Questions_and_Answers_Set_5_Responses.docx

Questions and Answers Round 5

1. Page 70, Section 3.2 Past Performance – In the list of requested information for the 5 projects, please clarify the difference between the Client (first bullet) and Customer (last bullet).

Answer: They are synonymous

2. Consistent with other USACE HTRW IDIQ procurements, please clarify that team subcontractors plus companies that are a non-managing partner in a joint venture prime contractor may submit detailed information on its indirect rates in a sealed envelope with the proposal.

Answer: Correct, they may provide this information in a sealed envelope with the proposal.

3. Question #63 in Round 2 of the questions and answers asked “how many years will Phase I, II, and III cover?” The USACE answer stated that “the duration for Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2 should be identified on the Offeror’s schedule.” The performance work statements for Task Order 001, Sample Project #1 and Sample Project #2 identify periods of performance of one year, one year, and two years, respectively. Is the USACE stating that there is flexibility with respect to the durations identified by the Offeror, such as a reduced schedule for any or all of these activities?

Answer: Yes, there is flexibility with respect to the durations identified by the Offeror. However, the tasks must not exceed the period of performance identified in the work statements.

4. USACE report Volume Uncertainty Reduction Investigation Report (May 2011) provides two different beryllium results for sample ID# 0065SO00202. Table 9-8 Be and RA-226 Results Above Site Cleanup Goal reports a concentration of 5,186.67 mg/kg, and Table 9-9 Comparison of Be Finder and TestAmerica Analytical Results reports 13,000 mg/kg. When compared to other results the 13,000 mg/kg appears to be a transcription error. Please confirm the accuracy of the 13,000 mg/kg beryllium concentrations for sample ID# 0065SO00202 provided in the site data in Section J Attachment 3 Volume Estimate.

Answer: All analytical results for Sample 0065SO00202 are provided in Appendix A, Table 9-5 of the Excavation Volume Uncertainty Reduction Investigation Report (USACE 2011). Three separate analyses were performed by an off-site laboratory using USEPA Method 6020A. The average concentration was 5,186.67 mg/Kg and the highest concentration was 13,000 mg/Kg.

5. Section 3.9 of USFG 01 32 01 states that weekly look ahead on the schedule is to be a two week look ahead, whereas Section 1.5 of USFG 01 32 16 refers to a three week look ahead. Please clarify.

Answer: A three week look ahead schedule is required. UFGS 01 32 01.00 10 has been modified to include this requirement.

6. The USACE response to question 5 in Round 1 corrected an apparent discrepancy in multiple references to Government review cycles by stating that the Offeror should “allow for 60 days in the schedule for the Government’s review of each work plan version (Preliminary Draft, Draft, and Final)”. This, however, appears to be in contradiction to Section 8.1 of the Scope of Work which states that “the USACE and stakeholder review periods will be one month and an additional month will be allotted for the CONTRACTOR to prepare responses to the comments and to revise the documents”. This 60 day review cycle, with 30 days for the Government and 30 days for the contractor, would appear to be more in line with the 60-day review cycle from Section 2.2 of Task Order 1, which states that “the CONTRACTOR shall assume a 60-day review cycle for each work plan version (Preliminary Draft, Draft, and Final). Final plans will be submitted for stakeholder review, including Ohio EPA with a 90-day review cycle.” To assume 60 days for the Government, and 90 days for the Government and Ohio EPA, would result in seven months alone for reviews. With three one-month revision cycles for the contractor, after each review, that would leave two months of the 12-month task order duration for document development. Please clarify.

Answer: The 60-day review cycle for each work plan submission includes 30 calendar days for Government review and 30 calendar days for the Contractor to prepare responses to the comments, revise the document, and Government back check. The Ohio EPA review cycle has been revised to 60-calendar days. UFGS 02 61 13 and Task Order 001 have been modified to clarify this requirement.

7. The USACE response to question 26 in Round 1 states that semi-annual monitoring of the groundwater will be required during the soils remedy. Since the sampling of groundwater monitoring wells is not specifically identified in the scope of work for this RFP, additional details are needed to ensure that this interaction is effectively addressed within the project planning. For example, who will be performing this work, and is the Offeror expected to support entry of these personnel into the CRZ and EZ, by providing required PPE, managing IDW, etc. In addition, will these individuals be performing their work activities under their own CBDPP, APP, and RPP? Please clarify.

Answer: Groundwater monitoring may be performed by the Government separate from the soils remedial action. Individuals performing this work will follow on-site access requirements outlined in the Contractor’s APP/SSHP, CBDPP, and RPP. The Contractor will not be responsible for medical surveillance of these personnel and associated record keeping requirements (excluding any site-specific training of these personnel). PPE and IDW management would be handled by the entity doing the sampling.

8. The USACE response to question 48 in Round 2 notes that “For purposes of the proposal, assume that one of the water supply wells can be used for non-potable uses.” If we were to rehabilitate the well, provide any required treatment, and obtain the appropriate permits (e.g., from the Ohio Department of Health), could we plan on using the well for potable purposes?

Answer: Yes

9. Section J, Appendix B, CELRB Beryllium Exposure Standard Variance Letter, Item 3.i states “Personnel required to work on these projects (in the EZ, CRZ or SZ) shall be evaluated for Beryllium sensitization by Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation (Be-LPT) testing. Personnel testing positive shall not be allowed to work on the Luckey Site.” Our concern is for personnel who perform work only in the SZ. For example, are administrative assistants and/or offsite corporate personnel, such as those conducting internal assessments, who only work in the SZ required to be evaluated for Beryllium sensitization by Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation (Be-LPT) testing? Considering the cost and scheduling constraints of administering Be-LPT testing, respectfully request that USACE define the criteria for what types of “work” would require Be-LPT testing for personnel who only perform work in the SZ.

Answer: Deviations to the CELRB Beryllium Exposure Standard Variance will not be allowed.

10. Q&A Round 2, Question 33 follow-up: The answer that USACE provides to Q#33 states: “Yes, USACE will consider waste minimization strategies that reduce volumes requiring off-site disposal.” This statement allows us to modify the amount and type of waste material that is required to be shipped offsite. As such, how will the USACE evaluate proposals (and corresponding costs) that make major and differing assumptions as to the type and quantity of waste generated during remediation?

· Recommendation: As the question response is currently stated, we believe this approach will result in a wide range of proposed waste quantities and types that will make the cost/price evaluation very difficult, with subsequent challenges after award. We recommend that USACE allows offerors to address waste minimization strategies in Volume I, Subfactor 1, but not to modify waste types and quantities in Volume III (keeping the waste types and quantities fixed per the Sample Problem #2, Enclosure 2 Waste Table) to ensure a level playing field.

Answer: USACE will evaluate the conceptual approach and cost in accordance with RFP Section M.

11. Related to evaluation criteria of Factor 3 and to facilitate proposal review, we pose the following questions:

· Can the USACE provide a total excavation volume for costing the Phase III, Sample Problem 2?

· Alternatively, is the Sample Project #2 Soil Volume Estimate table meant to represent 42,568 CY for excavation and 78,751 tons for disposal in costing the Phase III, Sample Problem 2?

· Alternatively, is the Sample Project #2 Soil Volume Estimate table (which identifies 42,568 in situ CY for excavation and 78,751 tons for disposal) meant to represent excavation volumes for costing the Phase III, Sample Problem 2, the off-site disposal volumes for costing the Phase III, Sample Problem 2, or both?

Answer: The total estimated excavation volumes and weights for Sample Project #2 will be based on the Offeror’s approach to conducting the work. The volumes & tonnages provided in the table are USACE’s best estimate.

12. For the purposes of the Sample Problem 2, Phase III, response in Factor III, can we assume the waste trenches to the west of Trenches 1 and 2 (specifically Trenches 3, 4, and 7) are not to be considered in development of our technical approach and soil excavation/waste volume estimates?

· If we must consider the presence of these trenches in our pricing and technical approach for Phase III, can we partially excavate these areas and leave the material in place or must we take precautions to avoid accessing the waste in these areas?

Answer: Offeror’s technical approach may consider the waste trenches to the west of Trenches 1 and 2. The Offeror should determine the best approach for addressing these nearby waste trenches during the remediation of Trenches 1 and 2.

13. Q&A Round 2, Question 58 follow-up: The answer to Q#58 that USACE provided states: “Personnel that must be onsite full time during task order execution include…and Waste Manager”. Typically, the waste manager is a program-level function and performs the duties stated in paragraph 6.1.8 of the Final SOW. Please reconsider that this described program-level person not be onsite full time, or consider amending the SOW position description to more accurately define an on-site project level position.

Answer: USACE believes it is critical to have the Waste Manager on site full-time.

14. Q&A Round 1, Question 22: The response to Q#22 is very misleading. The question can be interpreted to be “What bid items should the Contractor price up as Construction (i.e., Davis Bacon Act not Service Contract Act)”, which will impact pricing. Please confirm that the Davis-Bacon Act should be used to govern ALL construction that occurs onsite, not just Setup / Construct Temporary Facilities.

Answer: The applicable Service Contract Wage Determination is attached. The applicable Davis Bacon Wage Determination is also attached. The Service Contract Wage Determination governs all service activities on the project and the Davis Bacon Wage Determination governs all construction activities on the project.

15. Q&A Round 1, Question 5: If we schedule the USACE for 60-day review periods and the Stakeholders/OH EPA an additional 90-day review period (per Task Order 01 PWS), this amounts to 270 days out of our 12-month (365-day) period of performance for Phase I. This only allows the contractor a total of 95 days to author and review/ITR four documents (preliminary draft, draft, post-USACE Final, post-Stakeholder FINAL), respond to four rounds of comments, and produce and deliver the multiple documents.

· Please consider either reducing the USACE and Stakeholder review periods or increasing the period of performance for the Phase I task order.

· In addition, can we assume the same planning review cycle discussed above will be used for Construction Closure and Lessons Learned Reports (SOW 5.10.1, Submittals)?

Answer: 1) See response to question 6

2) The Construction Completion Report and Lessons Learned Report are not required in Task Order 001, Sample Project 1, and Sample Project 2.

16. Since many of our questions are still pending response, would the USACE consider extending the question deadline?

Answer: Offerors may ask follow up questions to responses to questions provided via Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 until 12 Jan 2015 at 1700 EST. New questions unrelated to these responses will not be answered. Please reference the response in your question.

17. Per Q&A Round 1 Question 10, the CQCSM position is not required to be an on-site position as it’s not included within the list of on-site positions. Please confirm.

Answer: The CQCSM is not a required on-site position. Offerors may use a corporate CQC Manager to fill this position. However, a competent on-site representative is required to oversee the CQC system. This individual must have full authority to act for the Contractor on CQC matters.

18. Q&A Round 1, Questions 16 and 40. The responses to these two questions seems to conflict and may cause confusion. Please verify if the following statement are accurate as stated.

a. TO 001, Phase I – objective is to develop remediation work plans that can be used to support execution of both sample projects and subsequent projects across the Luckey site.

b. Sample Project #1, Phase II – objective is to establish the infrastructure, operations, and maintenance required to support execution of Sample Project #2, Phase III and subsequent projects across the Luckey site.

c. Sample Project #2, Phase III – objective is to remediate only Trenches 1 and 2 and not address other areas of contamination across the Luckey site.

d. Clearing and grubbing will be required for the entire site as part of Phase II and if needed to support remediation of Trenches 1 and 2 during Phase III.

Answer: 1) Parts (a), (b), and (c) – yes

2) Part (d) – Offeror’s proposal should consider clearing and grubbing of contaminated areas at trenches 1 and 2.

19. Is the bump out area in the northeast corner of the site (outside the current site fence line, but within the designated site boundary) available to the contractor for site support activities?

Answer: No

20. Can we assume the main production building or any of the current building footprints will be available for use during site remediation activities?

Answer: No

21. Section J; Sample Project #1 (Phase II – Infrastructure, Operations and Maintenance PWS); Section 2.0 (Scope of Services); 4th Bullet. The PWS for the Sample Project requires operation and maintenance of perimeter air monitoring systems to include background air monitoring prior to the start of remediation. So all bidders cost a similar level of effort, please provide the anticipated duration of this “background” monitoring.

Answer: Assume 90 calendar days for the background air monitoring.

22. Section J; Sample Project #1 (Phase II – Infrastructure, Operations and Maintenance PWS); Section 2.0 (Scope of Services); Introductory Paragraph. The PWS for mobilization states that the CONTRACTOR should cost mobilization efforts needed to implement our Technical Approach as detailed in Volume I, Factor I. However, based on previous Q&A’s the CONTRACTOR’S technical approach is limited to discussion of our approach to Sample Projects 1&2. Based on these Q&As, the USACE will not see our comprehensive approach to site remediation – only to Sample Project 2. To ensure that USACE receives pricing from bidders that is comparable, should the CONTRACTORS assume that Mobilization (Sample Project 1) is the infrastructure and support needed to execute Sample Project 2 (rather than our entire Technical Approach for remediation, which USACE will not see)?

Answer: Sample Project #1 requires infrastructure setup and O&M for the entire site.

23. Section J; Sample Project #1 (Phase II – Infrastructure, Operations and Maintenance PWS); Section 2.0 (Scope of Services). To ensure comparability between CONTRACTORS cost proposals for Sample Projects 1 and 2, will USACE provide the estimated daily volume of water to be collected and managed during remediation of Trenches 1 and 2?

Answer: The estimated daily volume of water to be collected and managed during remediation of Trenches 1 and 2 should be identified by the Offeror based on known site conditions and experience doing similar work.

24. Section J; Sample Project #1 (Phase II – Infrastructure, Operations and Maintenance PWS); Section 4.0 (Work Breakdown Structure). There does not appear to be a WBS for personnel mobilization. This is typically WBS 331XX 01 02. Will USACE consider adding this WBS element to the overall WBS and pricing sheet? If not, in which of the mobilization WBS elements should we include personnel mobilization?

Answer: The cost for personnel mobilization should be included in WBS 331XX0101.

25. Section J, Luckey Soils Remedial Action, Sample Project #2, Phase III - Remediation of Disposal Trenches 1 and 2, Performance Work Statement, Soil Volume Estimate Table. To facilitate comparison between bids from offerors, please provide subtotal volume/tonnage for the Low Activity Mixed Waste (LAMW) soils that have lead concentrations; 1) at 5.0 mg/l TCLP (40 CFR 261.24) but less than 7.5 mg/l TCLP (40 CFR 268 Subpart D), and 2) greater than 7.5 mg/l TCLP (40 CFR 268 Subpart D).

Answer: Offerors should assume that all LAMW soil identified in the Sample Project #2 volume estimate table contains lead at or above the cleanup goal of 400 mg/kg.

26. Section J, Luckey Soils Remedial Action, Sample Project #2, Phase III - Remediation of Disposal Trenches 1 and 2, Performance Work Statement, Soil Volume Estimate Table. Since the cleanup goal for lead was based on an ARARs approach, and is 4-times the RCRA concentration noted in 40 CFR 261.24, are offerors to assume ALL of the waste volume/tonnage of Low Activity Mixed Waste (LAMW) soil, noted in the above referenced table, is at or above the cleanup concentration of 400 mg/kg? If so, the waste is characteristic for lead (D008) and is subject to RCRA regulations once the material exits the Luckey site?

Answer: Offerors should assume that all LAMW soil identified in the Sample Project #2 volume estimate table contains lead at or above the cleanup goal of 400 mg/kg.

27. Section J; Sample Project #2 (Phase III – Remediation of Disposal Trenches 1 and 2). Should CONTRACTORS assume that Sample Project 2 occurs immediately after Sample Project 1? Because USACE is not requesting our overall remedial approach or schedule, different CONTRACTORS may have assumed different timeframes for Sample Project 2 within our overall site remediation schedule, which may affect pricing and assumptions. Please clarify if USACE intends the CONTRACTORS to bid Sample Project 2 immediately following completion of Sample Project 1.

Answer: Yes, offerors should assume that Sample Project 2 will occur immediately after Sample Project 1.

28. Section 02 81 00, Subsection 3.2.5 states that the Contractor is responsible for ensuring that the transportation equipment is cleaned and decontaminated prior to being mobilized to the site and upon completion of the work. For conveyances such as tractor/trailers, does an onsite incoming and outgoing survey for contaminants meet this requirement or will the contractor be required to obtain certificates of cleaning/decontamination for conveyances that may come and go from the project on a daily basis?

Answer: Yes, for conveyances such as tractor/trailers, an on-site incoming and outgoing survey for contaminants meets this requirement.

29. Subsection 3.2.6 of Section 02 81 00 requires each shipment to include a certification that the material is not radioactive material as defined in 49 CFR 173. Contractor assumes that this requirement is not germane to shipments of radioactive material. Please clarify.

Answer: The Contractor is responsible for the correct characterization and waste classification of all materials shipped from the site. UFGS 02 81 00 has been revised to remove the requirement for certification that the material is not radioactive material as defined in 49 CFR 173.

30. The final paragraph of Subsection 3.2.5 of Section 02 81 00 of the RFP (Transportation and Disposal of Hazardous Materials) issues the following requirement to bidding Contractors:

“Surveying each transportation vehicle for radioactivity in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.86 prior to being loaded with waste, prior to leaving the site, and after unloading the waste at the disposal facility. A transportation vehicle shall not be returned to service until the radiation dose at every accessible surface is acceptable to the USACE and in accordance with Federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Contractor shall immediately provide all transportation vehicle survey results to the USACE.”

a. Please provide clarification as to whether this requirement applies to all waste shipments (including shipments without detectable radioactive material), all waste shipments with detectable radioactive material concentrations above background, all waste shipments with a radioactive material concentration that exceeds the sum of ratios for the site FUSRAP Cleanup Goals as provided in Section 4.3.1 of the SOW, or all waste shipments that contain radioactive material that meets the DOT definition of radioactive material in 49 CFR 173.403.

b. As required in the first paragraph of the previously referenced Subsection 3.2.5, bidding Contractors will be required to use trucks and railcars that are “dedicated solely” to the project and the Contractor is mandated to obtain and submit an exclusive use agreement for all railcars used on the project. Similar to the U. S. DOT, will the USACE grant relief to the Regulatory Guide 1.86 survey requirements in favor of survey limits in 49 CFR 173.443 (c) & (d) for conveyances that meet the definition of Exclusive Use conveyances in 49 CFR 173.403?

c. What duration should bidding Contractors consider in bid development for the USACE to review and accept survey results prior to releasing transportation vehicles back into service from the site or a remote disposal facility assuming that the Contractor immediately provides transportation vehicle survey results to the USACE?

Answer: 1) Part (a) - the requirement applies to all waste shipments (including shipments without detectable radioactive material).

2) Part (b) - no

3) Part (c) - USACE will not review the survey results for exclusive use vehicles; it will be incumbent upon the Contractor to ensure that these vehicles meet applicable transportation guidelines.

31. Answers to the Questions, Amendment 1, Schedule. In the answers to the questions the USACE allows the schedule to be submitted as a plate, but keeps the schedule in the page count. However, Sections L and M still contain language that indicates the offeror’s schedule will be evaluated “to determine the Offeror’s understanding of all activities associated with design and construction of all project features.” Additionally, it indicates that we are to (1) include supporting documentation to show that the schedule is realistic and achievable; and (2) discuss viable options to overcome adverse weather and seasonal execution of site remediation. Thus, the language in Sections L and M would indicate that a detailed schedule would be necessary and this approach could easily take 6 to 8 pages, assuming schedule is in an 11 in by 17 in format with each 11 by 17 page counting as two pages. Part (a): With such a tight page count would USACE please consider removing the schedule from the page count. Part (b): - If the schedule will not be excluded from the page count, would USACE better define the level of detail required in the schedule and revise Sections Land M to match the revised requirements, since the current language in Sections L and M indicates that a detailed schedule could easily be 6 to 8 pages to meet the requirements. Part (c): If the schedule will not be excluded from the page count, would USACE define the maximum size of the schedule/plate and the page count associated with this (i.e. is the schedule limited to a maximum size of 11 in by 17 in or if larger sizes can be used, please define the maximum size and how the larger sizes would count against the page count).

Answer: 1) Part (a) - no

2) Part (b) – offerors should put as much detail as necessary to articulate their schedule for Task Order 001, Sample Project #1, and Sample Project #2.

3) Part (c) – plate size is defined as 24” by 36” and will be counted as two pages.

32. Question and Answer, Round 2, #33. USACE pre-identified the volumes of waste by soil category for Sample Project 2. As identified in the answer to question #33, we understand that for purposes of the technical proposal that waste minimization is advantageous. However, for purposes of the cost proposal to ensure that offerors are proposing on an equal basis, we believe that it is in the best interest of USACE to establish the soil volumes by category requiring transportation and disposal, so that offerors are proposing on the same basis, simplifying USACE’s comparison of Offeror’s’ cost proposals. Would USACE please establish the volumes of material by waste category requiring off-site transportation and disposal, or are offerors to use the volumes identified in the table in Enclosure 2 – Volume Estimates of Sample Project 2, as the volumes requiring off-site transportation and disposal?

Answer: See response to questions 10 and 11

33. Sample Project 2, Enclosure 2 – Volume Estimates. This clearly states the in-situ density of the soil is 1.85 ton per in-situ cubic yard. However, to ensure that offerors are proposing on an equal basis for Sample Project 2 would USACE please specify the ex-situ soil density (tons per ex-situ cubic yard) to be used for conversion of cubic yards to tons?

Answer: The estimated ex-situ weight is provided in the table.

34. Variance Request, EM 385-1-1, Section 06.A.01 a, Exposure Standards. The 2 October 2012 USACE Variance Request grants a variance from the use of the acceptable limits specified in the most recent ACGIH guideline, “Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices” or the OSHA standard, whichever is the more stringent for beryllium. In the variance request, Buffalo District asks to use the Department of Energy beryllium standard of 0.2 ug/m3. For clarification, pursuant to 10 CFR 850.22, the permissible exposure limit for beryllium is 2 ug/m3, while 10 CFR 850.23 requires the employer to set the action level at no greater than 0.2 ug/m3. Is it the intent of USACE for the permissible exposure limit to be set at 2 ug/m3 and the 0.2 ug/m3 to be the action level as per 10 CFR 850?

Answer: A more recent version of the Variance Request (12 September 2014) is attached. The Contractor will be required to use an OEL of 0.2 µg/m3 as averaged over an 8 hour day and an action level of 0.1 µg/m3 as averaged over an 8 hour day.

35. Section L, Volume 1, Factor 2 Safety Approach, Accident Summary, Page 67. The Offeror and team members identified in the Offeror’s proposal requires submittal of a summary of accidents that occurred within the last three calendar years from the date of this Request for Proposal that resulted in property damage over $2,500 or permanent disability or death. Since many Teams may have several named team members this requirement could result in using several pages in an already restricted page count. Would the USACE consider having this requirement as an attachment to the submittal that is outside the page count?

Answer: Yes, it can be submitted as an attachment

36. Section M, Original RFP and Amendment 1. The Section M evaluation language in the original RFP released on November 3rd evaluated the Offeror’s proposal on how we met the submission requirements of the RFP and the technical requirements of the Work Plan Task Order and the two Sample Task Order Performance Work statements. In the answers to the questions, it is clear the Offerors are only to respond to the work plan and the two Sample Task Order Performance Work Statements for the conceptual approach. The “submission requirements of the RFP” language has been deleted in Amendment 1. Due to these changes from the original RFP requirements, the approaching holidays, and pending answers to additional questions which may not be received until after the holidays, we respectfully request a two week extension to address the changes that are reflected in Amendment 1 and to incorporate answers to additional questions on the submittal requirements.

Answer: The proposal due date has been extended to 29 Jan 2014 at 2pm EST.

37. Answers to Question 36, Round 1, Question 1, Round 2, and Amendment 1, Resume Requirements, Page 8 of 20. In the answer to Question 36 and Question 1, resumes were required for key personnel identified in SOW Sections 6.1.1 through 6.1.9. However, Amendment 1, Section L still requires submittal of resumes for individuals listed in Paragraphs 6.1.1 through 6.3.4 of the SOW. Please clarify what resumes are required.

Answer: Resumes are required for key personnel identified in SOW Sections 6.1.1 through 6.1.9.

38. General Requirements. Please confirm that all work considered under Sample Project 1 and Sample Project 2 are subject to the Service Contract Act and not the Davis Bacon Act.

Answer: See answer to question 14

39. Similar to question number 15 and its answer as part of Questions and Answers Round 1, the RFP states that a degree from an accredited school in engineering, construction management, geology, chemistry or a related field is required for the CQCSM. From our experience working with the Corps, the best CQCSM candidates have extensive site oriented project backgrounds. We recommend the requirements for this position be amended to require “a college degree from an accredited school in engineering, construction management, geology, chemistry or a related field and 7 years CQCSM experience or, if the degree is in an area other than the above, a minimum of 7 years’ experience as a CQCSM and 10 years’ experience in HTRW remediation in a Supervisory role”. This change will make more qualified remediation/field focused candidates eligible.

Answer: USACE believes that the current requirements are flexible enough to allow for a large candidate pool to be considered by the Offeror.

40. For pricing of sample project 002, please clarify that contractors are to assume that Volatile Organic Compounds in excavated soil which exceeds project cleanup goals and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure limit for Lead (RCRA waste code D008) does not contain Volatile Organic Compounds above Alternative Treatment Standards for Underlying Hazardous Constituents as specified in RCRA and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency equivalent regulations.

Answer: The concentrations and distribution of VOCs (and other organic contaminants) are provided in the RI report. Offeror should make a determination of whether these compounds are present at concentrations above the Alternative Treatment Standards for Underlying Hazardous Constituents as specified in RCRA and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency equivalent regulations.

41. Reference “RFP_Questions_Set_2_Responses” in which question 20 states “Please provide Davis Bacon rates for the site area,” and answer 20, which states “Wage Determination attached.” Is this “Wage Determination attached” the “Register of Wage Determinations under the Service Contract Act” wage rates provided? Please Clarify.

Answer: See answer to question 14

42. Is a copy of the sign in sheet for the site walk this past Monday available?

Answer: Attached via amendment 2

43. Section L.3.1.2 page 67: Please consider allowing the Corporate Safety and Health Program Table of Contents (TOC) to be presented as an appendix to Volume 1, similar to the Accident Prevention Plan. A comprehensive Corporate TOC can be a lengthy document segment spanning multiple pages.

Answer: Yes, the Offeror may provide their Corporate Safety and Health Program Table of Contents as an appendix to Volume 1 of their proposal.

44. Can you please clarifiy what type of certification is required for Joint Venture agreements?

Answer: The only certification required is that the agreement must be signed by an individual from each company authorized to contractually bind each company.

45. Section L.3.2 Past Performance, page 70 – Please confirm that PPQs must be submitted to lynn.c.reinbird@usace.army.mil. Since the primary point of contact for the proposal has changed between the draft RFP and the final RFP, should the PPQs be sent instead to Jeffrey Ernest at buffalo-contracting@usace.army.mil?

Answer: Correct, the PPQs should be sent to buffalo-contracting@usace.army.mil It is preferred the completed PPQs are included in an Offeror’s proposal.

46. A portion of Luckey remediation waste will contain Beryllium. The Luckey project must conduct remediation in accordance with a DOE-compliant (10 CFR 850) Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program. Do offsite landfills accepting Luckey wastes also have to have a DOE-compliant (10 CFR 850) Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program?

Answer: Remediation of the Luckey site is not subject to 10 CFR 850. SOW Section 5.1.2.3 and Appendix B provide CBDPP requirements for all on-site activities.

47. Will the successful Small Business contractor be allowed to submit monthly progress payments in accordance with FAR 52.232-16 Alt 1 based on earned value for FFP TO’s such as Sample Problem No. 001?

Answer: Small businesses will be allowed to submit monthly progress payments.

48. Please provide the missing last page of the WBS Dictionary that defines the level 3 definitions for WBS 33103.22.

Answer: WBS Dictionary pages that provide level 3 descriptions of 331XX2208 to 331XX229x are unavailable.

49. Please clarify whether work within the Exclusion Zone (EZ) will be allowed as part of Sample Problem No. 001, Site Mobilization, to allow for specified tasks such as identifying and marking all underground utilities and preparing temporary haul roads, or whether underground utility locates/marks and preparation of temporary haul roads are limited only to those within the support zone (SZ) and contamination reduction zone (CRZ).

Answer: Work in the EZ will be allowed as part of Sample Project #1.

50. Since we are to submit the conceptual schedule for Luckey, and for readability the schedule must be printed on 11x 17 sheets, would CELRB consider allowing these 11x17 sheets to count as one proposal page or be excluded from page count as they schedule will be fairly long?

Answer: See response to question 31

51. There appears to be a discrepancy between review times listed in the Task Order 001 PWS and the SATOC SOW Section 8.1. Per the Task Order 001 PWS, the CONTRACTOR shall assume a 60-day review cycle for each work plan version (Preliminary Draft, Draft, and Final); and final plans will be submitted for stakeholder review, including Ohio EPA with a 90-day review cycle. However, per the SOW Sec 8.1, the USACE and stakeholder review periods will be one month and an additional month will be allotted for the CONTRACTOR to prepare responses to the comments and to revise the documents.

i. As such, can we assume for the Draft and Draft Final Plans that the total 60 day review cycle is inclusive of 30 days of USACE review and 30 days of contractor response to comments?

ii. In addition for Final Plans, can we assume the 90 day review cycle is inclusive of a 60 day stakeholder/Ohio EPA review and a 30 day contract response to comments?

Answer: See responses to questions 6 and 15

52. The Sample Project 2 PWS, Enclosure 2 (Soil Volume Estimate), states a waste density of 1.85 tons/CY (InSitu). Do we have the flexibility to include alternate soil waste densities or should we maintain this density relationship for proposal purposes?

Answer: Use the 1.85 tons/CY density for the proposal.

53. The Sample Project 2 PWS, Enclosure 2 (Soil Volume Estimate), provides waste soil volumes and tonnage in 4 different categories. Regarding this enclosure, we have the following questions:

i. Can we alter the soil volumes or tonnage either in total or per waste category?

ii. Can we add or remove waste categories?

iii. Do the “Non-Hazardous Waste Soil and RCRA Hazardous Waste (HW) Soil” categories imply this they are also non-radioactive?

iv. Assuming the “Non-Hazardous Waste and RCRA HW” soil categories are non-radioactive, does this soil require MARSSIM final status survey clearance or other type of radiological screening prior to achieving this classification?

Answer: 1) See responses to questions 10 and 11

2) See responses to questions 10 and 11

3) The “Non-Hazardous Waste Soil” and “RCRA Hazardous Waste (HW) Soil categories do not contain radionuclides above the cleanup goals identified in the SOW.

4) See response to Round 2 question 34

54. Will the USACE require any verification sampling/survey of MARSSIM final status survey units, and if so, what duration should we include for this activity?

Answer: Yes, USACE will conduct verification sampling/surveying. Assume a 7 calendar day duration for this activity.

55. What duration should we assume for the USACE review and approval for MARSSIM Final Status Survey packages?

Answer: Assume a 30 calendar day duration for this activity.

56. Will the USACE approve MARSSIM data packages from a DoD ELAP approved on-site laboratory?

Answer: Yes

57. Should Offerors show positions on the Project Organization Chart for all personnel described in Appendix B of the PWS/SOW, or include only those listed in Section 6 of the PWS/SOW?

Answer: Show positions on the Project Organization Chart for personnel listed in Section 6 of the SOW.

58. Are resumes to be included for the four “Contractor Corporate Support Staff” positions included under Section 6.3?

Answer: See response to Round 1 question 36 and Round 2 question 1.

59. Are resumes included in the 100 pages allocated for Volumes I and II?

Answer: See response to Round 1 question 18

60. What is the maximum page limit per resume (e.g., 1 or 2 pages)?

Answer: There is no page limit for resumes

61. Reference: Final Statement of Work, Page 6-1, Item 6.1, second paragraph lists Assistant Radiation Safety Officer as Key Contractor Personnel. However, qualifications for this position are not provided. Was the Assistant Radiation Safety Officer included in the paragraph unintentionally? Or, if this position is considered Key, can USACE please provide required qualifications?

Answer: See response to Round 2 question 8

62. Reference: Solicitation, page 69 of 82, Management Plan, Item 10 states: “The total compensation plan for professional employees will be part of the cost volume and provided in Volume II.” However, Volume II is Past Performance. Since Volume II is Past Performance, would USACE prefer the compensation plan be included in Volume III instead (Cost/Pricing) or in Volume I, under Management Plan, and in Volume III?

Answer: Answer provided in amendment 1

63. Reference: Phase I, Task Order 1 - The last paragraph of section 2.2 Work Plans refers to 60 and 90 day review cycles. Please confirm are these calendar days?

Answer: See response to question 6

64. Reference: Phase II, Sample Project #1 - The excel work sheet (Bid Schedule) contains two hidden columns with quantities and costs. Is this information we should consider, and if so in what context?

Answer: Answer provided in amendment 1

65. Reference: Phase III, Sample Project #2 – The excel work sheet (Bid Schedule) is to record a bid amount that is cost plus a fixed fee. A number of the pay items have a quantity of “-“. The balance of the pay items have a quantity of “1”. Are the “-“ and 1 quantity designators significant, or do we use the field as we see fit to create our estimate?

Answer: Blank quantities represented as “-” should be populated by the Offeror. “1” quantities should not be modified.

66. Reference: 3.1.3 Volume I, Factor I, Sub-factor 3 – Organization Approach/Management Plan/Quality Assurance Approach. Do resumes count toward the page limit?

Answer: See response to Round 1 question 18

67. Reference Section L, page 70 of 82, Item 3.2, Volume II Factor II, states: “The Offeror shall provide descriptions of five (5) examples of projects that present the Offeror’s and its team member’s environmental experience in cost-reimbursable and fixed-price construction, service, and other relevant types of contracts related to large-scale construction remediation projects (over $10,000,000)…” Due to the nature of the work, having 5 projects in excess of $10 million that addresses one or all five bullets may not be practical for a small business. Can this section be amended to 2 projects in excess of $10 million and 3 projects in excess of $500k to ensure all five elements are addressed?

Answer: 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.

68. There does not appear to be a correct line item within the bid schedule for Sample Project #2 for loading containers on site for eventual transportation and disposal off-site. Specifically, the bid schedule currently includes a line item for 331XX1920 – Container Handling. However, in a review of the HTRW Remedial Action WBS and Data Dictionary (provided in Attachment 4 of the RFP), the description provided for this subsystem is “for all work during the remedial action associated with the handling of waste inventories for periodic inventory and inspection”. It appears in Attachment 4 that the costs for this activity would be more appropriately included under WBS element 331XX0802 – Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill). According to Attachment 4, the description for this subsystem is “waste containment includes the procurement of and labor to fill containers during remedial action with solid HTRW wastes.” Please clarify where the costs for container loading should go?

Answer: The costs for container loading should be placed in 331XX1920.

69. Please clarify the 226Ra practical cleanup goal. As stated on page 4.3 of the SOW, the cleanup goals for radionuclides in soil, fill, and debris represent activity levels above site average background activity corresponding to a total effective dose equivalent to 25 millirem/year. For example, the cleanup goal for 226Ra is 2 pCi/g and the mean background concentration is 1.75 2 pCi/g. Therefore, we assume the practical cleanup goal for 226Ra is the sum of the average background and the cleanup goal (i.e., 3.75 pCi/g). The Record of Decision describes using the upper 95% tolerance limit (UTL) as background (226Ra is 2.97 pCi/g with a cleanup goal of 2 pCi/g). The sum of 95% UTL background and the cleanup goal is a practical cleanup level of 4.97 pCi/g. Is the practical cleanup goal as described in the ROD (4.97 pCi/g) or the SOW (3.75 pCi/g) correct?

Answer: The practical cleanup goal for Ra226 is 3.75 pCi/g.

70. During the site visit on December 15, 2014, it was noted that there was water flowing from the site to the west into the drainage ditch along Luckey Road. There was also water running to the north from the site main drainage ditch into the creek. Walking along the south side of the site along Gilbert Road, there was no water observed running on to the site. Our team reviewed the meteorological records and determined that the last measurable rainfall in Luckey, OH was on December 9, 2014 and totaled .02 inches. Can the USACE please identify the source of the water that was observed on the site and leaving the site?

Answer: USACE is not aware of the source of water that was observed.

71. We have performed a review of aerial photos of the site using Google Maps. There appears to be a well or pond to the west of trench 2 near the southwest corner where the site road turns north along the trench locations. Is this an active spring or well that could be used for non-potable water?

Answer: USACE is not aware of an active spring or pond at the southwest corner of the site that can be used for non-potable water.

72. Price Factor: Section 3.3.1 states that the Offeror shall provide an audit report. However, further in the section it references “the Offeror or subcontractor’s Federal government audit agency”. Please clarify if the requirements of 3.3.1 apply only to the prime (Offeror) or to subcontractor’s as well.

Answer: The requirements of 3.3.1 apply to subcontractors as well.

73. What elevation of the “water table surface” should Offerors use for Sample Project #2 relative to compliance with Specification 02 61 13 “Excavation and Handling” Section 3.9.2 “Sequence” regarding backfilling place-back soils containing concentrations of chemical contaminants below the standards listed in Table 2.2-1.

Answer: For the proposal, offerors may use potentiometric surface elevations provided in the RI report (Section 2).