W91238-12-R-0023 Amendment 0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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.

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

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate changes to the solicitation as a result of questions provided by potential offerors. See attached continuation pages.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-May-2012

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 W91238-12-R-0023

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-May-2012

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 is extended, X 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

25-May-2012

CODE

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J STREET

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

W91238 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91238-12-R-0023

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:

AMENDMENT CHANGES

The following have been added by full text:

a. Section L, paragraph 2.8.2, Pages Counted is changed as follows to clarify what is included and excluded from the page count limitation. The page limitation of Volume I remains unchanged at fifty (50) pages.

2.8.2 Pages Counted: Each page shall be counted except the following: cover pages, executive summary , table of contents, title page, list of tables/figures/acronyms, glossaries, separator tabs, dividers, blank pages, Past Performance Questionnaires, Small Business Participation Plans, Small Business Subcontracting Plans, and Volume II in its entirety. Double sided pages will be considered as two pages. NOTE: Proposals that exceed fifty (50) pages will have only those pages that are within the page count limits evaluated. All information appearing thereafter will not be evaluated.

b. Section J, Attachment 3 – Sample Project has been revised and attached hereto to correct the page count limit from five (5) pages to six (6) pages.

c. Section L, Paragraph 3.3.2 Volume I, Factor II, Subfactor 2- Contractor Performance Information is changed as follows:

The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation, Section J, Attachment 2, is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor II, Subfactor 2-Contractor Performance Information. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires, utilizing the questionnaire provided, should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Caren Jackson, via email at caren.a.jackson@usace.army.mil prior to the closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposals PPQ’s previously submitted for other RFPs. However, the Government is not precluded from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation as a source of information.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last three (3) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System(PPIRS), including Contractor Performance assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnerships, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries or owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other know sources not provided by the offeror. Discrepancies between CPARS evaluations and information provided in PPQs will be resolved by the Contracting Officer during the source selection evaluation process.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests on the offeror.

NOTE: All supporting PPQs must be included in Volume 1, Factor II, Subfactor 2. PPQs are not included in the page count.

In the event that one or more of the respondents do not reply to the Offeror’s request to complete the PPQ, the Government may elect to contact them utilizing this information. Offerors providing no past performance record will be given a neutral rating.

d. Section J – Attachment 2- Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is deleted and replaced with a revised Attachment 2, NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) dated 9/30/11.

e. Section L, Paragraph 3.2.2.10 - Process Engineer is deleted. The Process Engineer is not considered a key position for this solicitation and does not require a resume.

f. Section M, Paragraph 5.1.1 Volume I, Factor I, Subfactor 1: Summary of Previous Experience – Environmental Remediation Services is rewritten as show below:

5.1.1. Volume I, Factor I, Subfactor I: Summary of Previous Experience – Environmental Remediation Services

The contractor's previous experience will be examined for breadth and depth and shall be evaluated based on the direct relevancy to the scope of work (See Section C of this solicitation). The Government will review previous experience in the following areas (Each of the elements is to be considered equal in value for evaluation purposes.):

Demonstrated remedial action field activities experience, engineering support services experience, and experience in developing studies, analyzing impacts, and conducting investigations Demonstrated experience with local, state and Federal regulators Direct experience with the Federal Government Demonstrated ability to execute federal work and projects in which the offeror served as the prime contractor Demonstrated ability to implement larger projects and projects with multiple sites Demonstrated ability to implement complex projects successfully Demonstrated ability to manage projects which were completed on time, within budget, and met the projects’ objectives Demonstrated ability to employ innovative technology successfully Demonstrated ability to implement value-engineering processes to cut design or remediation time and costs for the customer Demonstrated ability to manage regulatory interface and stakeholder interface Demonstrated ability of managing project with performance-based milestones Demonstrated ability to achieve regulatory site closure (no further liability to the government)

Innovative technologies are those that were new, inventive, and previously untried when first used. There is some risk in application of the new technology. However, this risk is balanced by the potential for improvements in quality, reduced project costs, or time savings. Later application of the same technology would not be considered innovative because when mature it can be applied routinely. Examples of technologies considered innovative upon first application include the Membrane Interface Probe (MIP) for subsurface investigation of solvent contamination, and Electrical Resistive Heating for the removal of volatile subsurface contamination. Neither of these technologies would now be considered innovative because they are routinely used, application procedures are available, and regulatory acceptance can normally be obtained.

Innovative methods are those that are new and previously untried upon first application, or are creative application of conventional procedures. When first conceived, these methods have the potential to achieve greater quality, reduced project costs, or time savings, but at an increased risk. Some methods may never gain widespread use and would therefore be considered innovative for a longer time period. An example of an innovative method is the Environmental Protection Agency’s Triad Approach, which combines detailed planning, adaptive sampling strategies, and the use of field analytical methods to improve site investigations. There is a risk in the application of innovative methods due to either performance failure or the inability to obtain regulatory acceptance.

When including examples of environmental restoration innovation in the proposal, the offeror must consider the element of time, because as noted above, a technology or method is no longer considered innovative once it becomes routine.

g. Section M, Paragraph 5.3.1, Volume I, Factor III, Subfactor 1- Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program and Corporate Business Practices is rewritten as shown below:

The Government will evaluate this portion of the proposal based on the requirements set forth in Section L. In addition, the Government places a higher value on innovative practices and programs, which have resulted in demonstrated increases in the quality of outputs by offeror in the past. Innovation in the field of environmental restoration can take multiple forms. Innovative technologies are those that were new, inventive, and previously untried when first used.

The Government places a higher value on a QA/QC Program, which demonstrates data quality assurance measures are in place. The Government places a higher value of offerors that have no environmentally reportable incident violations and/or have not received a Notice of Violation (NOV) in the past three (3) years. The proposal will be viewed as an example of Offerors QA/QC for reports therefore major errors in grammar, spelling, and format issues will be evaluated.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following Attachments have been revised and are included in this Amendment:

Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment 3 Sample Problem

(End of Summary of Changes)

Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11)

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

l2ctbcaj Typewritten Text Section J - Attachment 2

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

Section J Attachment 3 Sample Project Statement of Work

1. Background: Pleasant view Army Depot (PAD, fictional) is located in Monterey County, California. From

1941 to 1990 PAD served as a major distribution center for Army materiel which entered and left PAD predominately by train and truck. No chemical warfare materiel (CWM) nor munitions were handled, stored, or used at PAD. Facilities on PAD included barracks, warehouses, vehicle and radio maintenance shops, training grounds and assorted support buildings. The Army retains control and use of 200 acres in the northwest portion of PAD where environmental investigations and cleanup are continuing. This area has not been developed in part due to the soft sediments and shallow groundwater, which can vary from

5‐ft to 10‐ft below ground surface depending on season and drought/wet years. Fortunately for the installation, a 50‐ft thick regional clay unit (aquiclude) is encountered at 15‐ft below ground surface and there are no shallow wells or surface water bodies in the area.

2. Site History: By reviewing aerial photos and interviewing long‐time Army personnel from PAD, the new

Installation Restoration Program (IRP) manager has identified one area under Army control as a former burn pit and fire‐suppression training area. There are no records indicating what was burned, but interviews indicated that any flammable liquid and solid wastes from PAD were occasionally burned in the pit during the 1940s through the 1970s, including the debris from the original vehicle maintenance shop which was torn down around 1965. Diesel fuel was often used on the debris to set it aflame. There is no surface manifestation of the extent of the burn pit due to vegetation (tall grass) coverage, but based on the aerial photos it is assumed that the pit was approximately 50‐ft by 50‐ft in size and was located somewhere within a 5 acre area near the center of the 200‐acre Army parcel. The PAD fire department would also use the burn pits for practice putting out the fires once the wastes were burned. The fire department only used water to put out fires during this time.

3. Performance objective. The IRP manager has put out a Performance Work Statement (PWS) to delineate the nature and extent of contaminated soil and to excavate, characterize, and dispose of contaminated soil, ash and any remaining burned debris as hazardous waste as indicated by the Offeror’s sampling and waste characterization. The work is being accomplished under the CERCLA Program. The excavation shall be backfilled with soil from an approved source which has previously been used by PAD located 5 miles

(one‐way) from the pit; there is no charge for the backfill material. Backfilling shall be performed in 2‐ft lifts with 90% compaction (demonstrated by 1 compaction test per 10‐ft by 10‐ft area), and when brought to grade shall be reseeded with fescue seed common to the area. In addition, the nature and extent of groundwater impacts must be defined and quarterly groundwater monitoring must be conducted for a period of one year. Groundwater remediation, if required, will be under a separate PWS. Assume there are no utility or infrastructure obstacles in the area. The IRP manager would like the field work completed, with the exception of the groundwater monitoring, within 90 days of Final Work Plan approval; however, the manager may allow additional time if cost savings would be significant (i.e. 5% of entire project cost).

4. Cost Proposal. The Offeror shall submit a detailed cost estimate and technical narrative describing the procedures to be used for delineating the nature and extent of soil and groundwater impacts, and for excavation, characterization and disposal of the contaminated soil such that the site can have unrestricted re‐use. (Assume that vapor intrusion from any groundwater impacts is not an issue.) The proposal shall include labor rates, number of hours, mix of labor categories and material and subcontractor costs. The excavation site shall be restored to similar grade and grass with the surrounding area. The technical narrative shall be no more than six (6) pages and may use flow charts/decision trees, outlines of steps to be taken, or other methods to briefly explain their approach to this problem. An actual narrative written in complete paragraphs may be used, but is not required.

In addition to the above information, use the following assumptions for preparing the cost estimate:

1) Volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations are all that is required to delineate the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination; however, this does not apply to waste characterization samples.

2) The extent of the soil contamination can be determined by visual examination of boring cores or by

VOC samples of soil. Assume 30 borings are required to delineate nature and extent of the burn pit.

3) Waste must be characterized from 1 sample per 100 cy; all samples indicate the material is classified as hazardous waste.

4) A groundwater VOC plume will be defined emanating from the burn pit and extending 100‐ft downgradient of the plume by collecting 30 grab groundwater samples.

5) 926 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated soil is ultimately excavated and is hauled 20 miles to a hazardous waste disposal facility which charges $20 per ton for disposal. The same facility accepts liquid hazardous waste for $50 per 55‐gallon drum. Confirmation samples shall be collected from each sidewall and bottom of the excavation; assume all confirmation samples are non‐detect for

VOCs.

6) Documentation of the quarterly groundwater sampling events can be provided with a two‐page letter

(Final only) summarizing the sampling event plus one table summarizing the EPA Level 3 validated laboratory results and one figure showing the potentiometric surface at the time of each sampling event. The letter‐report should be completed with 60 days of sampling.

All additional assumptions the Offeror makes in preparing their cost estimate must be clearly listed in the cost estimate (or as an attachment to the cost estimate).

The Cost Proposal shall include costs for developing a Work Plan and Completion Report. Prior to starting work, the Offeror shall submit a Draft Work Plan, including a Site‐Specific Health and Safety Plan and

Sampling and Analysis Plan that details the procedures to be used for the investigation and remediation efforts. The Army shall review the Draft Work Plan within 30‐days and comments will be submitted. A

Final Work Plan shall be submitted once all Army comments on the Draft version have been addressed and approved. Upon completion of the work, a Draft and Final Closure Report shall be submitted documenting the site remediation and restoration, including copies of all waste manifests, soil and waste sample results, and survey data delineating the excavated area. The Army shall review and comment on the Draft Closure Report within 30 days of receipt and the Final Closure Report shall include resolution of all Army comments on the Draft Report.