Amendment__003_RFI_Questions.pdf

United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area

401 West Hillcrest Drive

Thousand Oaks, California 91360

IN REPLY REFER TO:

S7215 (PWR)

June 22, 2015

Memorandum

To: Contractor(s)

From: Operations/Environmental Programs Branch Chief, PWR-San

San Francisco

Subject: Lowe Kaweah Soil Remediation- Solicitation Number P15PS00830;

RFI Response for Question Received, Through 6/19/2015

1. Section 4.3.8 discusses confirmation sampling requirements to include all ROA constituents, Section 4.3.13 requires confirmation sampling for only lead. Can you clarify what constituents are required for confirmation sampling.

A1. Paragraph 4.3.8 does not discuss confirmation sampling requirements. Paragraph

4.3.8 states "The EE/CA established a Site removal action objective (RAO) per Table C-4

(attached) within Appendix C of the EE/CA." Paragraph 4.3.13 specifically names "Total

Lead", however paragraph 4.3.9 states "Soil samples shall be collected to document cleanup of soil to concentrations at or less than the ROA. Samples shall be analyzed as follows:".

2. Section 4.3.15 requires 24 hour turn around to verify constituents are below ROA.

Certain constituents may not be available for 24 hour TAT. The NPS appreciates this will double the analytical costs. If the technical approach provides sufficient time for lab analysis without 24 TAT can this requirement be modified.

A2. The NPS re-affirms paragraph 4.3.15 and the 24 hour turn around time.

3. Past Performance Factor: Does offeror have to submit a past performance questionnaire to their clients in order to get a rating or will the NPS acquire that rating themselves?

A3. No.

4. If offeror has to acquire a completed past performance questionnaire from the client, is it acceptable to submit an already completed past performance questionnaire from a previous submittal?

A4. Not required.

5. The Solicitation states that Davis Bacon Wage rates apply to this contract. Does this apply to truck drivers hauling waste or delivering import soil? And if so, can you please provide the justification?

A5. No. See FAR 22.401

6. On page 4 of 9 of the Statement of Work, paragraph 4.2.1 states, “The Contractor shall prepare and submit for review a Sampling and Analysis Plan (draft and final) which follows the attached

SAP Template for the field activities described below…” Please supply the referenced SAP

Template.

A6. See SAP Template attached herein.

7. For Sub-factor 2 – Relevant Experience, the RFP states, “This factor considers the Offeror's

Experience in carrying out similar remedial project to those required in the Statement of Work in terms of both scope and complexity. Proposers must demonstrate that they have the required experience of a project of this scope and have successfully completed similar projects of scope and duration.

B.1. Standard: The standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates that it has performed similar remedial projects on three like projects in scope and size during the last three years at a

Land Management Agency (i.e., BLM, FWS, NPS, Forest Service, etc.). [emphasis added]”

This “standard” appears “overly restrictive” since it prohibits members of the SDVOSB community with similar remedial project experience performed on behalf of the Department of

Defense (DoD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and private-sector clients from participating in this competition since these are not “Land Management” agencies. We respectfully request that the NPS modify the RFP language for meeting the “standard” to be more inclusive thus ensuring meaningful competition on this SDVOSB Set-Aside procurement.

A7. Please note the language on page 31 of the solicitation has been amended to read:

B Sub-factor 2 – Relevant Experience: This factor considers the Offeror's

Experience in carrying out similar remedial project to those required in the

Statement of Work in terms of both scope and complexity. Proposers must demonstrate that they have the required experience of a project of this scope and have successfully completed similar projects of scope and duration.

B.1. Standard: The standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates that it has performed similar remedial projects on three like projects in scope and size during the last three years.

B.2. Additional consideration will be given to those offers that demonstrate experience in remediating contaminated sites in a Land Management Agency

(i.e., BLM, FWS, NPS, Forest Service, State Park, etc.).

8. During the job walk it was mentioned that the removal of the contaminated soils would partially expose the tops of large rocks. It was further explained that this is condition that the site should be left in…which would match the adjoining site north of the road. This is in conflict with section 3.7.1.3 which calls out for clean soils to be brought into the site. Please clarify what the expected final condition of surface is to be and if clean fill soils are to be imported.

A8. See SOW paragraph 3.7.1.3, after excavation is complete, consult with the restoration ecologist to re-contour the site to blend with surrounding contours.”

9. Are county excavation permits required for this project?

A9. See SOW paragraphs 3.4 and 4.3.2.

10. Paragraph 3.7.1.4 Other than duff infill is there and REVEGATION requirements for the project

A10. See SOW paragraph 3.7.1, “Restoration to Natural Condition”.

11. The Bid Schedule for the project has line items for transportation and disposal with

Quantities of 1 and requests Unit Price and Total Price. Using a quantity of 1 provides the unit rate for each of those line items, but when multiplied to get the total price, it provides a number the same as the unit rate. When those numbers are used to calculate the Total Proposed Price, it provides a number much lower than the actual project cost will be. For the purpose of providing a bid bond for this project, do you want us to use that lower than actual Total Proposed Price? If yes, that number may very well be below the threshold for requiring a bid bond. If no, can you please provide quantities that should be used for those line items so that a more realistic Total Proposed Price can be calculated for the purpose of bonding?

A11. The Bid Schedule has been revised to allow for option items and a more realistic

Total Proposed Price. It is attached herein. In addition, Solicitation P15PS00830 is hereby amended to add the following Special Provisions Language in Section M on Page

32:

PROVISIONS

SPECIAL PROVISION 1: EVALUATION OF OPTIONS EXERCISED AT TIME OF

CONTRACT AWARD

Except when it is determined not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate the total price for the basic requirement together with any option(s) exercised at the time of award.

(End of provision)

SPECIAL PROVISION 2: EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Except when it is determined not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)