W911XK20R0009 0001 .pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Environmental Services MATOC

Solicitation No. W911XK20R0009 for Environmental Services MATOC is amended to update the Instructions to Offerors section, Add Task Order Information, Minor Updates (highlighted) to Pricing Schedule, Add Evaluation Factor for Prior Experience, update Past Performance Evaluation Factor, include Figures 1-11 for the Sample Project and include RFIs. The proposals due date is extended to 30 OCT 2020 at 2:00 PM (EDT). Please see following pages for details.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 25

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Oct-2020

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W911XK20R0009

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Sep-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

14-Oct-2020

CODE

U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, DETROIT

477 MICHIGAN AVENUE, 7TH FLOOR

DETROIT MI 48226-4523

W911XK 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

X 1

W911XK20R0009

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

RFI RESPONSES

Requests for Information (RFI) Responses:

1. Is this RFP a new requirement?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is a new requirement and not a follow-on opportunity.

2. If this RFP is a follow on opportunity, can you provide the name and contract number of any incumbents?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is not a follow-on opportunity.

3. The anticipated contract Scope of Services requires a broad range of sampling and laboratory analytical capabilities in both the field and laboratory settings. The Section M Evaluation Factors appear to only address capabilities and experience associated with the laboratory analytical testing elements of the Scope of Services.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please see Amendment 0001 for updated evaluation factors.

4. Is it the Government’s intent to only evaluate respondent’s laboratory analytical testing capabilities exclusive of evaluating any of the many other service requirements, such as field sampling capabilities? As an added observation, we noticed that the evaluation criteria for solicitation W911XK20R0009 are identical to the evaluation criteria in the previously issued USACE solicitation W911XK20R0007 for Environmental Laboratory Services, wherein the scope was limited to laboratory analytical services only.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please see Amendment 0001 for updated evaluation factors.

5. Section L, Request For Information (1A) states that “the offeror shall put the solicitation number located in Block 1 of the SF 1442…” However, the “Standard Form 33” is included in the solicitation

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please see Amendment 0001 for correction from SF 1442 to SF 33.

6. Please clarify that the proposal does not require submission of Volume Proposal consisting of separate Technical and Price Volumes.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The proposal does not require submission of separate technical and price volumes, however, Section M includes submission requirements.

7. Please clarify requirements of these Factors and especially the requirements of factor b (Past Performance).

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please see Amendment 0001 for updated evaluation factors. Offerors shall submit three (3) Past Performance examples.

8. Sample Project Scope Of Work: Should the offerors submit this document as a standalone document or a part of the proposal document as stated in Section M, 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Items?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Offerors may submit the sample proposal as a standalone document.

9. Is/are there specific state level BMI protocols that must be followed? If so, which ones? (e.g. EPA National Coastal Condition Assessment, or Michigan EGLE, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc, please specify agency specific protocols being requested)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Benthic macroinvertebrate identification and counting procedures should follow those outlined in the USEPA Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program and SOP #EH- 04 "Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling & Processing(Adapted from ERT/REAC SOP and Great Lakes National Program Office Sampling Method LG406 Revision 07". Any state specific or project specific deviations from these procedures would be specifically outlined in the project specific Scope of Work. If the offeror has different pricing for particular state specific protocols the offeror can add a line to provide the method and associated cost.

10. If no specific protocol is referenced, is subsampling allowed for BMI samples?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: In general subsampling according to SOP #EH-04 "Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling & Processing (Adapted from ERT/REAC SOP and Great Lakes National Program Office Sampling Method LG406 Revision 07"If subsampling is allowed. Any specifics or adjustment to these procedures would be clearly outlined in the project task order SOW.

11. If subsampling is allowed, is there a target count required; OR is there a target fraction (% of sample) required?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Target count or fraction % should be according to SOP #EH-04 "Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling & Processing (Adapted from ERT/REAC SOP and Great Lakes National Program Office Sampling Method LG406 Revision 07"If subsampling is allowed. Any specifics or adjustment to these procedures would be clearly outlined in the project task order SOW.

12. For taxonomy data deliverables, are taxa lists and counts for each sample sufficient, or is there a requirement for “bioassessment metrics” to be calculated and provided?

GOVERNEMTN RESPONSE: For taxonomy data deliverables taxa lists are sufficient unless bioassessment metrics are specifically requested in the project task order SOW .

13. Who is the incumbent contract holder for this work?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is a new requirement.

14. How much work was performed per year (in dollars) under this contract previously?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is a new requirement. No other information is available.

15. Section B Pricing Schedule has a requirement for DOD ELAP Accredited Method. Is this required? For the vast majority of sediment related work which Eurofins has performed over the past 20+ years has not required DOD ELAP Methods. This includes the work that we have supported various USACE Districts under various National EPA/USACE Dredged Material Guidance Document for dredged material evaluation for sediment placement of material in Dredged Material Disposal facilities as well as the evaluation of contaminated sediments. Under the National EPA/USACE Dredged Material Guidance document DOD ELAP methods are NOT required. We would highly recommend that this requirement be removed from the bid specification since many of the tests which are listed in the scope of services do not fall under DOD QSM.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The DoD ELAP Accredited Method(s) header was to indicate that Laboratory methods should be EPA or other standard approved methods performed by laboratories that are DOD/EPA/State certified. The DoD/DOE QSM provides baseline requirements for the establishment and management of quality systems for laboratories performing analytical testing services for the DoD and the DOE. This column is for inclusion of laboratory methods that are performed by such labs, while the other methods column is for Non-EPA approved methods and/or methods in which DOD certification is not available. Please See Amendment 0001 for updated Section B Pricing Schedule.

16. How do we price different sample matrices such as water or sediment/soil or even biological tissues?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Analysis matrices for a particular method and price should be included in the matrix column. If a particular matrix employs a different method and/or price for a particular analysis an additional row may be added. Please See Amendment 0001 for updated Section B Pricing Schedule.

17. How do we document the specific compounds list as well as our reporting limits for the methods requested?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Specific compound lists as well as reporting limits for the methods requested may be provided as separate tables.

18. Line item which has SPLP Extraction with Analyses for all RCRA Parameters- Does this mean the parameters included in TCLP for hazardous waste determination?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Correct, this means the same parameters included in TCLP for hazardous waste determination.

19. Line items with Mercury Species- Fractionation and Quantification- can more specificity be provided on the mercury species which are required?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Mercury species required are those in EPA Methods SW-846 3200.

20. Line item for Hard Carbon- can a reference be provided?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please reference EPA 415.3/9060

21. For Line Volatile Organic Compounds in Air- Is there a method, compound list? How do we manage the media associated with collecting whole air samples?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please reference EPA method TO-15

22. Line item for Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons – PAH - Is this for the Target Compound List of PAHs or is this for a more extended list of PAHs?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: There are two lines to allow for inclusion of one line for the target list, and the other for the extended list. See Amendment 001 for updated Section B Pricing Schedule.

23. Line item for PAHs, Bioavailable (34 PAHs by SPME/ASTM D7363)** - Whole Sediment (extraction via EPA 3541) - Is line item for bulk sediment analysis for EPA's list of 34 PAH which is found in Method D 7363?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, See Previous Response and See Amendment 0001 for updated Section B Pricing Schedule

24. For line item Organochlorine Pesticides - Is this the TCL list or is it the list which is found in the dredged material guidance document, which has a more extended Pesticide List?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is the more extended list which is found in the dredged material guidance document. The TCL list may be entered as a separate row in the pricing schedule.

25. Under the category Sampling Kits - is the prices requested specifically for the bottles, coolers, and other supplies for sampling or is this request for bundled analytical prices for the tests listed?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is a request for bundled analytical prices for the analyses listed.

26. For line item PFAS/PFOA- Can we provide you multiple methods and compound lists which may be required for work in the USACE District footprint?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, multiple methods and compound lists may be provided for what may be required for work in the USACE District footprint.

27. Scope of Services - The USACE is concerned about these constituents at trace concentration levels. In order to achieve trace level concentration, the laboratory offers Low Level Method options for organics and metals.

How would you like to address this option in our submission?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: An additional row may be added under the analysis with a Low Level (LL) indicator in parentheses to allow for easy submission of this option.

28. Scope of Services- The statement: Work performed under this contract related to sampling and analysis of Hazardous, Toxic and Radiological Waste (HTRW) shall meet the applicable portions of the Department of Defense Quality Systems Manual (QSM) located here https://denix.osd.mil/edqw/documents/manuals/qsm version-5-3-final/. Much of the work described in the scope of services for meeting low level criteria for ambient open water as well as standards and criteria for water and soil/sediment quality does not fall under the HTRW Program. This includes the typical USACE sampling and analysis project requires collection of sediment, water and/or benthos samples in harbors and connecting channels within the boundaries of the USACE Detroit District to include Michigan, portions of Wisconsin, portions of Minnesota, and portions of Indiana. Occasionally work may include sampling and analysis from project sites within other Districts in the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. Our 20 years of experience in providing sediment support, plus our experience in providing support to contractors supporting EPA's GLNPO AOC work has not required DOD ELAP. Can the requirement for QSM be removed from this scope of services?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, This requirement cannot be removed from the Scope of Services. The DoD/DOE QSM provides baseline requirements for the establishment and management of quality systems for laboratories performing analytical testing services for the DoD and the DOE. This requirement is applied where applicable as some analyses and methods are not included in the system. In this instance NELAP certification is acceptable.

29. Section 4 Biological Services - page 3 & 4, is there a reason that DOD ELAP is required or will NELAP accreditation suffice? Phase I TIE testing involved complicated test designs that have many options and the price varies based on the study design, can an example design study be provided in order to estimate costs or how should we propose a rate?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The DoD/DOE QSM provides baseline requirements for the establishment and management of quality systems for laboratories performing analytical testing services for the DoD and the DOE. This requirement is applied where applicable as some analyses and methods are not included in the system. In this instance NELAP certification is acceptable. The offeror may include a proposed rate for a basic TIE Testing, any options and price variations based on a particular study design will be addressed on a task order basis.

30. Under 4.2.4.2 Specific guidance on the appropriate procedures for the collection, handling, record keeping, and shipping of fish and macroinvertebrate samples are provided in: Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume 1. Fish Sampling and Analysis. 1993. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. EPA 823-R-93-002 to meet the objectives of this guidance document, the laboratory has to handle fish and macroinvertebrates in order to perform the analysis.

This includes potential shucking, fileting as well as homogenization as well as lipids determination for organic analysis. Can line items be provided to include these costs?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The offeror may add line items in order to include these costs in the proposed price schedule.

31. Under 4.3.2, samples collected under this contract shall be stored as designated in subsequent task order for six months following delivery of the final report to the USACE. How are these samples to be stored? Refrigerated or frozen, when that is an option?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Refrigerated or Frozen will be appropriate depending upon the matrix of the sample. This storage is to ensure that material is kept until final reviews and comments from outside agencies have been performed on reports. The storage should be secure in order to maintain chain of custody requirements.

32. Section 4.3.4- Low Level TCDD/TCDF - Will the Reporting Limit of 1 pg/g (ng/kg) be required for all Dioxin/Furan compounds? A subcontracted laboratory conducting dioxin/dibenzofuran analysis must be accredited by the Department of Defense Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program over the life of the contract. Is there a specific reason DOD ELAP is required for this analysis?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Reporting limits of 1 pg/g may be required for all compounds depending on matrix, and normal analysis procedures these limits may vary. DoD/DOE QSM provides baseline requirements for the establishment and management of quality systems for laboratories performing analytical testing services for the DoD and the DOE. This requirement is applied where applicable as some analyses and methods are not included in the system. In this instance NELAP certification is acceptable.

33. Section 4.3.5 States that in some instances the Contractor will be required to use a congener-specific method to report concentrations of each of approximately 51congeners plus total PCBs using the Canadian (CLB-1) Standard in addition to the Standard Aroclor mixtures. We routinely report a list of 51 congeners and can also report aroclors. Please provide the CLB-1 standard reference or document and the list of 51 congeners for review.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please See NOAA Standard and Reference Materials CLB-1 - CLB-2 Mixtures of iso-octane of individual chlorinated (PCB) compounds.

34. Section 4.3.6 In some instances the USACE may require analysis for Tributyltin compounds. There was no line item for TBT in the pricing table. How should we proceed?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The offeror may add a row for addition of Tributyltin analysis.

35. Section 4.4.3 ASTM Shake test (D3987-8) is requested but there was no line item in the pricing table. How should we proceed?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The offeror may add a row for addition of ASTM Shake test

36. Section 4.6.1: for biological testing we hold the required NELAP accreditation but do not hold DOD ELAP accreditation. Is DOD ELAP accreditation and individual state certification required?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This requirement is applied where applicable as some analyses and methods are not included in the system. In this instance NELAP certification is acceptable. Individual state certifications if applicable will be required for project occurring within the respective states.

37. Section 4.6.2: requires that the ‘sub-contract’ laboratory is required to obtain and maintain validation from the State of Wisconsin. We do not hold this certification and the associated costs include application fees (~ $2,500) + on-site audit fees. Given the IDIQ nature of the contract and the potential for multiple state projects requiring individual state certification, does the NELAP accreditation held by the Biological Aquatic Toxicity labs meet the needs of the program?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, Individual state required validations are not met by NELAP accreditation if an individual state validation is applicable.

38. Section 4.6.7 States the laboratory shall perform method detection limit studies regularly (twice yearly as a minimum) and furnish this information to the USACE Quality Assurance Program Coordinator as it becomes available. MDL studies can be made available to the USACE QA Program Coordinator for review however we perform one MDL study a year and then quarterly checks are used along with historical method blank data to evaluate MDLs for the following year. This meets the requirements of NELAP and DOD QSM.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is acceptable.

39. 4.7.1.2 Data Reporting Format, Paragraph 3 - Given the nature of Aquatic Toxicity Testing quick TAT and an Electronic Data deliverable for bioassay data is not available. All biological tests reporting to comply with the language in the 3rd paragraph of 4.7.1.2 Data Reporting Format.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Given the nature of Aquatic Toxicity Testing it is understood that accelerated turnarounds are not-applicable. Data deliverables should be in table format and comply with the EPA/USACE Great Lakes Testing Manual Requirements were applicable.

40. The solicitation requests hourly rates for professional labor categories, however, there doesn’t appear to be a requirement for submittal of a staffing plan, management plan, project team organization structure, and personnel resumes for each of the identified labor categories. Will the qualifications and experience of the proposed project team and personnel be considered as part of the selection of qualified firms? If so, under what evaluation criteria will they be considered and what criteria would need to be met or will be used to differentiate between proposals?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Staffing plan, management plan, organization structure and resumes for the identified labor categories will be evaluated at the task order level and may be submitted as examples of prior and past performance documentation under evaluation factors two and three. Please see Amendment 0001 for updated evaluation factors.

41. The scope of services for the solicitation specifies various investigations and actions that may be required under the contract (e.g. archeological and cultural resources surveys, wetlands delineations, site assessments, aquatic biology assessments, etc). Will the contractor’s experience and qualifications in all identified services and related disciplines that are described in the scope of services be considered in the selection of firms? If so, under what evaluation criteria will they be considered and what criteria would need to be met or will be used to differentiate between the proposals?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please see response #40 above and Amendment 0001 for updated evaluation factors.

42. In addition to the laboratory requirements (for which the evaluation criteria for acceptability are provided), the scope of services for the solicitation specifies various field investigation and sample collection methods (e.g.

sampling of groundwater, surface water, sediment, DMDF material, HTRW, etc.). Will the contractor’s experience and qualifications in all identified sampling methods be considered in the selection of firms? If so, under what evaluation criteria will they be considered and what criteria need to be met?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please see response #40 above and Amendment 0001 for updated

43. Will the award of the three IDIQ contracts be to the offerors with the three lowest price proposals among the proposals that are determined to be technically acceptable or will “best value” or other factors be considered?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)

44. How does USACE anticipate soliciting and awarding subsequent task orders among the IDIQ contract holders?

a. Will all task orders be competitively bid among IDIQ contract holders? If so, will the task orders be awarded to the firm with the lowest bid or based on “best value” or other factors?

b. Will task orders be solicited on a sole source basis? If so, how will USACE determine which firm among the contract holders from which to solicit bids?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Subsequent task orders will be competed among the base contract holders and awarded based on lowest price. Task Orders are awarded as firm-fixed-price. See Amendment 0001 for details.

45. Are there any page or font limitations for proposals or sections of proposals?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: There are no page or font limitations for the proposal or sections of the proposal.

46. For the completed price proposal for the Sample Analysis Project, is USACE requesting in addition to the cost estimate breakdown and total price, that a narrative basis for the cost estimate and all documents that are mentioned in the sample SOW as due with the proposal be included (e.g. draft QCP, draft Safety Plan, draft Schedule)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, only the cost estimate break down and total price is required for the Sample Analysis Project.

47. In the past performance ratings table on page 124 of the solicitation, the definition of an acceptable rating includes: “…or the offeror’s performance record is unknown”, suggesting that an offeror with no past performance experience or rating would be acceptable. Is this a typographical error or are we misinterpreting the definition?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: In the case an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, for whom information on past performance is not available, or so spare that no meaningful past performance rating cab be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.205(a)(2)(iv). Therefore the Offeror shall be determined to have an unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “ACCEPTABLE”. Please see Amendment 0001 for updated evaluation factors.

48. Would USACE provide clarification on certification requirements for geotechnical analyses? Specifically, is

AASHTO Accreditation by AASHTO R-18 sufficient, which is the standard for Quality Management Systems for Material Testing Labs? Would this, along with ASTM and AASHTO quality standards and test methods, be sufficient for work in Wisconsin? Additionally, the Corp of Engineers provides lab validation based on AASHTO R-18 Accreditation documentation alone (for a fee). For this project, can we request that USACOE provide a lab validation?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: AASHTO Accreditation by AASHTO R-18 sufficient for most analyses, for projects with large amounts of geotechnical work USACE certifications will be required. The offeror should ensure that DOD/State certifications are available where applicable.

49. What is the environmental media for each of the testing services requested in the table from page 3-11: Soil?

Sediment? Water?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: All of the above, please See Amendment 0001 for updated Section B Pricing Schedule.

50. Can USACE specify which of the analyses require which lab certifications (NELAP, DoD ELAP, State cert)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: DoD/DOE QSM provides baseline requirements for the establishment and management of quality systems for laboratories performing any analytical testing services for the DoD and the DOE. This requirement is applied where applicable as some analyses and methods are not included in the system. In this instance NELAP certification is acceptable. State certifications are required for all applicable testing occurring within the respective state.

51. Should mobilization/demobilization costs be included with travel? Or, should the sampling vessel daily rate be applied for mobilization/demobilization costs?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Mobilization/demobilization should be a separate line item in the sample cost estimate breakdown.

52. What is the meaning of the asterisk, placed only by the JonBoat Sampling vessel item listed on page 10?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Asterisk is a typo and has no meaning. It has been removed from the updated pricing schedule.

53. Please confirm that two subcontractors for 12 hour day costs are to be included in all Sampling vessel costs?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: To confirm, the vessel daily rate should include the specified labor costs;

travel costs will be separate.

54. What is the purpose of the Sample Project Work Scope presented on Page 126 of the solicitation? Are contractors to provide a technical work scope and pricing for this example, or is the Sample Problem provided as an example of a typical work scope that will be issued by the USACE.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The sample work project is a typical work scope issued by USACE and is part of the price evaluation factor. In accordance with Section M, offerors shall provide a completed price proposal for the sample analysis project. The cost breakdown for the sample project is required but a technical write up or work plan is not necessary. Please see Amendment 0001 for updated

55. Given the restrictions posed by COVID-19 will the USACE grant a 1-week extension for proposal submittal?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Due to the amount of RFIs received; a 1-week extension for proposal submissions is granted for offerors to review the RFI responses and solicitation changes. An additional extension for continued RFIs or COVID-19 restrictions will not be granted.

56. Given there are numerous analytical methods required for this project, the analytical SOPs will be voluminous, to limit the file size would it be acceptable to provide the cover page of each SOP for each analytical method?

Should we be awarded the contract, SOP/MDL/LCS control ranges required for each analytical method would be provided.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, this is acceptable.

57. What list of PFAs analytes is required- MI/DOD 24 or MI 28 or a hybrid?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The offeror may provide both by adding a separate line and multiple methods and compound lists may be provided for what may be required for work in the USACE District footprint.

58. For Factor 3 Submission Requirements: Can the Government clarify if anything other than the Section B

Pricing Schedule with the methods columns completed is required?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No other item except the Section B Pricing Schedule with the methods columns completed is required for this section. Please see Amendment 0001 for updated Pricing Schedule and evaluation factors.

59. Do the TAT surcharges on page 10 apply to only analytical laboratory services or to geotechnical laboratories too?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: TAT surcharges apply to any analytical services where accelerated analyses can reasonably be expected to be available.

60. How many chemicals are to be tested for PFAS/PFOA on page 11?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: multiple methods and compound lists may be provided for what may be required for work in the USACE District footprint.

61. Can the same QCP be used for every task order (page 43)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: A QCP template can be employed, however, each task order is required to have an individual QCP, Individual HASP/APP.

62. Does the corporate H&S Plan only need to be submitted once?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The corporate H&S Plan needs to remain current but may only need to be submitted once.

63. What rates would be used for work performed outside the Detroit USACE District limits (i.e., Ohio District) – pages 51 to 93.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The same rates would apply to work done outside each district boundary and, travel, mob/demob, shipping and other similar costs would be appropriately accounted for in each cost line item.

64. Do the other contract provisions seem “typical” and “reasonable” (pages 94 to 117)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: These are the standard contract provisions in current IDIQ/MATOC contracts for USACE Detroit District.

65. How do you calculate quantity and total price when the scope of work is undefined (or is this done on a task by task basis) – page 124?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is done on a task order basis and for the sample project provide in the proposal.

66. Page 133 of the RFP references a Draft Safety Plan, Draft Schedule, and Draft QCP are required with the proposal. This section is an example Task Order Request. Please confirm if these plans are required to be submitted with this solicitation response.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The references to the draft safety plan, schedule, and quality control plans are required for task orders. To confirm, this is an example Task Order Request. Plans are not required to be submitted in response to this solicitation. The pricing proposal for the sample Task Order is the only requirement from this section.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 23-Oct-2020 02:00 PM to 30-Oct-2020 02:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

RATES

Pricing Schedule - Environmental Sampling/Testing - Discipline, Laboratory, and Vessel Rates

DESCRIPTION Matrix

DOD/NELA

P/EPA/State

Specific Certified

Method(s)

Other Method(s)

(List all Available)

UNIT

PRICE

Base Year

UNIT

PRICE

Performan ce Year 1

UNIT

PRICE

Performan ce Year 2

UNIT

PRICE

Performan ce Year 3

UNIT

PRICE

Performan ce Year 4

LABOR

Senior Principal /hr

Senior Project Manager /hr

Field Lead/Chemist /hr Senior Scientist/Biologist/Geolo gist

/hr

Project Manager /hr Environmental Scientist/Biologist/Geolo gist

/hr

Archeologist /hr

Cultural Specialist /hr

Wetland Delineator /hr Chemical Sampling Technician

/hr

Biological Field Technician

/hr

Taxonomist /hr

GIS Specialist /hr

Laborer /hr

Clerk/Typist /hr

BIOLOGICAL SERVICES (Reference Section 4 of Scope of Work)

Daphnia magna Elutriate 48-hour acute toxicity test (5 replicates with all dilutions)

Daphnia magna Elutriate 21-day chronic toxicity test (10 replicates with all dilutions)

Ceriodaphnia dubia Elutriate 48-hour acute toxicity test (5 replicates with all dilutions)

Ceriodaphnia dubia Elutriate 7-day chronic toxicity test (10 replicates

Ceriodaphnia dubia Phase I Elutriate Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Test (includes runs for ammonia, cationic metals, and non-ionic organics) per protocols contained in EPA/600/R- 07/080 and/or

EPA/600/6-91/003

Pimephales promelas Elutriate 4-day acute toxicity test (5 replicates

Pimephales promelas Phase I Elutriate Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Test (includes runs for ammonia, cationic metals, and non-ionic organics) per protocols contained in EPA/600/R- 07/080 and/or

EPA/600/6-91/003

Chironomus dilutus Solid Phase 10-day acute survival and growth toxicity test (5 replicates)

Chironomus dilutus Phase I Solid Phase Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Test (includes runs for ammonia, cationic metals, and non-ionic organics) per protocols contained in EPA/600/R- 07/080

Hyalella azteca Solid Phase 10-day acute survival toxicity test (5 replicates)

Hyalella azteca Solid Phase 28-day chronic survival toxicity test (5 replicates)

Hyalella azteca Phase I Solid Phase Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Test (includes runs for ammonia, cationic metals, and non-ionic organics) per protocols contained in EPA/600/R- 07/080

Lumbriculus variegatus Solid Phase 28- day bioaccumulation test (5 replicates including tissue extraction) Does not include chemistry analysis.

Benthic macroinvertebrate identicification and counting (to the lowest practical taxonomic designation)

Percent Lipid (Biological Tissue)

CHEMICAL TESTING SERVICES

Sample preparation for Standard Elutriate test [Does not include analyses]

Sample preparation for Modified Elutriate [Does not include analyses]

TCLP, Extraction Only (Volatile and non- Volatile portions)

TCLP, Extraction with Analyses on all RCRA parameters

TCLP, Extraction with Analyses on all RCRA Metals parameters only

SPLP, Extraction Only (Volatile and non- Volatile portions)

SPLP, Extraction with Analyses of all RCRA parameters

* metals cost include the cost for digestion, Digestion fee charged once per sample regardless of number of metals analyzed.

Metals - 23 metals per

TAL

Metals - 8 metals per

RCRA

Metals AVS/SEMs (Sulfide, Cd, Cu, Ni, Zn, Pb, Hg)

Aluminum - ICP

Aluminum - ICP-MS

Antimony - ICP

Antimony - ICP-MS

Arsenic - ICP

Arsenic - ICP-MS

Barium - ICP

Barium - ICP-MS

Beryllium - ICP

Beryllium - ICP-MS

Boron – ICP

Boron – ICP-MS

Cadmium - ICP

Cadmium - ICP-MS

Calcium - ICP

Calcium - ICP-MS

Chromium - ICP

Chromium - ICP-MS Chromium Hexavalent - Cr + 6 - solid

Cr + 6 - liquid

Cr + 6

Cobalt - ICP

Cobalt - ICP-MS

Copper - ICP

Copper - ICP-MS

Iron - ICP

Iron - ICP-MS

Lead - ICP

Lead - ICP-MS

Lithium - ICP

Lithium - ICP-MS

Magnesium - ICP

Magnesium - ICP-MS

Manganese - ICP

Manganese - ICP-MS

Total Mercury

Di-Methyl Mercury

Mono-Methyl-Mercury Mercury Species Fractionation and Quantification

Molybdenum - ICP

Molybdenum - ICP-MS

Nickel - ICP

Nickel - ICP-MS

Potassium - ICP

Potassium - ICP-MS

Selenium - ICP

Selenium - ICP-MS

Silver - ICP

Silver - ICP-MS

Sodium - ICP

Sodium - ICP-MS

Strontium - ICP

Strontium - ICP-MS

Thallium - ICP

Thallium - ICP-MS

Tin - ICP

Tin - ICP-MS

Uranium (total) - ICP-MS

Vanadium - ICP

Vanadium - ICP-MS

Zinc - ICP

Zinc - ICP-MS

Cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K)

Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Suspended Solids (TSS)

Total Volatile Residue

Turbidity (NTU) pH

Conductivity

Alkalinity

Hardness Fecal Coliforms & Total Coliforms

Fecal Coliforms

Total Coliforms Iron Reducing Bacteria

(IRB)

Sulfate Reducing Bacteria (SRB)

Denitrifying Bacteria

(DN)

Heterotrophic Aerobic Bacteria (HAB)

Chemical Oxygen Demand

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 day)

Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Carbonaceous (5 day)

Cyanide, Total

Cyanide, Amenable

Nitrogen - Total Kjeldahl

Nitrogen - Ammonia

Common Anions -

Nitrogen - Nitrate

Nitrogen - Nitrite

Nitrogen – Nitrate/Nitrite

Sulfate Soluble Salts (Chloride and Sulfate)

Sulfides

Phosphorus, Total Total Phosposus [P]; as measured by persulfate digestion procedure

Total Orthophosphate [P,ortho]; as measured by direct colorimetric analysis procedure

Total Hydrolyzable Phosporus [P,hydro]; as measured by sulfuric acid hydrolysis procedure

Dissolved Phosposus [P- D]; as measured in filtrate by persulfate digestion

Dissolved Orthophosphate [P- D,ortho]; as measured in filtrate by direct colorimetric analysis

Dissolved Hydrolyzable Phosporus [P- D, hydro];

as measured in filtrate by sulfuric acid hydrolysis

Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP)

Standard Soil Fertility

Total Organic Carbon

Black Carbon

Hard Carbon

Organic Matter (LOI) Volatile Organic Compounds – TCL

Volatile Organic Compounds in Air

Methane, Ethane, Ethene BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes)

Semi-Volatile Organics -

TCL

Acid Compounds

Base/Neutral Compounds

Phthalate Esters

Phenols

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons – PAH (Targeted List)

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons – PAH (Extended List)

PAHs, Bioavailable (34 PAHs by SPME/ASTM D7363)** - Pore Water

PAHs, Bioavailable (34 PAHs by SPME/ASTM D7363)** - Whole Sediment (extraction via

EPA 3541)

**Analysis of parent and alkylated PAHs in whole sediment samples by GC/MS using selected ion monitoring mode as specified by ASTM method D7363 - 11. Whole sediment samples shall be extracted by Method 3541 (Soxhlet extraction).

Quantification of chromatographic data must be conducted and reviewed by a qualified chemist to eliminate low level interferences from competing ions.

PCB Congeners - A- DRBC List (209 Congeners)

PCBs (Aroclors) Organochlorine Pesticides

Organophosphorus Pesticides

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

Chlorinated Herbicides Petroleum Hydrocarbons

– Gasoline Range Organics

– Diesel Range Organics

– Diesel Range & Gasoline Range Organics

Oil and Grease

Perchlorate

Explosives - liquids

Explosives - solids Total Asbestos Fibers - Bulk

Total Asbestos Fibers - Air

MTBE

Mirex Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) and polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) -

HRGC/HRMS

2,3,7,8-TCDD

Dioxins and Furans

Dioxins and Furans

TOX

Reactivity

Corrosivity

Ignitability/Flash Point

Paint Filter Test Filter Water Sample for Chemical Testing

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING

Mechanical Sieve Analysis

Hydrometer Analysis Grain Size Analysis (Includes both Sieve and Hydrometer)

USCS Classification

Atterburg Limits

Water Content

Specific Gravity

Bulk Density Organic Matter (Loss on Ignition)

Standard Proctor Unconfined Compression (undisturbed)

Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial

Consolidated Undrained with Pore Water Pressure

Consolidation

TURN AROUND TIMES

Analyses Accelerated to 14 day TAT - Mark up percentage

Analyses Accelerated to 10 day TAT – Mark up percentage

Analyses Accelerated to 7 day TAT – Mark up percentage

Analyses Accelerated to 3 day TAT - Mark up percentage

TRAVEL AND DIRECT COSTS

Travel To be priced by individual order in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulation

Direct Costs To be priced by individual order

SAMPLING VESSELS

JonBoat Sampling Vessel w/GPS (accuracy 1‐3 meters) Gravity Core 0‐2 ft.

/Day

Pontoon Sampling Vessel w/GPS (accuracy 1‐3 meters), Gravity Core 0‐2 ft.

/Day

22‐26 foot vessel (Great Lakes Capable) w/GPS (accuracy 1‐3 meters) Gravity Core 0‐2 ft.

/Day

Pontoon Sampling Vessel w/GPS (accuracy 1‐3 meters) Direct Push 0‐15 ft.

/Day

Pontoon Sampling Vessel w/GPS (accuracy 1‐3 meters), Vibracore 0‐10 ft.

/Day

Two subcontractor employees – 12 hour days

SAMPLING KITS

Metals Kit 13 Metals - Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead,Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, and Zinc

Metals- 7 total metals per permit - Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Zinc (aqueous) ug/L

Nutrients Kit Sediment or aqueous- Ammonia Nitrogen, TKN, and Total Phosphorus

Organic Indicators Kit- Sediment- COD, TOC, Oil and Grease, % Volatile Residue, and Total Cyanide

Organic Indicators Kit- Aqueous- COD, TOC, Oil and Grease, and Total Cyanide

Physical Kit- Sediment- % Residue, In- place Density, Specific Gravity, and Grain Size without Hydrometer

Physical Kit- Sediment- % Residue, In- place Density, Specific Gravity, and Grain Size with Hydrometer

Physical Kit- Aqueous- Total Residue, Suspended Residue, and Total Hardness

Physical Kit- non-aqueous phase samples- Specific Gravity and Total Solids

Reactivity Kit- Corrosivity, Ignitability, and Reactivity (Cyanide and Sulfide)

Low Level Mercury, ng/L

Cyanide Available

Grain Size Analysis (Includes both Sieve and Hydrometer)

PFAS

PFAS/PFOA

All prices are for a unit quantity of “one each” unless specified otherwise.

Profit

This is a fixed price contract and no separate line item for profit shall be included at the task order level.

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

The following have been added by full text:

TASK ORDERS

This is an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity type Contract (IDIQ) contract utilizing Firm-Fixed-Price Task Orders in accordance with FAR Subpart 16.5 for Environmental Services associated with the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division Boundaries of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) umbrella contract is valued at $7,000,000.00 over a five (5) year ordering period.

Task Order awards during this period of performance will be made as Firm-Fixed-Price only. Individual Task Orders will be competed among all awardees with award made on lowest price.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR

1. REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

A. Questions/Inquiries. All questions pertaining to this requirement shall be submitted in writing no later than, 08 October 2020, 10:00 A.M. EST. The offeror shall put the solicitation number located in Block 3 of the

SF 33 followed by QUESTIONS in the subject line of the email. All questions received after the above date and time WILL NOT BE ANSWERED.

B. Questions shall be submitted to Lisa May, Contract Specialist at Lisa.M.May@usace.army.mil and LRE-

Proposal, at LRE-Proposal@usace.army.mil.

C. Once all inquiries are compiled and addressed, the questions and answers may be generated as an amendment and posted to the beta.sam.gov website for all interested parties to view/acknowledge to be sent in with their submission prior to the closing date. If additional time is needed for submission, this extension will be executed on the same amendment as the questions and answers amendment.

2. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

A. All offerors are reminded to complete and submit with your proposal all FAR and DFARS Provisions related to Representations and Certifications.

B. Offerors shall complete and submit any additional full text certifications that are included in the solicitation. An offeror may also complete the certifications at https://www.beta.sam.gov in lieu of completing the representations and certifications in this solicitation provided that all the FAR and DFARS certifications contained in the solicitation have been completed on line.

C. All offerors shall be registered at https://www.beta.sam.gov with the NAICS code that is shown on the front page of the solicitation prior to award.

D. Remember to fill in and sign the Standard Form 33, from the front of the Solicitation, before submission.

E. Proposals must be received by the date and time indicated in Block 9 at the front page of the Solicitation.

F. Submit all documents to the Contract Specialist at Lisa.M.May@usace.army.mil and the Contracting inbox at LRE-Proposal@usace.army.mil.

3. OTHER OFFERS NOT ACCEPTED

Submittal of quote/proposal information by other electronic means; i.e. other website, text message, or similar means will not be accepted. Hand carried delivery or USPS/UPS/FEDEX delivery of hard copies and or CD- ROMs are not authorized. Facsimile submission is not authorized.

4. AMENDMENTS

Acknowledgement of each amendment must be made in the space provided on the SF 33, or by returning a signed copy of the amendment by the time set for receipt of offers to the personnel identified in 1 and 2 above.

Explanations or instructions given in a form other than an amendment to the solicitation shall not be binding.

For security reasons; all potential Offerors, plan rooms and printing companies are required to register in SAM at www.beta.sam.gov.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government intends to award three (3) contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Certification, Prior Experience, Past Performance, Methods, Price

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

52.212-2 Addendum EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS ADDENDUM

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:

The non- pricing evaluators are to assign objective ratings of acceptable or unacceptable to each of the non-pricing evaluation factors for each evaluated proposal. Factor Identification: The offeror's proposals received in response to the Request for Proposal will be evaluated using the following factors:

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

a. Factor One Certifications:

i. Submission Requirements: Offerors must provide proof of current USACE, DOD ELAP, and Individual

State required certifications for all applicable matrix and method combinations.

ii. Evaluation Criteria: Proposal must demonstrate ability to meet all required certification requirements for applicable matrix and method combinations to be deemed “ACCEPTABLE” on this factor:

a.) USACE Certification/Approval for analyses where applicable.

b.) DOD ELAP, and Individual State required certifications for Chemical, Biological, and Geotechnical analyses where applicable.

b. Factor Two – Prior Experience

i. Submission Requirements: Offerors shall provide two (2) prior experience examples demonstrating capabilities in field sampling and laboratory analysis. One (1) example must include experience conducting field sampling operations on land with laboratory analysis of samples obtained and one (1) example must include experience conducting field sampling operations over water with laboratory analysis of samples obtained.

ii. Evaluation Criteria: Prior Experience will be evaluated on submission of the required field sampling operation with laboratory analysis. Proposals shall meet the evaluation criteria above in Table C-1 in which the proposal meets both requirements of field sampling operations on land and over water to be deemed acceptable and receive an “ACCEPTABLE” rating on this factor. Proposals meeting only one (1) or less of the required prior experience will be deemed unacceptable and will receive an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating on this factor.

c. Factor Three - Past Performance

i. Submission Requirements: Offerors shall provide three (3) past performance examples within the past three (3) years from date of solicitation in block 5 of the SF33. Information provided should demonstrate recent and relevant past performance. Offerors who have not had previous federal government contracts must provide documentation, with Points of Contact that demonstrates past performance in performing field sampling and laboratory analysis. The Government will also assess past performance through CPARS evaluations where applicable.