W912BU-17-R-0002_-_Amendment_2.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

THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

PROPOSAL DATE: MARCH 28, 2017

NOTE: **RFI’S WILL BE ACCEPTED THROUGH MARCH 14, 2017.**

Please indicate receipt of this amendment on Standard Form 1442 (SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD) as Amendment 0002. Failure to acknowledge all amendments may be cause for rejection of offer.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Feb-2017

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 W912BU-17-R-0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Feb-2017

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, 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

7-Mar-2017

CODE

CONTR DIV-CONTRACTS BR

USACE, PHILA DISTRICT

WANAMAKER BUILDING

100 PENN SQUARE EAST

PHILADELPHIA PA 19107-3390

W912BU 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

X

W912BU-17-R-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT

A. ANSWERS TO RFI’s This amendment is being issued to provide a first set of answers to RFI questions.

Not all questions currently submitted are answered in this Amendment. Further answers will be provided periodically through March 21, 2017. Answers will be found on pages 3 through 13.

The due date of March 10 th only provides a 28-day response time due to the fact that February is only 28 days. Please consider extending the proposal to at least 30 days and potentially to 45 days to align to timeframes that other USACE Districts have allowed for similar, complex FUSRAP proposals.

See amendment 0001

Please confirm that the 15 required resumes for Subfactor 2 (Organizational Approach) are excluded from the 75-page limitation.

See amendment 0001 can you please clarify if the “approach for reporting” is for any type of reporting and not linked to regulator relations, i.e., two separate versus linked items?

Information has been provided throughout the RFP, plese respond with a specific reporting request.

these items don’t seem to be “safety” related and seem to fit better under the Project Completion

Approach. If they are supposed to be in this section, can you please provide further definition for these items in relation to safety?

Regardless of the offeror's suggestion about location of the information, offeror is to respond to the RFP as written.

Please confirm that letters of commitment for key personnel are not included in the page count for the Technical volume.

See amendment 0001

The note references “alternates” for key personnel candidates. If letters of commitment are required, please clarify why alternates would be considered and confirm that these are not expected for each position.

Government's requirement's for alternates and letter's of commitment remain unchanged

It was announced at the site walk that answers to questions would not be posted until March

3 rd . If an extension is not anticipated, please advise offerors on whether or not more pages will be added to the total page count so that we have enough time to prepare revised technical approaches prior to the release of formal Q&A.

See amendment 0001

In addition to the Prime, do all subcontractors, or only those performing 10% or more of the work, need to provide information requested in this bullet?

Those performing less than 10% of the work do not need to provide this information.

Please confirm that EMR rates assigned by each firm’s insurance provider can be provided in the tabulated summary (meaning that documentation in the form of a letter from each firm’s insurance company is not required). If documentation is required, can these pages be included in the Appendices with the OSHA Logs?

Letters form insurance companies are required, they can be provided in the Appendices.

10 Please provide a copy of the site visit sign-in sheet to all offerors. See amendment 0001

Since no answers to questions have yet been given, and all RFP documents (Such as the Experience Form) have not been provided, please consider granting at least a two week extension in order to give offerors time to adequately prepare their technical and cost proposals after receiving the forthcoming amendment.

See amendment 0001

The WBS elements in these RFP documents do not easily align with each other or with the

USACE HTRW WBS and Data Dictionary. Will these elements be revised for better alignment?

No the elements will not be revised

Please see attached questions from North Wind. It was announced at the site walk that answers to questions would not be posted until March 3rd. If an extension is not anticipated, please advise offerors on whether or not more pages will be added to the total page count so that we have enough time to prepare revised technical approaches prior to the release of formal Q&A at the end of the week.

See amendment 0001

The section states that the award will be cost-plus-fixed-fee. However, the pricing sheet for TO2 appears to be based on fixed unit rates. Please clarify this apparent discrepancy.

Should bidders assume that the unit rates on the pricing sheet are binding or are they simply used to determine fixed fee? Will the successful bidder invoice based on the unit rates or through a cost-reimbursable mechanism?

There is no discrepancy, cost will be invoiced based on cost reimbursable procedures, see FAR 52.216‐7

The pricing sheet appears to allow for labor rate escalation but does not allow for material and equipment rate escalation. How will these items be handled?

Assume 3% annually escalation for material and equipment, actual cost will be reimbursed based on cost reimbursable procedures, see FAR 52.216‐7

Item v.e states that the majority of cost shall be provided on a cost plus fixed fee basis.

However, the pricing schedule #2 appears to require fixed unit rates. Please address this apparent discrepancy.

There is no discrepancy, cost will be invoiced based on cost reimbursable procedures, see FAR 52.216‐7

What is expected for interim shutdowns between TOs (ie, the proposed schedule doesn’t require the entire POP) in terms on routine inspections, maintenance (including

CWTP) and monitoring; maintaining key personnel for future TOs; utility connections and payments; etc.

Assume no shutdown, work will proceed assuming funding is provided

How will interim demob/mobilization costs be handled between TOs, based on either USACE TO sequencing & timing and/or the contractor’s proposed TO work schedule? The are no bid sheet items/pricing schedule elements for these activities (and no scope definition in TO

2).

Assume no shutdown, work will proceed assuming funding is provided

Is all government furnished equipment, including safety/industrial hygiene monitoring equipment, in proper working order, without need of repairs or service?

Yes

20 What is the status of documented factory calibration for safety/IH equipment? Calibration of equipment will be required

Bid Item 4 “CWTP Operation and Maintenance”, TO 2 states “it is more likely that the contractor can expect to treat up to approximately 200,000 gallon per month. The same scope element also alludes to volumes up to 800,000 gallons. Due to labor and material costs associated with changes in flow rates, we request that the CWTP Operations and

Maintenance be priced on a per gallon basis Unit rather than an “each” Unit.

Assume 200,000 gallon per month for bids

In order to request pricing for mixed waste disposal offerors will need to provide expected contaminants and associated soil concentrations to the treatment and disposal vendors. We request that the government provide this information or direct us to a reference document where this information is provided.

No additional information will be provided

How will changes to mixed waste disposal pricing be handled if currently unknown contaminants (not specified by the USACE) are encountered that required additional treatment (and associated increased costs) prior to disposal?

Assume there are no unknown contaminants

How will the Offeror be compensated for schedule loss and associated costs (damages) due to insufficient gondola cars necessary for off-site shipment given that the offeror will not have privity of contract if USACE provides separately?

For bidding purposes, schedule loss should not be anticipated

RFI Question RFI Answer

Regarding Bid Item “excavation and on site waste handling” - In order to have an equal comparison of Offerors pricing, will the USACE provide a ratio of soil to oversize debris (that will require sizing)?

No additional information will be provided

26 The pricing schedule is set up for fixed unit rates, not cost-reimbursable There is no discrepancy, cost will be invoiced based on cost reimbursable procedures, see FAR 52.216‐7

Cost reimbursable contracts typically allow for rate adjustments over time, as audited and approved by a cognizant federal agency, and therefore initial rates are not binding for future years

Rates will be billed based on approved rates and will be adjusted based on audits.

28 There is no definition of “Each” for items 4 and 5 Question not understood

Each area of concern/survey unit is unique in terms of conditions, quantity to be removed, potential contaminants, S&H protocol, etc. – thus establishing per cubic yard fixed unit rates for future TOs doesn’t seem appropriate under a CPFF contract type.

Cost will be invoiced based on cost reimbursable procedures, see FAR 52.216‐7

30 Part 1) Please confirm each Task Order has a 365 day POP. POP is 365 days for each TO running concurrently

Part 2) Concerning the anticipated funding profile for Task Order 001 and 002, should the Contractor assume that these two items are to be completed within the first two years of the contract? Optimally beginning Task Order 002 at the beginning of the construction season in Year 2 of the contract?

POP is 365 days for each TO running concurrently

Please provide the annual funding limit offerors should assume when constructing their approach and schedule.

Funding for the IDIQ is based upon availability of funding, no estimations will be provided.

Please confirm that pricing for the future work included in Bullet 27 (railroad bridge demo and construction, railroad track excavation, etc.) are not considered part of the scope of the TO 002 PWS and should not be priced by the contractors.

Pricing of future work should not be considered in the scope of TO 002

In Section 3.4.1, Table 1, it appears that the 4,500 CY reference could apply to either SU#1, SU#3, or

SU#5. As each of these areas exhibit significantly different attributes that will impact the remediation approach, would the USACE select a single area for the seed task?

Bidders shall assume excavation of SU3 and SU3a for bidding purposes

35 The project completion approach will differ depending on the area (SU#1, SU#3, or SU#5).

Bidders shall assume excavation of SU3 and SU3a for bidding purposes 36 Will the USACE provide a specific area to which Subfactor 3 should be applied? No additional infora

Are these items in the wrong place and should they be discussed under Project Completion as part of Technical Approach and Waste Disposal?

Regardless of the offeror's suggestion about location of the information, offeror is to respond to the RFP as written.

Section L instructions currently request offerors to address 68 lower‐tier elements of Sub‐factors 2 and

3, a variable number of projects (up to 10) for Experience, and up to 15 resumes for personnel. A 75‐ page count limit within these guidelines seems unattainable. Please consider raising the page count limitations by 15‐20 pages so that offerors can adequately respond in a way that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and the feasibility of our approach.

Resumes have been removed from the page count, additional pages will not be provided

39 Please consider posting the sign‐in sheet from the site visit to FBO.gov. See amendment 0001

Please consider posting the site walk narrative to FBO.gov due to the limited number of representatives able to attend the site visit.

See Amendment 0001

41 Do volume estimates include debris, and if so, please provide the unit volumes or soil/debris ratio. No further information will be provided

Have technical specifications been developed in conjunction with the Scope of Work, and if so, please provide.

No technical specifications have been developed

There are a number of ECC materials listed on GFP as “returned to Edison Office.” Will these be returned to the projects for contractor use?

Items listed returned to Edison Office are not GFP and will not be returned.

What assumptions are offerors to make relative to pricing these historical items being in/out of scope? Should we assume that these items will be addressed on a case by case basis under the Cost‐Re component of this task order? Does this need to be addressed in the technical approach?

For bidding purposes, assume no additional work necessary. Items will be addressed as needed.

Appendix A (Air Monitoring Requirements) requires perimeter real‐time monitoring for radionuclides, VOCs, and particulates “At fixed locations (24 hours a day / 7 days a week).” Please provide the rationale for 24/7 monitoring. Typically, monitoring would be stopped at the end of the workday and the cessation of excavation activities.

No further information will be provided

46 Is there a deadline for submittal of questions? See Amendment 0001

Please consider removing resumes from the page count for Volume I, Technical Approach, or adding

15 additional pages (total of 90).

See amendment 0001

Section 11.0, Period of Performance, which states “The period of performance (PoP) to accomplish all the work elements in the PWS is 12 months from the data of the award of this contract.”

PoP will be 365 days from award

Are there charges associated with Chemours on‐site rail car transport? If so, are these the contractor’s responsibility? If so, please provide the rate schedule.

For bidding purposes assume that Chemours does not charge for rail transport services.

The bullet requires contractor to excavate and dispose partially full and full chemical drums in the excavation. However, the pricing sheet does not allow us to provide pricing for these activities.

Uncovering an unknown drum could cause a significant safety pause as the drum contents are characterized and the debris is safely removed. How should the bidders price this unknown situation?

How may drums are expected? Any information as to potential contents of the drums? Are the drums expected in all excavation areas? If not, which ones?

for bidding purposes assume no drums will be encountered.

If an intact chemical drum is found, what is the cost recovery mechanism for items such as downtime, planning, handling, and disposal?

For bidding purposes assume no drums will be encountered. This is a cost plus fixed fee contract.

The PWS requires MARSSIM Final Status Survey. However, there is no corresponding line item for FSS on the pricing sheet. Should we assume this is included in the Restoration Line Item?

Assume that FSS should be included with backfilling of excavated areas

Please detail any rental equipment that is part of the CWTP that is not currently available on site (was demobilized by the previous contractor) sludge filter box

54 Is the on‐site lab required to be ELAP certified? no certification is necessary for the on‐site lab.

55 In the event of a facility or infrastructure failure what would the USACE expect from its Contractor?

For bidding purposes assume that a facility or infrastructure failure will not occur.

Please consider adding a page count limitation for each project instead of including that information in the “Experience” section, since firms that offer more project experience to get an “outstanding” rating will be forced to take page count allotment away from other subfactors.

Page count numbers will not be revised

Please confirm that CPARS will be accepted in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires for the past performance evaluation.

CPARS will not accepted in lieu of PPQ's

58 What is the equivalent to one CEU? Additional information will not be provided

We will need a variety of equipment and tools for the PWS 1 mobilization. Which equipment and tools are specifically required to be included in PWS 2?

no further information will be provided.

May key staff be provided by major subcontractors? If so, do they need to provide an enforceable letter of commitment?

Yes, and yes. Page 53 note in the RRP

61 Can copies of DuPont/Chemours site safety procedures be provided? No, copies will not be provided

This section indicates a few plans will be submitted for stakeholder review. Please advise which plans will need to be reviewed, and please identify the respective stakeholder and review time that will be required.

For bidding purposes assume no plans will require stakeholder review.

63 Section 3.3 is missing.

noted, no further information will be provided ‐ Are we sure nothing is missing?

This section states: “Perform startup of CWTP including mobilization of rental equipment that had previously been removed from the site.” Please provide a list of all demobilized equipment from the CWTP that will need to be mobilized for proper operations.

sludge filter box

Can resumes be omitted from the page count and be provide as an Appendix in Volume I

Factor I?

See Amendment 0001

66 Can you provide us with copies of any existing local labor agreements for the project?

Government will not be providing local agreement information. Offeror will be responsible for locating that information. Government has provided applicable wage rates.

Can time and material contracts be considered cost reimbursable contracts for purposes of this requirement?

Time and material contracts are a different type of contract. They are not considered a cost reimbursement contract and will not be considered as such for this acquisition.

68 Is it known which plans will need stakeholder review?

for bidding purposes, assume no plans will require stakeholder review

ECC 2016 As Left Report Remediation Services FUSRAP at the DuPont Chambers Works

Site, See Amendment 0001

70 CWTP O&M Manual, See Amendment 0001 71 Final Status Survey Report, and See Amendment 0001 72 What is the deadline for asking questions? See Amendment 0001 73 We request that the proposal due date be extended by at least two weeks. See Amendment 0001 74 Do resumes count against the page count of Volume I? See Amendment 0001 75 Is each individual resume page limited? See Amendment 0001

Will the pages required for the projects in Sub-factor 1 – Corporate Experience be counted against the 75 page count for Volume I?

yes

77 Please provide Appendix D mentioned on pages 52 and 68 of the RFP. See Amendment 0001

78 Is there a maximum number of projects that can be submitted?

Volume 1 of the Proposal is limited to 75 pages and

Volume 2 is limited to 25 pages.

79 Is each individual project description page limited?

Volume 1 of the Proposal is limited to 75 pages and

Volume 2 is limited to 25 pages.

Please provide the density factor the offerors should assume for the excavated soil (i.e. conversion from cyds to tons).

Assume the conversion factory of 1.3 Tons = 1cy

“One of the Offeror’s existing Accident Prevention Plans (APP) prepared within the last three years from the date of this Request for Proposal for a hazardous waste project. The APP provided shall be complete, including the corresponding Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP) and any other appendices

(i.e. Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP)) or attachments. The APP shall be provided as an appendix to Volume I.” AND: “Large‐scale construction remediation involving multiple activities to include decontamination, shoring, water management and waste water processing, excavation and handling of beryllium, lead, and radionuclide impacted soils and debris.” Question:

Seeing as how there is no evidence of beryllium at the DuPont Chambers FUSRAP site, we would request the Government please remove any requirements and references to beryllium in the RFP and or associated solicitation documents since they are not relevant to the specific project.

See Amendment 0001

RFP states, "One of the Offeror's existing APPs prepared within the last three years from the date of this RFP for a hazardous waste project. The APP provided shall be complete, including the corresponding Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP) and any other appendices (i.e. Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP)) or attachments." 1) Although the RFP clearly supports the Offeror’s use of equivalency through DOE work, the uniqueness of the APP as a USACE document does not support such DOE equivalency because DOE remediation work does not require an APP type document. The content in the APP is contained in several stand‐alone documents. Accordingly, is it acceptable to use an APP from a major teaming partner to satisfy the subject APP request? If not, can contractors performing on DOE contracts submit our ES&H documents with a cross‐reference matrix showing the areas covered within the DOE vs. APP formats.

2) Since FUSRAP projects of the magnitude and complexity of DuPont generally have periods of performance exceeding 3 years, would USACE consider allowing bidders to submit an APP/SSHP developed in the last 5 years?

APP equivalencies will be accepted along with crossreference matrix showing covered areas and will be evaluated appropriatly. It is acceptable to use an APP from a Joint Venture. APP/SSHP develop beyond the last 3 years will not be accepted.

RFP States, "Govt will make the following documents available to the contractor: " We understand that the only documents available are currently on FEDBIZOPPs. We have requested these documents and were told they were going to be provided after the site visit. It has been 5 days since the site visit and these documents have not been posted on FBO. We would like to request these documents again and also request the due date of the proposal be 45 days from the day these documents are provided to us in order to allow for examination and preparation of a technical approach that incorporates available data and risks which are already known to incumbent contractors who have a significant advantage through their access to all of these documents.

See Amendment 0001

This item requires the contractor to furnish UASCE with copies of written communications received from other Government agencies. Please clarify what Government communications the USACE is expecting the contractor to have on this project.

Contact with other government agencies is not anticipated, however contracto is still required to report contact in the unlikely event that it occurs.

Please provide a map and information pertaining to the survey units, including the original soil volumes for each survey unit and the amount of soil excavated and the anticipated amount remaining.

See Amendment 0001

6.1 List of Key Individuals, Qualifications and Responsibilities, 2nd paragraph, indicates a requirement that states, "Contractor shall submit for Government approval an alternate for each of the key personnel listed." Given the page constraints and number of resumes required, would the

Government consider allowing Alternate Key Personnel qualifications be included in a tabular format, with all required qualifications briefly described? Or, does the Government intend to have these

Alternate positions qualifications submitted after award of contract?

Refer to admendment 1 for information regarding resumes and page counts.

RFP states, “Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, copies of PPQs prepared by clients for other solicitations can also be provided in Volume II of the proposal for this solicitation. The government is not precluded from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.” Question:

Offerors may have completed a number of projects that will be used in the Volume II – Past

Performance section that are already completed and as such had a final PPQ completed by the customer that is identical to the form that was provided as referenced above (NAVFAC/USACE Past

Performance Questionnaire). In lieu of having the customer fill out another PPQ form, it is acceptable to submit a previously completed PPQ form for a completed project as long as the evaluation was performed after the completion date?

Previously completed PPQ's will be acceptable. Contractor is responsible for verifying their accuracy

RFP states: “Price evaluation will be conducted separately on the Firm Fixed Price Seed Task Order and the Cost Task Order. Future task orders under the SATOC will incorporate proposed rates that will be binding on the contractor throughout the life of the contract, which will control costs, and ensure that our best‐value contractor is still the best‐value 5 years from now, when we issue the last Task Order under this contract”.

Question: (a) We assume that the rates that will be binding throughout the life of the contract are the labor rates and not the rates given in Pricing Schedule #2 of activities such as excavation price per unit yard. Is that correct?

(b) if the binding rates are the ones given in Schedule #2, how can then these be cost plus tasks?

(c) The rates for Schedule #2 for cost plus fixed‐fee seed task order are based on known normal site conditions, thus, how can those rates be binding for the life of the contract if we encounter conditions different from normal conditions? If assumptions used in developing Pricing Schedule #2 are not applicable, such as finding additional COCs in the construction waste water, we assume those rates will not be binding in such cases, is that correct?

References to binding rates on the cost plus portions of the work will be removed. Provided rates are for price and cost realism analysis. Costs will be invoiced based on cost reimbursable procedures, see FAR 52.216‐7

Can you please clarify how you can make the proposed rates in Schedule #2 to be binding for the life of the contract and at the same time having the task be a cost‐plus task? If the rates in Schedule #2 are binding for the life of the contract, then the tasks are fixed unit rate. can you please clarify?

This is a cost plus fixed fee contract. For bidding purposes please follow instructions.

In both of these Sections, CONTRACTOR is required to "obtain and renew all permits, licenses, approvals and certifications. Please identify the current status of all permits, licenses, approvals and certifications.

Assume that all existing permits have expired.

For the items that are identified as DuPont Support Services, can you provide the costs that may be associated with the services listed?

For the purpose of bidding, assume not cost for all identified DuPont services.

92 This Section is misidentified and appears to be Section 5.4 Noted, no further information will be provided.

For the trailers, toilets, and printers listed in the RFP, can you please provide the costs associated with the monthly rental expense of each item or please provide the specifications for each of these items?

no further information will be provided

Please provide the historical annual costs for the services as identified if these are to be billed through

DuPont or the mechanism of having these services billed through local utility companies while working on an existing operating facility.

For the purpose of bidding, assume not cost for all identified DuPont services.

Please further define "Chemours Coordination" as a function of Project Management and what level of effort this entails.

Assume minimal coordination with Chemours involving notification project status and schedule.

Regarding reactivation of CWTP, please provide an equipment list of components rented and removed that require remobilization.

sludge filter box

Regarding recovery and treatment of groundwater, surface water and non‐aqueous liquid, please provide a list of all chemical constituents required to be treated.

no further information will be provided

Regarding treatment of liquids at the CWTP to meet groundwater treatment permit levels, please provide Division of Water Monitoring and Stormwater Ground Water Quality Standards and

Classifications to be adhered to.

Additional information will not be provided

99 Please provide the NJDEP discharge criteria for discharges into the Central Drainage Ditch. Additional information will not be provided

Regarding the final disposition of any encountered drums and dealing with intact drums, please tell us which bid item number the costs should be incorporated under?

for bidding purposes assume no additional drums will be encountered

Regarding antiquated infrastructure, who is required to deal with the identified infrastructure problems and how this is to be estimated?

for bidding purposes assume no infrastructure problems will be identified.

Item b states, "Resumes for key personnel for the proposed team (offeror and team members) which it expects will execute the work that may be awarded under this contract." RFP then states, "Note: All key personnel, including alternates, must be employed by the prime contractor or part to an enforceable letter of commitment." 1) Does USACE expect to see resumes for Key Personnel and resumes for Alternate personnel in our proposal response? 2) Please confirm that key personnel can come from the Offeror and it's team members as long as a signed letter of commitment is provided. 3)

What constitutes an enforceable letter of commitment? Is a Team Agreement sufficient or do you want an individual letter from the individual?

See Amendment 0001 for resume requiremetns. Key personnel can come from the Prime or Joint Venture, or a member of the offeror's team along with a letter of commitment.

Item b states, "At a minimum the Offeror shall provide a resume for each of the key individuals listed in Paragraphs 6.1.1 through 6.3.4 of the SOW (Section J) of this solicitation. In the Section C SOW the

"key: individuals appear to be listed from Paragraph 6.1.1 to Paragraph 6.1.13 (not 6.3.4). Is this perhaps an error? There is no 6.3.4 in this RFP.

6.1.13

Based on the Site Visit not taking place until Wednesday February 22, 2017 we would like to request a

3 week extension until Friday March 31, 2017 See Amendment 0001

RFP states, "The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation 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 – Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal." In lieu of requesting PPQs from our clients for inclusion in our proposal is it acceptable to include Final CPAR ratings?"

CPARS will not accepted in lieu of PPQ's

The offeror is requested to provide a series of unit prices based upon this PWS. Would the USACE please provide further direction on what site conditions the pricing should be based upon as the removal requirements will vary dramatically from Survey Unit to Survey Unit as discussed Section 4.2 ‐

Current Site Conditions of the Scope of Work.

Bidders shall assume excavation of SU3 and SU3a for bidding purposes regarding (3) no further information will be provided.

The RFP states that key individuals are listed in Paragraphs 6.1.1 through 6.3.4 of the PWS. Should the reference be 6.1.1 through 6.1.13? PWS Section 6.2 and 6.3 references "Other Personnel" and

"Contractor Corporate Support Staff" which do not appear to be key positions.

6.1.13

This section of the PWS states that Draft and Draft Final review times for the USACE are 30 days each.

The TO 1 PWS states USACE review times are 15 days for draft and draft final documents. Which is correct?

30 calendar days is correct

Volume II Factor II Past performance is allocated 25 pages for past performance of 3 or more projects.

All additional information requested in Volume II is excluded from the page count. Given the number of resumes required in Volume I, will the USACE reallocate the pages between the two volumes to 85 for Volume I and 15 for Volume II

See Amendment 0001

TO 1 states the period of performance is for 12 months from the date of award of the contract. TO 2 states the period of performance is for 365 days from award of the contract. Is the date of award for both TO1 and TO2 the same date?

yes

Section 2.1 of the PWS includes multiple services such as removal of substantial concrete foundations from the excavation area, removal of partial or intact drums, etc. However 4,500 cubic yards of material is estimated to be removed in the TO2 suggesting work in a limited number of SUs where all of the conditions described in Section 2.1 may not be encountered. (1) Are all of the activities described in Section 2.1 part of the first year of work? (2) Are specific SUs required to be addressed during the POP of TO2?

No, refere to TO 002 for specifics. 2 Bidders shall assume excavation of SU3 and SU3a for bidding purposes regarding (3) no further information will be provided.

RFP States, "Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the

Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file." Can you please provide more detail on the summary section and abstract you are looking for. How long do you expect this to be. Would you like to see a specific subheader at the beginning of each section titled, "Summary Section?" This requirement is unclear.

Contractors will not be instructed as to how they include the information required by the RFP.

paragraph 2, states : “In regards to Task Orders, key CONTRACTOR personnel such as the Program

Manager, Project Manager, Site superintendent, CQC System Manager, Safety and Health Manager

(SHM)/CIH, Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO), Radiation Safety Officer (RSO), Transportation &

Disposal Manager, Assistant Radiation Safety Officer (ARSO), Waste Manager, and Project chemist are common to all Task Orders ...... " 1) The positions of Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) and Assistant

Radiation Safety Officer (ARSO) are not included in the key positions outlined in items 6.1.1 through

6.4. Are these two positions not “key” positions and therefore do not require resumes? 2) There are a total of 23 positions referenced in section 6.0 CONTRACTOR PROJECT STAFF ORGANIZATION, QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES of the RFP; please clarify which positions listed in Items 6.1 through 6.4 are considered key, and therefore require resumes to be submitted with our proposal.

6.1.13

114 Please provide the conversion from cubic yards to tons for T&D purposes Contractor will need to perform their own conversion.

RFP States, "Govt will make the following documents available to the contractor: " We understand that the only documents available are currently on FEDBIZOPPs. Please clarify how we can obtain access to these documents.

See Amendment 0001

We have submitted a question regarding the background documents (reference section 10.2 of the

SOW), but we are getting concerned about the delay in getting these when we have such a short timeline to prepare this proposal. Is there any update on when we can expect to get access to these documents?

See Amendment 0001

Reference Attachment I, 6.1.8 Waste Manager Qualifications. Is active military service an acceptable substitute for a college degree for this position?

No, contractor's will provide people in positions with the required education and experience

Will water be available on site for dust control operations? If so, should the contractor plan to install a meter at the water source to confirm usage?

Onsite water is availble, it is not metered

What is the final day to ask questions? (Note: formal communication incorporating today’s date, 2/27/17, into the RFP has not been received; it was only communicated in the Site Walk Agenda which was not necessarily received by all bidders).

See Amendment 0001

The radiological COCs are explained in documents we have been provided, but non radiological COC data is not. The information provided does not indicate exactly what non‐radiological COCs are present within the proposed work zone, or what their respective levels are in both soil and groundwater. In an effort to provide adequate H&S air monitoring (both work zone and perimeter), please provide data regarding the non‐radiological COCs expected to be encountered on‐site, as well as their current (most recently sampled) levels in soil and groundwater.

See Remedial Investigation Report

The SOW says to assume 15‐days government review time for the various required plans. Is this referring to calendar days or work days?

changed to 30 calendar days

Solicitation document, page 56, Volume II Past Performance states “The Offeror shall provide information regarding three (3) or more projects (completed or currently 75% or more complete)…” Is there a maximum number of projects the government will allow in this section?

Volume 1 of the Proposal is limited to 75 pages and

Volume 2 is limited to 25 pages.

Solicitation document, page 57, Volume II Past Performance states “However, copies of PPQs prepared by clients for other solicitations can also be provided in Volume II of the proposal for this solicitation.”

No mention is made of providing previous CPARS evaluations. Is it acceptable to include existing

CPARS in lieu of previous PPQs?

CPARS will not accepted in lieu of PPQ's

Paragraph 5.2.2.1 of SOW specifies that a project schedule shall be provided and that “The contractor shall utilize the latest version of Primavera software (or approved equivalent).” Does a schedule in this program need to be provided with our proposal or is pdf format acceptable for proposal purposes?

PDF is acceptable

Solicitation document, page 53, numbers d. and e. states to provide “Mailing addresses and office locations of the corporate headquarters, regional offices and other offices for each team member, clearly identifying each office and its function. e. A summary of the number of home and branch office personnel for each team member by discipline or trade clearly showing how many team members are with each organization.” This information becomes quite lengthy to present when a company has numerous offices. Would the government consider a few options in order to have this not eat up page count such as including it as an appendix, not having it count toward page count, etc.?

No additional pages will be allowed and the information shall be provided in the manner in which the RFP requests.

Solicitation document, pages 52 and 67 state that both for radiological waste remediation projects and cost reimbursable projects (along with the other dollar, time frame requirements) that 5 or more of each will result in an outstanding rating. Is there a maximum number of projects the government will allow in this section?

Volume 1 of the Proposal is limited to 75 pages and

Volume 2 is limited to 25 pages.

Reference Attachment I, 6.1.8 Waste Manager qualifications. Can experience combined with professional qualification of Senior Certified Broker for U.S. Army Joint Munitions Command substitute for a college degree?

No, contractor's will provide people in positions with the required education and experience

Reference Attachment I, 6.1.8 and 6.1.11. Can the Waste Manager and the Transportation and

Disposal Manager positions be combined as long as the individual meets qualifications of both positions?

Yes, Waste Manager and Transportation and Disposal

Manager positions can be combinded.

Reference Attachment I, 4.1.1. Request that additional clarification be provided for this statement:

“The 65 pCi/g RG for total uranium includes contributions and considerations of the other two COCs

(Th‐230 and Ra‐226).” Specifically, are activity concentrations of Th‐230 and Ra‐226 included in the 65 pCi/g remediation goal?

The project documents provided on FBO address this.

It is therefore important that we know how corporate experience submitted as both proof of rad remediation project experience and cost reimbursable project experience, will be counted. Will one project submitted as proof for both categories, be counted as 2 projects?

No, one (1) project is one (1) project.

131 the technical approach.

Solicitation document pages 66 and 67, Volume I Factor I Technical Approach evaluation factors.

Although we believe we correctly understand intent, table references within the writing and table label are not consistent.

Contractor will need to provide more specificity to their question for an answer.

With the pre‐proposal site visit scheduled for February 22, and the fact that many questions will be submitted after this event, we respectfully ask for a one month extension on the due date. Once a deadline for questions is set (we assume this deadline will be a week after the site visit or 3/1), we expect it will take a 10‐20 days to receive answers from the Government. (3/11‐3/21). Therefore, an extension will become necessary. We ask that the extension be communicated to the bidders no later than the site walk to allow us maximum time to prepare the most cost‐effective and responsive submittal, incorporating the clarifications in the Q and A.

See Amendment 0001

Reference Volume II Past Performance, page 57. If we have a previously completed PPQ from the client for a project may we submit that in our proposal in lieu of requesting the client to fill out

Attachment 5 included in this RFP?

Previously completed PPQ's will be acceptable. Contractor is responsible for verifying their accuracy

We request that the Government reconsider the page count requirement for Volume I. Given the number of resumes alone that are required in this submittal, along with the fact they must cover a minimum 10 years of project work, we estimate that almost a half of the page count would need to go toward resumes. Additionally, considerable detail is required to be addressed in the other items that will go into this volume. Perhaps, resumes could be excluded from page count or the number of pages increased to better match the requested content?

See Amendment 0001

Page 4 of Attachment 4 states “To assist in meeting the objectives of the PWS, the Government is providing the following documents: Previous Contractor Documents ECC 2016. As Left Report Remediation Services Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program at the DuPont Chambers Works

Site Deepwater, New Jersey As Built Drawings. CWTP O&M Manual. Final Status Survey Report.” We do not see these items in the RFP. Would the government please provide?

See Amendment 0001

Page 60 of the Solicitation document states “The Offeror shall submit Microsoft Excel spreadsheets/worksheets that develop, calculate, and provide the data necessary to meet the requirements of the Cost Factor. This includes both a summary spreadsheet that provides the total proposed cost for each respective task as well as separate spreadsheets or Excel files. The Offeror shall submit the completed Price Schedule with all the required information and all formulas intact to trace back to other spreadsheets or Excel files, which contain the cost/price data. No read‐only or file‐ protected documents may be submitted. All files or spreadsheets shall contain all formulas and calculations used to develop their proposals (do not submit files with only hard numbers).” Can the contractor use industry‐standard and extremely efficient database software such as HeavyBid, MCACES, or other to prepare the cost estimate rather than excel? In doing this supporting documentation would be printed to PDF or excel documents without formulas. All summary worksheets would be provided in Excel.

No, all formulae must be intact for all spreadsheets submitted. PDF and anternate options will be considered nonresponsive.

Page 58 of the solicitation, v. Volume III, Factor III requirements, number b. Please clarify the government’s required content/formatting for this item.

Government is not clear on the contractors question.

states “USACE anticipates that approximately 4,500 cubic yards of waste soil shall be loaded, transported, and disposed offsite during this task order. This is further divided into an expected 2,250 cubic yards of mixed (chemical and radiological) waste and 2,250 cubic yards of radiologic waste.”

Please provide the analytical data for the 2,250 cubic yards of mixed waste and the 2,250 cubic yards of radiological waste to allow for identification of appropriate disposal facilities.

Bidders shall assume excavation of SU3 and SU3a for bidding purposes regarding no further information will be provided.

140 Please provide a copy of the Dupont/landowner requirements as they are not included in the RFP. No additional inforamtion will be provided

The following is stated in the SOW (Attachment 1) for solicitation #W912BU-17-R-0002: “The Government provided documents will be provided via the AMDREC SAFE ftp site. The documents will be loaded to the site and you will receive an email notification from the site with instructions on how to access and download the documents. The documents will only be available for 14 days from the date of the Request for Proposal. (Please send the Contract Specialist email addresses for the points of contact to receive this information.)” This information has not been provided to our point of contact. Can the government provide the instructions on how to access these documents?

See Amendment 0001

In certain areas of the DuPont Chambers site, it may be beneficial to employ soil sorting/segregation methods to separate clean soils from contaminated soils to limit the amount of material subject to costly disposal. However, the pricing schedule incentivizes disposal over sorting and provides no means to apply the benefit of value engineering to the avoidance of disposal through sorting. Would USACE consider adding an item for value engineering savings to be shared with the contractor to remove this disincentive and reduce overall cost to the USACE?

No, all material shall be removed from site

Is there a submittal approval available for the backfill material utilized at AOC6, SU#4 and the material utilized for backfill around the sheeting at AOC2, SU#2?

No additional inforamtion will be provided

Would the USACE consider a week extension for the due date of the proposal as we have not received the documents identified in Section 10.2 of the SOW?

See Amendment 0001

145 Can the previous contractor’s work plans be made available for review? No, previous work plans will not be available

146 If additional sheet piling is installed, can it be left in place or does it have to be removed?

For bidding purposes assume no additional sheet piling needed

147 Does the existing sheet pile have to be removed under this SOW? Assume that the sheet pile does not have to be removed

148 What components of the CWTP were demobilized? sludge filter box

If separated soil under the remediation goal meets the requirements and specifications for

USACE approved backfill, can it be used to backfill excavations? Has it been approved for use as backfill in the past?

No, and no.

Is there a Lessons Learned report from previous remediation efforts, and if so can it be made available to offerors?

No additional information will be provided

We assume that the offeror is to select which area to excavate for Task Order 002 based on their overall approach to the sequencing of remediation of the entire site.