Site_Visit_Questions__2.pdf

1) It was made clear, because of road restrictions issued by Caltrans, that no truck or heavy equipment road traffic is permitted on Hwy 198 north from Three Rivers and all trucks must approach the site from Fresno Hwy. 180. Please confirm that this is accurate.

A1. The NPS cannot confirm information provided by Caltrans.

2) Storm Water Protection Plans and Site Implementation are required in the scope of work, but there is no line item on the bid form for this work. Please identify where the costs for these items are to be included under.

A2. You may provide the cost in the location of your choice.

3) Paragraph Section 4.3.14. on page 5 is incomplete, please provide the complete paragraph.

A3. Note: Field sampling technology per USEPA approved methods (e.g., XRF) may be used during soil removal activities to provide real time analysis for lead to determine if clean conditions have been encountered to aid in directing field operations. Confirmation samples shall be submitted to a laboratory for analysis per USEPA method’s described in paragraph 4.3.9.

4) Paragraph 4.3.15 calls out for a 24hr turn around on testing of soils. Because of the nature of some of the testing a 24hr turn around cannot be performed. Please clarify/confirm.

A4. 24 hour turnaround is the requirement.

5) Is there a conflict of Interest with having the prior EE/CA contractor teaming on this solicitation?

A5. Yes, there is organizational conflict of interest (See A8).

6) In Section M Evaluation Factors for Award, subsection B.2.2, will the Government accept “Other

Federal Agencies” as an evaluation factor?

A6. We will consider work with other federal agencies in the evaluation

7) Will the NPS accept completed CPARS for the Past Performance requirement?

A7. No.

8) Can a time extension be granted based on the late date of receiving RFIs?

A8. Yes. A time extension will be granted in order to provide response time, regarding a potential organizational conflict of interest. This concerns the contractor who had provided material leading to the Statement of Work. Extension will be until 6/30/2015 at 1700.

9. The SOW states that 2,220 CY or 594 tons, is to be excavated and disposed of off-site. It is very unlikely that 2,200 CY will yield only 594 tons. Please clarify the quantities.

A9. Assume 1.5 tons for CY.

10. It was mentioned on the site visit that the parking lot adjacent to the site could be closed for the work. Please confirm.

A10. Yes the lower Keweah parking lot can be utilized.

11. It was mentioned on the site visit that water would be available for use as dust control within the park. Please confirm the water location.

A11. If water is available it will be dependent on the drought conditions. After Labor day water may be available for purchase.

12. It was noted on the site visit that the road from the parking lot to the removal area is in disrepair. It is the responsibility of the contractor to repair the road to current condition or is some degradation as a result of the work acceptable?

A12. Some degradation is acceptable.

13. Will the NPS please provide the As-Builts for the utilities in the vicinity of the work?

A13. The NPS does not have As-Builts for the Utilities in the vicinity of the work.

14. Will trees inside of the removal area need to be protected in place? Or, if removed from removal area, can they be disposed of in the site vicinity?

A14. See paragraphs 3.7.1 and 5.3 of the Statement of Work.

15. Will the NPS provide the report and analysis from the previous site investigations?

A15. Yes, they are currently available on SEKI PEPC's website.

16. The Contract Price Schedule requests a price per ton for both Non-Hazardous and Hazardous disposal but no quantity is provided. Please clarify.

A16. The NPS will only pay for the actual disposal cost.

17. The Contract Price Schedule requests a price per trip for both Non-Hazardous and Hazardous disposal but no quantity is provided. Please clarify.

A17. The NPS will only pay for the actual trips

18. The Contract Price Schedule requests a price per ton for disposal of Hazardous Regulated

Waste but does not specify which type. Is the suspected material Non-RCRA, RCRA but meets the UTS, or RCRA and does not meet the UTS?

A18. The NPS does not know at this time how of the suspected material is non-RCRA or RCRA.

19. Is the NPS exempt from the Board of Equalization Hazardous Waste land Disposal Fees?

A19. No.

20. The instructions for Subfactor 3, Key Personnel, state “offerors shall provide names and resumes for all key personnel required by Section H, Special Clause 2.” However, the Submittal

Instructions, Attachment #10, indicate that resumes should be provided for key personnel for this project, as referenced in Section H, upon contract award. Should resumes be included in the technical proposal, along with a completed Key Personnel Qualifications form?

A20. Yes, please resumes be included in the technical proposal, along with a completed Key Personnel Qualifications form.

21. The Past Performance Factor indicates that the Federal Government will consider past performance on contracts. May the offeror submit a PPQ for a contract with multiple task orders that are similar in scope and size to this project?

A21. Yes, they can.

22. Section L, Subfactor 2, Relevant Experience states the offer shall submit no more than a total of five (5) projects. However, Section M, Subfactor 2, Relevant Experience, states the standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates it has performed similar projects on three (3) liA14ke projects. Is it acceptable to submit five projects, and is it acceptable to submit project descriptions completed by key subcontractors?

A22. It is acceptable to submit five projects and the NPS does not know at this time if if project descriptions completed by key sub-contractors is acceptable with out reviewing the submittal(s).

23 It was revealed during the site visit that the proposed vertical removal shall be to an existing granite outcropping and that the import of backfill material would not be required. Please confirm.

A23. See SOW paragraph 3.7.1.

24 It was revealed during the site visit that there are no utilities; buried or overhead, within the boundaries of proposed removal operations and that the only utility-of-concern in the area immediately surrounding the boundaries of proposed removal operations is an electrical lateral servicing an air monitoring station located to the north of and well outside the boundaries of proposed removal operations and that said lateral is buried beneath the air monitoring station access road located immediately adjacent to and just outside the southernmost boundary of proposed removal operations. Please confirm.

A24. The NPS does not have As-Built’s for the Utilities in the vicinity of the work. The contractor will have to contract for an independent utility survey.

25. It was revealed during the site visit that the access road for the air monitoring station located immediately adjacent to the southernmost boundary of proposed removal operations shall designate the southern limits of removal. To avoid the possibility of disturbing the existing electrical lateral buried beneath the road, we were told that removal of impacted soil along the shoulder of the road should be safety-sloped from the shoulder of the road, north to the invert of the removal excavation. It is our understanding that impacted soil may be left in-place in the slope off the access road and that is acceptable to the NPS. Please confirm and, if acceptable, provide the proposed slope; i.e. 2:1, 3:1, etc.

A25. The proposed slope is acceptable. However, based the NPS will decide based on the analytical results if chemicals of concern may be left in place.

26 It was revealed during the site visit that trimming of any overhanging tree branches conflicting with equipment operations or trucking either along the access road or within the boundaries of proposed removal operations would be addressed by trained NPS personnel with input from the contractor.

A26. See SOW paragraph 3.7.1.

27 It was revealed during the site visit that a number of small trees growing within the boundaries of proposed removal operations are to be “sacrificed”. Please confirm.

A27. See SOW paragraph 3.7.1.

28 It was revealed during the site visit that three (3) mature “old-growth” trees would likely have to be removed and that said removal would be the contractor’s responsibility.

If these trees do indeed have to be removed, would it be possible for these trees to be removed by trained NPS tree removal personnel with input from the NPS arborist? There is a very real H&S concern associated with removal of such large trees and a substantial risk of unintended collateral damage. Please know, even if these trees are removed, the remaining stumps and root balls for such large trees my well negate efforts to totally remove all impacted soil. If impacted soil is to be left in-place in the slope off the air monitoring access road, would it be acceptable to surface scrape surrounding these trees, removing all the readily accessible impacted soil and leaving a limited quantity of impacted soil in-place, while saving these trees?

A28. See SOW paragraph 3.7.1.

29 It was revealed during the site visit that, in the event removal operations are scheduled during the “off season”, the NPS would be willing to close the lower parking area to all outside traffic. Please confirm. Would it be possible to close the upper lot, the lot just off General’s Highway, during the same timeframe? Closing both lots would greatly limit, if not eliminate, potential conflicts between haul trucks and passenger car traffic.

A29. SEKI will close the lower parking lot during the off season.

30 Will the contractor be allowed to stage a small office trailer, generator and portable sanitary facilities in the lower parking area?

A30. Yes. It must be self contained. During off season a portion of lower lot can be roped off for the use of the contractor.

31 Reference Paragraph 4. Statement of Work, sub-paragraph 4.3.10 in the Statement of

Work; estimated removal quantities are “2,220 cubic yards (594 ton Already answered)”.

These numbers assume a 0.268 cubic-yard-to-ton multiplier. Please confirm the cubic yardage estimate. Please re-visit the multiplier that was used for this conversion. Please provide updated figures.

A31. Assume 1.5 tons per CY.

32 It was revealed during the site visit that the nearest source for construction water would most likely be grey-water taken from the Clover Creek Water Treatment facility or the Fire Department source at Ash Mountain. Please provide contact information for these facilities.

A32. Depending on drought conditions, after Labor day Holiday (September 6), SEKI can possibly provide water, but it must be paid for.

33 How much time does the NPS anticipate it will take to review and approve the

Submittals? This includes the Work Plan, Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan, and the

Sampling and Analysis Plan.

A33. 30 days or less per lan.

34 Will there be an NPS representative on site to sign manifests?

A34. Yes, a SEKI representative will sign the manifest.

35 How long will it take NPS to review, approve, and sign the Waste Profile?

A35. Unknown at this point in time.

36 Can the NPS please provide the “Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance

Project Plan for Site Characterization at Lower Kaweah Area Dumpsite, Sequoia and

Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California” and the “Work Plan for

Additional Soil Assessment, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California” that were prepared by Environmental Cost Management, Inc. (ECM) and referenced in ECM’s EE/CA (footnotes 28 and 29)?

A36. All documents are posted on SEKI’s PEPC website.

37 On pages 30 and 31 of 32, Sub-factor 1 – Technical Approach states “This sub-factor considers the Offeror's proposed methodology to remediate Lower Kaweah firing range.” Was this area historically used as a firing range or is this a typo?

A37. So sorry, this is a typo.

38 For Sub-factor 2 – Relevant Experience, will the NPS consider project experience gained by key personnel such as the Project Manager or Site Superintendent that was performed in the past three years that is similar in scope and complexity?

A38. Yes.

39 For Sub-factor 2 – Relevant Experience, will the NPS consider project experience from a key subcontractor where a Letter of Commitment is included with the proposal?

A39. See Solicitation P15PS00830, Page 31, Item D

40 For the Past Performance Factor, is it acceptable to include CCASS or CPAR signed by the Government for projects which are relevant (similar in scope and complexity) to this project in addition to the PPQ forms, which should support the Government’s review of contractor and subcontractor past performance?

A40. Reflect all relevant experience as shown in Section J attachment 6