Questions_and_Answers_Round_6_Responses.docx

Round 6 Questions and Answers

1. Round 5, Question and Answer to Question 67. The answer indicated that we can provide projects under $10 million as part of the five submitted and that $10M is only one of several relevancy factors. Is the USACE going to amend Section L, Page 70, Item 3.2, Volume II, Factor II Past Performance to reflect this answer?

Answer: RFP Section L (3.2) has been amended to include the following language:

“Please note, all of the projects submitted do not need to be over $10 million. The dollar amount of the project will be one aspect of the relevancy review for each project submitted.”

2. Round 5, Question and Answer to Question 9: The answer indicates that we cannot deviate from the CELRB Be Exposure Standard Variance as related to Be-LPT personnel testing. There will be people entering the support zone for deliveries, pickup and removal of trash, waste, delivery of fuel and mail, etc. We have no control over the training and medical requirements for types of individuals who are there on a transient basis. Will these individuals be exempt?

Answer: The requirement is for individuals who work in the support zone; this would mean individuals who work full time or daily in the support zone. It would include janitorial staff, but would not include delivery individuals, as a delivery person is not working but delivering to the support zone. We agree that a contractor will have no control over transient nature of deliveries, but it is incumbent upon the contractor to ensure awareness of personnel entering the support zone of beryllium hazards.

3. Round 5, Question and Answer to Question 46: Per the Variance request EM 385-1-1, Section 06.A.01.a, which applicable sections of 10 CFR 850 are to be included and considered in planning and execution of the Luckey project?

Answer: SOW Section 5.1.2.3 and Appendix B provide CBDPP requirements and an outline for all on-site activities (see attached). It is up to the disposal facilities to determine the health and safety requirements for their employees.

4. Round 5, Question and Answer Number 30. Question 1: Once a dedicated container is emptied at a permitted and/or licensed disposal facility, will USACE require a Regulatory Guide 1.86 survey to be performed and provided to USACE prior to reuse of the dedicated container? Question 2: Regulatory Guide 1.86 surveys are required to demonstrate that contamination is not released from Luckey, OH shipments. During transload activities (truck to rail and rail to truck), dedicated waste containers are carried by dedicated transport vehicles, however these dedicated containers are not opened, and transload activities are performed in facility(s) that is not contaminated. Will USACE require Regulatory Guide 1.86 surveys to be performed on dedicated transload transport vehicles that are not directly exposed to contaminated site(s) or open waste containers? Question 3: Referring to Answer #1; “Part(a) – the requirement applies to all waste shipments (including shipments without detectable radioactive material)”, shipments without detectable radioactive material will be disposed of at TSDF(s) remote from Luckey, OH that do not offer radiological surveys as a service for their clients, nor can they accept radioactive material for disposal, however the subject Subsection of the RFP requires a Regulatory Guide 1.86 survey to be performed after unloading at the disposal facility. Will USACE please provide clarification in Answer # 1 as to whether the requirement for Regulatory Guide 1.86 radiological surveys for shipments without detectable radioactive material (non Rad Shipment) applies for dedicated transport vehicles and containers leaving a non-rad facility? It is understood that all shipments would require survey upon entry and exit to the Luckey, OH site.

5. Questions and Answers Round 2, Answer to Question No. 3 states that the information in Volume III, Factor III, paragraph 3.3.1 “should be provided by the prime contractor only.” However, Questions and Answers Round 5, Answer to Question No. 72 states that “the requirements of 3.3.1 apply to subcontractors as well.” These responses appear to be in conflict. Please clarify whether 3.3.1 applies to lower-tier subcontractors and to what extent?

Answer: RFP Section L (3.3.1) applies to the prime contractor only

6. In reference to Q&A Round 5, Question 6 Response, does the new 60-day stakeholder and Ohio EPA Final document review cycle (30 days of review plus 30 days of comment resolution and document production) run concurrent with or after the USACE 60-day Final document review cycle?

Answer: After the USACE 60-day Final document review cycle

7. Based on Q&A Round 5, Question 31, Response 3c) and to facilitate readability of the schedule, will the USACE allow the schedule to be presented as two 11”x17” sheets, as opposed to a 24”x 36” plate and still count this as two pages?

Answer: Yes

8. Based on Q&A Round 5, Question 9 Response and Amended Variance Request, we request clarification regarding the use of supplied air respirators (SARs) for initial PPE entering the Exclusion Zone. Specifically, is it permissible to use alternate forms of respiratory protection (e.g., high efficiency PAPRs with certified PF of 1000), as long as the assigned protection factor is the same as the SARs specified in paragraph 3(f) of the Variance Request?

Answer: If the protection factor is the same for beryllium and the size of dust of the potential beryllium, USACE would allow for the use of high efficiency PAPRs. The approval of the PAPRs would have to state “approved for a protection factor of 1000 for all sizes of dust, to include beryllium” and the site would need to have a full shower out for decontamination for USACE to accept the use of the high efficiency PAPR instead of a SAR.

9. Based on Q&A Round 5, Questions 10 and 11 Responses, how does the USACE expect to fairly evaluate the Disposal WBS element (331xx19) when due to the allowance for "waste minimization" strategies, it is likely the waste classes and units will vary substantially among offerors? For example, will the USACE first evaluate the efficacy of the waste minimization strategy and then apply discounts/risk factors to the costing, or will the USACE only take the offerors proposed waste quantities and costs at face value? We assume the USACE will have some quantifiable strategy to apply risk factors to the waste minimization approach, and if so, we feel this evaluation approach should be shared as part of the Evaluation Criteria in Section M. Since waste T&D is such a large cost for this project, it is imperative that the offerors fully understand how this highly variable cost element will be evaluated to make proper risk informed decisions.

Answer: Per the RFP, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis to independently review and evaluate specific elements of the Offeror’s proposed total cost estimate for the CPFF Task Order to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed. The cost realism analyses will determine the probable cost of performance for the Offeror.

The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the total cost of the CPFF Task Order that is most likely to result from the proposal.