MOTCO_Technical_RFIs.pdf

MEC RFIs

1. Does the USACE anticipate the need for sufficient onsite UXO personnel to classify, move, and dispose of potential MEC item(s)? Alternatively, does the USACE believe the restoration work can be completed via anomaly avoidance? This would require the specified plant spacing to be adjusted in the field to avoid detected metallic anomalies.

• Anomaly avoidance is sufficient for this PWS. MOTCO will assume responsibility of disposition for any items detected.

2. Does the USACE anticipate the need for UXO tech support beyond the initial installation period, or will it be required during the establishment periods, years 1 and 2.

• Required only during ground penetrating activities (i.e. planting and replanting, SWPPP, etc.)

SWPPP/BMP RFIs

1. Please verify, that the retention basins will be constructed using 100% imported fill materials and will not require any ground disturbance.

• Retention basins will be constructed entirely from fill material.

2. The description of the retention basin requirements do not indicate the need for an access road to maintain the basins. Please clarify if an access road adjacent to each basin will be required to allow for future maintenance of the basins (remove accumulated sediment).

• There is no requirement for access roads for future maintenance. All basins are accessible via White Road.

Restoration

1. The PWS section 6.2.4.4 Soil Testing references collection soil samples to determine if soil amendments will be needed for plant installation. Until results are provided this will be an unknown cost. Would it be acceptable to provide an allowance for “soil amendments” since it is an unknown at this time?

• This information will be used ‘as reference only’ should there be large die off of initial planting. Assume no amendments are needed for initial planting.

2. On Page 27 of the PWS there is a summary of the total number of container plants to be installed as 6,534; however, it also shows salvaged plants as (1,150). Can you clarify if these salvaged plants are in addition to the 6,534 or if the total number of container plants to be purchased/grown will be reduced based on the number of salvaged plants in order to reach the total of 6,534.

• 6,534 total container plants, no salvaged plant material.

3. The restoration plan references commercially growing container plants with seed collected from the restoration site. With this option the planting would not be able to take place until Fall 2020. If the contractor is able to request locally sources container plant material as currently available from local nurseries with approval by the client, then planting can occur in Fall 2019. Please advise on the preferred approach.

• Installation of container plants cannot occur until Pier II Modernization and Retrofit work is complete, expected summer 2020. Planting in the fall of 2020 will provide adequate time for plant material collection and propagation.

4. Section 5.1.2.7 of the restoration plan references an energy dissipater. Has this energy dissipater already been installed or will it be the responsibility of the contractor? In either case will the removal of the energy dissipater be performed by the contractor?

• Energy dissipater will be the responsibility of the contract to install and will be a permanent feature to remain after contract concludes.

5. The PWS references EP1 weeding to occur 4 times per year; however, on the pricing sheet the number of units is shown as 3. Please advise which is preferred.

• Weeding to occur 4 times during EP1 per 6.2.14. Pricing schedule revised in Amendment.

6. In RFP Factor there is a request for a discussion of “…assumptions made in resourcing non‐ labor maintenance requirements.” Could USACE provide some examples of what would constitute these requirements?

• This factor is requesting a basis for non-labor maintenance costs such as ODCs.

General Questions:

1. Can we revise the plant pallet based on initial plant survey required by the PWS?

a. Any revisions to the plant palette proposed by the contractor must be accompanied by proof of good faith effort to fulfill the plant palette in the PWS prior to consideration by the government. Any such revisions proposed during contract performance are subject to approval of the COR and KO.

2. Does USACE or MOTCO have an Incidental Take Permit for Lilaeopsis masonii that we can salvage plant material under?

a. No, would be the responsibility of the contractor to acquire.

3. If masonii is not found within the work site will we be able to collect it from other sites on base?

a. With MOTCO approval. Off-base sites within the bay are also an option.

Cultural Questions:

1. Is USACE supplying all cultural support?-See Section 6.2.3

• Yes, should cultural resources be encountered.

UXO Questions:

1. Are planting pits the only locations the must be cleared by XO? See Section 6.2.11

• Contractor is required by the PWS to perform anomaly avoidance. If anomalies are detected they must be reported to XO or MOTCO and MOTCO will determine the appropriate response. Support per EM 385-1-97 guidance.

2. Please provide a map of all of the PWS restoration and retention basin sites, their areas in acres, and which of these sites have already undergone a MEC clearance to depth. In each area where a MEC clearance to depth was conducted, please specify the depth to which each site was cleared.

• Only anomaly avoidance is required; there is enough information in the solicitation package for contractors to complete a bid including anomaly avoidance. See Attachment A for active vs passive and retention basin areas on scaled drawings with units provided.

3. Section 6.2.4 of the PWS (Page 8) states that: “The recently excavated portion of the site, active restoration area, will be cleared to depth, 2 feet maximum, by prior Pier II construction activities in all disturbed areas. Enhancement areas will not have been cleared to depth. Once XO clears the site…” Our questions on this are as follows:

• What is the minimum previous clearance to depth for each PWS site?

• Clearance of disturbed areas will be performed by Pier II construction contractor; information unavailable at this time.

• Please list which areas are the “enhancement areas.”

• No anomaly avoidance required in ‘enhancement’ areas.

4. The sentence beginning with “Once XO clears the site…” implies that the MOTCO

Ordnance Officer will be clearing sites which require that activity. Please clarify.

• See response to question 1.

5. Section 6.2.4 of the PWS (Page 9) states that: “The project site contains areas both cleared and not cleared to depth and any ground penetrating activities require appropriate XO support.” Has USACE made a determination that, regardless if work areas have been previously cleared to depth or not, that the Contractor is to have UXO support for ground penetrating activities of any depth? Or since XO is referenced in this sentence, is this an activity for the MOTCO Ordnance Officer?

• See response to question 1.

6. Section 6.2.4 of the PWS (Page 9) states that: “Activities may involve munitions and explosives of concern (MEC), which includes UXO, DMM, and MC if found in high enough concentrations to cause an explosive threat, non-explosive concentrations of MC and incidental contaminants related to MM.” Our questions on this are as follows:

• Is it USACE’s intent as part of this scope for the Contractor to perform analytical testing of soils before initiating activities in each work area to determine the concentrations of explosives MC compounds?

• No.

• If the Contractor observes damaged or corroded MEC which might allow concentrations of MC to have entered the soil, is the Contractor expected to perform soil sampling and analyses to evaluate?

• No, anomaly avoidance will not lead to observation and/or removal of

MEC.

• If so, how much sampling and analyses should be assumed for the project?

• See response to 6.a.

7. Section 6.2.4 of the PWS, MEC Related Guidance sub-section, 4th bullet (Page 9) states that: “Should MEC be encountered during this response, UXO-qualified personnel will evaluate the explosive hazard and remove it, including by open detonation in place.” Our questions are as follows:

• Since this is a FFP contract, please advise on how the Contractor should provide pricing for the uncertain scenario of number of items (events) over the course of the project that require detonation in place.

• See response to UXO comment 1.

• Please advise on how much support will be provided by the MOTCO Ordnance

Officer and the facility in regards to on-site explosives availability for executing detonation in place actions, storage facility and containers for MEC items discovered, and any MOTCO support personnel for detonation in place operations. We note that PWS Section 4.2 states that no facilities will be provided by the Government, but the provision of some or all of the above would significantly reduce the project price and simplify project planning.

• See response to UXO comment 1.

• Is there a PWS requirement for Contractor handling, removal, storage, and recycling of MD scrap discovered in the work areas? If so, what is the facility requirement (size, etc.) for metallic items that need to be removed from the work areas and is there already a secure, sited scrap inspection and certification area at

MOTCO?

• See response to UXO comment 1.

• Please provide a definition of the MOTCO Ordnance Officer (XO) responsibilities.

• See response to UXO comment 1.

• Please provide all of the MOTCO facility guidelines for conducting demolition operations.

• See response to UXO comment 1.

Active vs. Passive Questions:

1. Please provide an updated map of the active vs. passive areas or updated acreages of the passive areas. Portions of upland passive areas are shown on the road that was supposed to be graded.

• Assume passive and active acreages are static.

2. Is exhibit A 1057L the area we are expected to restore? If so, what work is expected in the active area and what work is expected in the passive area?

• Exhibit A shows expected active and passive restoration. The ‘active area’ will have been recently regarded as part of a separate contractors work. Active areas are to be planted. Passive areas ‘enhanced’ through weed eradication and removal.

3. Where is the buffer area? Section 6.2.8 says to refer to Exhibit B, however, Exhibit B conflicts with Exhibit A. Can you please clarify?

• Exhibit A supersedes Exhibit B Maps/drawings.

4. Will the bank revetment be completed during or before our period of performance so we can complete restoration work?

• Yes, revetment and Pier II work will be completed prior to active restoration activates.

5. Will the road be demolished for restoration during our performance period?

• No onsite roads; White road will remain.

6. What is the status of RSP installation?

• RSP not found in PWS; question unclear.

7. Will we be required to remove weedy material off site?

• Yes.

8. Is grass seeding intended to take place in the active restoration areas or passive?

• Seeding required in active restoration area and passive areas per SWPPP requirement.

Irrigation Questions:

1. Is Irrigation Design part of 6.2.9?

• No Irrigation System, hand water-in plants after installation only.

2. Please clarify between tasks 6.2.9 and 6.2.13.

• Hand water-in only per 6.2.13

3. Where is or is there a water source?

• Contractor must provide a water source. May hook into MOTCO Hydrant system by coordination with MOTCO DPW.

Browsing Deterrent Questions:

1. How long do the stakes need to be?

• 18 inches

2. At what height above the ground should the plastic rope deterrent be tied to the stakes?

• The objectives of the PWS need to be met, contractor can determine how to best meet them.

Staging area and site setup Questions:

1. Will we be allowed to use one of the nearby parking areas as a staging area?

• Yes, but specific location will be approved by MOTCO DPW.

2. Will we be provided a shapefile of utilities in the work areas so that we can flag/mark them on site?

• The Government does not anticipate utility conflicts given the depth of operations to fulfill this scope of work.

• It’s the Governments expectation that anomaly avoidance will provide sufficient information for the contractor to avoid utilities.

3. Will we be responsible for maintaining the safety fence already in place around the work site?

• The existing safety fence is part of Pier II Modernization and Retrofit and will be removed. If additional fencing is required by the SWPPP of this PWS then will be contractor responsible to install and maintain.