P1550 PPI RESPONSES 6.pdf

PPI

Date Submitted

Reference

Question Response Page Section

Paragrap h

25 10/19/2026

The RFP design and specifications for the S&C Vista switch (Drawing ES 504) is available from only one vendor, which makes this equipment a sole-source piece of equipment.

The solicitation does not include a Justification and Approval document for the sole source item. We request NAVFAC provide the legally required Justification and Approval document, or in the absence of justification, issue a modification to the solicitation to remove the unjustified sole source equipment.

The specific manufacturer and model name identified on the contract drawing (ES 504) represents the basis of design only to establish the required form, fit, function, and salient performance characteristics. A sole source brand name requirement does not apply, and thus no need for a Justification and Approval. In accordance with FAR 52.236-5(a), any brand name reference on contract drawings is legally interpreted as including "or equal," allowing open competition among technically compliant manufacturers without necessitating a drawing redraw or pre-award amendment. Contractors may propose any manufacturer's equipment that meets or exceeds the requirements detailed in the contract specifications and drawings.

26 10/19/2026 PPI #23 states the 70,000 tons is an engineering estimate for the amount of surplus soils created for the entire project (the implied maximum amount of soils generated from construction). The Subcontractors we have spoken with are providing a range of their own estimates that vary from 130,000 to 170,000 T of surplus soil.

This indeterminate range represents some risk to the GC and the Navy. PPI #23 response further indicates that ALL surplus soil will have to be hauled to a RCRA D facility (the implication that ALL project surplus soil is contaminated). Please confirm that bidders are to assume all project surplus soil is to be hauled offsite to a RCRA D facility. Or alternately should this CLIN 001 I be an OPTIONAL CLIN with indefinite quantity of contaminated soil - unit price per ton against a quantity above 70,000 T? Non-contaminated surplus soils could be disposed of off base (locally).

FYI- The estimated cost for this testing and hauling to such a RCRA D facility are upwards of $200/ T making the additional cost > $20M for testing and hauling.

Quantity of CLIN 0001I has been adjusted. Option 2 modified to account for soil disposal. Please see revised Price Proposal Form provided with Amendment 0013

27 10/19/2026 PPI #19 response provides additional information on the possible condition of surplus soil and groundwater: “Yes, a known release of PFAS in the vicinity of the work is associated with the landfill (as shown on the existing conditions sheets). The excavations and anticipated dewatering locations must be designed and constructed to minimized the generation of surplus soils and the volume of dewatering that requires treatment when working in the vicinity of the Former rifle Range Chemical Dump/Landfill located North of main project site.” As the GC is not the site designer, we are not in a position to mitigate the creation of any surplus soil. In a similar way the dewatering and the amount of water that is contaminated may be highly variable. Given the variability of the potentially contaminated groundwater to be treated, should this also be an optional unit price, applied against an estimated quantity and quality of water to be treated?

Options 2 and 3 have been modified to account for the potential of contaminated soil and contaminated groundwater. AV and FF&E have moved to Options 4 and 5. Please see revised Price Proposal Form provided with Amendment 0013

28 10/19/2026 Response #19 describes possible groundwater contamination.

Since there is not enough information provided with the design documents to determine the amount or extent of possible contaminated groundwater we would need more information to include the cost of any treatment. SECTION 01 57 19 Page 22 3.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER “3.3.1 Dewatering” reads in part “If the construction dewatering is noted or suspected of being contaminated, it may only be released to the storm drain system if the discharge is specifically permitted.” Should the bidders assume that the contaminated water can be discharged directly onto nearby ground or the closest storm drain? If this approach is not permitted what are we to do with discharged water?

Reference updated spec 01 57 19, and comply with all contract terms.

29 The question is are we to assume the existing surplus soil to be removed from the installation is contaminated or non-contaminated?

Our assumption is the site is to be assumed clean, and the contractor is required to remove the surplus soil from the installation but not required to be taken to a RCRA D facility. CLIN 0001I unit price for 70k TONs of contaminated material will be used if any of the soil being removed is contaminated and then would be disposed of at an RCRA D Facility. This CLIN quality would be adjusted per the FAR if the quantity exceeds 70k TONs. I.e. This Unit Price CLIN is the upcharge to handle contaminated material and disposed at a RCRA D Facility.

CLIN 0001I is a unit price base bid for handling and removal of non-hazardous soil (PFAS contaminated) to a permitted licensed facility.

This unit price CLIN has and estimated quantity of 70k TONs. The project has an estimated 210k TONs of surplus soil that needs to be removed for the site. PPI #23 in Amendment 9 notes that anything over the 70k TONs estimated in the CLIN 0001I is to be included in our Base Bid, which if we are to assume the soil is contaminated (non-hazardous) is an additional cost worth over $20M.

01 57 19 – 1.5.1.2.2 notes that all Surplus Soil is to be taken to a location at Camp Lejeune unless it was contaminated then it would be removed offsite via the unit price CLIN. (This was not changed in Amendment 8 but is uncommon to keep surplus soil at Lejeune) Note 31 00 00, notes surplus soil is to be removed from government property.

Until Amendment 8, there were no information documenting bidders were to assume the site is contaminated or had contamination other than the Unit Price CLIN.

Now between Amendment 8, 9, and 10 there is confusion as to what to classify the existing soil. A PPI response in Amendment 8, noted there was a known release of PFAS in the vicinity of the work

Options 2 and 3 have been modified to account for the potential of contaminated soil and contaminated groundwater. AV and FF&E have moved to Options 4 and 5. Please see revised Price Proposal Form provided with Amendment 0013 associated with the landfill and another that was no known PFAS at the site. A follow-up PPI in Amendment 10, #19 asked for clarification and the response noted to follow a know release of PFAS but the location is still not the project site.