QA2.pdf

Since the first round of questions and answers, the Government has received the following questions about RFQ solicitation W9127N-17-Q-0060. As of 17 August 2017, the Government has provided the following answers.

Question 1: The solicitation, top of page 13 has a requirement to examine the entire river from RM 3

106.5 is the subject of the research and the first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 13 states “…with a one mile buffer either site of the river corridor.” Is this correct and, if so, does the 1 mile buffer begin at the river’s center line, or from the river’s northern and southern shoreline?

Answer: One of the goals is to ID other sites in the area (again we will provide the data we have just need a comprehensive document). So yes, and from the centerline. Strictly a literature review.

Question 2 4:

RFQ Reference Question Q&A, Q2 and A2; and PWS

1.2 (pp. 5 6)

The answer to Q2 says “This project is not meant to detail the channelization of the river by the corps over time.” However, Section 1.2 in the PWS states “The goal is to have a comprehensive cultural resource background research document with maps that provides historic and archaeological context to the multiple upland placement sites, the dredging of the navigation channel, and in water placement locations.”

The two statements appear to be in contrast. Or is this apparent discrepancy only because the Corps somehow distinguishes between dredging to maintain the navigation channel and actions to channelize the river?

Answer: The Corps wants to know where all known historic and archeological sites are located on land and in the river. That way, when we dredge or place material we will/can avoid impacts to them. Additionally, we can identify where our information gaps may be so we can plan for future inventory.

PWS 1.2 (page 6, paragraphs 1 3).

Section 1.2 also states:

The project area is the main stem of the Columbia River from river mile 3 106.5. This includes the Columbia River channel and its associated riverbanks and landforms where dredge material is placed. The project is located along the border of both Oregon and Washington States, stretches across several counties, and includes a deep water placement located off the coast of Washington in the Pacific Ocean.

The “Pacific Ocean 9,000 acre area deep water placement site” is reiterated in the next paragraph of 1.2. But the final paragraph of 1.2 states the project deliverable is to “provide a historic context for the dredge placement sites and the river channel between river mile 3 106.5.”

Please clarify whether the deep water placement site is to be part of this research and document or not.

Answer: Yes, the deep water placement is part of the research. Again, a literature review of any known sites within the deep water disposal site is all that is required.

5.1.2 (page 10) and Attachment 2 – Deliverables Schedule

The RFQ and Attachment 1 state the Work Plan and QCP are due 10 days from contract initiation, but Attachment 2 states 7 days. Which is it?

Answer: The Work Plan and QCP are due 10 days from contract award.

5.3.1, paragraph 3 (page 13)

Paragraph 3 of Section 5.3.1 requests that “One electronic copy of the draft GIS generated information is due seven (7) days after the completion of fieldwork.” Please clarify.

Answer: Oversight on our behalf, there is no fieldwork involved other than what is needed to obtain the research materials (i.e. visits to county archives, SHPO, DAHP, etc. for examples).

The draft GIS is due 7 days after the completion of the research work.

Question 5: Sec 5.3 Task 3, the first paragraph says, “Contractor shall perform…within the study areas and within a one mile buffer either side.” The “study area” is clearly identified on the map exhibit as different from the placement areas. Does the highlighted phrase above refer to the study areas or the placement areas?

Answer: The study area is the identified on the map, the placement sites are also identified on the map within that study area. Particular detail is needed for the placement areas. Were the placement sites ever subject to a class III survey? If so, what reports are associated with those surveys? What sites were found? What sites came up in the literature review not tied to a report? What are the recommendations for the future management of the placement site?

Question 6: Sec 5.3 (pg 13) discussed the “entire river from River mile 2 106.5 and the deep water site should be examined…with a one mile buffer either side of the river corridor”. The study area boundary is outside the river corridor and there are no in water portions (other than tributaries) outside the river bank. What is intended by the highlighted phrase? Is every known in water site between river mile 2 and 106.5 to be documented?

Answer: The goal is to have a comprehensive report that documents all known sites within that corridor with accompanying GIS data. This report will be used for future planning purposes for dredge projects. It will aid in the avoidance of impacts to cultural resources by dredging or dredge placement.

Question 7:Will the Corps provide records of the dredge operations that have happened every year including the associated map sets or will the contractor need to make FOIA requests to access them?

Answer: Since this is not a history of dredging, we will not be providing those kinds of records, other than as they relate to the dredge placement sites. FOIA is not necessary.