Q&R__b0qj.pdf

WAIKOLOA Areas B, O, Q, J - Cleared

1. Attachment J Task 5 – The total acreage for the base and all options equals 124.7 acres. Does the government intend the contractor to account for more acreage than is required for B,O,Q and J?

RESPONSE: Not all optional tasks will be awarded. No more than 119.7 acres will be cleared.

2. Section 3.6 – Is the licensed surveyor required to survey all seed locations or validate location data and certify accuracy?

RESPONSE: No it is not required. Seeds can be emplaced by contractor personnel using either RTK or RTS methods.

3. Reference: PWS Paragraph 3.5.1.1, 5.5 Acres AGC in Areas B, O, Q and J-Cleared – Project 02 Question: Where specifically are the 5.5 acres specified for AGC located at the site?

RESPONSE: It is up to the contractors to determine where the best area for the using the AGC technology, however the proposed area will most likely have a relatively smooth surface without tree canopy.

4. Reference: PWS Paragraphs 3.5.1.2-3.5.1.5 (Optional Tasks 5b through 5e) Question: Are the optional acreages listed for specifically-identified parcels at the site, or are they indicative of Fixed Unit Pricing?

RESPONSE: Optional subtasks will be awarded in multiples as needed with not to exceed quantities listed in Attachment J.

5. Reference: PWS Section 3.4.6 GIS Data, bullet 16 Question 1: Will the Government-provided “existing GIS data” be provided sufficiently before the scheduled site visit to facilitate an efficient/effective visit?

RESPONSE: Information was provided in Exhibit 7; maps and GIS, with the exception of area P which is not covered under this acquisition.

Question 2: Will the Government-provided GIS data include the boundaries, critical for an effective site visit, for:

- The initial 5.5 acres for AGC,

- The initial 24.2 acres for analog detect and dig

- Areas B, O, Q and J-Cleared,

- ~ 31 acres of heavy vegetation, rough terrain watershed ravine,

- ~ 33 acres of debris piles, construction debris, or other conditions that would cause heavy saturation of metallic items, and

- The remaining residential or otherwise developed properties?

RESPONSE: Information was provided in Exhibit 7; maps and GIS, with the exception of area P which is not covered under this acquisition.

6. Reference: PWS Section 3.5.1 Question: Advanced Geophysical Classification can be accomplished along two separate paths. Path 1 is to collect dynamic data with a tradition Digital Geophysical Mapping sensor, e.g. EM61, and classify the selected DGM anomalies with an AGC sensor in cued mode. Path 2 is to use an AGC sensor for both the dynamic and cued surveys. Is either path acceptable?

RESPONSE: Either method is acceptable.

7. Reference: Volume 1, Factor 1, Tab 1 – Technical Capability, RFP page 83 requires Offerors to describe at least 2 but no more than 4 examples of projects. Volume 4, Factor 3, Tab 1, RFP page 89 – Past Performance Project Narratives requires Offerors to submit narratives for a maximum of three projects and Volume 4, Tab 2, RFP page 90, requires PPQs for projects submitted in Volume 1, Factor 1, Tab 1.

Question: Please clarify if the past performance narratives should be submitted for the same projects as Factor 1 or should we provide three different projects? If we are to provide the narratives for the projects presented in Factor 1, will the maximum past performance narratives be amended to up to 4 projects as instructed in Factor 1?

RESPONSE: The government’s preference is for the performance narratives to be submitted for the same projects.

RESPONSE: Yes.

8. Reference: Volume IV, RFP page 82, page limits states “Volume IV - shall not exceed 8 pages single sided or 4 double sided combined”. In the paragraph below, however, it states at the end of the Note: “…. And Volume IV are excluded from the page count”.

Question: Does the Note refer to the Cost Volume III not being page counted or refer to Volume IV Past Performance? Please confirm that Volume IV Past Performance is page limited to 8 pages.

RESPONSE: Volume Order was change at the last minute and some residual volume numbers are in error. The volume listing will be added in Section L and Volume numbering will verified and changed as necessary. Volume III is Price and is not included in the page count. Volume IV is Past Performance and Past Performance narrative is included in the page count is included in the page count.

9. Reference: RFP Section L, Page 90 “Past Performance” paragraph d allows for additional past performance reference sheets to be added. The RFP also states that the past performance reference sheets are not page counted.

Question: Is there any limitation on the number of past performance reference sheets that can be submitted?

RESPONSE: It is limited to the number of Projects, Maximum 4. One past performance reference form per project.

10. Reference: RFP Section L, Page 81 states that the copy of a JV agreements should be submitted in Volume IV (Past Performance).

Question: As this is normally submitted as part of the Price Volume, should the JV agreement be placed in Volume III?

RESPONSE: The JV agreement should be placed in Volume III (Price). Solicitation will be amended.

11. Reference: RFP Section L, Page 82 states under “Page Limitations” that there is no page limitation for Volume III. In the paragraph directly below that lists all of the items that are not page counted, it states that Volume IV is not page counted.

Question: Please clarify which Volume is not page counted.

RESPONSE: See response to question #8.

12. Reference: RFP Section L, page 80 “Offeror’s Questions and Comments” states that all of the questions will be answered after the question due date of March 6.

Question: Can the government consider answering questions in the order they are received, and periodically distribute to allow contractors the opportunity to thoughtfully address the answers as they respond to proposal requirements?

RESPONSE: All responses will be provided NLT 12 March 7, 2018

13. Reference: RFP Section L, Page 81 states that the copy of a JV agreements should be submitted in Volume IV (Past Performance).

Question: As this is normally submitted as part of the Price Volume, should the JV agreement be placed in Volume III?

RESPONSE: See response to question #10.

14. Reference: RFP Section L.

Question: The Factor numbers and Volume numbers do not match. Was this an intentional change, as the Vol I and II are being combined as evaluation Factor 1? Or, should the Factor Numbers be Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4, match per the Volumes?

RESPONSE: Factor 1, Technical includes Volume I: Technical Capability & Management and Volume II: Technical Approach. All Tabs and Elements in both Volumes but will be evaluated but not separately rated under Factor 1, Technical. Solicitation will be amended.

15 The Areas B, O, Q, and J-Cleared Munitions Response Site (MRS) includes 234.7 acres that are uninvestigated (i.e., areas where munitions removal has not been previously completed). The selected remedy in the Decision Document includes a cleanup of surface and subsurface munitions in approximately 119.7 acres of the MRS that are uninvestigated areas and potentially unobstructed. The remaining 115.0 (234.7 acres minus 119.7 acres) uninvestigated acres are obstructed; therefore, munitions removal will not be performed and Land Use Controls will be implemented. Please specify the areas within the MRS that are included as part of the PWS?

RESPONSE: Information was provided in Exhibit 7; maps and GIS, with the exception of area P which is not covered under this acquisition.

16. The last sentence of this section states "If right of entry cannot be obtained, at the discretion of the Government, clearance will be moved to another area within the former Waikoloa Maneuver Area and acreage will be negotiated based on terrain and land use." Will anomaly density also be considered as a factor in negotiating acreage at another area?

RESPONSE: Per the Section 3.5.2.5 Specific Task Requirements: -If Right of Entry cannot be obtained in Areas B, O, Q, J - Cleared, the government will select acreage elsewhere within the Former Waikoloa Maneuver Area. Density of anomalies is presumed similar in other locations as are present in Areas B, O, Q, J – Cleared.

17. Please specify the number of optional additional meetings so that all contractors' costs are based on the same number of meetings.

RESPONSE: Please see Attachment J for the number of Optional meetings that will not be exceeded.

18. The PWS states "The Government will provide existing GIS data for the Former Waikoloa Maneuver Area." Please provide this information as part of the solicitation.

RESPONSE: Information was provided in Exhibit 7; maps and GIS, with the exception of area P which is not covered under this acquisition. Additional GIS information will only be provided after award.

19. The PWS states "31 acres of heavy vegetation, rough terrain watershed ravine. 33 acres of debris piles, construction debris, or other conditions that would cause heavy saturation of metallic items.

Remaining acreage is residential or otherwise developed." Please provide maps of these areas as part of the solicitation.

RESPONSE: Information was provided in Exhibit 7; maps and GIS, with the exception of area P which is not covered under this acquisition.

20. Please provide maps of these areas, terrain, land use, and assumed anomaly density so that all contractors' costs are based on the same assumptions.

RESPONSE: Information was provided in Exhibit 7; maps and GIS, with the exception of area P which is not covered under this acquisition. Exhibit 8 Reports were provided to the contractors for them to determine the anomaly density in the areas.

21. The PWS states "If Right of Entry cannot be obtained in Areas B, O, Q, J-Cleared, the government will select acreage elsewhere within the Former Waikoloa Maneuver Area. Density of anomalies is presumed similar in other locations as are present in Areas B, O, Q, J-Cleared." Please specify the assumed terrain, land use, and anomaly density for these areas.

RESPONSE: Contractors should assume land use will be residential. Terrain and anomaly density for these other areas will vary. Acreage will be negotiated based the difference in terrain and historical information on density. For example, if a one acre empty residential lot has ROE refusal and a density of anomalies at 200 based on previous documentation, a half-acre of rough terrain with 250 anomalies per acres may be substituted.

22. Is the Project Manager (PM) in this section the same as the Project Manager described in Section 5.4.4? This section requires that the PM has at least one advanced classification project to include management at the field operational level or five years experience managing environmental or munitions projects at the field operational level. Section 5.4.4 requires the PM to have at least 3 years experience in general contract project management on programs similar in size and complexity to the effort described in the PWS. This section states that personnel identified as having AGC experience may be employed by the prime contractor or the subcontractor. Section 5.4 states that these personnel shall be the Prime Contractor's personnel and not subcontracted to a team member. Please clarify the PM's qualifications and whether the PM must be from the Prime Contractor's personnel.

RESPONSE: Per Section C, paragraph 3.5.2.5 Specific Task Requirements: - AGC Personnel Experience: Requirements are in addition to Section 5.0 Personnel Qualifications requirements.

Personnel identified as having AGC experience may be employed by the prime contractor or the subcontractor. The PM in Section C, Section 5.0 Personnel Qualifications and paragraph 3.5.2.5 Specific Task Requirements can be the same person if they meet both requirements and are employed by the Prime, otherwise, the ACG PM can be employed by a subcontractor. Clarification will be added to Section C, paragraph 5.4.5.

23. Section 5.4, Key Personnel, requires all 9 identified key personnel to come from the prime contractor.

This requirement is overly restrictive to potential Small Disadvantaged Business, 8(a), prime contractors.

Additionally, this requirement excludes the ability to subcontract for inclusion of the industry experts who work for specialty firms such as the Geophysicist. Part 15 of the FAR indicates that sub-consultant experience should be considered. Would the Government consider revising the requirement to require the Prime offeror to provide 80% of the identified Key personnel in Section 5.4? That would allow 20% of the Key personnel to come from team partner firms that have experts that could reduce cost for the government?

RESPONSE: No. It is imperative for the prime to have a Senior Geophysicist on staff. The Senior Geophysicist on staff does not have to be DAGCAP accredited. The Senior Project Geophysicist described in paragraph 3.5.2.5 does. Key subcontractor capabilities will be considered however that does not relieve the requirements for Key Personnel. The Senior Project Geophysicist described in paragraph 3.5.2.5 can be employed by a subcontractor. Clarification will be added to Section C, paragraph 5.4.5.

24. With regards to Section 3.6, Optional Task 6 in the PWS, could the Government please confirm this is in fact an optional task that the Contractor must account for in the proposal, or will the Government (or its separately-contracted third-party, DAGCAP-accredited firm perform validation seeding?

RESPONSE: The preference is for a third party subcontractor to perform the Validation Seeding.

However, this subcontractor must understand the necessity for accurate emplacement. The contractor must provide personnel who are not involved in any other part of the project to execute the Validation Seeding and cannot be personnel from the AGC contractor. Validation Seeding must be performed IAW the Validation Seed Plan prepared by the government.

25. The personnel qualifications and requirements in Section 3.5.2.5 and Section 5.4 of the PWS are not consistent with each other, and the required qualifications for more than one position differ between sections; Section 3.5.2.5 states that the listed personnel may be employed by either the prime contractor or a team partner whereas Section 5.4 states that some of the same personnel must be employed by the prime contractor. Could the Government please confirm whether there must be a separate Senior Geophysicist as part of the key personnel and employed by the small-business prime contractor, or could the Senior Project Geophysicist from Section 3.5.2.5 of the PWS fulfill this role as an employee of a subcontracted team partner?

RESPONSE: See response to question #22. This also applies to the Senior Geophysicist position.

26. The personnel qualifications and requirements in Section 3.5.2.5 and Section 5.4 of the PWS are not consistent with each other, and the required qualifications for more than one position differ between sections; Section 3.5.2.5 states that the listed personnel may be employed by either the prime contractor or a team partner whereas Section 5.4 states that some of the same personnel must be employed by the prime contractor. Could the Government please clarify which set of qualifications apply to the Project Manager, those in Section 3.5.2.5 or those in Section 5.4.4 of the PWS?

RESPONSE: See response to question #22.

27. With regards to Section 3.3, will the Government require a single UFP-QAPP with sub-worksheets specifically tailored to AGC-related tasks, or will the Government require a single AGC-QAPP for the entire project?

RESPONSE: The government has no preference.

28. What is the smallest TOI for the remedial action?

RESPONSE: Refer to Exhibit 8 Reports.

29 What is the maximum clearance depth for the remedial action?

RESPONSE: Refer to Attachment A - Areas BOQJ Cleared DD June 2016, Part II, Section 4. Based on munitions found at Areas B, O , Q, J – Cleared the contractor must resolved MEC-like anomalies as deep as 7-ft (construction plus one foot), or bedrock.

30. For the AGC component of the remedial action, what are the specific failure criteria?

RESPONSE: The AGC component must achieve the Measurement Performance Criteria (MPCs) and the Definable Features of Work (DFWs) as stated in the project approved AGC QAPP.

31. Could the Government please confirm that localized portions of a parcel deemed inaccessible for reasons other than the presence of a house or fixed structure (e.g., dirt pile with steep slopes) are permitted to remain uninvestigated and may be addressed through LUCs?

RESPONSE: No, the intent of this Contract is to clear as much of the unobstructed remaining areas as possible. If someone has pushed a pile of dirt up then that dirt could have MEC in it and the same someone may plan on spreading that dirt elsewhere or even haul it off site to another location. Plan on investigating the dirt piles, under trash piles, rough terrain, gulches, etc.

32. In regards to Section 3.5.2.5, specifically in regards to evacuation of residents and building occupants, will evacuation be required for any and all intrusive investigation of geophysical anomaly source locations, or would there be permissible conditions where evacuation is not required (e.g. no MEC identified during the RI within a certain proximity to parcel of interest)?

RESPONSE: During intrusive investigation of anomalies (targets of interest) identified by AGC, the MSD may be reduced for the munition size type being excavated based on the data from the AGC library. This may or may not reduce the number of evacuations. Otherwise the answer is no.

33. Will the Government impose work restrictions at occupied parcels or residential properties, both in terms of days of the week and daily working hours?

RESPONSE: The normal safety restrictions will apply and specific requests made by occupants/residents.

34. For properties with hardscape features (e.g., sidewalks, curbs, asphalt and so forth), will geophysical surveying be required over these features?

RESPONSE: NO

35. For properties with hardscape features (e.g., sidewalks, curbs, asphalt and so forth), will intrusive investigation of geophysical anomaly locations beneath these features be expected as part of this remedial action?

RESPONSE: NO

36. Could the Government please specify the currently-identified parcels, properties or locations within the Area B, O, Q, J-Cleared MRS requiring AGC over analog (i.e. Mag & dig) clearance efforts?

RESPONSE: Please refer to response to question #3.

37. Must the Contractor assume that the base (5.5 acres) and option (5 acres) areas specified for AGC could be spread anywhere throughout the uninvestigated portions of the Area B, O, Q, J-Cleared MRS?

RESPONSE: Yes, however terrain, vegetation, canopy and other limiting factors should be taken into consideration when selecting areas for AGC.

38. If a parcel is included where scrap metal is present at the surface, shall the Government consider the footprint of the scrap metal to be inaccessible or does the Government prefer the Contractor first certify is as MDAS and then remove it from the parcel in order to gain access for subsurface clearance activities?

RESPONSE: No, the government does not consider these areas inaccessible. However, it is not the government’s responsibility to remove Non-Munitions Debris scrap metal from a private property, only Munitions Debris. See Section 2.15 of Section C for clarification.

39. Will the Government implement a firm reply date to ROEs that are sent out, giving a property owner a finite period of time to respond (e.g., 30 days from the date of the letter)?

RESPONSE: All ROE letter requests are sent with a reply by date.

40. Does the Government plan to stop sending new ROE access letters by a certain time within the contract period of performance to allow the Contractor sufficient time to gather field data, do analysis, discuss findings with stakeholders as part of the SPP, and report on findings at parcels for which access is granted?

RESPONSE: Yes. The Government will send up to three requests to property owners for ROE. All three ROE letter requests are sent prior to start of fieldwork.

42. With regards to Section 3.6, Optional Task 6 in the PWS, is it required to have validation seeding performed by a DAGCAP-accredited firm?

RESPONSE: See response to question #24.

43. Is cued data collection with an advanced EMI sensor required for each emplaced validation seed as part of Section 3.6, Optional Task 6?

RESPONSE: NO

44. With regards to intrusive investigations, would the Government allow in the ESS for classification results to serve as a basis for reducing exclusion zones when working at a specific survey area?

RESPONSE: See response to question #32.

45. Are there restrictions on the type of vegetation that can be cut or the times of year when vegetation can be cut within the MRS?

RESPONSE: The government is not restricting the removal of vegetation however; the contractor must consider the wishes the property owner, and also the requirements of CERLCA and the Endangered Species Act.

46. Reference: Section C, PWS Section 3.5 – Task 5 Response Field Activities Question: The identified tasks in 3.5.1.1 through 3.5.1.5 total 49.7 acres, however, there are 119.7 RESPONSE: Refer to response to question #1. Also, refer to Attachment J which shows not to exceed amounts for each optional subtask.

47. RFP/PWS lists Community Relations Plan as Optional Task 9. It is not shown as Optional on Attachment J – please clarify is CRP is optional.

RESPONSE: If the Community Relations Plan that is in place is up to dated, this option will not be exercised. Attachment J will be amended.

48. RFP/PWS includes Optional Task 7a, Additional RAR – Optional Task 7a is not included on Attachment J – should Optional Task 7a be added to the pricing sheet?

RESPONSE: Government will amend Attachment J to include optional task 7a.

49. PWS section 3.4.6 notes: “Based on GIS data the following conditions can be expected:

* 33 acres of debris piles, construction debris, or other conditions that would cause heavy saturation of metallic items”. As such, is the Contractor required to dispose of all of the above noted debris, or just inspect/remove any MEC/MD items from within/under the debris piles?

RESPONSE: See response to question #38.

50. Also, if HTRW items are also found in the debris piles (car batteries, waste oil, old tires, etc.) are these also to be dispose of as part of this contract?

RESPONSE: No. However, they are to be moved and placed such contamination is not spread.

Property owner should be informed of findings.

51. PWS 3.5.2 states “up to specified clearance depth”. What is the specific depth? Although, DD discusses a typical receptor depth for intrusive activities of 3 feet and notes that it may extend to 6 feet or bedrock, the selected remedy does not specific a sub-surface removal depth.

RESPONSE: See response to question #29.

52. PWS section 3.4.6 notes: “Based on GIS data the following conditions can be expected:

* 31 acres of heavy vegetation, rough terrain watershed ravine

* 33 acres of debris piles, construction debris, or other conditions that would cause heavy saturation of metallic items”

The level of effort required for clearing areas of debris piles and heavy saturation of metallic items varies significantly from the heavily vegetated and other areas for mag ‘n’ dig. Would the government add a task to cover areas with debris piles?

RESPONSE: No. The government does not intend to add an additional task.

53. Page 80 of 97, Section L states “Where applicable, the offeror shall cross reference to the solicitation by annotating solicitation references in parenthesis (i.e., Sec C, para 4.0). Would a 1 page cross reference table to the requirements for each Volume be acceptable?

RESPONSE: Yes.

54. Section L, Joint Venture/Mentor Protégé Proposal Requirements states that a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted in Volume VI. Please confirm that the joint venture agreement is to be submitted in Volume III, Section I, Tab 3.

RESPONSE: Joint Venture/Mentor Protégé should be provided in Volume III, Section I, Tab 3.

Solicitation will be amended.

55. Please confirm that Exhibit 6 is considered a proposal data form and is excluded from the page count.

RESPONSE: YES.

56. Page 82 of 97 “Note” states that Volume IV is excluded from the page count. Should this be Volume III Price Proposal? The preceding paragraph states there is no page limit for Volume III and an 8 pg limit for Volume IV.

RESPONSE: See response to question #8.

57. Please confirm that the following volume organization is correct as outlined in Section L as there are two Factor 1’s (Volume I and II):

1. Volume I, Factor 1: Technical Capabilities and Management

2. Volume II, Factor 1, Tab 1 – Technical Approach

3. Volume III, Factor 2, Price

4. Volume IV, Factor 3, Past Performance RESPONSE: See response to question # 14.

58. Please clarify the organization for Volume II (starting on page 86 of 97). As outlined in Section L, the title of the Volume is Factor 1, Tab 1 – Technical Approach, however, the next level of organization also has “tabs” with Tab 1 – Discussion of Sites, Assumptions, Regulatory Process and Required Submittals.

RESPONSE: Solicitation will be amended to read “Volume II - Factor 1: Technical Approach”.

59. Section L, page 87 of 97, Tab 6 – Basis of Estimate states that the “To assist with a crosswalk for the technical and price evaluators, offerors shall provide corresponding basis of estimate page number in the Technical Approach – Volume II, Factor 1, Tab 6 and corresponding basis of estimate page number in the Price and Other Price Related Information – Volume IV, Section II, Tab 3.” Please confirm that the correct volume number for the Price Volume is Volume III.

RESPONSE: Correct Volume III is Price. Solicitation will be amended.

60. Section L, page 89 of 97, Volume IV – Factor 3 Past Performance, Tab 1 – Past Performance Narratives states that “The Offeror should provide a maximum of three (3) projects.” Please confirm that we are to submit Past Performance Narratives for the projects submitted in Volume I, Factor 1 and the maximum number of projects should be four (4) projects.

RESPONSE: See response to question #7.

61. Could you please clarify whether the Basis of Estimate (BOE) needs to be provided for all tasks (Tasks 1 through 10e) or if the BOE needs to be prepared only for the field work (Tasks 5 and 6)?

RESPONSE: A BOE needs to be provided for all tasks 1-10E.

62. We respectfully request an extension to the due date of the proposal, as several of our RFIs will materially and significantly change the approach based on the Government response.

RESPONSE: The proposal due date will be slipped to Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 12:00 noon Central Time.

63. With the limited time between response to questions from the site walk and then the proposal due date we request a four week extension.

RESPONSE: The proposal due date will be slipped to Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 12:00 noon Central Time.

64. Task 5 of the PWS states removal actions for 5.5 acres (Base) and 44.2 acres (4 Options). Attachment K-C, Contract Pricing Work Sheets, states 119.7 acres (Base) and 276.8 acres (4 Options). Please clarify the acreages for the removal actions for the Task 5 Base and Option awards.

RESPONSE: See response to question # 1.

65. Is the Contractor responsible for the cleanup and disposal of the “debris piles” and the “construction debris” described in Task 4?

RESPONSE: See response to question #39.

66. Task 4 describes “track and assist the District in obtaining property ROEs as needed.” Does this include potential door-to-door canvasing activities?

RESPONSE: Yes.

67. How many property ROEs are anticipated?

RESPONSE: We have no idea that this point.

68. It is assumed that vegetation cannot be removed on private residential lots. Please advise whether this is correct.

RESPONSE: Vegetation removal may be required on some residential lots.

69. The PWS states that “an appropriate level” of archaeological reconnaissance and survey shall be required for fieldwork. Does this include private residential lots?

RESPONSE: The contractor should determine what level of archaeological reconnaissance is necessary. Exhibit 8 and Attachment A should assist with this determination.

70. The PWS states that “an appropriate level” of ecological survey and monitoring shall be required for fieldwork. Does this include private residential lots?

RESPONSE: The contractor should determine what level of ecological survey and monitoring is necessary. Exhibit 8 and Attachment A should assist with this determination.

71. What are the limitations and personnel requirements on the removal of vegetation on undeveloped, heavily vegetated parcels?

RESPONSE: Refer to EM 385-1-1. As far as limitations on vegetation removal, the contractor has to identify any TE flora and fauna and be cognizant not to endanger or harm them.

72. Is the contractor expected to perform removal actions in areas where slopes are greater than 30 degrees?

RESPONSE: The contractor is expected to perform removal actions using the appropriate technologies in any areas where it can be done in a safe manner.

73. Why were removal actions not completed in the uninvestigated – unobstructed areas? How have site conditions changed to allow removal actions to take place?

RESPONSE: Refer to Attachment A - Areas BOQJ Cleared DD June 2016, Section 3.0.

74. Volume IV, Tab 2: Will CEHNC allow offerors to submit CPARs in lieu of PPQs?

RESPONSE: No, CPAR cannot be submitted in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaire.

However; USACE will allow PPQs that have been completed in the past 3 years of the solicitation issue date with a relevant project(s).

76. Reference: Section C, PWS Section 3.5 – Task 5 Response Field Activities Question: There are parcels within Areas B, O, Q and J that are too steep to safely traverse and cannot be accessed without the use of rappelling techniques. Considering the safety aspects of conducting MEC clearance using rappelling techniques will the Government exclude those areas above a 30% slope from the work?

RESPONSE: See response to question #72

77. Regarding stated base and optional acreages for AGC, does the Government measure this by parcel size or area accessible for work (i.e. does a 1-acre parcel with 0.25 acres categorized as inaccessible equate to 1 acre or 0.75 acres)?

RESPONSE: That equates to 0.75 acres

78. To decrease the issue of size constraints and separate emails will the Government please accept proposal submissions via the AMDREC site with email confirmation to the POCs listed in the RFP?

RESPONSE: That is acceptable.

79. Due to the complexity of this Solicitation, a forthcoming Amendment, and large amount of unanswered RFIs, will the Government kindly provide a two-week extension for proposal submissions?

RESPONSE: The proposal due date will be slipped to Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 12:00 noon Central Time.

80. Reference: Waikoloa RFP page 1 and Page 80, Section L Offeror’s Questions and Comments Question: As CEHNC is requesting all questions regarding this solicitation to be submitted by 2:00 p.m.

CST on Tuesday, 6 March, 2018, and the questions will not receive a response until sometime after that, with a proposal due date of March 13, there will not likely be enough time to give adequate consideration to the responses to questions. Request a 2‐week extension from the time the questions are answered in order to adequately address this information in our proposal.

RESPONSE: The proposal due date will be slipped to Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 12:00 noon Central Time.

82. Reference: RFP Section L, Page 82 Note.

Question: Due to the amount of information required in Volume 1, Technical Capabilities and Management, can the Organizational Chart not be page counted?

RESPONSE: The Organizational Chart is not included in the page count. The Solicitation will be amended.

83. Reference: RFP Section L Question: Volume I has an overall page limit of 24 pages. We feel it is unrealistic to properly address all the tabs and elements in the Volume within the current page limit, even with the allowance of 11 point font. We respectfully request that the font size be decreased to 10 point font or additional pages be given.

RESPONSE: No.

84. Reference: Pricing Sheet, section 3.5, and section 3.4.6 bullet 15 Question: Since the Government has provided the GIS data for the Former Waikoloa Maneuver Area, can the Government please provide the specific GIS layer that identifies the 5.5 acres for AGC and the 24.2 acres for Analog detect and dig? If not, where did these acreages come from?

RESPONSE: Please see response to 5, 3, 37, and 64.

85. Reference: Section C, PWS Paragraph 1.3 Question: Verbiage in Paragraph 1.3 and other locations with Sections C and L specifically call out Munitions Constituents (MC) sampling including the removal and disposal of same. The approved Decision Document associated with the parcels at Project 02 specifically states in Section 2.2 that MCs require no further action at the site. Considering the PWS specifically identifies MCs sampling, management and disposal are we to implement an MC sampling and analysis plan (SAP) associated with this work, which contradicts the approved Decision Document?

RESPONSE: It was not the intention for the sampling plan to be prepared for MC sampling rather for waste characterization if a chemical release is identified during the remedial action.

86. Reference: Section C, 3.10 Task 10, Cultural Resources and Ecological Resources Plans, Field activities and Reports Question: Typically the designation of “For Official Use Only” is given to documents generated for cultural and ecological resources, with strict requirements on document distribution. No such requirement is listed in the Performance Work Statement, can the contractor assume that FOUO designation and document distribution is not required?

RESPONSE: The contractor should assume that the archeological findings will not distributed and are considered FOUO.

87. Reference: Section C, 3.3.7 Optional Task 3a, Explosive Safety Submission Question: Will the Government supply a location where donor explosives, MEC/MPPEH acceptable to move and MDAS can be stored in approved magazines at Waikoloa Maneuver Area?

RESPONSE: The government will not supply a location for storage. It will be the contractor’s responsibility to make necessary arrangements.

88. Project 02 Site Visit: During the site visit on 27 February 2018 the Government indicated that the actual work areas are unknown at the site. Given the fixed price nature of the Government’s RFP and the fact a contractor cannot possibly quantify a fixed price for field activities when the methods to be used, quantities to be cleared and impacts to parcels owners cannot be identified (road closures, evacuations, etc.), would it not be more appropriate to do this work under a cost-type contract given the fact the Government cannot identify where the work will be conducted and the contractor cannot quantify the quantities and specific methods to address them?

RESPONSE: The contract will remain fixed price. Exhibit 8 is provide to assist in determining the level of effort required.

89. Reference: Attachment J – Task Order Pricing Worksheets Question: The summary worksheet at the front of this attachment appears to be missing Optional Task 7a – Additional Remedial Action Reports (Not to Exceed 5 from the PWS description). Can the Government please provide a corrected summary worksheet as a replacement that includes Optional Task 7a?

RESPONSE: The government will provide an amended Attachment J.

90. Paragraph 3.5.2.5.1.3The PWS states "All seed locations shall be surveyed by a licensed surveyor with locations having centimeter accuracy." Is a licensed surveyor required for surveying the seed locations? The Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force's Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans Template, Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response (Final Draft December 2015) and EM 200-1-15 (30 Oct 2015) Technical Guidance for Military Munitions Response Actions, does not require a "licensed" surveyor.

Response: See response to question #2.

91. Paragraph 3.7.1.1Optional Task 7a, Additional RAR is not reflected in Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices.

Response: The Solicitation will be amended.

92. Paragraph 3.8.2 Optional Task 8a, Additional Meeting. Please confirm that the additional meeting requirements are identical to the meeting requirements listed under Section 3.8.7.

Response: Meeting requirements will be the same.

93. Paragraph 3.9 Optional Task 9, Community Relations Plan. Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices does not reflect that this is an option.

Response: The Solicitation will be amended.

94. Paragraph 3.10.1 The Decision Document (Section 11.2, page 30) states that “Since there are no known sensitive cultural, archaeological, or biological items on the site, an archaeologist will not accompany the field crew; however, education of what to do in the event of unexpected discovery will be included in field work plans.” PWS Section 3.10.6 says that appropriate levels of archaeological and biological monitoring required. Site visit indicates the Unobstructed Areas have been previously disturbed or are being used. It does not appear an archaeologist or biologist monitor would be needed during field activities. Please resolve discrepancy.

Response: It is unlikely the Archaeologist and biologist will be required in the field, however, they may be needed to assist in writing the CRP and ERP with in the Environmental Protection Plan.

The gulch or drainage ravine has not been developed and portion have not been disturbed.

95. Paragraph 6.1 The PWS states "The government will issue appraisals to support exercising subsequent option periods using AFARS 42.15 and ER 715-1-19." Please confirm whether there are option periods for this PWS.

Response: There are no option periods to this contract. The sentence will be struck from the solicitation.

96. Section L Please confirm that the proposal is due on Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 12:00 noon Central Time.

Response: The proposal due date will be slipped to Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 12:00 noon Central

97. Section L The PWS states "The joint venture shall include a copy of its SBA approval of the joint venture arrangement." Is this a requirement? Also, on page 87, Volume III – Factor 2, Price, cites under item 3. Section I, Tab 3, Joint Venture/Mentor Protégé Agreements and Approvals that a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be submitted with the proposal in Volume IV and that failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. Please confirm that the agreement actually needs to appear in Volume III in Tab 3.

Response: See response to question #54.

98. Section L Tab 1, Past Performance Project Narratives: The PWS states "Data concerning the prime Offeror should be provided first, followed by each proposed key subcontractor, in alphabetical order."

Please confirm that the projects described in the past performance narratives do not have to be performed as Prime Contractors to the government and relevant past performance gained as a subcontractor is acceptable.

Response: Past Performance as a sub-contractor is acceptable.

99. Section L - Additionally, per Project Narratives, under Volume IV, Factor 3, Past Performance, Tab 1, Past Performance Project Narratives (page 89), states that “the Offeror should provide a maximum of three (3) projects.” However, the solicitation in Volume I asks for at least two but no more than four projects to be provided (page 83), as well as requiring a reference and PPQ for each presented project (page 90). Please confirm that the offeror should provide a narrative for all projects provided in Volume I and that only three projects are required for Volume I.

Response: The offeror should provide at least 2 but no more than four. The solicitation will be amended.

100. Section L - The numbering of the proposal volumes seems off. Please confirm that the numbering below is the correct numbering, and that Volume II should not actually be Factor 2 (instead of Factor 1, as currently appears on solicitation page 86), with Factors 3 and 4 following suit and appearing with Volumes III and IV, respectively? Numbering for volumes given in the solicitation is currently as follows:

Volume I, Factor I: Technical Capabilities and Management Volume II, Factor 1, Tab 1: Technical Approach (even though Tabs 1-6 appear within the volume – does the volume itself need to be Tab 1, as well)?

Volume III, Factor 2: Price Volume IV, Factor 3: Past Performance Response: See response to question #14.

101. Section L Under Volume III, Tab 3, Project Costs, the Proof of Financial Capability and Stability line item (page 89) states that, “upon request of the Contracting Officer, Offerors, including team members, are required to submit copies of their most recent annual reports, audited financial statements (balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement with auditor opinion or recent copies of Dun and Bradstreet (D&B)/Standard & Poor’s (S&P) reports. This information will be used to establish responsibility in accordance with FAR Part 9.1.” Please confirm that offerors do not need to submit this information with the proposal.

Response: Confirmed, offerors do not need to submit this information with the proposal.

102. Section L - Please confirm that the “proposal data form” specified on page 82 under items excluded from the page count is the Exhibit 6 form to be submitted in Volume I.

Response: There are several data forms in the solicitation;

Attachment C - Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment D - Experience - Past Performance Reference Attachment E - Key Personnel Resume Format Attachment F - Letter of Commitment for Key Personnel Attachment G - Letter of Commitment for Key Subcontractor

103. Section L Please confirm that it is Volume III is excluded from the page count.

Response: See response to question #8.

104. Section L Please confirm that References in Volume IV are excluded from the page count.

Response: See responses to questions #8 and #9.

105. Section L Please confirm that the “Tab 6 – Basis of Estimate” instructions on solicitation page 87, i.e., “to assist with a crosswalk for the technical and price evaluators, offerors shall provide corresponding basis of estimate page number in the Technical Approach – Volume II, Factor 1, Tab 6 and corresponding basis of estimate page number in the Price and Other Price Related Information – Volume IV, Section II, Tab 3” should, in fact, list Volume III, Factor 2, Price, Section II, Tab 3, item f.

Response: See response to question #59.

106. Section L - Can CPARS completed within the last 3 years be submitted instead of PPQs?

Response: See response to question #74.

107. Per Section 3.4.6 Specific Task Requirements - The GeoSpatial Data shall include:

Track and assist the District in obtaining Property Rights-of-Entry as needed using the Government provided spreadsheet of TMK, landowner(s), and ROE documents and implement in a GIS using the County TMK GIS database. Has ROE been obtained for any of the areas identified as the focus of this project? Will the contractor be required to obtain ROE in any way, or just track ROE in a GIS database?

What type of assistance is anticipated?

Response: No ROEs have been obtained. There is the potential for activities such as door-to-door canvasing.

108. Per Section 3.5.2.5.1 Prepare for and Perform DGM: Please confirm the Government prefers DGM and removal rather than removal alone.

Response: Advanced Geophysical Classification (AGC) methods should be utilized to the maximum extent practical

109. Per Section 3.7.6 Specific Task Requirements “Some identified priority properties may have already been cleared, and not require remedial action work, but will still require an RAR. The RARs for those (cleared) properties will be produced using existing removal action data.”

Will existing data and documentation for the previous clearances be provided prior to the proposal due date? If not, what assumptions should be made for these RARs?

What if existing data/documentation at previously cleared areas does not support achievement of the RAOs for an acceptable end state? If additional fieldwork is necessary to reach agreement with the regulatory agencies, can we assume that it is not included under this contract?

Response: Exhibit 8 has several SSFRs for the Areas B, O, Q, J Cleared. If any additional Reports are available they will be provided after award. If existing data/documentation does not support achievement of the RAOs for an acceptable end state, the report should state so. At this point in time no rework is planned.

110. Per Section 3.7.2, the RARs shall document the results of the RA and be in substantial compliance with OSWER Directive 9355.0-39FS, "Remedial Action Report-Documentation for Operable Unit Completion," June 1992; CEMP-CED MEMO, SUBJECT: Trial Period for Risk Management Methodology at Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) Projects, Jan 3, 2017; DID HNC-011.02 and EP1110-1-18."

Should the Remedial Action Reports (RARs) comply with the requirements of the SSFR as stated in DID

HNC 011.02?

Does this apply to the areas that have been previously cleared? If so, will all information required by DID HNC 011.02 be provided such as the quality control and quality assurance activities and results, MEC and MC sampling activities and results, etc.?

Response: The RAR should substantially meet the requirements of the SSFR DID. It is understood that some information may not be available, thus the substantially meet. The areas where removals have occurred are documented in SSFRs which will be provided after award.

111. Section 6.2.3.3 states that Key personnel are not routinely changed (more than 2 times) on one or more projects (or more than 3 times for key personnel overseeing contract requirements over the life of the contract – Program Manager, Property Manager, Contracts Manager, Corporate Quality Manager, and Corporate Health and Safety Officer) due to the inability of the contractor to retain employees or hire competent employees for those key positions. Is the Property Manager a key personnel position? It is not listed in Section 5.4 Key Personnel (page 30 in new solicitation) or Section L Element 3 (page 84 in new solicitation). If not, can we assume that it is not necessary to provide a resume for the Property Manager?

Response: References to Property Manager will be deleted from the solicitation.

112. Section L, Volume I, Tab 1 “The offeror shall provide specific information as to the types and amounts (number of line items, dollar value) of Government Property under its control and how it was accounted for, managed, and controlled by the offeror.”

Will Government Property be transferred to the contractor as part of this project? Will the Government Property be stored at a Government facility or will the contractor need to obtain storage facility? If so, please provide an inventory so contractor can account for its management/tracking.

If Government Property is not expected to be a significant part of this project, we request that this requirement be removed from Section L.

Response: References to government furnished property will be removed from the solicitation.

113. Section L, Volume IV, Tab 2 - "Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. USACE will allow PPQs that have been completed within the last 3 years as of the solicitation issue date with a relevant project(s)."

Will USACE accept PPQs within the last 3 years that are in a different format from Attachment C?

Response: Yes, as long as the same overall information is provided.

114. Attachment C - Please confirm that we return the Questionnaire via email to the Contract Specialist at Michelle.blackmon@usace.army.mil.

Response: Attachment C will be amended.

115. Site Visit - Confirm that the entire Waimea Transfer Station footprint is Obstructed, including the two areas marked on the maps as Unobstructed.

Response: Potentially, portions of the Waimea Transfer Station footprint are Unobstructed. The offeror should use the data provided in Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8 as the basis of its estimate.

116. Site Visit - USACE mentioned that there was a spreadsheet with acreage breakdown and level of effort. Which exhibit or attachment provided this spreadsheet?

Response: The commenter was in error or misunderstood. Exhibit 7 provides maps and GIS boundaries. Exhibit 8 provides reports from previous removal actions in the Areas B, O, Q, J – Cleared MRS. The offeror should use these documents and data to determine acreage breakdown and level of effort.

117. Site Visit - The selected remedy in the Decision Document includes a cleanup of surface and subsurface munitions in approximately 119.7 acres of the MRS that are uninvestigated areas and potentially unobstructed. Will all 119.7 acres be awarded as part of this solicitation as indicated during the site walk?

Response: The Government intends to award all 119.7 acres but is based upon availability of funds.

118. Site Visit - Please provide clarification between the Decision Document 119.7 acres – Unobstructed and PWS Section 3.5 ~50 acres. Are the PWS options intended to be unit rates and the Govt will award acreage (up to 119.7 acres) in option increments?

Response: See response to question #1.

119. Site Visit - Does USACE have Rights-Of-Entries (ROEs) for all 119.7 acres? If not, will they be obtaining ROEs for missing parcels? Will USACE obtain ROEs to access areas not accessible by existing roads?

Response: USACE will be pursuing ROEs for all 119.7 acres.