Amendment 0005.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This amendment is being issued to provide revisions to the solicitation, address questions in response to the solicitation, and to provide attachments. The Government has endeavored to mark changes w ith blue strikeout text and green text for new additions. It is the offeror's responsibility to read the entire solicitation including all admendments.

The proposal due date remains unchanged. The proposal due date is March 17, 2022 at 2:00 PM EST.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Mar-2022

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X N4008521R2534

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Jan-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

09-Mar-2022

CODE

NAVFACSYSCOM MID-ATLANTIC

CONTRACTING CORE

9324 VIRGINIA AVENUE

NORFOLK VA 23511-3095

N40085 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008521R2534

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0005

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the following:

Solicitation Revisions:

Section M Evaluation Factors

Past Performance Evaluation:

M.4.7 has been revised:

FROM: The Government will review the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance (for environmental compliance and remediation projects with a value greater than or equal to $100,000) considering:

A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.);

A pattern of conformance with contract specifications and schedules;

The number and seriousness of performance-related enforcement actions;

Use of innovative technology to accelerate project completion; and A respect for stewardship of Government funds

TO: The Government will review the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance (for environmental compliance and remediation projects with a value greater than or equal to $100,000 $50,000) considering:

A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.);

A pattern of conformance with contract specifications and schedules;

The number and seriousness of performance-related enforcement actions;

Basis of Evaluation for Each Factor

Factor 2- Recent and Relevant Corporate Experience

M.4.2.2.1 has been revised:

FROM: “Relevant experience” pertains to the type of work completed by an offeror that is relevant to the project requirements as set out in the subject RFP. Generally, projects submitted will be considered “relevant” if they are for similar services or types of work as required by the RFP, and are comparable to the subject project in terms of project size, scope, and complexity (greater than or equal to $100,000). Projects offered as “relevant experience” will be determined to be “not relevant” if they evidence little or no similarity to the services or types of work required by the RFP and are not comparable in terms of project size, scope, and complexity. Note that once a relevancy determination is made, a further delineation regarding the “degree” of relevancy for the projects offered may be made by reviewing officials.

TO: “Relevant experience” pertains to the type of work completed by an offeror that is relevant to the project requirements as set out in the subject RFP. Generally, projects submitted will be considered “relevant” if they are for similar services or types of work as required by the RFP, and are comparable to the subject project in terms of project size, scope, and complexity (greater than or equal to $100,000 $50,000). Projects offered as “relevant experience” will be determined to be “not relevant” if they evidence little or no similarity to the services or types of work required by the RFP and are not comparable in terms of project size, scope, and complexity. Note that once a relevancy determination is made, a further delineation regarding the “degree” of relevancy for the projects offered may be made by reviewing officials.

M.4.2.3.1 has been revised:

FROM: The Government’s evaluation will assess the Offeror’s Recent and Relevant Experience, with respect to size, scope, and complexity, as submitted on Section J Exhibit J-A, Project Data Sheets. The basis of evaluation will be limited to the quality of each Offeror’s breadth of experience for environmental compliance and environmental remediation projects that have a value greater than or equal to $100,000. Projects submitted need to have been completed or substantially completed within the past three (3) years.

TO: The Government’s evaluation will assess the Offeror’s Recent and Relevant Experience, with respect to size, scope, and complexity, as submitted on Section J Exhibit J-A, Project Data Sheets. The basis of evaluation will be limited to the quality of each Offeror’s breadth of experience for environmental compliance and environmental remediation projects that have a value greater than or equal to $100,000 $50,000. Projects submitted need to have been completed or substantially completed within the past three (3) years.

M.4.2.3.3 has been revised:

FROM: Submitted projects under $100,000 will not be considered. If an IDIQ contract is provided as a project and individual task orders are listed, firms must provide the task order number, project description, task order point of contact, phone number, award date, completion date, and award amount. If this information is not provided for the task orders listed, the project will not be considered in the evaluation.

TO: Submitted projects under $100,000 $50,000 will not be considered. If an IDIQ contract is provided as a project and individual task orders are listed, firms must provide the task order number, project description, task order point of contact, phone number, award date, completion date, and award amount. If this information is not provided for the task orders listed, the project will not be considered in the evaluation.

Factor 4 – Past Performance

M.4.4.1.2 has been revised:

FROM: Generally, projects submitted will be considered “relevant” if they are for similar services or types of work as required by the RFP, and are comparable to the subject project in terms of project size, scope, complexity and dollar value (greater than or equal to $100,000).

TO: Generally, projects submitted will be considered “relevant” if they are for similar services or types of work as required by the RFP, and are comparable to the subject project in terms of project size, scope, complexity and dollar value (greater than or equal to $100,000 $50,000).

M.4.4.2.4 has been revised:

FROM: The Government will review the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance (for environmental compliance and remediation projects with a value greater than or equal to $100,000) considering:

A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.);

A pattern of conformance with contract specifications and schedules;

The number and seriousness of performance-related enforcement actions;

TO: The Government will review the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance (for environmental compliance and remediation projects with a value greater than or equal to $100,000 $50,000) considering:

A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.);

A pattern of conformance with contract specifications and schedules;

The number and seriousness of performance-related enforcement actions;

The following attachments have been included:

Attachment J2 REVISED 03.09.22 Price Proposal Form.xlsx Fig 1_Lake Michigan Sampling Locations Fig 2_Skokie River Sampling Locations UST_drawings_1

Questions and Answers:

81. We respectfully request an extension of at least one week to account for the delayed site visit for the seed project, as information we gather during the site visit will effect (perhaps significantly) Volume 1 Factor 5 Technical Proposal and Volume 2 Price Proposal.

Response: The proposal due date will not be extended at this time.

82. We respectfully request the government remove Factor 2 Tab B (20 page limit) or Factor 4 Tab C (30 page limit), which both request project-specific “Awards, Certificates, and Letters of Recommendation.” These sections seem duplicative.

Response: The Solicitation remains unchanged. For Factor 2, the Offeror shall submit copies of industry awards, certificates, and official letters of recommendation for projects that have been submitted under Factor 2 Tab A. Only awards, certificates and official letters of commendation that correspond with Tab A projects will be considered. For Factor 4, the Offeror may submit copies of industry awards, certificates, and official award letters of recommendation that are associated with projects submitted for evaluation under Factor 4 Tab A. The awards, certificates and letters shall be clearly identifiable to the associated project(s). Offerors may also submit industry-wide awards, certificates, and letters that are not connected to a specific project(s).

83. We respectfully request the government amend the value for projects submitted for Factor 2 Tab B from

“greater than or equal to $100,000” to “greater than or equal to $50,000,” so that the government is evaluating comparable size projects and p 2 of the solicitation states that “task order range will be between $50,000 and $250,000.”

Response: The government will amend the value of projects submitted for Factor 2 to "greater than equal to $50,000" to align with the anticipated task order value range as per the solicitation.

Section L.8.2.2.1 has been revised:

FROM: Offeror shall use Section J Attachment J-8, Project Data Sheet, to submit three (3) to five (5) projects to be evaluated for this factor. On the Project Data Sheets for these three (3) to five (5) projects, provide a description of your firm’s specialized experience. Offerors may include projects with federal Government, agencies of the state and local Government, and commercial customers. All projects submitted shall be completed or substantially completed within the past three (3) years of the RFP closing date. Projects submitted shall include a variety of environmental projects, each greater than or equal to $100,000.

TO: Offeror shall use Section J Attachment J-8, Project Data Sheet, to submit three (3) to five (5) projects to be evaluated for this factor. On the Project Data Sheets for these three (3) to five (5) projects, provide a description of your firm’s specialized experience. Offerors may include projects with federal Government, agencies of the state and local Government, and commercial customers. All projects submitted shall be completed or substantially completed within the past three (3) years of the RFP closing date. Projects submitted shall include a variety of environmental projects, each greater than or equal to $100,000 $50,000.

84. We respectfully request the government accept a PPQ in addition to a completed CPARS so that the government can review a PPQ for individual task orders submitted as projects in addition to the CPARS for the overall contract.

Response: The solicitation remains unchanged. An Offeror shall not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARs is available.

85. Anticipating that there may be questions that result from the site visit, would the Government kindly extend the submittal deadline for questions to February 25?

Response: Please see Amendment 0001 in which Section L.3 of the solicitation was revised so that all questions and inquiries must be received no later than one (1) week prior to the proposal due date.

86. Proposals will need to be produced on March 2 and shipped by March 3 to ensure delivery by the March 7 submittal date, accounting for chronic weather-related delays experienced with Fedex, UPS and other delivery services. With the site visit now scheduled for February 22, this leaves just one week to incorporate critical site visit information, prepare subcontractor scopes of work, obtain competitive subcontractor pricing, and finalize the technical approach to Proposed Task Order 0001. We respectfully request an extension of the proposal submittal date to March 28 to allow sufficient time to integrate new information obtained during the site visit and any additional Government responses to questions.

Response: Please see Amendment 0004. The proposal due date will not be extended at this time.

87. Regarding pricing, Attachment J-2 referenced Tasks 1 through 5 in cost columns and Attachment A

Statement of Work references a combination of numbered tasks, CLINs, and SLINs. Can NAVFAC please clarify the task numbering for pricing?

Response: Please see updated Attachment J2 REVISED 03.09.22 Price Proposal Form.xlsx

88. May we add labor categories to Attachment J-2, such as Contract Manager, or are these the only labor categories that will be recognized on the contract?

Response: Please see updated Attachment J2 REVISED 03.09.22 Price Proposal Form.xlsx. The revised form has been updated to reflect the labor categories in the scope of the contract.

89. Because of the variation in tank size and therefore sump’s size, proper disposal of contact water is essential for conducting the Triennial testing. These tests often lead to cost overruns if volumes are not accurate. Can the Navy provide the dimensions of the sumps to be tested for the triennial tests?

Response: Please refer to the attachment "UST_drawings_1" for sump size information. These are the only UST tank diagrams showing sump size available. The triennial testing attachments show how much water was removed during the last event. Between the 4 facilities there are 7 STP sumps and two of those facilities have 5 dispenser islands each with UDC’s. The Contractors shall state their assumptions in their proposal for the STPs and UDCs not found in the diagrams.

90. Can the Navy please confirm that the most current triennial testing did not reveal failures that would indicate a release has occurred to the environment?

Response: Please see the attachments (5 total, one per Building location) of the triennial testing results.

91. Can the Navy please provide the Veeder Root model (such as 200C, 300C, or 350) for each of the tanks requiring testing for the Seed project to ensure appropriate monitoring techniques?

Response: The tanks at Buildings 400, 1, 1506, and 3402 are equipped with Veeder Root model TLS-350.

The tanks at Building 8150 are equipped with an Eeco 1500 ATG. Please see the Attachments of the latest triennial testing reports for more information.

92. With respect to the Seed project pricing and the Veeder Root monitoring systems, many operators have difficulty understanding how to correct or troubleshoot alarms and therefore hit “reset” to stop the incessant beeping. Therefore, during tank compliance tests technicians often need to trouble shoot and fix the Veeder Root alarm before conducting system compliance testing. Can the Navy confirm that the Veeder Root monitoring systems are all operative and functioning properly?

Response: Please see the attachments (5 total, one per Building location) of the triennial testing results.

93. The RFP states that task orders will range from $50,000 to $250,000. Will the Navy allow offerors to provide sample projects and CPARS, PPQs for projects greater than $50,000 in lieu of the $100,000 minimum limit?

Response: Yes.

Section L.8.4.2.2 has been revised:

FROM: If the Offeror submitted less than five (5) projects under Factor 2 and elects to present additional past performance information for projects with a value greater than or equal to $100,000 that have not been submitted under Factor 2, the projects shall have been completed or substantially completed within the past five (5) years of the RFP closing date (vice the Recent / Relevant cutoff of three (3) years). Offerors may include projects with the federal Government, agencies of the state and local Government, and commercial customers.

TO: If the Offeror submitted less than five (5) projects under Factor 2 and elects to present additional past performance information for projects with a value greater than or equal to $100,000 $50,000 that have not been submitted under Factor 2, the projects shall have been completed or substantially completed within the past five (5) years of the RFP closing date (vice the Recent / Relevant cutoff of three (3) years).

Offerors may include projects with the federal Government, agencies of the state and local Government, and commercial customers.

L.8.4.3.2 has been revised:

FROM: Projects on the list of additional projects need to have been completed or substantially completed within the past five (5) years projects and have a project value greater than or equal to $100,000. Offerors may include projects with the federal Government, agencies of the state and local Government, and commercial customers.

TO: Projects on the list of additional projects need to have been completed or substantially completed within the past five (5) years projects and have a project value greater than or equal to $100,000 $50,000.

Offerors may include projects with the federal Government, agencies of the state and local Government, and commercial customers.

94. Will the Navy allow offerors to include projects greater than $50,000 for the list of additional projects?

Response: Yes, the Navy will allow offerors to include projects greater than $50,000 for the list of additional projects. See question 93.

95. It is important for pricing spill prevention equipment and containment sumps to know the size of the sumps. Because of the variation in tank size and therefore sumps size the Navy can expect to see a wide range of cost proposals for the Seed project making it difficult to know if the lowest bidder will be conducting the Triennial testing (every three years) properly and disposing of contact water. These tests often lead to cost overruns if volumes are not accurate. Can the Navy provide the dimensions of the sumps to be test for the triennial tests?

Response: Please see response to Question 89

96. Can the Navy please confirm that the most current triennial testing did not reveal failures that would indicate a release has occurred to the environment? Pressure testing failed sumps can lead to incidental discharges and previous knowledge of failed tests would relieve some associated liability.

Response: Please see response to Question 90.

97. Tank systems can vary widely, from installation dates, single- or double-wall, steel, STP-3, size, and location in tank farms or individual tank pits, which means monitoring techniques also vary. This applies to Veeder-Root monitoring equipment as well. Veeder-Root 200C, 300C, or 350 are examples of different tank and ATG monitoring systems. Can the Navy please provide the Veeder Root model for each of the tanks requiring testing for the Seed project?

Response: Please see response to Question 91.

98. With respect to the Seed project pricing and the Veeder Root monitoring systems, many operators have difficulty understanding how to correct or troubleshoot alarms and therefore hit “reset” to stop the incessant beeping. Therefore, during tank compliance tests technicians often need to trouble shoot and fix the Veeder

Root alarm before conducting system compliance testing. Can the Navy confirm that the Veeder Root monitoring systems are all operative and functioning properly?

Response: Please see response to Question 92.

99. The RFP states that task orders will range from $50,000 to $250,000. Will the Navy allow offerors to provide sample projects and CPARS, PPQs for projects greater than $50,000 in lieu of the $100,000 minimum limit?

Response: Please see response to Question 93.

100. If the previous question allows for project examples, CPARS and PPQ greater than $50,000. Will the Navy allow offerors to include projects greater than $50,000 for the list of additional projects?

Response: Please see response to Question 94.

101. Given the limited scope of work covered under this solicitation, can a key person serve in more than one role? For instance both Program and Project Manager, or both QC and S&H Manager?

Response: No, key personnel under the contract are intended to be separate individuals. Depending on the size of the task order, contractor personnel may serve more than one role if feasible and makes sense for the scope of work.

102. Will an extension of the response due date be granted given the site visit was delayed and contractors would like to see the oil-water separators for bidding purposes.

103. PTO1 SOW Section B.4. This section states that all oil water separators included in Enclosure M

(excluding B-8400) are included in SLIN 013. The title Section B.4.1 of the PTO 01 SOW infers that only MWR OWS are included in SLIN 014; However, the subsequent text in SLIN 014 states that all OWS in Enclosure M are included in SLIN 014. Is SLIN 014 limited to the OWS at building B-8400? If not, please clarify which OWS are included in SLIN 014.

Response: SLIN 014 is limited to the OWS at Building B-8400. The text under SLIN 014 in scope of incorrect and should have stated that only the MWR OWS shall be included. The split between SLIN 013 and SLIN 014 is due to the differences in funding sources for the TO.

104. PTO1 SOW Section C. This section includes dates that have either already passed and/or are infeasible given that proposals are due on 7 March 2022. Respectfully, would the Navy please provide a revised list of due dates for this section?

Response: For ease of updating dates and schedules, please assume that dates that have already passed (i.e.

EPCRA due dates in February 2022) will be pushed to the following year (i.e. February 2023). The dates proposed in the deliverable table are based upon regulatory due dates and it is up to the contractor to include a schedule in their proposal.

105. Sections L.8.5.3.1 and L.8.5.3.5 both limit figure size to 8.5”x 11”. Will the Navy allow the schedule to be

11" by 17" since this will be more legible in presenting a multi-year and multi-task operation? If acceptable, we request that the 11" by 17" count at one page.

Response: Yes, the Navy will allow the page size to be increased to 11" by 17" for the schedule.

106. Section L.8.5.3.5 indicates that the page count for the schedule is limited to two pages. Given the complexity of PTO and changing of tasks from year to year, will the Navy please allow five 11" by 17" pages for the schedule.

Response: Yes, the Navy will allow the increase in page count and page size for the schedule.

107. Section L.8.3.2.2 and L.8.2.3 Indicate we should submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’

[CY2016, CY2017, CY2018, CY2019, and CY2020]. Can we comply by submitting the 5 previous calendar years: CY2017 to 2021 so the Navy the most recent information and trends.

Response: Please see response to Question 35.

108. Per Appendix A SOW Page 3 Task 1 Project Management is not assigned a CLIN. Please provide a CLIN for Project Management or direct on where within the CLIN structure Project Management should be included.

Response: Please see revised Attachment J2 REVISED 03.09.22 Price Proposal Form. Project Management has been assigned CLIN 004

109. Per Appendix A SOW Section 2.2 Page 8 SLIN 001 states, "All walk-through inspections shall be performed by a Class A Operator trained in accordance with 41 IAC Part 176." Does this mean the A Operator for the Facility or individual with "A Operator training" per 41 IAC Part 176?

Response: See response to Question 48. The Contractor is expected to provide a Class A operator that was trained as per 41 IAC PART 176 to perform the walk-through inspections.

110. Per Appendix A SOW Page 11, SLIN 013 states, "The Contractor shall furnish drums for waste to be containerized onsite and store at Government designated site. Can the contractor pre-characterize the waste for transport and disposal using a tanker and/or totes for large quantities (e.g., 1,000 gallons) rather than drumming?

Response: No, the 90-day storage facilities will only be able to store 55-gallon drums. They are unable to store larger containers, such as totes or tankers.

111. Per Appendix A SOW Page 19, CLIN 002, please provide the most recent Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plans (SWPPP) for the NSGL Marina Area and the Hunt Communities Military Storage Yard.

Response: Please see response to Question 24.

112. Per Appendix A SOW Section E Option Years Page 19, states "The contractor is to plan and implement a stormwater monitoring plan to satisfy all requirements of ILR00 for calendar year 2023." Please clarify what is meant by "stormwater monitoring plan" and indicate if there are specific draft, draft final, and final submission requirements and to whom, as well as the expected format.

Response: Please see response to Question 76.

113. Per Attachment J9 PTO 001 Combined Enclosures (Enclosure O) Page 100, the January 2018 Inspection

Report for Building 1506 Transportation Maintenance states "Per Transportation Maintenance management personnel, this OWS is scheduled to be removed and replaced in 2018." Please confirm this OWS was replaced and provide specifications for new OWS, if applicable.

Response: The OWS at Building 1506 was not replaced. The OWS specifications remain the same.

114. Per Attachment J2 Price Proposal Form, please specify the task number for pricing for the Stormwater

Inspections and Sampling task (CLIN 002), or should this be Task 6 for Option Years 1 through 4?

Response: The Stormwater Inspection and Sampling task (CLIN 002) will be an additional task for Option Years 1 through 4. It is not included in the base award of this task order.

115. Can Solicitation Section L.8.5.6 (see page 89 of 104) Tab D Performance Milestone Schedule be excluded from the 30-page limit?

Response: Yes, please see response to Question 77.

116. Per Appendix A SOW Page 17, Section C Schedule and Deliverables, EPCRA Draft Reports are due

February 1, 2022, and EPCRA Final Reports are Due February 15. Typically, the EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 reports are due on or before March 1 for the Reporting Year and the EPCRA Section 313 Reports are due on or before July 1 for the Reporting Year. Please confirm that all three reports for EPCRA Sections 311, 312, and 313 Reports are all due in February.

Response: Please see response to Question 9. Due dates in the SOW were based on the planned award of this contract. The regulatory due dates for Sections 311 and 312 are March 1st, however NAVSTA Great Lakes requires review time of the draft reports and time to have the finals certified and submitted to all regulatory bodies by March 1. The Contractor will not be submitting any reports on NAVFAC's behalf.

117. SOW, page 21 - Is the reference to calendar year 2025, an error?

Response: No, this is not an error. The base task order is 12 months long and each additional option year is

12 months long. If all four options are awarded, the period of performance would extend past CY 2025.

The base task order will run from 2022 to 2023, option year 1 (if awarded) from 2023 to 2024, option year 2 (if awarded) from 2024 to 2025 and so on.

118. The NPDES included as Enclosure H expires on March 31, 2022. Is Navy preparing the permit renewal?

Are there changes to the existing permit in the new permit?

Response: Please see response to Question 72.

119. Please provide the latest NPDES/Stormwater Monitoring and Inspections (annual) Report.

Response: Please see Attachment titled “157304_NSGreatLakes_AnnualSampling2021_LtrRpt_FNL.pdf"

120. Appendix A lists Tasks 1 through 5 for the base year of the contract with corresponding numbers (2.2, 2.3, etc.). Section E lists the Option Years tasks and includes CLIN 2, Stormwater Inspection and Monitoring, which is not in the base year. Where does CLIN 2 fit in the WBS structure?

121. The Attachment J2 Price Proposal Form appears to be for an A-E scope rather than a FFP scope. Please provide an appropriate bid form for this FFP scope.

122. Please provide copies of the 2021 tank inspection and testing reports.

Response: Please see Amendment 0004 Attachments (5 total) titled: 61196 - Naval Station Great Lakes - Building 400 - Great Lakes - IL - 7212021 - Final, 61197 - Naval Station Great Lakes - Building 1 - Great Lakes - IL - 7212021 - Final, 61198 - Naval Station Great Lakes - Building 1506 - Great Lakes - IL -

7{2}21{2}2021 - Final, 61199 - Naval Station Great Lakes - 8150 - Final, and 61200 - Naval Station Great Lakes - Building 3402 - Great Lakes - IL - 7222021 - Final

123. Please provide expectations for coordination to enter buildings for inspections. How much time will this take for each building?

Response: The Government will provide POC information for each inspection. The Contractor shall be responsible for coordinating the inspection with the POC. The contractor shall include their assumptions for labor for coordination of inspections in their proposal.

124. Please provide drawings for storm sewers subject to sampling to evaluate the location and accessibility of manholes should the outfalls be submerged.

Response: Please see Fig 1_Lake Michigan Sampling Locations.pdf. This figure shows the location for the upstream manholes that are to be sampled from if the outfalls are inaccessible. Both locations are covered with a grate and can be opened with a manhole hook. The outfalls in Fig2_Stokie River Sampling Locations.pdf are sampled directly from the source.

125. Please provide a copy of the site visit sign-in sheet.

Response: A copy of the sign in sheet was posted in Amendment 0004.

126. Can 11x17” be used for graphics and if so, will those be counted as one or two pages?

Response: Yes, 11" x 17" pages can be used for graphics and will be counted as one page.

127. Section L: Can a smaller font than 10 point be used for exhibits as long as it’s legible.

Response: Yes, please see response to Question 11.

128. Is Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWIC) required to access any portion of the marina area?

Response: No, TWIC credentials will not be required to access the marina.

129. Besides a basic background check, is security clearance required to access any current or potential inspection areas of the base?

Response: Contractors will need to be cleared for DBIDS, which requires the submission of a 5512 and a background check. A security clearance for contractor personnel is not anticipated for the areas of the base listed in the SOW of the task order.

130. Section M.4.5.3: What is the intent of structure and/or coverage of the Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan?

Is the Government requesting a plan to address potential conflicts of interest at the organizational level (e.g., conflict of interest between the contractor and other clients, such as a regulatory agency that might oversee work at a location) or at the team level (e.g., conflict of interest with respect to the availability of contractor personnel to be able to respond as necessary in a timely fashion)?

Response: The intent of the plan is to address conflicts of interest at the organizational level. As per the FAR 9.5, organization conflict of interest is defined as a situation where " because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the person's objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage".

131. As a result of the Navy’s answer to Question #47 in Amendment 0003, our planned Illinois Office State Fire Marshall (OSFM) approved UST testing and inspection subcontractor has declined to bid due to the imposition of Service Contract Act wages. We anticipate other potential UST testing and inspection subcontractors to have similar aversions to this requirement. To ensure that Offerors can provide and demonstrate the required fair and reasonable pricing to the government, please provide a two-week extension to the proposal due date.

132. Will the Government graciously consider providing another time extension for proposal submission, as the

Government’s response to Question 47 in Amendment 0003, recently resulted in a major tank inspection subcontractor pulling its support for a number of bidders? Due to the additional time to vet subcontractors and obtain competitive pricing from vendors, we request an extension for the proposal submission deadline.

133. We respectfully ask the Government to push the due date for proposal submission to a mid-week day to allow for mailing/shipping time. A Monday due date effectively requires bidders to ship their documents for arrival on the previous Friday to ensure we meet the deadline. Given the uncertainties in logistics and shipping schedules caused by the Global pandemic, labor shortages, and weather, a mid-week due date will provide assurance to bidders without prolonging Government review time.

134. Will the equipment used to pump out the oil-water separators (OWSs) need to be decontaminated before each use (e.g., between each of the OWSs on the base) or only after being used on the structures that are known/suspected to have had PCBS or PFAS/PFOA present?

Response: The Contractor will not be required to decontaminate the equipment used to pump out the oil-water separators. The Contractor will be expected to pump out the OWS at the firehouses last. The firehouse OWS (known/suspected PFAS/PFOA) have been cleaned out and there is no longer AFFF at these locations and they should no longer have any PFAS/PFOA in the waste stream.

135. Will the Navy allow for a secure area where the contractor can set up a temporary decontamination pad to clean equipment used to pump out the OWSs? Can the pad be left in place for the duration of each phase of OWS cleaning/inspections or will it need to be broken down and removed daily? If not a secure area, will the contractor need to provide temporary fencing or other access controls to the decon pad area?

Response: Yes, however a decontamination pad is not required because decontamination of the OWS pumping equipment is not required. Government can provide a secure area for the Contractor to leave the decontamination pad in place for the duration of each phase of OWS cleaning/inspection.

136. Does each OWS waste stream (e.g., the initial liquid contained in the OWS as well as any rinsate from cleaning the OWS and decontamination of equipment) need to be characterized separately or can one composite sample using aliquots from each OWS waste stream be used to characterize this waste? For example, if there are 14 OWSs initially requiring pump-out, cleaning and inspection, will there need to be 14 different waste profiling samples collected for that phase of OWS work?

Response: Each OWS waste stream needs to be characterized separately. As per the example in question, 14 waste profiling samples will be required.

137. Can generator knowledge, based on the waste profiling analyses completed for the initial phase of OWS work be used for future disposal of the wastes or will the wastes from the second and later rounds of OWS maintenance need to also be characterized for disposal purposes? For example, does the waste from maintenance of 325-OWS need to be characterized initially during the first round of work and every round of maintenance thereafter?

Response: Generator knowledge based on the initial analyses completed for the initial phase of OWS work can be used for the future disposal of the wastes. If based on the Contractors inspection and communication with users, the OWS waste appears to be different or processes have changed, then the Contractor will be expected to sample the OWS waste for characterization again. The Contractor will also be expected to characterize the waste again in

138. If additional OWS maintenance events are required other than the planned events indicated in the

“Estimated Annual Pump-outs” column of Enclosure M, will a contract modification be executed for the additional work?

Response: Any additional work outside of the scope of work of J1 PTO 001 Scope of Work and the ""Estimated Annual Pump-outs" (where referenced in J1 PTO 001) will require a modification.

139. What is the maximum number of drums that can be delivered to Buildings 221 and 1517 at any given time? How long before additional drums can be delivered? This has relevance depending the amount of waste being generated during implementation of SLIN013 and SLIN014 regarding mobilizations and scheduling the work.

Response: The Government cannot give a response to the maximum number of drums that can be delivered to Building 221 and Building 11517. Storage at each of these facilities fluctuates from week to week. Any drums that cannot fit at building 221 or 1517 will be transported to an SAA for storage. The Contractor will be expected to work with the NSGL POC and NSGL Hazardous waste manager to communicate their storage needs once the OWS cleaning mobilization has commenced.

140. Please confirm the deliverable dates in the table under Section C (Schedule and Deliverables) of Appendix

A (Scope of work) should be 2023 (not 2022).

Response: Yes, all deliverable dates but the UST/AST annual testing (July 2022) should be 2023 instead of 2022. Award of this task order is intended for July 2022. If the award is delayed, than the UST annual testing deliverable date will also be shifted to 2023.

141. We noticed that there are 11 different labor categories on the REVISED-

Attachment_J2_Price_Proposal_Form.xlsx and 18 different labor categories on the Attachment+J2+Price+Proposal+Form – ML GL EMAC 1-27-22.xlsx. Are we allowed to add to the Labor Categories on the REVISED excel file to match the 18 labor categories provided on the 1-27-22 file?

Response: No, the Revised Price Proposal form modified the labor categories to reflect the wording of the Solicitation N4008521R2534 document Section C.1.3. Please utilize the labor categories on the Attachment J2 REVISED 03.09.22 Price Proposal Form.

142. Is a Bid Bond required for this service?

Response: As per Section H of the N4008521R2534 solicitation document, an offeror is required to provide with their base proposal, a letter from their surety showing proof of bonding capacity in the amount of $2,000,000 for a single project and aggregate bonding capability of $4,000,000. The PTO 001 is not a construction task order and will not require a bid bod for the task itself.

143. Section L of the RFP. Each Factor indicates they should be numbered sequentially. Could the government confirm that the entire proposal is to be sequentially numbered and no independent number is to be assigned to each factor?

Response: The contractor may number the entire proposal sequentially or number the pages in each Factor sequentially i.e. or Factor 1 begin the page number at 1 and continue until the end of the factor; for Factor 2 begin the page number at 1 and continue, etc.

144. In Attachment (a), Statement of Work, Section 2.1 and 2.4, it states UST testing and UST triennial testing shall be completed by July 31, and July 31, 2022, respectively. However, Amendment 003 stated anticipated award would be made in July 2022 and other inspections should not be conducted until planning documents are prepared, so estimate two months after award. Can the Navy confirm that CLIN001 and SLIN 003 are not expected to be completed in July 2022 and should be completed after planning documents are finalized?

Response: UST triennial testing was last conducted in 2021 and will not need to be performed in 2022.

However, Annual UST And AST testing required in 2022 had not yet been completed and the regulatory due date is July 31st. If the award time allows, we will expect that the contractor perform testing under CLIN001 by July 31, 2022.

145. Attachment J-4, Section A asks us to input names for the listed positions; however, both firms of our JV don't use all four positions given here. Does the government want us to put "N/A" as applicable?

Response: Yes, please put N/A for any positions that are not applicable on Attachment J-4.

146. Section L.8.5.4.2: This section reads: “Provide resumes for all non-Key Personnel that will be involved with this PTO, and all Key Personnel involved with this task order that do not already have resumes provided under Evaluation Factor 1 requirements”. Are we correct in assuming that the resume requirement for Non-Key personnel is limited to those personnel identified in Section C.1.3.5, as well as any other technical leads required to complete the PTO 0001 task?

Response: Yes, your assumption is correct.

(End of Summary of Changes)