W912DR22R0027 Solicitation Amendment 2 - 02.25.2022.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 as follow s:

1. Revise the Performance Work Statement;

2. Provide the first round responses to Request for Information (RFIs);

3. Revise Section L requirements; and

4. Revise Section M requirements.

All other items remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 89

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-Feb-2022

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 W912DR22R0027

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Feb-2022

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 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-Feb-2022

CODE

USACE, BALTIMORE

2 HOPKINS PLAZA

BALTIMORE MD 21201

W912DR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

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:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFIS)

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Only

Bid Inquiry Contractor Report All Inquiries

Project: Decommissioning and Dismantlement of the SM-1A Nuclear Reactor Facility located at Fort Greely, AK Review:

Decommissioning and Dismantlement of the SM-1A Nuclear Reactor Facility located at Fort Greely, AK (00001) (sorted by Comment ID) Displaying 38 inquiries.

Id Discipline Sheet Detail Spec

9600019 Civil Due Date

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

We request a two-week extension of the due date in order to account for time to revise the proposal and approach based upon observed site conditions following the site visit which is late in the RFP period.

On: Feb 12 2022.

Government Response. . USACE will be hosting a Virtual Tour of the SM-1A on Thursday, 17 Feb at 1400 Eastern Time and Friday, 18 Feb at 1400 Eastern Time. This will allow Offerors the opportunity to see the site prior to the in person site visit in Mar. No extension of the proposal due date will be granted at this time. On: Feb 17 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9601579 Value

Engineering Waste

Disposal

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Section L, Proposal Submission Requirements A, 2, subsection i - requires a technical approach to be submitted to dispose of ALL D&D waste at WCS in Texas. Since WCS represents the most expensive price for waste from Greely based upon shipping cost alone, can bidders propose and will it be evaluated favorably alternative waste disposal facilities that are evaluated/approved in the EA? If so, can you provide additional page count to address?

On: Feb 14 2022.

Government Response. . Please see Solicitation amendment issued on SAM.gov which addresses the concerns noted in the RFI. On: Feb 17 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9601582 Value

Engineering

Section L, Proposal Submission Requirements A, 2, subsection i - requires a technical approach to be submitted to dispose of ALL D&D waste at WCS in Texas. Since WCS represents the most expensive price for waste from Greely based upon shipping cost alone, can bidders propose and will it be evaluated favorably alternative waste disposal facilities that are evaluated/approved in the EA? If so, can you provide additional page count to address?

Government Response. . Please see Solicitation amendment issued on SAM.gov which addresses the concerns noted in the RFI. On: Feb 17 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9601587 Transportation Waste T&D

Section L, Proposal Submission Requirements A, 2, subsection i - requires a technical approach where ALL D&D waste will be disposed of at WCS – is this your intent? The EA allows other waste types to be disposed of at closer facilities.

Government Response. . Please see Solicitation amendment issued on SAM.gov which addresses the concerns noted in the RFI. On: Feb 17 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

9601591 Transportation Waste T&D

Section L, Proposal Submission Requirements A, 2, subsection i - Is it acceptable to propose a cost saving, technically viable T&D alternative that would require an EA amendment or would this be viewed unfavorably?

Government Response. . The Request for Proposal submission requirements for waste transportation and disposal were revised in the amendment issued on SAM.gov. No alternative is being requested, nor will be considered, as part of the Proposal submission. No additional page count has been added in the amendment. On: Feb 17 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9601595 Specifications

The requirement for all bidders to price disposal at WCS in Texas appears to be a legacy from the RFPs for the Sturgis and Belvoir reactors, and it states in this RFP that this is for "cost purposes". While WCS was reasonably applicable for the two other reactor projects due to proximity, for SM-1A WCS disposal represents the most expensive, logistically cumbersome (schedule risk), and carbon unfriendly transport and disposal option.

The requirement to assume disposal at WCS in the proposal also limits proposal cost competition for more than 60% of the scope of the project associated with waste T&D - allowing contractors to only provide cost competitive pricing for ~40% of the total scope even though the RFP says price is equally as important to all other factors.

Would USACE consider changing the disposal requirement to allow contractors to propose the most efficient, cost-effective, sustainable T&D alternative – as long as proof of viability is provided in the proposal for recommended alternatives? This would allow cost competition across the PWS scope, while the government maintains the ability to approve the final disposal option following award of the project?

Government Response. . Please see Solicitation amendment issued on SAM.gov which addresses the concerns noted in the RFI. On: Feb 17 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9601606 Other Timing for

Questions

Please clarify the deadline for technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation. Page 141 of the RFP states 04 March 2022 NLT 5:00 PM Eastern while the bottom of the same page states 25 February 2022 at 11:00 AM Eastern

Government Response. . Technical inquiries and questions are due NLT 5PM Eastern on 04 March 2022. On: Feb 17 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9601611 Value

Engineering

VE

The RFP prescribes that all D&D waste go to WCS. Should our RFP response propose an alternative, cost saving, EA authorized approach that is not accepted by USACE, can this alternative, cost saving, EA authorized approach still be used as the basis for a VE change proposal, with shared savings to the bidder and USACE?

Government Response. . Please see Solicitation amendment issued on SAM.gov which addresses the concerns noted in the RFI. On: Feb 17 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9602258 Environmental Enabling Scoring for

Alaska Experience

While "experience working in a remote, arctic environment" is one of the project requirements for Factor III Past Performance, it is unlikely that there are projects in Alaska that meet the $40M size threshold and demonstrate the majority of the requirements to qualify for maximum evaluation ratings. Would the Government consider including a separate Subfactor within Factor III with criteria specific to evaluating Offeror experience and familiarity with Alaska working conditions and regulations. Further, would the Government consider allowing relevant Alaska ID/IQ contracts that meet the $40M size requirement and demonstrate experience working in remote, arctic environments along with additional, Alaska-centric criteria. Allowing Offerors to include qualified Alaska projects in Factor III also provides an opportunity to propose Alaska-based Key Personnel in Factor II with ties to these projects.

Government Response. . See forthcoming Amendment 2 to the Solicitation that will be posted on SAM.gov. On: Feb 24 2022

9602702

General

Vol. III - Factor III, p.

The RFP mentions that a PPQ is provided as an attachment; however, a PPQ attachment doesn't appear to have been included with the RFP documents. Please provide.

On: Feb 15 2022.

Government Response. . Please see Solicitation amendment issued on SAM.gov which which includes the PPQ attachment. On: Feb 17 2022

9602705

Vol. II - Factor II, p.

Section states: Offeror shall provide a matrix (not included in the page count) to include all key disciplines submitted using the attached template. Please provide the "attached template" to be completed.

Government Response. . Please see Solicitation amendment issued on SAM.gov which which includes the matrix attachment. On: Feb 17 2022

9602707

Section L - Instructions to Offerors

Please confirm that dividers/tabs can be used to support proposal organization and will not count against stated page limits.

On: Feb 15 2022.

Government Response. . See forthcoming Amendment 2 to the Solicitation that will be posted on SAM.gov. On: Feb 24 2022

9602708

Section L / Instructions to Offerors

Please confirm that an acronym list can be included within the non-page counted table of contents.

Government Response. . See forthcoming Amendment 2 to the Solicitation that will be posted on SAM.gov. On: Feb 24 2022

9602930

Environmental Engineering classification

Section 3.5.2

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U)

: In section 3.5.2, the major M&E items include Treated Water Tank and Water Softening Equipment – 34 CY non-radioactive waste and Unused Electrical Controls – 12 units for 80 CY non-radioactive electronic waste. The following statement about the list of M&E states that all of the items should be considered LLRW wastes with the exception of the nickel cadmium batteries and the charging station. Non-radioactive waste typically is not regarded/accepted as LLRW for disposal purposes. Can USACE clarify what classification the waste will be?

Government Response. . The nickel cadmium batteries and charging station are not considered LLRW. Offerors will need to evaluate other (non-radiological) hazards as applicable for the nickel cadmium batteries and charging station.

Amendment 1 to the solicitation addresses the options for disposal facilities. On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9602938 General page 1 Offer Date Form 33

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U)

We would like to request a 30-day extension to the due date to 12 April 2022 for submittal of the proposal offer for this project.

The current duration between the site walkdown on 2-4 March 2022 to the due date of 14 Mar 2022 is only one working week which does not allow us sufficient time to properly assess the project needs obtained during the walkdown and provide the USACE the quality proposal we intend.

Government Response. . USACE will be hosting a Virtual Tour of the SM-1A on Thursday, 17 Feb at 1400 Eastern Time and Friday, 18 Feb at 1400 Eastern Time. This will allow Offerors the opportunity to see the site prior to the in person site visit in Mar. No extension of the proposal due date will be granted at this time. On: Feb 17 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9603848 Transportation waste disposal

The Governments naming of WCS as the sole waste disposal facility in the RFP could be viewed as a restrictive competitive limitation and basis for pre-award protest. A "Restrictive Terms Protest" can be sustained where Government justification is not supported by procurement records and directs the bidder to use a specific vendor (Facility) which is a higher cost option to other equally qualified vendors (facilities). In this case, other qualified disposal facilities were identified in the Environmental Assessment(EA) (page 2-7 & 2-8, June 2021). The Governments own procurement records contradict the restrictive limitation to only using WCS for waste disposal. Would the Government clarify that bidders may offer other qualified disposal options in their response and are not limited to bidding disposal at WCS as their sole or base option.

Government Response. . Please see Solicitation amendment issued on SAM.gov which addresses the concerns noted in the RFI. On: Feb 17 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9603858 Transportation waste disposal

Do to the change in disposal facility options we request a two week extension of the bid due date.

Government Response. . An extension to the proposal due date will not be issued at this time. On: Feb 17 2022

9603974 Other Font

Restriction

Page 117 of 176 b. Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8- point and may be produced in landscape mode. A page is considered one single sided 8.5" x 11" unless otherwise noted.

Question 1 on the requirement above: Would it be acceptable to format resumes in a Table Format?

Question 2 on the requirement above: Will text boxes throughout the text be considered an illustration?

Question 3 on the requirement above: Will headers and footers be restricted to the 12-point minimum font?

Question 4 on the requirement above: Are Tables and Illustrations restricted to Times New Roman or would another font i.e. Arial be acceptable?

Government Response. . Resumes can be provided in table format consistent with the formatting requirements. See forthcoming Amendment 2 to the Solicitation that will be posted on SAM.gov. On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9605006 General SF33

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

With the site visit scheduled late in the response period and outstanding questions that could have significant impacts on the technical approach and cost estimate, would the Government consider extending the proposal due date by 30 days to allow adequate time to revise proposals based on Q&As and site visit observations?

On: Feb 16 2022.

Government Response. . USACE will be hosting a Virtual Tour of the SM-1A on Thursday, 17 Feb at 1400 Eastern Time and Friday, 18 Feb at 1400 Eastern Time. This will allow Offerors the opportunity to see the site prior to the in person site visit in Mar. No extension of the proposal due date will be granted at this time. On: Feb 17 2022

9607882

Environmental

For WE 3 - 6 of the PWS, Offerors shall provide a technical approach that requires ALL decommissioning and demolition waste identified in the PWS to be disposed of in the lower 48 contiguous states at one or more of the six (6) disposal facilities li

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U)

The RFP requires that ALL decommissioning and demolition waste identified should be shipped to the lower 48 states. Large quantities of waste in the RFP are designated as clean concrete that would be classified as C&D waste and which could be appropriately disposed in Alaska. Are we correct in assuming that the requirement in the RFP applies to rad waste only?

On: Feb 17 2022.

Government Response. . The disposal requirements apply to all decommissioning and dismantlement waste. All wastes should be transported to the lower 48 states as requested. On: Feb 24 2022

9607912

Master

Planning

9. Sealed offers in original and 0 copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if handcarried, in the depository located in https://safe.apps.mi l/ until 11:00

AM local time 14

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U)

The due date for this offer is March 14 which is less than a calendar month away. The amendment, as issued, complicates the development of the proposed price since all 6 disposal sites have to be evaluated for cost of shipping/disposal.

We respectfully request a 30 day extension on the due date from March 14 to April 14. Thank you.

On: Feb 17 2022.

Current Request Status: Request Working

9608243 Other Proposal

Due Date

Thank you for the virtual site visit. Although helpful, an extension of the due date of at least a few days would benefit the quality of offers based upon the amended solicitation requirements released yesterday. Would the government extend the due date four days to March 18 - giving bidders that business week to finalize?

On: Feb 18 2022.

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9608849 Transportation

The EA allows for disposal of some D&D waste streams in Alaska (not all material is required to go to the lower 48). The Amended solicitation states "all D&D waste identified in the PWS will be disposed of in the lower 48". Some of the material identified in the PWS is non-radioactive and suitable for disposition in Alaska via disposal or recycle.

Do you want all D&D waste to go the lower 48 or can waste streams identified in the EA for disposal in Alaska be transported and disposed of in Alaska?

On: Feb 18 2022.

Government Response. . The disposal requirements apply to all decommissioning and dismantlement waste. All wastes should be transported to the lower 48 states. On: Feb 24 2022

9610520

Proposal Adequacy Checklist

RFP / Clause 252.215-7009

The RFP instructs offerors to complete the Proposal Adequacy Checklist. In which Volume it should it be submitted?

On: Feb 19 2022.

Government Response. . The Proposal adequacy checklist should be included with Volume VI, Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors requirements. On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9610521 General

RFP /

Section L

Proposal Submission Requirements

Under Content Requirement, the RFP states proprietary information shall be clearly marked. Will the government allow submissions of Team Member or subcontractor proprietary information as a password protected file (e.g., CPARS, pricing information, PPQs, etc.) with the password provided directly to the Contracting Officer?

On: Feb 19 2022.

Government Response. . Team Members/ subcontractors may independently submit proprietary information. If there is a need to submit proprietary information separate from the overall package, then a separate drop code for DOD Safe may be obtained from the Contract Specialist via email in accordance with the solicitation. This independent documentation shall be clearly marked with the corresponding proposal information and submitted in accordance with the solicitation submission requirements. On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9610522 General Section M, A.

Basis for Award

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

The RFP states the award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government with consideration given to the five (5) evaluation factors (Factor I is more important than either

Factor II or Factor III; Factor II and Factor III are each more important than Factor IV).

Based on the importance of Factors I, II, III, and IV, could the Government please consider all non-priced factors, when combined, as being more significant than cost/price?

Government Response. . The Government does not concur with this request. On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9610523 General Section L, A.

Proposal Submission Requirements, Paragraph C.

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Respectfully request the Government allow 11x17 figure(s) for graphics within Factor I, Volume I to only count as 1 page – not to exceed three 11x17s.

Government Response. . Please see forthcoming Amendment 2 that will be posted to SAM.gov that identifies the requirements. On: Feb 24 2022

9610524

Section L – Site Visit

Information

Is safety gear required for the site visit scheduled for March 2-4?

On: Feb 19 2022.

Government Response. . The site visit will require close-toed shoes, weather-appropriate clothing, and safety vests.

On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9610549 Structural Interior

Facility

1. Is Doyon responsible for design and construction of the new wall between 606 Annex and 606N? Will Doyon be moving / demolition any required process or facility utilities in that area?

2. 3D Photos where shown in the virtual presentation. Can we get access to those photos?

3. Are any photos available for the machine shop where new wall is to be constructed?

Government Response. . 1) Doyon is responsible for construction of the new wall between 606 Annex and 606 N.

Doyon will be moving any needed materials/equipment into 606 S as required.

2) The 3D photos shown during the virtual presentation will not be released at this time due to OPSEC requirements.

3) Doyon is responsible for constructing the new dividing wall between building sections. No photos of the machine shop will be provided On: Feb 24 2022

9611119

Structural

Generator 4 and 5

Construction Drawings

Can the government provide structural drawings showing construction of the Generator Hall (Generator #4 and #5). Specifically looking for details how it is connected to the 606N building?

On: Feb 21 2022.

Government Response. . No structural drawings are available at this time. Please see forthcoming Amendment 2 that will be posted to SAM.gov for additional information. On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9611134 Security page 29 CMMC 252-204-7021

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Is it the USACE intention that contractors, including subcontractors, have a current CMMC in place or are there provisions to allow bids from contractors and subcontractors who are currently in the process of obtaining CMMC but do not have their CMMC yet? (Note that the deadline for all DoD contracts to incorporate CMMC is in 2025.)

Government Response. . Please see Amendment 1 to the solicitation in SAM.gov. On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9611140 Environmental page 18 D&D Section 3.5.6

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

In Section 3.5.6, it states: It is reported that there is lead sheeting on top of the vault that was placed there for shielding. For bidding purposes, the lead should be assumed to be contaminated and disposed of as LLRW. The clean lead can be managed as a RCRA waste or recycled.

No volume of lead, either clean or contaminated, is mentioned in the RFP

On: Feb 21 2022.

Government Response. . See forthcoming Amendment 2 to the Solicitation that will be posted to SAM.gov On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9611163 General Site

Walkdown Schedule NA

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Would the USACE entertain another virtual walkdown prior to the face to face walkdown due to the limited time to prepare the proposal?

Government Response. . No additional virtual walkdowns will be offered prior to the face to face walkdown. On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9611323 Contracting RFP W912DR22R0027 Page 9

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

The RFP lists 171 enclosures related to this RFP. We have downloaded the files (GFI 1, GFI 2, GFI 3) provided through DoD Safe. There are only 110 files in the compressed folders. Since the files are not numbered 1 through 171, it is very difficult to find the specific file listed in the RFP. Could the USACE please provide a crosswalk of the 171 listed enclosures to the 110 files provided? Alternatively, could the USACE please number the files such tat we can readily make the correlation? Alternatively, if there are 65 files missing from the DoD Safe site, could the USACE please provide them? Thank you.

Government Response. . A forthcoming Amendment 2 to the Solicitation correcting the numbering will be posted to SAM.gov. All potential offerors who requested the GFI should now have all 170 files. Offerors that have not received this GFI and wish to, please follow the solicitation requirements for requesting the documentation. On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9612494 Environmental Engineering

Arctic

Environment Vol III, Past Performance

Could the USACE please define what the "Arctic Environment" parameters are to include as experience since it is a requirement for one of the past performance projects and noting that Ft Greely is below the arctic circle.

On: Feb 22 2022.

Government Response. . Please see forthcoming amendment 2 to the solicitation that will be posted to SAM.gov.

On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9612852 Contracting Page 9 of

3.1 Project

Constraints

WE 3 - 6

Comment Classification: Public (Public)

Would the government consider extending the proposal due date? Amendment 0001, Page 9 of 69 states that for WE 3 - 6 of the PWS, ALL decommissioning and demolition waste identified in the PWS is required to be disposed of in the lower 48 contiguous states at one or more of the six (6) disposal facilities listed in the Final Environmental Assessment Decommissioning and Dismantlement of the Deactivated SM-1A. An extension to the proposal due date will provide contractors with a reasonable period of time to thoroughly vet transportation to and disposal at six (6) facilities, rather than the single facility listed in the original RFP. This will ultimately result in greater value to the government.

On: Feb 22 2022.

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9615102 Contracting RFP W912DR22R0027 Section 3.5.3

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Section 3.5.3 of the RFP says:

3.5.3 Fuel Storage Vault Demolition and Disposal

Historical records state that the top of the Fuel Storage Vault is contaminated. As such, the vault will be dismantled prior to building demolition. This will likely involve the construction of a containment around the vault, an FSS of the interior and exterior surfaces of the vault, removal of the vault door, and wire cutting of the south and west concrete walls. It is reported that there is lead sheeting on top of the vault that was placed there for shielding. For bidding purposes, the lead should be assumed to be contaminated and disposed of as LLRW. The clean lead can be managed as a RCRA waste or recycled.

No volume of lead, either clean or contaminated, is mentioned in the RFP.

The provided waste report, Technical Memorandum – Inventory of Waste and Routine Transportation – FINAL, filename AECOM- Tidewater 2021g_Final SM-1A Routine Waste Memo, lists 0.1 CY of clean lead associated with the Fuel Storage Vaults. No contaminated lead is listed.

Are we to assume that 0.1 CY of contaminated lead are associated with the Fuel Storage vaults?

On: Feb 23 2022.

Government Response. . Please see forthcoming amendment 2 to the solicitation that will be posted to SAM.gov.

On: Feb 24 2022

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9615122 Contracting RFP W912DR22R0027 Page 20

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

In section 3.5.2, the major M&E items include Treated Water Tank and Water Softening Equipment – 34 CY non-radioactive waste and Unused Electrical Controls – 12 units for 80 CY non-radioactive electronic waste. The following statement about the list of M&E states that all of the items should be considered LLRW wastes with the exception of the nickel cadmium batteries and the charging station. Non-radioactive waste typically is not regarded/accepted as LLRW for disposal purposes.

Can USACE clarify what classification the water tank and electrical equipment will be?

On: Feb 23 2022.

Government Response. . Please see forthcoming amendment 2 to the solicitation that will be posted to SAM.gov.

On: Feb 24 2022

Report Complete

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Only Patent 11/892,984 ProjNet property of ERDC since 2004.

The following have been modified:

CONTRACTING OFFICER STATEMENT

Only a warranted Contracting Officer (either a Contracting Officer or an Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)), acting within their appointed limits, has the authority to issue modifications or otherwise change the terms and conditions of this contract. If an individual other than the Contracting Officer attempts to make changes to the terms and conditions of this contract, you shall not proceed with the change and shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer. Proceeding with any work not authorized by the Contracting Officer will be at the Contractor’s own risk.

W912DR22R0027

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

FOR

DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE SM-1A REACTOR FACILITY

LOCATED AT FORT GREELY, AK

10 February 2022

Amendment 0001: 17 February 2022 Amendment 0002: 25 February 2022

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Department of the Army (DA) is authorized to build and operate nuclear reactors under Section 91.b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Section 91.b authorizes DOD to procure and utilize special nuclear material in the interest of national defense and to acquire utilization facilities, i.e., reactors for military purposes. Section 110.b of the Atomic Energy Act excludes such utilization facilities acquired by DOD from any of the licensing requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. As part of the Army Reactor Program, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for nuclear reactor engineering and design, reactor construction, and decommissioning design and implementation.

2.0 GENERAL BACKGROUND

The SM-1A Reactor Facility is situated within the boundaries of Fort Greely which covers approximately 6,840 acres near Delta Junction, Alaska. Fort Greely is located approximately 100 miles southeast of Fairbanks and 225 miles northeast of Anchorage.

The SM-1A Reactor Facility is located approximately in the middle of Fort Greely (See attached Figure 1 Fort Greely, AK). SM-1A occupies an approximately 1.5-acre fenced site in the central portion of Fort Greely along the northern side of Arctic Avenue between First Street and East Fifth Street. The deactivated reactor and associated systems are primarily in a cylindrical structure known as the Vapor Container (VC) adjacent to Building 606 North. Building 606 North and Building 606 South also contain critical infrastructure associated with Fort Greely’s existing utility systems.

Building J-5 (also known as Building 607; immediately east of the VC) is used for storage by Fort Greely’s utility privatization (UP) contractor (Doyon Utilities, LLC). Doyon operates and maintains Fort Greely utility systems under a 50-year utility privatization (UP) contract that will expire in 2058. Access to and conveyance of the utility systems and infrastructure facilities, including those in Building 606 North, is granted to the UP contractor by Army Easement DACA85-08-00124. The federal government maintains ownership of SM-1A reactor components and associated radioactive materials and waste. Access to restricted areas containing radioactive materials and waste is controlled by USACE. The Army owns the land underlying the facilities associated with SM-1A.

The SM-1A Reactor Facility, shown in attached Figure 2, includes Building 606 (North and South), Building J-5, and Supply Well No. 11 contained within a fenced perimeter. The area inside the fence is generally paved asphalt or concrete with small areas of grass. Primary access to the SM-1A Reactor Facility is through one of several locked entry gates located around the reactor security fence. Entry into Building 606 is currently controlled by the UP contractor. The selected Contractor will take over security of the SM-1A facility after developing acceptable Security Plans prior to the start of site work. Within the security fence, aboveground and below ground structures and foundation materials from Building 606 North, Building J-5, and the groundwater supply Well No. 11 pump house and associated utilidor will be removed during decommissioning activities. Additionally, supply Well No. 12 and recharge Well No. 13, located outside of the perimeter fence will be part of this project.

Construction of the SM-1A Reactor Facility at Fort Greely began in 1958 and was completed in 1962, with first criticality achieved on 13 March 1962. The design was based on the concept of the SM-1 reactor at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, a prototype for stationary medium-power plants. SM-1A was a single-loop, 20.2 megawatt-thermal pressurized water reactor that used highly enriched uranium dioxide fuel to generate 2,000 kilowatts of electrical power and 37,850 pounds of extraction steam per hour. SM-1A’s primary mission was to supply electrical power and heating steam for on-post buildings and facilities at Fort Greely; it was also used as an in-service test facility to understand how the equipment would function in an arctic environment. The primary mission of the SM-1A reactor deployment was the establishment of a cold-weather nuclear power plant to supply power to Fort Greely as part of the Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP). The secondary mission was to study the economics of operating a nuclear electric power plant as compared to operating a conventional oil-fired system in a remote area where fuel costs are high and refueling logistics are challenging. In 1970, the Chief of Engineers decided the SM-1A reactor would be shut down for the last time following the normal end-of-life after its fourth core (U.S. Army, 1974a).

During plant operation, radioactive wastewater was stored in two hot waste tanks located in the waste tank pit. The wastewater was stored until the Spring season to avoid wastewater freezing in the discharge pipeline. During the warmer months, the weather allowed the contents of the tanks to be pumped out and processed through a Dilution Station (diluting water supplied by Well No. 14) and discharged to Jarvis Creek in accordance with approved procedures and permits (Jacobs, 2002). In mid-1968, discharges to Jarvis Creek were halted and a skid-mounted Radioactive Waste Disposal System (RWDS) was installed in Building 606 North where treated wastewater was discharged into a recharge well, Well No. 13. The concentrated wastes were packaged and disposed of at appropriate facilities in the lower 48 contiguous states.

The final shutdown of the SM-1A reactor was performed in March 1972. Deactivation and initial decommissioning were performed at the SM-1A Reactor Facility following shutdown and in accordance with the U.S. Army Engineer Power Group Plan for The Decommissioning of the SM-1A Nuclear Power Plant (U.S. Army, 1972). The initial deactivation of SM-1A consisted of placing the facility in a SAFSTOR configuration by removing the nuclear fuel, conducting minor decontamination, shipping some radioactive waste for disposal, sealing the VC, and installing appropriate warning signs and monitoring devices. Much of the reactor’s primary system components were dismantled, and components inside the VC were encased in concrete and an acrylamide grout-sand-soil mixture. This mixture was capped with 36 inches of reinforced concrete to a finished elevation of about 10 feet above the bottom of the VC and the VC hatch was sealed. Waste generated during the initial deactivation activities was placed in the spent fuel pit and waste tanks pit. These pits were then filled with an acrylamide grout-sand-soil mixture and capped with reinforced concrete. Debris in these pits is assumed to be radiologically contaminated. Estimates of the remaining waste volumes and isotopic compositions of the remaining radioactive wastes are detailed within the PWS and the enclosed documentation.

Following these deactivation activities, SM-1A was placed under a routine monitoring program that is currently implemented by USACE. SM-1A has been maintained in a SAFSTOR condition since 1972 to allow residual radioactivity to decay and minimize worker exposure to radiation to the extent possible during final decommissioning and dismantlement activities. Since its placement in SAFSTOR, SM-1A has been subject to regular inspection and monitoring by USACE in accordance with AR 50-7 and SM-1A Reactor Possession Permit Number SM1A-1-19, Amendment 1-20, issued by the U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff G-3/5/7 through the Army Reactor Office (ARO).

In general, Building 606 North has remained occupied by government personnel and/or contractors operating Fort Greely’s conventional steam and power plant since SM-1A’s deactivation in 1972.

2.1 PRIOR STUDIES

The decommissioning strategy developed in the 1970's recommended that the deactivated reactors be placed into a safe storage mode that would allow the shorter-lived radionuclides to decay. It was expected that delaying decommissioning would reduce radioactive waste volumes and worker exposures. However, preliminary studies indicated that the levels of contamination present within the reactors would not be sufficiently reduced by decay to allow for the release of the facilities without significant decontamination being performed. Additionally, concern regarding the increasing cost and decreasing availability of radioactive waste disposal led the Army Reactor Office (ARO) to recommend that an assessment be performed of the SM-1A reactor to allow for a more accurate decommissioning cost estimate to be developed which addresses projected changes in disposal options.

USACE developed a management plan for conducting an All-Hazards Assessment (AHA), which contained provisions for four phases of work to be performed. Phase I included a Historical Records Review and Disposal Alternatives Investigation. Phase II, included performing a characterization survey and decommissioning cost estimate. Phases III and IV deal with decommissioning planning, design, and execution.

• Phase I - Review SM-1A historical design, operations, decommissioning, and surveillance related documents in order to prepare: Data Quality Objectives for a hazards assessment/characterization survey of the SM-1A Reactor Facility; initial waste classification of large components based on an activation analysis to estimate radionuclide concentrations; and identify those areas of the SM-1A site that are impacted by residual radioactive contamination and those that may contain other hazardous materials.

• Phase II - Conduct radiological and non-radiological sampling and analysis, hazards assessment, disposal alternatives evaluation, and cost estimates for the decommissioning and disposal of the SM-1A.

• Phase III - Develop detailed plans and execute the selected approach for hazards reduction, facility decommissioning, and waste disposal options.

• Phase IV - Terminate the nuclear reactor decommissioning permit.

Upon completion of initial decommissioning, Fort Greely was assigned operational and maintenance responsibility for the remaining SM-1A ancillary systems, beyond those associated with the primary nuclear plant. Fort Greely was to operate the secondary system with steam from the boiler in the adjacent post power plant and assume full use of all available space and structures external to the vapor container. The outward physical appearance would remain unchanged (USAEPG, 1971c). After the completion of the facility deactivation and conversion, a third-party radiological survey by a private contractor, as well as the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA), verified that known areas of radioactive contamination had been decontaminated to acceptable levels or were properly controlled (Suntac, 1973). An Army Reactor Systems Health and Safety Review Committee (ARCHS)-approved SM- 1A Post-Decommissioning Environmental Monitoring Plan was initiated to provide on-going surveillance of the decommissioned facility. In June of 1997, the U. S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM) performed extensive surveys of the SM-1A and surrounding environment to determine the radiological status of the facility at that time (USACHPPM, 1997). In preparation for full decommissioning of the site, a Characterization Survey Report (CSR) for the All-Hazards Analysis was completed in 2011 (USACE, 2014).

Objectives for the Phase III planning efforts that will be completed by late 2021 include obtaining the necessary information to support the application for a decommissioning permit in accordance with Table 2-1 of AR 50-7 Army Reactor Program. The following information is needed to support the permit application:

• Approved Environmental Assessment. – Completed 28 Jun 2021

• Historical Site Assessment. – Completed

• Coordination documents with State Historic Preservation Office. – Completed 28 Jun 2021

• Compliance agreements/consent decrees, and so forth, that involve other regulators and stakeholders in the decommissioning.

• Proposed classification of areas for cleanup.

• Any applicable agreements between responsible commander and garrison organizations to be in place during decommissioning. – Ongoing

• Safety and health framework, identifying how personnel and radiation safety will be managed.

• Waste Management and Disposal Plan. – ARO approval granted 20 Dec 2021

• Final Decommissioning Plan. - ARO approval granted 20 Dec 2021

The final, or most recent version of the above documents will be provided as enclosures to the PWS.

2.2 OBJECTIVES

For the purposes of this Performance Work Statement (PWS) the scope of services includes the following activities related to the decommissioning and dismantlement of the SM-1A Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant. This includes byproduct materials produced as a result of SM-1A operations at locations where facility equipment or materials were utilized within Fort Greely, AK:

1) Prepare plans that will support the decommissioning of the SM-1A Reactor Facility in accordance with this PWS and the ARO Decommissioning Permit;

2) Decommission/dispose of materials in accordance with final plans, decommissioning permits, and relevant Federal and State requirements;

3) Perform and document the necessary post-decommissioning radiological surveys to demonstrate all affected areas of Fort Greely are suitable for unrestricted release; and

4) Adherence to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Army, as well as other relevant Federal/State permits, standards, and guidance.

To assist in meeting the objectives of the PWS, the Government is providing the following documents:

• Final Fort Greely Building 670 Final Status Survey (Enclosure 1)

• Final Fort Greely Building 675 Technical Memo (Enclosure 2)

• Final SM-1A December 2019 Data Quality and Usability Assessment (Enclosure 3)

• Final SM-1A Decommissioning Plan (Enclosure 4)

• Final SM-1A Large Component Transportation Technical Memo (Enclosure 5)

• Final SM-1A Routine Waste Memo (Enclosure 6)

• Final SM-1A September 2020 Data Quality and Usability Assessment (Enclosure 7)

• Pre-Final SM-1A Waste Management Disposal Plan (Enclosure 8)

• Final SM-1A Building 606N Memo (Enclosure 9)

• Final SM-1A Paint Impacts Memo ((Enclosure 10)

• Final SM-1A Soil Sampling Tech Memo (Enclosure 11)

• SM-1A Section 106 MOA (Enclosure 12)

• SM-1A Draft HAER Level II Interview Transcripts, and Draft Historical Marker (Enclosure 13)

• SM-1A Draft HAER Photo Captions and Scanned Negatives (Enclosure 14)

• SM-1A Interview Transcripts (not available at this time, Enclosure 15)

• SM-1A Draft Historical Marker (Enclosure 16)

• SM-1A Final EA w/FNSI (Enclosure 17)

• SM-1A Final EA_NOA (Enclosure 18)

• SM-1A Cultural Resources Report (Enclosure 19)

• SM-1 Decommissioning Permit (Enclosure 20)

• Value Engineering Study Report for the SM-1A Dismantlement Activities (Enclosure 21)

• 2018 TPP Presentation Day 1 (Enclosure 22)

• 2018 TPP Presentation Day 2 (Enclosure 22, cont.)

• 2018 TPP Meeting Minutes (Enclosure 23)

• 2020 June TPP Presentation (Enclosure 24)

• 2020 June Meeting Minutes (Enclosure 25)

• 2020 August TPP Agency Meetings Presentation (Enclosure 26)

• 2020 August TPP ADEC_EPA Meeting Minutes (Enclosure 27)

• 2021 January TPP Presentation (Enclosure 28)

• 2021 Meeting Minutes (Enclosure 29)

• SM-1A Decommissioning Plan References (108 Files) (Enclosure 30-137)

• Pre-Final Waste Management and Disposal Plan References (30 Files) (Enclosure 138-1678)

• SM-1A Cost Estimate (Enclosure 1689)

• SM-1A Basis of Estimate (Enclosure 16970)

• SM-1A BLDG 606 Final Drawings (Enclosure 17071)

The Decommissioning Permit for the site is anticipated to be issued in June of 2022. The Decommissioning Permit will be provided once it is received from the Army Reactor Office

The Government provided documents will be made available via the DOD Safe site https://safe.apps.mil/ approved file sharing site for USACE. 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 7 days from the date of the Request for Proposal. All Offerors will need to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement prior to the release of any documents for bidding purposes. All documents provided by the Government must be protected from distribution and destroyed after the proposal process. (Please send the Contract Specialist email addresses for the points of contact to receive this information.)

The selected Contractor will execute the decommissioning and dismantlement activities in accordance with the proposed action identified in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) and in accordance with the Decommissioning Permit and Decommissioning Plan.

3.0 WORK STATEMENT

The Contractor shall conduct all activities in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and guidance. The Contractor shall comply with the provisions of the basic contract, this PWS, and other Government provided documentation.

The Government team will utilize Technical Direction (TD) letters to control the release of project funding for the duration of the contract. The Contractor will work with the Project Manager and COR to develop a draft of the TD letter and the Government will finalize the letter and authorize spending accordingly. Typically, the Government will authorize the funds needed to support the project efforts on a quarterly basis. This approach will be utilized by the team to ensure project funds are being properly executed.

The work breakdown structure (WBS) and Work Elements (WE) for this project is as follows:

WE 1 Plans, Permitting, and Engineering

• Project Management (PM for WE1 only)

• Project Kick-off Meeting

• Progress Review/Conferences and Reports

• SharePoint Site

• Public Meeting

• Work Plans

• Security Plan…