proposed shutdown plans to verify that plant operations can be maintained and that O&M will not be negatively impacted."
| 57 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.0-1.2; Attachment 4 NPDES Permit | Design Flow and Load Criteria for Planning The PWS and NPDES permit describe current and permitted flows but do not explicitly state design flow and load criteria for planning purposes. Can USIBWC specify the design average/peak flows and representative influent loadings (ie, BOD, TSS, TKN, fats/oils/grease) that offerors should use for budgeting, staffing, chemical forecasting, and solids management over the base and option years, including any anticipated step changes due to expansion phases? | Yes, we can provide most recent chemical usage, and NPDES reports | |
| 58 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 4.0; Attachments 6, 7, 8 (Asset Registry and Maintenance | Asset Registry and Maintenance Schedule Data Format Schedule) Attachments 6, 7, and 8 provide asset and maintenance information but the solicitation does not specify data formats for contractor use. Will the SBIWTP Asset Registry and Asset Maintenance Schedule be provided in editable formats such as Excel or CSV to facilitate import into the contractor’s CMMS/EAM system, and may the contractor modify field structures (while preserving required data) to align with its internal asset management framework? | Upon award, and during phase in months IBWC can work with vendor to transfer CMMS data over to vendor and they may adjust as see needed, and provide to IBWC cor for final review | |
| 59 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.5; Attachment 7 Condition Assessment Report; Attachment 9 | Definition of O&M Repair vs Capital Replacement Capital Project List The PWS references both O&M repair responsibilities and a substantial capital program but does not state explicit thresholds between O&M repair and capital replacement. Can you clarify how USIBWC defines the boundary between O&M repair work (funded under FFP/T&M/CR) and capital replacement/upgrade (funded under capital projects), such as by cost threshold, asset life extension, or project listing, and whether there is a list of assets already earmarked for capital replacement during the 5 year contract? | A projected 5 year capital project list can be provided and attached to the solicitation. The repair and capital replacement work is specified in PWS sections 1.5.1-1.5.3 and 1.6 | |
| 60 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.2(g-m); Section III Government Furnished Property | Government-Owned Spares and Consumable Replenishment The PWS describes contractor responsibility for materials and supplies but is less explicit about any Government owned spare parts inventory. Can you identify whether USIBWC will provide any Government owned critical spares or specialized components, and if so, what procedures the contractor must follow for issuing, tracking, and replenishing these spares, including whether replenishment is funded under FFP, CR, or capital budgets? | Any spare parts available will be transferred to new Contractor, but Contractor will be responsible for providing spare parts and parts throughout the duration of the contract. | |
| 61 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.2 (solids handling); Attachment 12 NPDES Annual Biosolids | Biosolids Production and Hauling Cost Basis Report PWS Section 1.2.2 indicates that stabilized sludge, screenings, and grit are trucked to Mexico for landfill disposal, but recent production and hauling cost data are not detailed in the solicitation. Can USIBWC provide recent annual biosolids production volumes (ie, dry tons/year), typical daily truck counts, and whether biosolids hauling and disposal costs are currently treated as FFP, CR, or a separate subcontract, so that offerors can align their pricing and subcontracting assumptions? | Biosolids hauling and disposal to Mexico are handled by Mexico. Mexico handles the cost. The Contractor is responsible for coordination, as well as loading the trucks and any other weight distribution that is needed to assist the Mexican truck drivers/operators.i.e. Contractor shall account for management of off-hauling solids. This includes weighing trucks correctly and loading them evenly. This work must be done before the Mexican driver departs the site. | |
| 62 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | Section L Pricing Instructions; PWS 4.0 Program Management | Subcontractor and Vendor Cost Breakout Expectations Section L requires detailed pricing breakdowns but does not specify the level of subcontractor quote detail expected at the proposal stage. For major subcontracted services (ie, biosolids hauling, specialty chemicals, third party lab analyses, emergency services), what level of supporting documentation (ie, current quotes, rate sheets, letters of intent) does USIBWC expect to see in the proposal, and how should these be organized in Volume II to meet evaluation needs while protecting proprietary information? | Section L of the solicitation requires detailed pricing breakdowns but does not mandate full subcontractor quote packages at the proposal stage. However, USIBWC expects the following for major subcontracted services: 1. Current Quotes or Rate Sheets: These are preferred for biosolids hauling, specialty chemicals, and lab analyses. They help validate pricing assumptions and demonstrate market realism. 2. Letters of Intent (LOIs): For emergency services or specialty vendors where quotes may not be finalized, LOIs are acceptable to show commitment and scope alignment. 3. Narrative Justification: A brief explanation of how subcontractor pricing was derived, including assumptions, escalation factors, and any contingencies. To meet evaluation needs while protecting proprietary data, USIBWC recommends the following structure for Volume II: 1. Summary Table: List all subcontracted services with estimated costs, vendor names (if not proprietary), and CLIN alignment. 2. Supporting Documentation Appendices: a. Appendix A: Rate sheets and quotes (clearly marked as proprietary if needed). B. Appendix B: Letters of intent or MOUs. C. Appendix C: Narrative justifications and pricing rationale. D. Proprietary Markings: Use headers and footers to mark proprietary pages. Include a cover letter or section explaining how proprietary data is protected and why it is necessary for evaluation. | |
| 63 | November 22nd, 2025 | Solicitation | PWS 1.2.5.2; 1.3; Attachment 21 Spill/Transboundary Plan | Binational and Multi Agency Reporting Requirements PWS Sections 1.2.5.2 and 1.3 reference transboundary flows and spill reporting, and Attachment 21 provides the Spill and Transboundary Plan, but the extent of binational and multi agency reporting duties is not fully detailed. Beyond the NPDES requirements, can USIBWC clarify which binational and U.S. agencies (ie, CONAGUA, CESPT, EPA Region 9) the contractor will support with data and reports, and what protocols and timelines exist for documenting and reporting cross border hydraulic overload or transboundary spill incidents? | Beyond the NPDES requirements, theres no requirements for the Contractor |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .