Final_Questions_and_Answers_Round_1_Responses.docx

Questions and Answers Round 1

1. Please make available the anticipated funding profile for the POP to be used in preparing our schedule.

Answer: Offeror should assume the Government will fully fund Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2 when the projects are “awarded.”

2. SOW page 3-2: Is IPR still working on the site? If so, what coordination is the Contractor anticipated to have with IPR?

Answer: IPR is not currently working on the site. Coordination will involve assuring that remedial activities do not conflict with any subsequent activities by IPR. The proposal schedule and price should assume that IPR will not be working at the site during remedial actions.

3. SOW page 5-24, Section 5.11.1.1: Please provide the missing number of meetings.

Answer: SOW Section 5.11.1.1 has been revised as follows, “For bidding purposes, the CONTRACTOR should assume there will be two project meetings that will be held at the OEPA Northwest District offices in Bowling Green, Ohio or at a public facility located near Luckey, Ohio.”

4. Section 01 32 01.00 10, page 11 (Subsection 3.6): Where will the periodic schedule update meetings be held?

Answer: The periodic schedule updates may be conducted during the Conference Calls/Progress Meetings described in SOW Section 5.11.1.2. These would be held at the project site and via teleconferencing with individuals at other locations.

5. Section 02 61 13, 1.1.2 “Work Plans” indicates 30 calendar days for Governments review of each work plan. Section J, example project Phase 1, indicates a 60 day review cycle for each work plan version. Which is correct?

Answer: The 60 day review cycle for each work plan identified in Section J will be used. UFGS 02 61 13 [1.1.2 Work Plans] has been revised as follows; “Allow 60 calendar days in the schedule for the Government's review of each work plan version (Preliminary Draft, Draft, and Final).”

6. Section 02 61 13, 3.4.1.4, Excavation Limits: The figures show excavation outside the site boundary. Does USACE have an agreement in place to work on this property, including the railroad bed?

Answer: Access agreements will be available for off-site properties at the time a remediation task order is awarded

7. Will IPR be performing demolition work on the site during the contract POP?

Answer: See response to question 2

8. Will green slats be required for the perimeter fence?

Answer: Green slats are not required for the perimeter fence

9. SOW Section 6.1.8 (1st paragraph, last sentence) references the qualifications of the Regulatory Specialist rather than the Waste Manager. Is the Waste Manager and the Regulatory Specialist the same position?

Answer: Reference to the Regulatory Specialist in SOW Section 6.1.8 has been changed to Waste Manager

10. SOW Section 6.1 states “It is expected that key CONTRACTOR personnel for each Task Order shall participate in defining the CONTRACTOR’S proposed activities, methods and requirements, and shall be present on-site for the duration of Task Order execution.” The prior paragraph identifies the Program Manager and Safety & Health Manager (SHM) along with other key contractor personnel positions. Program Manager and SHM positions are typically program rather than Task Order positions and, while they are present on site on an as-needed basis, are typically not on site full time during Task Order execution. Please clarify the Program Manager and SHM positions are considered program-level rather than Task order key personnel positions, and are not required to be on site full time during task order execution since the Program Manager is the point of contact with CELRB prior to task order issuance and a separate onsite safety position (SSHO) is identified.

Answer: The Program Manager and SHM are considered program-level positions and are not required to be onsite full time during task order execution. SOW Section 6.1 has been revised as follows, “Personnel that must be onsite full time during task order execution include the Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officer, Radiation Safety Officer, and Waste Manager”.

11. Please also clarify the District requires key Task Order personnel to be on site during periods of active field work rather than the duration of Task Order execution as some Task Orders (i.e., Work Plans, Reports) do not require an on-site presence and it is cost effective to perform those activities off site.

Answer: Key Task Order personnel are required to be onsite during active periods of field work rather than the duration of the task order

12. Please confirm that additional corporate personnel involved in supporting Task Order execution as needed, such as those identified in SOW Section 6.3, are not required to be on site for the duration of Task Order execution as stated in Section 6.1.

Answer: Additional corporate personnel involved in supporting Task Order execution are not required to be onsite during the duration of the task order

13. SOW Section 6.1.1 requires the Program Manager to have BOTH a professional registration and a PMP. In our experience, FUSRAP Program Managers universally possess professional registrations, but do not always have a PMP. It is unusually restrictive to require a Program Manager to have both Project Management Professional (PMP) certification and professional registration in their respective field. This requirement has not been imposed in other USACE contracts, including for FUSRAP remediation contracts of similar or larger size and complexity than the Luckey FUSRAP project. By requiring both qualifications, proven, successful FUSRAP Program Managers may not meet these qualifications and be excluded from this bid. For these highly qualified personnel, there is insufficient time to obtain a PMP prior to the proposal due date. Please consider (1) removing the requirement for a PMP for the Program Manager, (2) allowing the Program Manager to have at least five (5) years of cost reimbursable contracting experience in lieu of a PMP, or (3) require that the Program Manager obtain his or her PMP prior to the issuance of the first cost reimbursable Task Order.

Answer: The Program Manager is not required to have both professional certification and a PMP. SOW Section 6.1 has been revised as follows, “Professional registration, in their respective field, where applicable or available, or certification as a Project Management Professional (PMP)”.

14. SOW Section 6.1.6, 3rd Bulleted Item: The requirement for the on-site Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) to be a registered Certified Health Physicist (CHP) or have access to at least one CHP on site is overly restrictive, particularly for the Luckey site where activity levels are relatively low. It is respectfully requested the District allow alternative qualifications for the RSO, including registration by the National Registry of Radiation Protection Technologists (NRRPT) or additional years’ relevant experience in lieu of a CHP, provided they have ready access to a CHP who can mobilize to the site in a timely manner (i.e., the same day) when needed to assist in making any prompt corrective actions.

Answer: The RSO is not required to have a professional health physics certification (CHP). SOW Section 6.1.6 has been revised as follows, “Professional health physics certification (CHP), or demonstrated completion of specialty training including, but not limited to: radiation safety instrumentation, air monitoring (occupational and effluent), shielding, internal and external dosimetry, non-destructive assay (gamma and alpha spectroscopy), Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) and respiratory protection.”

Note that the project team must include a CHP

15. SOW Section 6.1.8: The requirement for the Waste Manager to have a college degree is overly restrictive. A majority of highly-qualified, experienced Waste Managers in the marketplace who coordinate packaging, transport and disposal of Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW), Mixed Waste (MW) and other wastes at FUSRAP and other Department of Defense (DoD) sites do not have a college degree. It is respectfully requested the District allow substitution of Waste Broker certification by the Army Joint Munitions Command, DoD’s Executive Agent for LLRW and MW Management, for the requirement to have a college degree.

Answer: The Waste Manager is not required to have a college degree. SOW Section 6.1.8 has been revised as follows, “A college degree from an accredited school in engineering, construction management, health physics, geology, chemistry, or a related field or 10 years experience performing waste management activities associated with coordinating packaging, transport and disposal of Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW), Mixed Waste (MW) and other wastes at FUSRAP and other Department of Defense (DoD) sites.”

16. SOW Section 6.1.9: Government regulatory agencies and independent laboratory accreditation authorities recognize it is desirable for separate personnel to perform/lead hands-on sampling & lab analysis vs. ensuring on-going sampling and analytical quality. The former, typically referred to as a Lab Analyst, Chemist or Lab Manager depending on the scale and number of personnel involved, is a full-time on site position. The latter, frequently referred to as a Project Chemist or Chemical Quality Control Coordinator (CQCC), ensures data quality in preparation of data packages, on-going review and formal audits to ensure compliance with sampling & analysis procedures, and providing training/guidance to personnel performing sampling and lab analysis to troubleshoot problems and improve performance. The Project Chemist or CQCC is on site on a regular, frequent basis but need not be there full time. Please clarify which of these two positions the District is looking for the key personnel position in SOW Section 6.1.9.

Answer: The Project Chemist described in SOW Section 6.1.9 is analogous with the Project Chemist/Chemical Quality Control Coordinator identified in the question. This individual will not be doing field work and is therefore not required to be on site full time. SOW Section 6.1.9 has been revised as follows, “The Project Chemist will be expected manage project tasks associated with sampling and analysis including preparation of the SAP, instruct field personnel in sampling and preservation requirements, coordinate with the analytical laboratory to ensure readiness to implement project specific requirements, review analytical data as it becomes available to insure conformance with quality standards, implement corrective actions in accordance with these specifications when review of data uncovers deficiencies, and serve as a point of contact for the USACE KO for issues related to environmental chemistry.”

17. RFP L.3.1.3 references the inclusion of the Total Compensation Plan in Vol II. Volume II is now Past Performance. Are we to provide the Total Compensation Plan in Vol III, only?

Answer: Correct, only in Vol III.

18. Page counts have been reduced from those in the draft RFP. At the time of the draft RFP 25 pages each were allotted for Volumes I and III (Conceptual Approach and Organization/Management Plan) and 20 pages were allotted for resumes (Vol II), for a total of 80 pages. At the time of the draft RFP we requested an increase in the total number of pages for the Conceptual Approach and Organization/Management Plan due to the complexity of the site. In the final RFP, only 75 pages are allotted for Conceptual Approach and Organization/Management, which now includes resumes of key personnel. Please either exclude the resumes from the total page count, or increase the total number of pages to at least 90 for Vol I in order to enable bidders to provide a complete, comprehensive and cohesive proposal.

Answer: Resumes are excluded from the total page count

19. L.2.7.2, pages counted: Please exclude attachments to Vol I from the page count as well (APP, OSHA 300 and 300 A forms, EMR letters).

Answer: Attachments to Volume I are excluded from the total page count

20. Section L, 3.1.1, page 66 RFP: Last paragraph of section references “The offeror’s schedule”, the schedule required to demonstrate the offeror’s ability to complete the SOW within the proposed contract duration will be quite lengthy and if restricted to 11 x 17 will use up a significant number of pages. It is suggested that the USACE allow the schedule to be submitted as plate(s) and exempt from page count.

Answer: The schedule should be based on completing Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2. It may be submitted as a plate that will be included in the page count.

21. Section L, 3.1.2, page 67: Would the USACE accept the DOE equivalent of an APP for submission to meet this requirement?

Answer: Yes

22. Clause 52.222-23, page 73 of RFP: Clarification is requested as to what portions of the SOW the government considers to be “Construction”.

Answer: The following activity is considered construction: Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities (331XX0104)

23. Section 3.2 of SOW, Page 3-2: Text states that IPR resumed demolition and salvage activities in 2013, please confirm that the aerial of the buildings shown in Figure 3 of Appendix A depicts current infrastructure on site.

Answer: Current site infrastructure can be viewed during the site visit

24. Section 4.3.2.7 of SOW, Page 4-7: Text references the FUSRAP-contaminated sediment north of the property boundary. Please provide copies of the access agreements/Rights of Entry for this property and for property east of site boundary for which FUSRAP contamination is depicted on figures 4 and 5. This is required to understand any work limitations that will impact technical approach.

Answer: Access agreements will be available for off-site properties at the time a remediation task order is awarded

25. Section 5.0 of SOW, Page 5-1: Text references off-site disposal of FUSRAP material from site at an USACE accepted facility. Please provide list of facilities that are currently accepted/approved by USACE to accept the waste streams identified in Section 1.2 of the SOW.

Answer: The Offeror must proposed a facility(ies) that is (are) capable of handling the waste streams from the site

26. Section 5.1.2.3 of SOW, Page 5-4: Please identify if USACE personnel on site will be covered by the contractors APP/SSHP?

Answer: USACE personnel will follow on-site requirements outlined in the Contractor’s APP/SSHP. The Contractor will not be responsible for medical surveillance of USACE personnel and associated record keeping requirements (excluding any site-specific training of USACE personnel).

27. Section 5.1.2.3 of SOW, Page 5-4: Please confirm that any USACE personnel on site will be covered by Buffalo District Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program and Radiation Protection Plans and that contractor will have no responsibility or liability.

Answer: USACE personnel will follow the Contractor’s site access requirements pursuant to their CBDPP and RPP. The Contractor will not be responsible for medical surveillance of USACE personnel and associated record keeping requirements (excluding any site-specific training of USACE personnel)

28. Section 5.2.4 of SOW, Page 5-17: Please provide schedule of MW sampling schedule/frequency to permit planning of MW decommissioning and installation to minimize disruption.

Answer: Groundwater monitoring requirements are identified in the Record of Decision for the Groundwater Operable Unit. It requires semi-annual monitoring during the soils remedy.

29. Section J, Sample Project #2, Section 3.0: As part of the detailed backup supporting the cost estimate, would the USACE allow the Offeror to submit a schedule for the sample problem to support Durations and LOE used in developing the cost estimate. If so, may the offeror present as plate(s), to facilitate government review?

Answer: The Offeror should submit a schedule that is based on completing Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2. It may be submitted as a plate that will be included in the page count

30. Section 2.6.1: A site visit is scheduled for Monday December 1. Since this current schedule would require bidders to travel on Sunday of Thanksgiving Holiday weekend, would it be possible to schedule the site visit a little later in the week ? Thank you for your consideration.

Answer: The site visit has been rescheduled to Monday, Dec 15

31. Please provide the attachments to the SOW as referenced on FBO.gov Answer: All attachments are either on FBO.Gov or located here:

https://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/Portals/45/docs/Contracting/Luckey-SOW-Attachments.zip

32. Due to the complex and specific nature of the RFP, the loss of critical preparation time due to multiple holidays, and the need for coordination of our small business lead team, respectfully request a one month extension on the due date.

Answer: The proposal submission date has been revised to 21 January 2015, 2:00 pm (1400)

33. In Section L, 3.1.2 – Safety Approach, the RFP requests “One of the Offeror’s existing Accident Prevention Plans (APP) prepared within the last three years from the date of this Request for Proposal for a hazardous waste project. The APP provided shall be complete, including the corresponding Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP) and any other appendices (i.e. Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP)) or attachments.” Does an existing CBDPP attachment need to come from the prime, or can a CBDPP, prepared and approved for implementation within the last 3 years, be provided by a team member?

Answer: The CBDPP can be provided by a team member

34. RFP Section L, p. 65 - Table 1 and p. 69, Section 3.2, Volume II, Factor II, Past Performance. The RFP allocates 25 pages for the Past Performance Factor, which does not include PPQs and other performance recognition documentation to be submitted as an attachment to Volume II.

1) Does the Buffalo District intend for offerors to submit five project descriptions only (i.e., 5-pages each or other allocation totaling 25 pages) and not to include a past performance/ experience narrative or project matrices)?

2) May offerors reallocate any unused pages from the 25 allocated in Volume II to Volume I?

35. The Excel sheets for the sample tasks still contained COE pricing when the cells are unhidden.

Answer: The pricing data contained within the task order bid sheets are numerical relics from various iterations of the Current Working Estimate (CWE) for the entire project that were utilized when developing the SOW. This information should not be relied upon when developing cost estimates for this statement of work.

36. Section L, page 68, Item 2, resumes for key personnel are requested. Key Personnel are identified in SOW Section 6.1. However, Item 2 goes beyond to request resumes for non-key personnel in SOW Sections 6.2 through 6.3.4. Please note that SOW Section 6.2 doesn’t identify any specific positions, just types of personnel. Are we to provide resumes for (a) key and non-key personnel (SOW Sections 6.1 through 6.3.4), (b) just the 9 key personnel (SOW Section 6.1), (c) the 9 key personnel in SOW Section 6.1 and the 4 non-key personnel in SOW Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and 6.3.4?

Answer: Provide resumes for the key personnel identified in SOW Sections 6.1.1 through 6.1.9

37. Section J, page 6-1, 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence requests identification of alternates for each key person. Also, this paragraph identifies 10 Key Personnel. Nine Key Personnel are identified in SOW Section 6.1 (no Assistant RSO). Are we to identify alternate key personnel and provide their resumes with our proposal, including an Assistant RSO?

Answer: The names and resumes of alternate key personnel are not required in the proposal. The successful Offeror will be required to provide names and resumes of key alternates after contract award.

38. Section M, page 80, Item 3.2, 4th paragraph, last sentence. Only a portion of the sentence is presented and it appears to pertain to past performance with respect to Small Business utilization. Since this contract is set aside for SB, will this requirement be deleted?

Answer: This requirement has been removed

39. Section L, page 66, Item 3.1.1, paragraph 3 implies that USACE is requesting in this section a detailed schedule to complete the entire project. The 2nd sentence says: “Offeror’s capability to complete the contract within the proposed contract duration and the validity of the proposed schedule may be evaluated more favorably.” The 3rd sentence requests evidence that the schedule is “realistic and achievable.” The last sentence in the paragraph describes the Government’s right to “accept or decline any deviation from the proposed schedule…” SOW 01 32 01 defines Schedule requirements. Are we correct that the only requirement for a Schedule pertains to our responses to TO 001 and the two Sample Tasks and that our discussion of Schedule in the Conceptual Approach is not to include a detailed schedule of activities, interfaces and durations for the contract duration?

Answer: The Offeror’s schedule should pertain to Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2

40. Section L, page 68, Item 3.1.3, Sub number 5 “2. Personnel identified by name, discipline, task area, and team member office.” Please define “task area.”

Answer: “Task area” is the project activity(ies) to be performed by the team member

41. Section J, Appendix B, UFGS Specification 02 81 00 Transportation and Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Item 1.4.1 calls for designation of a Transportation and Disposal Coordinator with reference to qualifications in Section 01 45 00. No qualifications are listed in this section. What qualifications are required for this position?

Answer: The Transportation and Disposal Coordinator is considered the same individual as the Waste Manager (see SOW Section 6.1.8). UFGS 02 81 00 has been revised as follows:

1.4.1 Waste Manager

Designate, by position and title, one person to act as the Waste Manager who will serve as a single point of contact for all waste management regulatory matters and have overall responsibility for total waste management and disposal compliance, including, but not limited to accurate identification and classification of regulated materials; determination of proper shipping names; preparation of shipping documents for all materials transported using language concurred with by the USACE; completion of all exception and discrepancy reports; identification and compliance with marking, labeling, packaging and placarding requirements; preparation and submission of Daily Status Tracking Reports; coordination with USACE, USACE representatives, disposal facility, and transportation agencies as applicable; and preparation and submission of any other documents required by federal, state, and local laws and regulations, by USACE, or the disposal facility. The Waste Manager must coordinate review and approval procedures for all manifests. The Waste Manager must have the following qualifications:

· A college degree from an accredited school in engineering, construction management, health physics, geology, chemistry, or a related field or 10 years experience performing waste management activities associated with coordinating packaging, transport and disposal of Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW), Mixed Waste (MW) and other wastes at FUSRAP and other Department of Defense (DoD) sites

· The capability to identify all required permits

· Specialized training in Hazardous Materials Transportation

· Requirements for DOT certification

42. Section L, Item 3.1.1 states that a schedule shall be included with Factor I, Subfactor 1 – Conceptual Approach. This item further states that this “schedule will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s understanding of all activities associated with design and construction of all project features” and the “Offeror’s capability to complete the contract within the proposed contract duration.” First, what should be assumed as the “proposed contract duration”? Is this schedule to assume some level of funding, which would therefore establish work levels? Additionally, how detailed of a schedule is the USACE looking for (e.g., a high level schedule)? If significant detail is being sought, the schedule could be fairly lengthy. If this is the case, it would seem prudent to exclude the schedule from the page count. Please clarify.

Answer: See responses to questions 20, 29 and 39

43. Section L, Item 3.1.2 requests what will most likely amount to several pages of information relative to the Offeror’s corporate safety and health program, and Accident Summary information for each team member. Although this section does state that the Accident Prevention Plan (APP) shall be provided as an appendix to Volume I, it is not clear as to whether the APP or any of these other supplemental health and safety documents is to be included as part of the Factor 1, Subfactor 2 page count. Please clarify as to whether these documents can be excluded from the page limitations. As an aside, since this information is not specifically called out in the evaluation factors in Item 3.1.2 of Section M, it would seem logical that it should not be included in the page limitation.

Answer: See response to question 19

44. Section J, Item 3.2.1, last paragraph states that “the contractor shall coordinate with USACE and the property owner to ensure that remedial activities do not conflict with any activities proposed by the property owner.” Please clarify. Specifically, what activities should we assume will be performed by the property owner?

Answer: See response to question 2

45. Section J, Item 3.2.2 states that “the current site owner, IPR, resumed demolition and salvage activities during late 2013.” Are offeror’s to assume that such demolition and salvage activities might be ongoing during the project period?

Answer: See response to question 2

46. General question: What, if anything, are the contractor’s responsibilities with respect to scrap/debris stockpiles from previous demolition efforts, in areas where soil remediation is to take place?

Answer: Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2 are not affected by the scrap/debris piles. Scrap/debris stockpiles that contain FUSRAP contaminants above the cleanup goals identified in SOW section 4.3.1 shall be managed, handled and disposed as FUSRAP-contaminated soils/fill and debris. Non-FUSRAP contaminated scrap/debris, if present, shall be managed in accordance with USACE and OEPA requirements. Non-contaminated scrap/debris stockpiles are excluded from the SOW.

47. Section J, Item 4.1, third paragraph discusses several NPDES outfalls. What is the status of these NPDES outfalls? Specifically, can the contractor assume that they can be utilized in performance of the scope of work?

Answer: The site is vacant and the NPDES outfalls are not used. Water discharges from the site must be in accordance with the Contractor-prepared and USACE-approved Water Management Plan described in SOW Section 5.1.2.8. The previous NPDES outfalls should have no relevance on water discharge locations used during the remedial action.

48. Section J, Item 4.3.2.2 provides a discussion of Trenches 2 and 7; however, no mention is made of the other disposal trenches. Please clarify.

Answer: Information on other disposal trenches is available in the RI report

49. Section J, second bullet of Item 4.3.2 states that “Figure 5 shows the modeled lateral extent and maximum (emphasis added) depths of soils, fill, and debris contaminated by …” A substantial portion of the trench area, however, in Figure 5 is labeled as being greater than 18 feet bgs. A quick look at anticipated waste quantities would indicate a potential maximum contamination depth much greater than 18 feet bgs. Please provide information regarding anticipated excavation depths reflective of these projected waste quantities. Additionally, the last sentence of Section 4.3.2.2 states that FUSRAP-contaminated wastes in Trench 2 are “present from the ground surface to 20 ft bgs.” Please clarify these differences.

Answer: The modeled depth of contamination in the northeast corner of the site, illustrated on Figure 5, is greater than 18 feet below ground surface. Data used to construct the figure is provided in Attachment 3 – Volume Estimate Summary. The SED column of the data tables represents Sample Ending Depth (feet below ground surface). The SBD column represents sample beginning depth (feet below ground surface).

50. Section J, last paragraph of Item 4.3.2.4 discusses debris piles, which are remnants of ore staging and disposal activities, being located south and east of the sewage treatment plant sand filters. It is not clear whether these debris piles are to be remediated as a part of this work scope. Please clarify.

Answer: Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2 are not affected by the debris piles south and east of the sewage treatment plant sand filters. Contamination depths at the debris piles are relative to existing ground surface (as opposed to the original ground surface beneath the piles).

51. General question: To what extent does the demolition of facilities need to be discussed as a part of the Conceptual Approach? As reflected in Section 5 of the Scope of Work, the demolition of the production building and annex is part of the scope to the extent that this work is necessary to access FUSRAP-contaminated soils/fill within or underneath these facilities. Furthermore, as reflected in Figure 5 of the Scope of Work, contamination is assumed to be under the southern end of these facilities based on modeling. Although item 3.1.1 of Section L discusses debris remediation, there is no specific mention of the need to discuss demolition activities. Since these activities seem eminent, please clarify.

Answer: Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2 do not require demolition of facilities

52. Section J, 8th bullet in Section 5 includes the “on-site management of any non-FUSRAP-contaminated soils/fill and debris (i.e., chemically-contaminated) in accordance USACE and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) requirements.” Please specify what the requirements are for the “on-site management” of these materials, and/or where they can be found, including how they are to be managed, how long they are to be managed, etc.

Answer: Offerors should describe their approach to on-site management of these contaminated materials, if encountered, in the technical approach section of their proposal. Details of how the materials are managed will be identified in contractor-prepared and USACE-accepted submittals, Site Operations Plan, Sampling Plan, and Regulatory Compliance Plan. The final disposition of these materials will be determined jointly by USACE, OEPA, and the site owner.

53. General question: How will the sampling of monitoring wells be handled during the implementation of the scope of work? Nothing could specifically be found in the Scope of Work indicating that it is a part of this work scope. Who will be performing this monitoring, and how is this expected to be integrated into the ongoing remediation activities?

Answer: Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2 do not require monitoring of the groundwater monitoring wells

54. General question: What is the USACE anticipated adverse weather days by month for the Luckey Site?

Answer: The Offeror’s proposal should assume no adverse weather days

55. The Record of Decision (ROD) (SAIC 2006) Section 7.1.2, p. 16, states “The critical group is defined based on the reasonable future use of a site, which for Luckey site has been identified as the subsistence farmer.” ROD Table 7.1 identifies the maximum exposure depth for the subsistence farmer as 0-10 ft. The ROD also states that contaminated soils do not pose a risk to groundwater or to ecological receptors. Therefore, excavation of soils contaminated above cleanup goals listed in the ROD, Table 8.1 to a maximum depth of 10 ft bgs would meet all of the RAOs listed on ROD p. 22; however, the RFP does not state a maximum excavation depth. Please provide the required maximum excavation depth.

Answer: All soils that exceed the cleanup criteria specified in the ROD for FUSRAP-related constituents, regardless of depth, must be excavated and disposed of by the Contractor. The modeled depth of FUSRAP-contaminated soils/fill/debris is illustrated in Figure 5.

56. The 9th bullet of the Scope of Services under Sample Project #2 states that the work under this sample project includes “decommissioning, installation, and development of groundwater monitoring wells.” According to Section 5.2.4 of the Scope of Work, the costs for these activities are to be included under WBS element 331XX0204. However, the bid schedule for Sample Project #2 does not include a line item for 331XX0204. Please clarify where the costs for performing the decommissioning, installation, and development of groundwater monitoring wells should go?

Answer: The requirement for decommissioning, installation, and development of groundwater monitoring wells has been removed from Sample Project #2

57. Section J, Appendix B, UFGS Section 02 81 00 Transportation and Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Item 3.2.6 states that the CO/COR will review and approve shipping documents. Does this mean that the CO/COR will be signing the waste shipping documents (e.g., the manifest)?

Answer: The COR or other authorized USACE representative on site will sign the waste shipping documents

58. Section J, Appendix B, UFGS Section 31 11 00 (3.6 Disposal of Materials) Is there a designated disposal area onsite? If so where is it?

Answer: There is currently no designated disposal area onsite

59. Section J, Appendix B, UFGS Section 02 61 13, Table 2.2-2 (Page 8). The Test Method(s) specified for Ra-226 are EPA 903.0/903.1. Both of these methods are designed to analyze Ra-226 in drinking water or other aqueous samples. Since the majority of the Luckey wastes and materials are anticipated to be soils and other similar environmental media, it is suggested/recommended that the Government consider revising this specification to reflect using EPA 901.1M and/or HASL 300 Ra-03-RC Modified, which are both better suited to more efficiently characterize Ra-226 in solid matrices.

Answer: The Contractor should propose any alternate and/or equivalent methods in their SAP, which will be reviewed by USACE. Any alternate method must be able to achieve a detection limit low enough to meet the criteria given in Table 2.2-2.

60. Section J, Appendix B, UFGS Section 02 61 13. Are place-back soils subject to the stockpile requirements?

Answer: Place-back soils defined in UFGS 02 61 13 are not subject to the contaminated soil stockpile requirements. Stockpile requirements for these materials will be identified in contractor-prepared and USACE-accepted submittals, Site Operations Plan, Contamination Control Plan, and Regulatory Compliance Plan.