San Pedro RFI questions and responses 091620.pdf

Does the statement in your recent modification mean the RFP and Phase II portion of the Solicitation is now open to responses by any and all interested parties, or only those parties that responded to the Solicitation by/before the due date of 02 July 2020, and who received written notice from the Navy that their offer was selected as “Best Qualified” in the Phase 1/RFQ evaluation process? - In regards to statement/item #14 (This modification serves as notification of release of the Navy's RFP and Phase II open for submissions from 14 August 2020 through 17 September 2020 (30 days).

Would the Navy entertain a longer than 25-year lease term?

Regarding the (+/- ) 20-acre Admin. Area of the property: Does the Navy have an atlas drawing showing the precise location and depth/elevation of any below or above ground pipeline infrastructure, and associated specs/status of each. If available as a vectorized PDF or CAD .dwg file.

For any and all other improvements (e.g., an as-built ALTA survey), noting which (if any) of the existing structures and/or improvements must remain and be protected in-place, or can be razed/removed (including pipelines) and any special requirements to be aware of during demolition.

Is the Navy able to designate what needs to be designed-around, to include the existing main site drive approach on Gaffey Street; (i.e., should this be viewed as a shared-access, or could it be exclusive to the future ground-lessee? Can this be relocated or widened? Is current security at this entrance permanent or temporary?)

Are onsite wet and dry utility plans available, if so please provide.

Plans for the property’s stormwater drainage/treatment facilities; hydrology, and geotechnical soils reports, if available.

RFIs under N6247320RP00161

Does the Navy have geotechnical reports or a topographical survey, if so, please provide.

In view of “similar facilities in the area” at the Port of Long Beach and Port of LA is there are many buildings and tanks taller than 50-feet. We are contemplating bulk fuel storage tanks, to be constructed at the Marine Terminal (Pier 12), that may taller than 50-feet. Can the Navy provide any guidance on the permissibility of tanks exceeding 50-feet?

Will the Navy be able to provide an environmental indemnity in favor of the lessee? – This is specific to Parcel 2 (Marine Terminal).

The Data Pack references ongoing 2020 maintenance awarded and performed by contractors in progress at the main terminal and the pier facility/pier 12. Assume this scope to include API-570 inspections on pipe to and on Pier 12, plus general readiness repairs or maintenance. Additionally, anticipate API-653 inspections for Tanks 2002 and 2003 at the Marine Terminal. Can the Navy confirm?

We note there is no reference to the condition of Tank 503 (Marine Terminal) or an accompanying inspection. Is there planned work for this tank?

Additionally, if there is a maintenance contractor performing what efforts are specific to the Marine Terminal. Is there a schedule and scope of work?

Is there AFFF present at the Marine Terminal, either in readiness or storage? If yes, is it the Navy’s intent for that product to become the responsibility of the Lessee?

We assume API commercial standards (for bulk fuel infrastructure design, construction and commissioning) is acceptable? This is based on our experience design/construct/operate similar facilities for other DoD customers. MILSPEC/UFC compliant infrastructure is cost prohibitive.

Please confirm the level of fuel filtration required, during issue, transfer and receipt (e.g. JP5).

Does the Navy have historical records of POL or other HAZMAT contamination at the Marine Terminal? If yes, please provide.

Does the Navy have geotechnical data/reports for the Marine Terminal? If yes, please provide.

Does the Navy have facility condition assessment or similar reports for Pier 12? If yes, please provide.

Please confirm the required issue flow rate (to USN vessels alongside at Pier 12).

Is environmental indemnification, from the Navy to the Lessee, available for conditions present immediately prior to the commencement of the lease?

The data package references potential encumbrances at the Marine Terminal;

specifically along Nimitz Road and a Sewage Lift Station. Does the Navy have specific information on the nature, location, timing of these potential encumbrances? If yes, please provide.

30 End.

Only those entities that were notified and deemed "Best Qualified" are invited to provide a proposal in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Dependent upon the proposal, the DON might entertain a longer lease term.

The DON has scanned computer aided design (CAD) drawing files and the DLA has geographic information system layers for the installed wells throughout the Administrative Area of the Main Terminal. We will only provide this information to the "best qualified" offerors directly due to security concerns.

Offerors are encouraged to submit proposals that satisfy the offeror's requirements while also protecting the DON's fueling capability. Concept plans showing flexibility and/or several scenarios may be considered by the DON to be extremely responsive to the DON's requirements. The proposed demolition of facilities needed by the DON to protect the fueling capability would likely be considered acceptible if the DON confirmed there was an alternate method for performing the fueling mission at the Marine Terminal pier. Due to the potential synergy of multiple proposals, a proposal with several scenarios or sub-options may be found more responsive to the DON requirments than an inflexible proposal negatively impacting the DON's fueling capability.

Similar to the item #4 response above, the Main Terminal main gate is used by the DON to access various areas of the terminal. A proposal that changes the status of the gate from shared use to the lessee's exclusive use may trigger the need for a new access point for the DON. The new access point may work well for the DON but concept plans in a proposal showing flexibility and/or several scenarios may be considered by the DON to be the most responsive to the DON's requirements.

Some utility plans are available and will only be provided to the "best qualified" offerors directly due to security concerns.

There are no available geotechnical reports or plans for the property’s storm water drainage/treatment facilities. However, soil and restoration information is available via the Geotracker (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/), a publically accessible website maintained by the on California Water Quality Board.

RFI Responses

The DON does not have topographical surveys of the DFSP San Pedro Special Areas, the Main Terminal and Marine Terminal or Pipeline rights-of-way.

Paragraph 2.1.2 in the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA), provided in Section D of Appendix E to the solicitation, states: “…The maximum height of new structures would be consistent with similar facilities in the area (approximately 50-feet tall), and appropriate buffers would be established in substantive compliance with any local codes.” Proposals will be evaluated for consistency with the analysis previously conducted in the EA, and any proposal that is not consistent (e.g., tanks proposed to exceed 50 feet in height) will likely require additional analysis. The extent of that analysis will depend upon the proposal, including context, location, resources, etc. The DON intends to continue to require a formal review role for all lessee-proposed repair and construction projects, per the finalized language under the commercial lease.

The DON will consider all proposed revisions to the lease terms and conditions but reserves the right to refrain from making changes to requirements viewed as non-negotiable or high risk to the DON or taxpayers. The offeror should provide justification for the DON to review and potentially adjust the applicable language in the outlease requirement documents.

The DON awarded a construction contract in Aug 2020 to repair facilities and components of the DFSP San Pedro fuel complex. The scope of the project is summarized under Paragraph 2.3 in Part 3 of the contract specifications included in the Data Pack. (See Page 194 of 1497.) The amount of pipeline repair and inspection work is limited. API-653 inspections of Tanks 2001, 2002 and 2003 are included in the project.

There is no planned work for Tank 842 (Common Name Tank 503). This is a 5,000 bbl separation tank. Please note the three 20,000 bbl tanks are receiving API653 inspections as discussed in item 11 above.

The repair contract awarded in Aug 2020 has an 18-month period of performance, and will be completed on or before Feb 2022. The schedule is under development, with a kick-off meeting planned for the Nov 2020 timeframe. As discussed in the Government response to RFI item 11 above, the scope of the repair and inspection work under this construction contract is summarized in Part 3 of the construction contract, which is included in the Data Pack provided to the "best qualified" offerors.

Aqueos film-forming foam (AFFF) has been removed from the site and is not in storage at an alternate site. The AFFF delivery system has not been flushed. The Government does not intend to flush this system prior to the award of the commercial outlease. Recommend that the offeror provide justification if they intend for the DON to review and potentially adjust this planned future arrangement.

Yes, API commercial standards are acceptable. In the event the lessee wants to pursue turning facilities over to the DON at the end of the lease term, these facilities must be Unified Facilities Criteria-compliant. Otherwise, the lessee may propose to turn facilities over to the DON but there are no guarantees the DON will accept the facilities, as the conditions, configurations, locations and appeal of the commercial use of the facilities to other entities will impact the DON's decision. As a reminder, prospective lessees are responsible for satisfying the lease requirements, which could include removing facilities and restoring the site to original conditions. The lease must be formally modified to incorporate any changes such as transferring facilities from the lessee to the DON.

When purchasing fuel, the DON routinely requires confirmation through the supplier and/or Defense Logistics Agency-Energy and/or the Navy Petroleum Office that the fuel meets Military Specifications (MILSPEC) for the fuel type, whether F- 76 fuel or JP-5 or another type. The quality assurance and quality control procedures under the applicable fuel supply contract would apply under the purchase. The DON reserves the right to reject fuel not meeting MILSPEC requirements.

There are no historical records of POL or HAZMAT contamination at the Marine Terminal, other than information provided regarding the facilities in Table 5 of the draft final Environmental Condition of Property documentation, which starts on Page 1159 of 1497 in the Data Pack and ends on Page 1163 of 1497.

Yes, the DON has geotechnical data for Pier 12 collected during the design and construction of the pier. This information will only be provided to the "best qualified" offerors directly due to security concerns.

The DON has facility condition assessment information for Pier 12 that will only be provided to the "best qualified" offerors directly due to security concerns.

The design flow rates for fuel delivery to DON vessels are described in the draft lease language, provided within the Data Pack. Paragraph 4.3.2.1 to 4.3.2.3 on Page 9 of 1497 applies.

The draft commercial outlease in the Data Pack contains standard DON environmental language. Future negotiations with the "best qualified" offeror may result in the revision of such language with higher Navy approvals.

Nimitz Road and the Sewage Lift Station are planned to be transferred from the Navy to the Port per previous Base Realignment and Closure discussions. If either of these facilities are of interest to the offeror, the offeror should provide justification for the DON to review and potentially adjust this planned future arrangement.

Sheet1