AMD_2_-_ATTACHMENT_5_-_RFP_QUESTIONS_AND_ANSWERS_8-21-19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FORT GORDON LANDFILL CLOSURES
- Solicitation number
- ISO0171-19
About this file
AMD 2 - ATTACHMENT 5 - RFP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 8-21-19 - 8 PAGES
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet2
| AMD 2 - ATTACHMENT 5 - QUESTIONS/ANSWERS | |
| RFP QUESTION: | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: |
| 1. ISO0171-19-RFP, SF1442 Block 13a: Government asks for an original and two copies of the proposal; however, on the RFP cover letter, the government writes, “Your responses as well as all questions regarding this RFP shall be directed via e-mail to: Clara.Roberts@usdoj.gov.” Recommend that the government remove the requirement for an original and multiple copies from SF 1442. | 13.a is incorrect. Proposals are to be submitted as an attachment to an email. RFP has been amended to reflect this. |
| 2. ISO0171-19-RFP, SF1442: Where offerors include the completed two-page SF1442? | It would be included in the Pricing Proposal. |
| 3. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section A, pg. 4 of 39: This page has information that is required to be completed by the offeror. In which of the four documents of the proposal shall we put this and where in the volume? | It would be included in the Pricing Proposal. |
| 4. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section I and K and clauses in Section L: Would the government like a completed copy of the offeror’s Reps and Certs from Sam.gov for the proposal response to clauses in these sections? In which proposal factor or Document Number should this then be included? | We will pull the Reps and Certs from your SAM.gov account. There is no need to include those in the packet. |
| 5. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section L, 2.a, page 32 and 39.: Will the government confirm they are expecting to see four separate emailed documents titled: | Yes, expecting four separate documents for evaluation (emailed). |
| (1) Document I - Technical Capability | |
| (2) Document II - Experience | |
| (3) Document III - Past Performance | |
| (4) Document IV - Price Proposal? | |
| 6. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section L, 2.b, page 32 of 39: Will the government please clarify if Document I should be titled “Technical Capability” as per Section L 2.a or as stated in Section L 2. B as “Project Execution and Project Schedule?” | Removed listing under L.2.B. in an Amendment |
| 7. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section L, b. Proposal Format, page 32 of 39: Will the government consider removing the requirement for a cover sheet with a proposal “copy number” since this is email submission? | Provide cover sheet as required by RFP. |
| 8. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section M, 2, page 39 of 39: Section M introduces conflicting Factors to the instructions in Section L. Section M mentions “Factor 1: Understanding the Project” and “Factor 2: Project Schedule” for the first time. In Section L, Factor 2 is tied to the Document II -Experience. Will the government please state how we are to organize Document I, its title, its Factors, and its Subfactors? | Organize the Factors per the instructions in Section L. |
| 9. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section M, 2, page 39 of 39: Factor 2 here is stated as part of Document I; however, in Section L it is tied to Document II – Experience. If Factor 2 is now tied to Document I, which Factor is Document II as it is missing entirely from Section M? | See page 34 of 39, (2) Document II is tied also to Factor 1. |
| 10. ISO0171-19-RFP, Bonds, pg 15 of 39: Government includes clauses and instructions for a bid guarantee and performance bond. However, per SF 1442 Block 12a and Block 13b, neither a performance and payment bond nor an offer guarantee is required. Please clarify requirements. If a bid bond is required, please specify where that should be included and if an email copy okay. | Performance and Payment Bonds are required and the RFP has been amended. Bid Guarantee is also required and should be inlcuded with the Pricing Proposal. Email is acceptable. |
| 11. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section L (2) Document II - Experience, page 34 of 39: Experience Overview Sheet appears to be Attachment 7; while the Experience Information Sheet is Attachment 6. Will the government please clarify or update their RFP instructions? | The wrong Attachment #'s were noted on Page 34 of 39, Attachment 6 is the Experience Information Sheet and Attachment 7 is the Experience Overview Sheet. This as been amended. |
| 12. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section L (2) Document II - Experience, page 34 of 39: Instructions state we should include up to five projects, performed within the last three years or currently being performed (at least 50 percent complete). However, per Attachment 6 Experience Information Sheet, the date must be “within the last 6 years.” Will the government please clarify the guidelines for acceptable projects to include? | Section L, (c) TAB C: Subfactor 3 - Design-Build: At a minimum, offerors shall: (2)(a)1. Remove and replace three (3) years with six (6) years. This has been amended. |
| 13. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section L, (b) TAB B, 2, page 34 of 39: Is the government asking for names of key personnel? | See requirements in Section L, (b) TAB B, 1. |
| 14. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section M (b), Subfactor 2, page 39 of 39: Is the government asking for names for the Program Manager and/or Project Managers or solely position titles? | Names are preferred but not required. |
| 15. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section L, (c) TAB C: Subfactor 3 - Design-Build: Requests conformance with deliverables requirements as defined in the USACE Savannah District Design Manual for Military Construction and the RFP. Will the government provide the USACE Savannah District Design Manual for Military Construction? Is the Savannah District Design Manual dated June 2016 the current version? | Link to the current document is provided in the Performance Work Statement, Part 5 (5.8.9.3.2), page 10 of 39. |
| 16. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section L, (3) Document III - Past Performance, page 34 of 39: Will the government clarify instructions for using Attachment 8? In the document, the instructions provided state we are only to complete and return page 2 with our proposal. Is this the government’s intent? Or, are we to ask our clients to complete this PPQ and return it to us to include with our proposal? | The offeror is to complete Attachment 8 and the Government will get it completed by your references during the evaluation process. |
| 17. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section L, (2) What Counts As A Page, page 33 of 39: Would the government accept a schedule or other tables in 11x 17? | No, you must follow the requirements of the RFP. |
| 18. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section L, (4) Document IV - Price Proposal, page 34 or 39: Can the government clarify what the CLINS are for this opportunity and how they relate to the Master Format Division column in Attachment 1? | See Part 1, Section A (2.) for six (6) CLINs and descriptions. These correlate with CLIN numbers in Attachment 1. |
| 19. ATTACHMENT_4_PERMITTING_REQUIRMENTS, page 2: the government states all permits for the project will be obtained by Fort Gordon’s DPW Environmental Division. However, in ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.2.1, page 11 of 39, the government states both permits shall be required for the project by the contractor at the contractor’s expense. Will the government please clarify if all permits are at the contractor’s expense or not? | Permits are at the Contractor's expense. However, all environmental permits will be obtained THROUGH Fort Gordon's DPW Environmental Division. |
| 20. Do you want the sealed bid bond mailed to you separately? | You may send the Bid Guarantee with your price proposal via an email. |
| 21. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: What are security and entry requirements for construction equipment and personnel? For example, what is the anticipated time it will take for haul trucks with soil to enter Ft Gordon? What gate will be the main entry point for construction equipment and haul trucks? Will passes be distributed for multiple day periods? If multiple day passes are available, what are the duration and requirements? | Security requirements and haul route information will be provided as an amendment to the RFP. SEE AMD 2 -ATTACHMENT 7. |
| 22. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: What are Ft Gordon requirements for street cleaning associated with construction projects? | Provide street cleaning per requirements to maintain erosion and sediment control/ land disturbance permit. |
| 23. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: Any restrictions associated with the placement of jobsite porta-potties? | No restrictions and should be provided in Contractor's laydown plan to be coordinated and approved by the Installation after award. |
| 24. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: Are there any Roadway or Highway weight limits or bridge weight limits that would prohibit 80,000-lb, 18-wheeler semi-trucks from delivering soil? | There are no foreseen issues. |
| 25. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: Can you share any other monitoring/maintenance plans currently in place by GA EPD? | Surface and Groundwater is monitored semi-annually and methane quarterly. |
| 26. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: Do current landfill management requirements include capture/management/testing of storm waters? | will provide answer in another Amendment |
| 27. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: What are challenges for getting a nuclear density gauge on Ft Gordon? | There are no foreseen issues. |
| 28. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: What are dig permit requirements for Ft Gordon? Are there utilities that need to be avoided in the proposed excavation areas? | Excavation requirements will be provided in an amendment to the RFP. Underground utilities need to be coordinated by the Design/ Build Contractor with the privatized utility companies. - see AMD 2 - ATTACHMENT 7 |
| 29. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: Are there any additional Ft Gordon permits that will be required to perform the work? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 30. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: Can a dedicated Gate be provided for haul trucks? If not how many haul trucks (18 wheelers) can we get through the gates in one day? Or how many trucks usually enter the post and how long is inspection? Or, can we get our haul trucks pre-screened to avoid lengthy inspections? | A dedicated gate cannot be provided. There is no pre-screening process but any additional information can be coordinated with base security after award. |
| 31. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: Water source – Where are the sources and what are the procedures for each landfill site? | The closest water source for Gibson Road is about a half mile back towards Range Road. There are no established procedures. |
| 32. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: Are there any current Georgia Water Quality Control Act (GWCA) or Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act (GESCA) permits for the landfills? Please provide copies. | will provide answer in another Amendment |
| 33. ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.: Is establishment of the vegetation to be included in the 365-day period of performance (POP)? | Yes |
| 34. ISO0171-19-RFP, Page 1, Section 13: Based upon the number of questions and the significance of the responses to the solicitation and integration of subcontractor and vendor bids, we respectfully request an extension of the proposal due date from 08/26/19 to 09/20/19. | SOLICITATION CLOSING HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL 9/6/19 |
| ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.2.1. - Gibson Road Landfill Base Bid: | |
| 1. Does the existing intermediate soil meet the permeability requirements, and will it require certification too? | See Attachment 5 Reference Design provided. |
| 2. Is it required to confirm the existing 12-inch intermediate cover thickness? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 3. Is the proposed alternate cap cross-section approved by the EPD? | Yes |
| 4. What is the compaction requirement for the soil above the GCL? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 5. Will UNICOR provide the certified landfill operator for closure supervision as stated in the Closure Plan? | will provide answer in another Amendment |
| 6. What is current thickness of cover on Gibson landfill and what type of material? | See Attachment 5 Reference Design provided. |
| 7. What are compaction and permeability requirements for replacing the removed clay back on top of the installed liner? | Compacted clay material to provide 12 inches of soil cover |
| 8. What is the current thickness of the cap on the Gibson Road landfill and what type of material? | In the D&O plan provided. |
| 9. Please confirm, the contractor will not be responsible for repairs to the cap below the 6-inch removal, unless damage was made by said contractor. For example, waste is encountered after removal of only 6 inches of soil, meaning the original cap was inadequate in thickness. | Refer to Note #2 Post Closure Care Procedures: Any areas noted as as having erosion and exposed GCL will immediately receive sufficient quantities of compacted clay material to provide 12 inches of soil cover. The newly filled areas will then be reseeded and fertilized. |
| 10. Is water present at the Gibson Road landfill that can be used for construction purposes? What is the distance to water if not on site? Will a water meter be required to measure water consumption? Will water be provided free of charge to the contractor? | There water supply point at the intersection of Range Road and Gibson Road. Contractor can use these facilities for water supply needs at no cost. Facility is shared with other users so Contractor shall exercise appropriate maintenance. |
| 11. Has periodic cap surveying been completed to determine settlement? | No |
| 12. Has periodic Methane monitoring/testing been completed to see how active the landfill is in terms of off gas production? | Quarterly Methane Monitoring is performed at both landfills. |
| 13. Are there any updated plans or surveys on the landfills? | No, but will provide all As-Builts and plans available. |
| 14. Please provide location of construction support area to be provided for Gibson Road landfill. Is power present at this location? Will power tie-ins be provided by the Fort? Will power be provided free of charge to the contractor? Is a job trailer or similar available for use by the contractor? | Contractor has to make a request for a laydown area near the site or on the Designated Contractor Laydown Area of Fort Gordon. Contractor has to provide their own trailer and request utilities. Contractor is responsible for payment of the utilities. There are no utilities available at the actual site. Contractor is not required to provide a temporary trailer for the Government. Div 1 Spec Section 01 50 00 is amended. |
| 15. Is a bottom liner present? Will the GCL need to be tied into the bottom liner? | No, the landfill was constructed before the requirement of a bottom liner. |
| 16. During the site visit in February “asbestos” signs were noted at the Gibson Road landfill. Please confirm that, and explain how, asbestos waste will be avoided during performance of the cap modifications. | Asbestos waste was disposed of in the cells as marked. |
| 17. With the exception of the minor modification requirement to the landfill cap, is the Gibson Road landfill in compliance with applicable permits? Are there areas of concern for methane gas emissions? | It is in full compliance. No concern for methane. |
| 18. During the site visit is was indicated the adjacent retention pond could be use for sediment control. Please confirm. Additionally, because the contractor is required to meet sediment control requirements of the Georgia Erosion and Sediment Control Act, please confirm the Gibson Road landfill is currently in compliance during storm events. What will be the measurement of the effectiveness of the temporary erosion control structures? | will provide answer in another Amendment |
| 19. What survey method is required to confirm soil thickness? – Physical surveys will be off due to settlement/compaction of waste during construction. | Physical surveys |
| 20. How will soft/unstable/wet areas be handled? – Undercut and backfill? What material will be used for backfill…gravel or soil? | Uncercut and cover with soil or gravel depending on the adjacent drainage consitions of the area. |
| 21. How do you handle any leachate/contact water that may be encountered? | Leachate from collection system on Gibson Road is stored onsite. |
| ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.2.2. - 17th Street Landfill Option 1: | |
| 1. Is there any known presence or the potential of asbestos disposed of in this landfill? | None that are known. |
| 2. How will the depth of passive methane wells be determined? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 3. What are access requirements for locations of methane wells? Slope gradient? Vegetation? Fencing? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 4. What is current landfill cap construction? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 5. What are restoration requirements for driving on the landfill cap? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 6. Will air permitting be part of this scope? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 7. Has periodic Methane monitoring/testing been completed to see how active the landfill is in terms of off gas production? Are explosive conditions present based upon prior monitoring? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 8. Due to access issues with adjacent property usage and the potential for getting stuck using the back roads. Will the back-road access be the primary access to complete this work? Will the Government provide road improvements or are road repairs the responsibility of the contractor; prior to and after usage? For example, would ruts need to be regraded? | Road improvements and access are the responsibility of the Contractor prior to and after usage. It will not be provided by the Government. RFP is amended to include this. |
| ISO0171-19-RFP, Section 5.10.2.3. - Carter Road Landfill Option 2: | |
| 1. Will any security (watchman or temporary fencing) need to be required? | Temporary fencing is required. |
| 2. Location to haul off vegetation debris or spoils? | Vegetation Debris has to be disposed off post. |
| 3. The RFQ says to place 24 inches of soil and must meet Subtitle D Standards. Can you confirm this equates to 18 inches of 1x10-5 cm/sec soil and 6 inches of topsoil? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 4. What is the thickness and construction of the current cover on this landfill? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 5. What is typical time-frame for GA EPD approval of a Ft Gordon Landfill Closure Plan? | Minimum 45 days. The maximum depends on the quality of the design submitted. |
| 6. What are compaction and permeability requirements for the 24-inch cover? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| 7. What is the landfill type? e.g., C&D, municipal solid waste, inert, or other? | Installation landfill |
| 8. Is water present at the Carter Road landfill that can be used for construction purposes? What is the distance to water if not on site? Will a water meter be required to measure water consumption? Will water be provided free of charge to the contractor? | There water supply point at the intersection of Range Road and Gibson Road. Contractor can use these facilities for water supply needs at no cost. Facility is shared with other users so Contractor shall exercise appropriate maintenance. |
| 9. Please provide location of construction support area to be provided for Carter Road landfill. Is power present at this location? Will power tie-ins be provided by the Fort? Will power be provided free of charge to the contractor? Is a job trailer or similar available for use by the contractor? | Contractor has to make a request for a laydown area near the site or on the Designated Contractor Laydown Area of Fort Gordon. Contractor has to provide their own trailer and request utilities. Contractor is responsible for payment of the utilities. There are no utilities available at the actual site. Contractor is not required to provide a temporary trailer for the Government. Div 1 Spec Section 01 50 00 have been amended. |
| 10. What are vegetation requirements and restrictions for clearing and grubbing for capping? Any biological species of concern? | See Attachment 5 of the RFP, Reference Design for the required vegetation. |
| 11. Could the adjacent retention ponds be use for sediment control? Additionally, because the contractor is required to meet sediment control requirements of the Georgia Erosion and Sediment Control Act, please confirm the Carter Road landfill is currently in compliance during storm events. What will be the measurement of the effectiveness of the temporary erosion control structures? | will provide answer in another Amendment |
| 12. Is any portion of the landfill currently capped with adequate soil cover? What are the thickness and construction of these sections? | To be determined by Design/ Build Contractor. |
| Is the range of magnitude different from the original Solicitation? | Range of Magnuitude for this solicitation is noted on bottom of page 14 and top of page 15 in the solicitation - PROJECT MAGNITUDE - $5,000,000 and $10,000,000. |
| Please confirm a bid bond is not required for submission with our bid. | Bid bond is required. RFP is amended to include this information. |
| Please provide the source (CADD) files for the Carter Road Landfill – Surface Water Control Plans, March 2011 by Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. They are needed to generate accurate quantity takeoffs for regrading or form a basis of an updated Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. | CADD files are not available. |
| Please provide current land elevation surveys for Carter Road Landfill. If current elevations are not available, please provide any elevation contours that can be used to form a basis of estimate. | Will provide all As-builts or topographic information available. What is not provided, is not available. |
| Confirm that the ongoing landfilling at Gibson Road will be completed prior to the start of the proposed work. Please provide final elevation contours. | Yes, it will be complete. |
| Is there borrow material available on base that can be used as fill material such as the stockpile at the Gibson Road Borrow Pit? | As for the borrow pit, soil from Gibson Road Borrow Pit can be used for Carter Road Landfill and "fill only" for Gibson Road, but it will not be adequate soil to use for the Gibson Road Cap requirement. We have another project that is currently hauling soil to this borrow pit that can be used by this project. |
| If borrow material is available on base, where is it located? Is the borrow material in a permitted surface mine, stockpiled or from any ongoing construction projects? | As for the borrow pit, soil from Gibson Road Borrow Pit can be used for Carter Road Landfill and "fill only" for Gibson Road, but it will not be adequate soil to use for the Gibson Road Cap requirement. We have another project that is currently hauling soil to this borrow pit that can be used by this project. |
| Confirm that the final grading plan for the Carter Road Landfill does not require review and approval by the Georgia EPD, Solid Waste Branch and only requires approval as an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan under an NPDES General Permit from Region III of the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. | Per RFP 5.10 Scope of Work, Final Approval by the GA EPD, Solid Waste Branch. |
| There is a conflict in the solicitation regarding Bonding. Item 12.a indicates that a Performance and Payment Bond is not required and Item 13.b. of the Solicitation reads that an offer guarantee is not required. Forms SF-24 Bid Bond, SF-25 Performance Bond and Form 25A Payment Bond are referenced in the Solicitation and included as attachments. Section 252.228.7008 Bonds and Security reads that offers shall furnish a bid guarantee in the amount of 20%. Please clarify if bonding is required. | 12.a and 13 b are incorrect and have been amended to require Performance and Payment Bonds, as well as require a offer guarantee. 12b. Is 10 days. This has been amended. |
| Section 13.a. indicates that an original and 2 copies of the proposal are required. Part I, Section A, 1. indicates that email is the preferred method of submittal of the proposal. Please confirm that the proposal can be submitted as an attachment to an email rather than two paper copies. | 13.a is incorrect. Proposals are to be submitted as an attachment to an email. RFP has been amended to reflect this. |
| Attachment 6 – Experience Information Sheet Number 4, states that the Date work was completed must be within last 6 years. Section L. c., (1), (c), 1. States “…Five (5) projects performed within the last three (3) years…”. Please confirm that the experience statement in Attachment 6 that uses the date of 6 years takes precedent. | Section L (2) TAB C (2) (a) 1 is incorrect and Experience Overview Sheet listings of projects performed within the six (6) years. RFP has been amended. |
| There are two areas where CLINS are listed in the RFP and they do not match nor is there any form of a description. The two sections are 1) Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown (Attachment 1) and 2) Section B Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs. The Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown lists 6 CLINs (CLIN 1, CLIN 2, CLIN 3, CLIN 4, CLIN 5 and CLIN 6) but does not have a CLIN 7 or 8. Section B lists six Item Numbers (0001, 0004, 0005, 0006, 0007 and 0008) but does not have items 0002 or CLIN 0003. Do the Item Numbers listed in Section B represent CLINs? If the Item Numbers represent CLINS, please clarify how to match up Item Numbers 0007 and 0008 from Section B with CLINS 2 and 3 in the Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown. Can more definition be provided on all of the Master Format Divisions on the Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown and specifically what is Thermal Moisture Protection and what are Exterior Improvements? | See Part 1, Section A (2.) for six (6) CLINs and descriptions. |
| We request an extension of 2 weeks after additional files are received and all questions answered. | SOLICITATION CLOSING HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL 9/6/19 |
| Is there a Government borrow pit available on or off base? If so, can it be used, and is it suitable material available of sufficient quantity & quality to complete the base bid project and/or potential options. Also, if material is available can the address or distance to the pit be provided? | As for the borrow pit, soil from Gibson Road Borrow Pit can be used for Carter Road Landfill and "fill only" for Gibson Road, but it will not be adequate soil to use for the Gibson Road Cap We have another project that is currently hauling soil to this borrow pit that can be used by this project. |
| Will the contractor be responsible for road improvements? | No, except graded access will need to be provided to 17th Street Landfill |
| Is their an accurate depth profile of the waste at 17th Street locations that require methane gas wells. | This information is not available. |
| If past performance has already been evaluated via the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), should the CPARS be submitted versus a new questionnaire? | Provide past performance per requirements of the RFP. Both will be used. |
| Are the previously cancelled appendixes applicable to this solicitation? | New solicitation is independent of previous solicitation. |
| Is the bid bond to be transmitted electronically as well? If not, were is the original to be mailed? | Yes - it is acceptable to send electronically. |
| The performance time listed in the solicitation is 365 days. Will 365 days be available for the base bid project (CLINS 1 & 2)? If so, what is the performance period for the options if they are exercised? If not, what are the separate performance periods for the base and option bids totaling 365 days? | See Part 5 -Specific Tasks 5.5 Period of Performance. |
| The RFP reads that answers to questions will be posted by Wed. Aug 21. To allow us sufficient time to adjust our proposal based on those answers, please consider extending the due date by two weeks. | SOLICITATION CLOSING HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL 9/6/19 |
| Regarding Attachment 8 (Past Performance Questionnaire) please clarify if this form is to be completed by our clients and returned with our proposal. If this is the case, please extend the due date by at least two weeks to allow sufficient time for clients to receive, complete and return the form. | Past performance questionaire is to be completed by proposers. The Government will send them to the listed references to be completed upon closing of the solicitation, during the evaluation phase. No extension of time is required or approved for this question. |
| Regarding Experience: the RFP states “not to exceed five projects” and clearly states if more than five are submitted only the most recent will be evaluated. What is the minimum amount to be found technically acceptable? | There is no minimum requirement. |
| For the Gibson Road Landfill, what are the respective acreages of P1 and P2 (interimly closed) and P3 (active) areas? | This information is provided in the reference design, Attachment 5, Page 3. |
| For the Gibson Road Landfill, both the previously permitted design and the proposed alternative do NOT have a subsurface drainage layer to convey infiltrated water. This deficiency could lead to veneer instability of the constructed final cover. Will the Owner consider/encourage revising the conceptual design to address this crucial concern? | Yes |
| For the Gibson Road Landfill, along with the submittal that address the above concern (lack of subsurface drainage layer), is it possible for proposing another alternative design (e.g., synthetic turfs, etc.), which is superior in addressing the erosion, stability, and long‐term maintenance issues? | Yes, but provide sufficient detailed information on alternative solution in proposal for technical evaluation. |
| For the Gibson Road Landfill, can the Contractor certify the closure by himself (by a GA PE)? Shouldn’t a 3rd party CQA firm be involved for the closure certification? | It can be done by the Contractor, with approval from GA EPD. |
| For the 17th Street Landfill passive vents, does the disturbed areas need to be re‐certified? If so, will there be a 3rd party CQA/Certifying firm involved to address the re‐certification? | No, it does not need to be re-certified. |
| For the 17th Street Landfill passive vents, 2 details are provided in the drawing – one shows a “candy cane” head assembly the other does not. Please explain the applicability of both. | The "candy cane" head preferred in the waste areas as it prevents rain water from entering the waste. |
| Can a list of approved vendors (trucking companies) be provided? | No list is available. |
| Is there a borrow source on post that can be used for soil cover? | As for the borrow pit, soil from Gibson Road Borrow Pit can be used for Carter Road Landfill and "fill only" for Gibson Road, but it will not be adequate soil to use for the Gibson Road Cap requirement. We have another project that is currently hauling soil to this borrow pit that can be used by this project. |
File details come from the government source that posted it.