Attachment 4 Question and Answer.docx

Q1: Scope of Excavation and Point Repairs: CLIN 0001 and the PWS objectives designate this as a "Cleaning and Inspection" requirement. However, PWS 5.3.2 outlines procedures for ground disturbance and excavations (e.g., AF Form 103 Work Clearance). Please clarify if the contractor is expected to perform any excavations or point repairs under this Firm-Fixed-Price contract if a collapsed pipe prevents camera passage, or if the requirement is strictly to document the impassable blockage and halt the camera inspection for that specific run.

A1: This contract is only for cleaning and video inspection. No digging or repairs are required. If a pipe is blocked or collapsed, contractor shall document the location and notify COR. If there is a blockage, the expectation is that the contractor will try to inspect the pipe from the opposite manhole to get as much information as possible.

Q2: Water Sourcing and Decanting Operations: PWS 3.5 states that all utilities on the installation will be available for contractor use. Please confirm if the contractor will have access to base fire hydrants to fill jetting trucks, and if a base-supplied water meter or backflow preventer is required. Furthermore, please clarify if the contractor is permitted to decant filtered/separated water back into the active sanitary sewer system on-base, or if 100% of the extracted liquid waste must be hauled off-base for disposal along with the solid debris.

A2: The contractor will have access to base fire hydrants. The contractor shall provide a backflow preventer to fill trucks. Filtered/separated water will be allowed back into the sewer system, but all solid waste must be hauled off-base and disposed of properly.

Q3: Hazardous Material Disposal Risk: PWS 5.1 requires the contractor to transport and legally dispose of all extracted waste off-base, explicitly including "the disposal or recycling of hazardous materials." Given that the Vitrified Clay Pipes (VCP) are 75 years old, the presence and volume of hazardous materials (e.g., heavy metals, PFAS) cannot be reasonably quantified pre-bid. Will the discovery and subsequent off-base disposal of unforeseen hazardous sludge be handled via an equitable adjustment/Differing Site Condition, or must contractors assume this financial risk within their baseline FFP quote?

A3: To our knowledge, these lines have not been fully cleaned or inspected in several decades. While we have no specific data regarding the presence of hazardous materials in the system, we also cannot certify that it is free of them. The assumption is that waste is standard waste. Contractors shall base their baseline Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) quote on the assumption that all extracted waste consists of standard waste. Contractors are not required to assume the financial risk of unquantifiable, unforeseen hazardous materials. The Government would address this via a formal modification Q4: The Combined Synopsis (Volume II, Section C.1) explicitly states that the evaluation of past performance WILL NOT include the past performance of any subcontractors. As it is standard industry practice for Small Business Prime Contractors to team with specialized sub-tier partners for CCTV sewer inspections, would the Government consider amending the solicitation to allow the evaluation of first-tier subcontractor past performance, or alternatively, allow the Prime Contractor's past performance in successfully managing similar specialty subcontractors to meet the relevancy criteria?

A4: At this time, the Government will not amend the solicitation to evaluate subcontractor past performance directly. However, part of relevancy as it pertains to this solicitation is scope. As stated in Volume II, Section C.3, scope is defined as type of work, function, skill mix, and/or labor classifications. Furthermore, as stated in Volume II, Section C.2, 'Your past performance is relevant to this competition when you have done recent work that has confronted you with the same kinds of challenges that you would reasonably expect to encounter during performance of the contract described by the RFQ.' Considering this verbiage, the Government acknowledges standard industry practice and the likelihood of a prime contractor utilizing subcontractors to complete the work. Accordingly, the Government’s position is that the existing evaluation criteria allow a prime contractor to meet the relevancy standard by demonstrating past performance in successfully managing similar specialty subcontractors.

Q5: The solicitation incorporates FAR 52.222-41 (Service Contract Labor Standards) by reference, but a specific Wage Determination document or number does not appear to be included in the provided attachments. Additionally, the provision for FAR 52.222-42 (Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires) is currently blank. Could you please provide the applicable Service Contract Act (SCA) Wage Determination number and revision for this requirement so we may accurately calculate our compliant labor costs?

A5: Not including the Wage Determination was an oversight. The wage determination is being uploaded along with this Q&A.

Q6: Is there an incumbent on this service?

A6: No, this is a new requirement.