B.08.03 Question and Answer #3 - 20241212.pdf

Questions and Answers #3

W912DQ25Q1007

UST Removal at Stockton Lake Project, Stockton, MO

1. Clarification to the government response to Contractor Questions: 12-3-2024, #4 is required. For the USTs to be closed, the power must be permanently disconnected from the tank system. Power cannot be periodically turned off and on as indicated in the response. Please confirm that the Government will completely disconnect and de-energy the system prior to tank closure activities.

Answer: The power is completely disconnected from the Underground Storage Tanks, Veeder Root Monitoring System, and the Cathothodic Protection System. For clarification there are other underground utilities in the area. To ensure safety during excavation the Government will shut off main power to all utilities in the area. The power supply also affects operation of the Project Office and the Power Plant water systems. Thus, the reason for main power to be on and off in intervals as follows: four (4) hours off, one (1) to two (2) hours on (enough to power back up), then four (4) hours off again, and so on. The Government will comply with US Army Corps of Engineers EM 385-1-1 and OSHA safety protocols regarding hazardous energy.

2. Clarification to the government response to Site Visit Questions: 12-4-2024, #12 is required. How much advance notice is required for the delivery of government provided backfill material and how much backfill material can be delivered per day?

Answer: The Government will have all Government provided back fill accessible in a designated area near the UST site in advance to ensure expediency. Government plans to initially make available enough backfill to complete the filling of the UST site. If the Contractor anticipates the need of additional backfill, we will deliver additional backfill to the site within the workday as to not hold up contractor’s work. This will be coordinated with Contractor, COR and Lead Maintenance.

3. Clarification to the government response to Site Visit Questions: 12-3-2024, #6 is required. If contamination is identified based on the initial sampling performed after the removal of the fueling system, the level of additional assessment and cleanup would be dictated by MO DNR and any risk identified at the site based on the identified release. Additionally, without providing a line item to address potentially contaminated soil does not allow the government to accurately evaluate cost proposals provided by the Offerors. Thus, providing a cost estimate for cleanup is outside the scope of this contract as it is written unless the Government provides can provide definitive line item for petroleum impacted soil requiring removal. A suggested example would be a line-item unit cost for 22-tons of impacted soil (approximately 1 load) to be removed and disposed of offsite that could be exercised as needed.

Answer: A Change Order could be requested for additional costs not expected/anticipated by the contractor, in the event petroleum contaminated soil is discovered that exceeds the MRBCA threshold for our designated site. For the Government to address Contractor concerns of the possibility of any petroleum contaminated soil, we find it in the best interest to put in place OPTION1 - CLIN 0002 for Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Contaminated Soil Activities.

Historical records from a previous UST Closure in the same location and MO DNR UST Annual Inspection reports going all the way back to the installation of these two (2) USTs in 1991, reflect that there has never been any knowledge or findings of leakage or contaminants in the area, nor has there been any leakage observed on annual reports from that time to date.

4. Can the Government confirm that an AFFF release has never occurred at the site and PFAS is not a potential contaminant of concern?

Answer: To the Governments knowledge there has never been any AFFF releases at the site and PFAS is not a potential contaminant of concern.

5. What is the depth to groundwater at the site?

Answer: The MO DNR Site shows groundwater being between 150 and 140 feet down.

6. Are the USTs resting on a tank pad or strapped to concrete anchors? If so, can they be left in place?

Answer: It is believed that the UST are on concrete anchors. Which can be left in place and do not have to be removed.

7. Is a source of water available at the site for use by the contractor, and if yes, is there a cost associated with water usage?

Answer: Yes, water is available and there is no cost associated for the use of utilities.

8. Please provide the sign-in sheet from the Site Visit.

Answer: Contract Specialist will post as an attachment.

9. With regards to the demolition of existing electrical circuits. Please advise if the conductors will need to be completely removed back to the associated electrical panel or if they can be disconnected from the breaker and abandoned in place?

Answer: They are disconnected from breaker and abandoned in place.

10. Pursuant to Question #6 from the Q&A #2 set, the answer states that there will be NO additional Contract Line Item for dealing with potentially contaminated soils. Furthermore, it states to anticipate or account for some contamination to ensure the offeror captures any potential issues. We would recommend including a separate line for a unit cost rate (per cubic yard) to properly dispose of contaminated soils. Otherwise, to cover any potential issues, we must anticipate that all the soil is contaminated regardless of any indication of leakage or seepage being observed as it is very likely that there is some level of contamination, and the exact amount cannot be verified until opening the trench and testing the soils.

The other potential solution would be to have the gov’t quantify an amount of soil remediation to include in our estimate to ensure that the offerors’ pricing is consistent. If no contamination is found, then these costs would be credited back to the gov’t.

Answer: See Answer to Question 3. A Change Order could be requested for additional costs not expected/anticipated by the contractor, in the event petroleum contaminated soil is discovered that exceeds the MRBCA threshold for our designated site. For the Government to address Contractor concerns of the possibility of any petroleum contaminated soil, we find it in the best interest to put in place OPTION 1 CLIN 0002 for Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Contaminated Soil Activities.

Historical records from a previous UST Closure in the same location and MO DNR UST Annual Inspection reports going all the way back to the installation of these two (2) USTs in 1991, reflect that there has never been any knowledge or findings of leakage or contaminants in the area from previous USTs, nor has there been any leakage observed on annual reports from that time to date.

11. Item 1.6.2.7, of the PWS, states that the contractor shall provide a qualified SS and QCM, and that these positions may be dual hatted by a qualified individual. However, there is no reference to providing a Site Safety Health Officer (SSHO). Please confirm that a designated SSHO will NOT be required for this project.

Answer: ***Correct, there is no requirement for a designated SSHO. The Contractor shall have sufficient personnel and provide a qualified Site Superintendent which can also perform as the Quality Control Manager.

*** We have a Collateral Duty Safety Officer (CDSO) on staff at the project. While quality is always important, safety is priority. It would be beneficial for the Site Superintendent to familiarize themselves with the US Army Corps of Engineers EM 385-1-1 and OSHA regarding safety.